User talk:Jcb/archive/17

Hello

Hi JCB, Clutch Cargo here. I'm just replying to the message you left on my talk page.

With respect, none of the images I've uploaded are copyright violations. They were all released by the author under cc-by-sa 3.0. The sources were clearly stated, along with the artist's name. Some of them are even derivatives of images already posted here on Commons. Why do you believe they are copyvios? Thanks for your time. CrutchCargo (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please provide evidence of permission via OTRS instead of reuploading the files. Jcb (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Cemetery of Polish Soldiers in Wrocław, Poland.jpg

How come this is not a copyright violation? I have found this very image on [1] and many other images that have been declined, on Google image search. Before nominating all the images as copyright violations, I have went through most of the 58 images by looking through them on Google image search. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have checked several and didn't find them outside Wikipedia. Did you notice that the version from wroclaw.pl you linked to has no EXIF where the version uploaded to Commons in 2011 has normal EXIF? Also the size at wroclaw.pl is smaller. All uploads of this user have normal EXIF, and only 4 different cameras are involved over the years. It's highly likely that the results you found are copies of the files at Commons, not the other way round. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what does EXIF stand for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the kind of answer I expected. Read en:EXIF to know more about EXIF. Go to File:Cemetery of Polish Soldiers in Wrocław, Poland.jpg and search for 'Exif' to find the EXIF metadata. Please make sure you fully understand this topic before you nominate any more files for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have always found learning about Exif Data very confusing and it is still very confusing. Is Exif data taken from the time the photo was taken? Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Exif data is generated by the camera. It can be lost if you edit the image with non sophisticated software. If there is a version with Exif data and a version without, the version with Exif data can never be a copy of the version without. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Yves du Manoir 1925.jpg

If you had given me a chance to reply to your comment, instead of deleting the image, I would have told you that the name you gave (which I believe you misspelled, though I can't see the original any more), is the name of the studio not an individual. It should be "Manuel frères" (Manuel brothers). Please see here: [2] Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I see, but anyway it's not a collective work. It's either from Henri or from Gaston. If it's from Henri, then it will be out of copyright in 2018. If it's from Gaston, it will be 2038. I we don't know, it will be 2038. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's work of the firm. There is no plausible way to determine which brother took the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. Copyright on a photographer is typically owned by the person who took it. A firm normally does not operate a photocamera. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:British Singer Vince Hill aged 83 taken in 2017.jpg

I do hope you can help as I am new to Wikipedia. I, Mike Prior, submitted this photo which I took and own copyright for. I completed the Wikimedia Commons Wizard. Why there for was it flagged up for deletion. I did enter these comments before perhaps on the wrong page asking for the person who flagged it up for deletion to help.

The photo is used indeed by the singer on their official website - it stated there how I own copyright. The version of the image already used on the internet is smaller than the one I uploaded to wikipedia. I actually provided a larger version of the image from my photo archive which I hold as the owner/photographer of the image.

How do I avoid this situation happening again please? I followed the upload wizard and answered all questions correctly. Is it better I use a previously unpublished unseen photo of the singer which is not on any other website? I have other shots from the same photo shoot which I can use if necessary. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyP (talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to resolve this. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Gough Whitlam 1973.jpg

Hi, could you please restore File:Gough Whitlam 1973.jpg, which you recently deleted as a "copyright violation"? This is the Flickr image it was taken from, which is marked with the CC-BY-2.0 licence. I'm not sure what went wrong there. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This Flickr account is on our blacklist. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL-ww2.games.1c.ru

Hi, could you please restore next files (mentioned in discussion):

• File:T60 wm.jpg (ru:File:T60 wm.jpg)
• File:Valentine wm.jpg (ru:File:Valentine wm.jpg)
• File:Isu152 wm.jpg (ru:File:Isu152 wm.jpg)

They were created by ru:User:Сайга20К or ru:User:LostWikiMan by oneself. So there is no problem to restore them and relicence them similarly to other files. Alex Spade (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified logos

Hi Jcb, please check once again: File:2011-365-26 Limited Logo (5391865931).jpg is a derivative of the non-free logo and COM:DM is not applicable here. Sealle (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a copyright problem here, although this one may be borderline, but the mass nomination reason was 'out of scope', so the closure does not imply a judgement on possible DW issues. I think this file should have a separate DR for this reason, if you still think there is a copyright issue. Jcb (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I've started another DR. Sealle (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

unwanted deletion

I have noticed that you have recently deleted some of my files mentioned below. Main accusation was those photos were taken by different devices, so the nominator suspected it to be violation of copyright because he thought that it might not be my own work. Actually I can assure you that those photos were taken at different times with different devices by me. I edited those files before uploading. We those who are volunteer contributor of Wikipedia, try to spend our valuable time to enrich this encyclopedia. If you delete our work so fast merely on the ground of suspension of breaking of copyright, it will only disappoint us and discourage our efforts. I think you should only delete files when there will be definite allegation of violation of copyright, otherwise it will hinder progress of Wikipedia. Another thing is you should wait for at least one month for our response, because most of us are usually irregular user. I will be highly obliged if you reconsider those files. Thanks. Abdur Rakib (talk)

File:RMC Entrance gate.jpg File:Main hostel.jpgFile:RMC .jpgFile:RMC college building.jpgFile:Nurunnobi hostel.jpgFile:Charu mamar canteen.jpg File:Internee hostel.jpgFile:New-Gate-of-Rajshahi-Medical-College1.jpgFile:AbdurRakib.jpgFile:Theshibariver.jpg

I am sorry, but this does not sound plausible. Jcb (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Afbeelding copyright

Hey JCB,

De afbeelding "Flesje René" heb ik zelf genomen en is vrij te gebruiken. Kan je dit bij gelegenheid herstellen? Alvast bedankt!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:Flesje-rene.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggala (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Het beste kun je hiervoor even contact opnemen met OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting some of my files

ENGLISH: Hello Jcb, can you help me with deleting some of my files on Commons. I uploaded them when i started in wikipedia and now i know if they must be deleted because some of them haven't a good copyright license and the others are repeated (there's many other copies of them in commons). Finally thanks and this is a list of them:

1- CamtasiaStudio8.png

2- Uploads.png

3- My work in wiki.png

4- Okba ibn nafi.jpg

5- Bassmala arabic.png

---

FRANCAIS: Bonjour JCB. Peux-tu m'aider en supprimant quelques fichies dont j'ai ajoutés a commons lorsque j'étais débutant et maintenant je connais bien les règles et c'est le temps de les supprimer. Mes chaleureuses remerciements. 1- CamtasiaStudio8.png

2- Uploads.png

3- My work in wiki.png

4- Okba ibn nafi.jpg

5- Bassmala arabic.png

--جهاد كديس (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Answered here - Jcb (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Subotica Archives

Please, bring back these files. You deleted them several days ago. We got the OTRS number for every one of them.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If an OTRS agent concludes that the permission is valid, this agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I can confirm that we have permission for these images within #2017090110011591. --Filip (§) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dungodung: I have restored the files. Please take care of the correct OTRS tagging. You may remove the {delete} tags when applying the OTRS tags. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I tagged the images. --Filip (§) 06:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ceyhun

Hi. File:Ceyhunmısırda.jpg is used in a userpage in TR:WP, where the user Ceyhun13 (User:Euthygenes) has made his last edit in 2012 (and in 2010 here). I thought of placing it in Category:Unused personal files for deletion with similars but I hesitated. Whadduyu say? --E4024 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The DR will probably fail, because the user contributed to several articles. Jcb (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lotje

Hallo, Jcb, welke van deze en afbeeldingen meen je zou kunnen worden genomineerd voor verwijdering? Of is een rename #2 aangewezen? :) Lotje (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Je kunt in dit geval de kleinste nomineren met Template:Duplicate, waarbij de je bestandsnaam (zonder 'file:') van de grootste als parameter gebruikt, dus zo: {{Duplicate|Estelle Skidmore Doremus.jpg}}. Jcb (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Consideration for underlying works

ResolvedFair, and I can agree with that. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern in DRs where I'm the nominator or supporter of deletion, where in multiple cases you have only considered the work as a whole for overall license status (not copyright status) and not the conditions of the underlying works. File:GPL+FE.svg is the most recent one (I replied), but I know there's many others we have both participated in. Just a friendly notice, and we can also agree to disagree if you'd like. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is a complex thing. Nobody can know everything about it, but I try to respond to the best of my knowledge. I have been into this for over 12 years now, so I often have seen comparable cases before. Jcb (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Hi, Jcb. Since you are currently online, I was wondering if you could take a look at my report at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Jjstyle1. I reported this user several hours ago and no one appears to have looked into it, while the user has uploaded yet another copyright violation. ℯxplicit 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, much appreciated. ℯxplicit 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Out of Scope

Hallo Jcb, nogal vreemde uitleg bij de files van deze gebruiker, daar heb ik geen antwoord op.

En ook dit... :) Lotje (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ik noem het spam. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Bedankt Jcb Lotje (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What?

File:Парк у селі Рай - 15.jpg and File:Раївський парк.jpg — same image. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Use {{Duplicate}} to request deletion of one of them. After deletion you can make it a redirect. A file page still containing a file cannot be a redirect. It appears in our error reports. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Project stormfury hypothesis.gif

Why did you revert this? Policy says GIF "should usually be converted to PNG." --Voidvector (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A file page still containing a file cannot be a redirect. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I just go into all the wikis and replace the GIF w/the ref to PNG, it would be fine? --Voidvector (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that. Jcb (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it in violation?

Hello,

I see that you confirmed the deletion of the Berkshire Hathaway image. What is it violating? I find it quite incoherent why Wikipedia/Wikimedia would allow photos to be deleted and not state how it is in violation. I have also contacted the author of this image, Gregg Segal, and he states this he believes that there is no usage fee for the image. Aviartm (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC) So, what is it violating?

(talk page stalker) This was not about usage fees but about you granting a licence while you were not legally entitled to do so. By uploading the image under a free licence you violated the copyright for this image. Only the copyright holder can grant a free licence such as Creative Commons. The copyright in this case is either held by Fortune or by Mr. Segal himself. After all a Creative Commons licence grants anyone the right to use a work for any purpose including commercial activities. I. e. you allowed anyone else to make money off a photograph you didn't create yourself. Without permission from either the magazine or Mr Segal and no obvious evidence of a rightful free licence we couldn't keep the file. The reason why the file qualified for speedy deletion was given in the edit summary when the file was tagged for deletion: "Blatant copyvio; Fortune Magazine does not CC-license its images". De728631 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello De, thank you for the speedy response. Thank you for elaborating on why. I can see why now. But I stated what Gregg said, he said that he believes there is no usage fee on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

See Com:L for our license policy. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have already read that page. But that does not address my comment about how Mr. Gregg Segak told me how he believes there is no usage fee on the image. Aviartm (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

To keep this file we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. And please note that "usage" in press terms may not be the same as changing, adapting and reselling the image. The latter requirements are essential for all media at Wikimedia Commons, which is why we need an indefinite and irrevocable license from the copyright holder for anyone to use their works for any purpose. And if Mr. Segal himself doesn't know about any usage fees this indicates that the copyright is now held by the magazine. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Image

Hi Jcb, Could you delete this as out of scope please?, I would go to DR but the uploader is plastering it everywhere, FWIW I don't have a high opinion of Jimbo myself but there's means and ways of promoting your book, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Museu Paulista

Hello. I have seen your request for deletion of images we have uploaded from a GLAM initiative with Museu Paulista, including the work by Henrique Manzo and José Wasth Rodrigues. The Museu Paulista ia a Brazilian public museum that is part of the University of São Paulo. As they have claimed on their official website, which they have linked to on the OTRS verification e-mail, they hold the copyrights of the artwork they have made available for upload to the Commons. The sole request the museum has made in the statement is that uploads are made by one of only four users, as you can see on the statement on their page. The museum official statement is not sufficient? Two addenda:

1. All painters whose paintings you have requested the deletion from this project were public employees from the museum.
2. These initial uploads are part of a project to upload the whole collection of the museum, of around 110,000 objects. This is the right moment to make this GLAM initiative uploads absolutely fail proof.

Happy to have you help us sort this out. --Joalpe (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In the ticket you didn't provide any evidence that these authors would have transfered their copyright to the museum. Copyright does not stick to the posession of the physical work. Jcb (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Notaries from Austria

Hallo Jcb, wat doet men met drie omzeggens identieke afbeeldingen met ongeveer dezelfde beschrijving? Persoonlijk zou ik ervoor kiezen de beste versie te behouden en de beschrijving aan te passen, ttz. uit te breiden. Lotje (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dat kan, dat gebeurt vaak wel. Het is niet helemaal te voorkomen dat sommige werken dubbel worden geupload, dit soort situaties komen we wel vaker tegen. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects to older files, for example File:METROPOLIS_COSENZA.jpg

Hi Jcb,

please follow this (Template:FilemoverWelcome/en) and this note. Thank you and happy work yet, Hystrix (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

File:General Dempsey, Kermit the Frog, and Michelle Obama (13115214803).jpg

hi jcb, if you remember, you kept the DR of File:General Dempsey, Kermit the Frog, and Michelle Obama (13115214803).jpg on 25th of september, stating that "de minimis" applys to the image. however, i disagree with your decision and i would like to re-nominate the file for deletion. per standard practice and as a respect to the closing administrator, i would like to ask you if it is okay i will re-nominate the said file. thanks TemTem (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You can do that, but I still think that COM:DM applies. Jcb (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

then it is done :) TemTem (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hofje In den Groenen Tuin

Vraagje mbt de filenames: kunnen deze hernoemd worden --> "Hofje In den Groenen Tuin" ? Lotje (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ja, dat mag. Dat is reden 3 van de toegestane redenen voor hernoeming. Jcb (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted your removal of Speedy Delete

I reverted your edit on File:UFC-Champs.PNG in which you removed the speedy delete template, as it does indeed fall under the criteria for a speedy deletion, as it is an obvious case of copyright violation and is also a derivative work of non-free content, both of which are explicitly stated in COM:CSD as being proper criteria. TBMNY (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If an admin declines a speedy deletion request, you may not revert their decission. Instead, you are allowed to start a regular deletion nomination if you think the file should be deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RE: Deleted Files

Hi, me again. Could you undelete these files to investigate ticket:2017091110006667?

• File:SelinaMedium.gif
• File:SelinaProfile.jpg
• File:Sel02.jpg
• File:YukiClip2.gif
• File:Kogal003.jpg
• File:Genjutsu.png

Thanks for your time. CrutchCargo (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@CrutchCargo: Why did you not make a undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests instead? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kong of Lasers: An undeletion request has already been posted by Guanaco. However, I thought I'd bring the matter to Jcb's attention, as he specifically requested OTRS for these files. My apologies if I'm not following normal protocol; I'm completely new to this process.CrutchCargo (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In top of this page you can read in bold: "For any questions about OTRS permissions, please visit the OTRS/Noticeboard". Jcb (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jc4xcat

Hi, Some of the files were corrected I think. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I don't see why you deleted personal images on the page and left others. I've personnaly know the family and all the picture were my work. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deweppe_fils I've seen that the shield of the company was not deleted so I put it back on the page. I hope that doing so I'm not outlaw of wiki. Friendly yours--Jc4xcat (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

When I closed the DR, the first 6 files in the discussion were not fixed at all. They are of course not own work, none of them. Now I have taken a look at the other files in the discussion as well. They were partly fixed. I have restored those files and removed the bogus own work claim. Jcb (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bonsoir, il y a aussi Tampon seul.png, Nadar jeune & cie 17 bld des italiens.png, 1ere signature.png, Nadar jne.png, Carte visite.png et Cachet adrien.png qui sont, selon moi, dans le domaine public. O.Taris (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Gelöschte Bilder

Hallo und guten Tag. Entschulige bitte, dass ich dir auf Deutsch schreibe, aber mein Englisch ist wirklich zu schlecht. Aus dem Ortikel Oskar Lagger hast du zwei Bilder gelöscht, weil sie eventuell das Urheberrecht verletzen. Ich habe im Fall vom Porträt Oskar Lagger das Einverständnis des Fotografen eingeholt. Die erste Seite es Werks "Ave maris stella" habe ich mit Erlaubnis des Komponisten eingescannt. Ich glaube, dass so das Urheberrecht nicht verletzt wird. Darf ich dich bitten, die Löschung rückgängig zu machen. Freundliche Grüsse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Ruppen (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bitte senden Sie die Erlaubnis an OTRS. Jcb (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Troosteloos

Met alle respect, maar dit soort acties vind ik echt troosteloos. Van de verwijderingsnominatie ben ik niet op de hoogte gesteld omdat de afbeelding met een bot verplaatst was naar commons. De foto heeft 10 jaar zonder problemen op Wikipedia gestaan en zonder dat iemand hier bezwaren tegen in heeft gebracht. De kans dat er überhaupt rechten van belanghebbenden geschonden werden waren 10 jaar geleden al hoogst twijfelachtig bij deze onbekende fotograaf, maar 10 jaar later zeker. Met dit soort afbraakacties wordt de motivatie om bij te dragen aan het project niet groter en gezien de schaal waarop dit soort verwijdervoorstellen wordt gedaan zal ik niet de enige zijn die hierdoor frustraties oploop. Hanhil (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We hebben recent een uitvoerige discussie gehad, leidend tot een stemming, om te kijken waar we de grens leggen voor werk van een onbekende auteur in landen waar de PMA+70 regel geldt. We hebben toen besloten die grens bij 120 jaar te leggen. Dus alles van voor 1897 uit zulke landen beschouwen we als PD als we niet weten wanneer de auteur is overleden. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubbele files

Hallo Jcb, wil je hier eens kijkje nemen? Er zijn nogal wat dubbele afbeeldingen en ik weet niet zo goed hoe dit aan te pakken. :) Lotje (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Je kunt hiervoor {{Duplicate}} gebruiken, zie voorbeeld hierboven. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

gelöschte NASA-Dateien

Hallo Jcb, stelle bitte sämtliche von Dir gelöschten NASA-Dateien inklusive aller Verlinkungen wieder her. Das sind alles freie NASA-Bilder, die Flickr Lizenz ist irrelevant, siehe hier! Das "Problem" ist schon seit Dezember 2012 gelöst. Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As you can read in the 2012 discussion, PD cannot blindly be applied to any image associated with NASA. You relied on a source that states a license with NC restriction and you didn't add a source that could be verified as PD. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA works are Public Domain, that's proven enough! If you don't recreate this files, then i will make an undeletion request for every file on the right place. --Ras67 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a regular UDR would be better I think. In the 2012 discussion it was pointed out that not everything published by NASA is actually created by NASA. The files will have to be judged one by one. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't examined the list of files affected, but I arrived here because you deleted an image unambiguously credited to NASA and a staff photographer throughout its metadata. Such files should not be deleted, let alone speedied (regardless of any Commons-incompatible licenses under which they may have been published, which have absolutely no impact on their PD status). Have you been checking for such evidence? —David Levy 21:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please stick to the ongoing process for these files. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:World War I memorials in Picardie

Hi, I just saw that you deleted this category (which I think I created) without any discussion. Can you please explain how this is within Wikimedia Commons' rules? Can you please also tell me what has been done to reallocate the contents of the category into the appropriate new category? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If somebody nominates a Category for speedy deletion, the procedure is simple: Is it empty? If yes: delete. If no: keep. Categories may be recreated any time when no longer empty. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization

Hallo Jcb, kan je eens een kijkje nemen? zoveel categories... Ik probeer er iets aan te doen, maar wilde toch liever eerst je raad. :) Lotje (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Is wat overdreven inderdaad. Ik heb er een beetje in gesnoeid en de niet echt relevante categorieën verwijderd. Jcb (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bedankt Jcb dat je het voortouw nam... {{smiley Lotje (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Review please

Hi Jcb, please review this, Regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy seems not a good idea 2 days after restoration via UDR. I have converted it to a regular DR. On the other hand, removing deletion nominations from your own uploads is a blockable offense. Chyah has been blocked for a day. Jcb (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

why

The last file that i was upload it it's from my self job so you can't delte it. Koussayou003 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It has no license indicated. Please read the instructions in the nomination on how to fix this. Jcb (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Media missing infobox template

Hallo Jcb, volstaat hier een eenvoudig sjabloon? Lotje (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lotje I think this is what you wanted.  Done Ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

speedy deleton von uploads von Fæ

einige sind brauchbar, beispielsweise File:2010-365-210 Mr Gilroy I Presume (4843254720).jpg. --Hystrix (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but Fae uploads 100.000s of out of scope files. It's undoable to sort them out one by one. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Maybe but the matter at hand here is FoP, not OoS: You need to get your Fæ bashing straight. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thanks for letting me know. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

About deleted video

Dear Jcb, I know that my video haven't a copyright template, however, if you see the source it is CC in youtube. The next time, please, let me a message in my talk page. Please, could you undelete the file and I will add the license template. Thanks so much. --The Photographer 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Normally you would receive a notification when a file is tagged for missing license, but in this case you already uploaded it with this tag. It's often a good idea to view the file description page after upload, you would have seen the tag immediately. I have restored the file. You have 7 days to fix it. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a bug of video2commons tool. Thanks for your fast action. --The Photographer 21:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Crutch Cargo here

Hi, it's me again. Jcb, I feel that we got off to a bad start. Can we "shake hands" and start over again with a clean slate? All the best, CrutchCargo (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I even don't remember what the issue would have been. Everybody makes mistakes. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg

Hi Jcb. Since you are an OTRS volunteer, I am wondering if you could check this file deleted by Daphne Lantier to make sure it was not done in error. The reason I am asking is because of en:WP:MCQ#Fair Use, which may be about the same image. If there was nothing out of the ordinary about the deletion, and it is the same as en:File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg, then non-free content might be the only option left. If, however, the problem with the file's licensing was something that could possibly be fixed, then perhaps non-free is premature. Anyway, jsut thought I'd ask since the deleting admin has been apparently indef'd and you seem to have be the admin who did that. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The file was nominated for speedy deletion by OTRS agent Seb26, based on a conversation with OTRS, so deletion seems fine. Also the admin actions of Daphne Lantier from before 11 August are fine in general. They used to be a good admin before they went off the rails 11 August. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Just two more questions. Is it the same photo currently being discussed on Wikipedia? Was it uploaded by the same uploader? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, same uploader, same picture. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jcb. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please undelete File:Tia Mowry on Sidewalks.jpg?

It's licensed, like any Vimeo file. I told the nominating license reviewer where to find the license, but he ignored it - possibly because he hasn't edited in a week. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. Could you post this to COM:UDR so that others have a look? Jcb (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, but honestly, I'm not sure why you're not sure. It's a properly licensed file, I've uploaded over a hundred just like it. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'd appreciate it if you specified, either here or there, what exactly you're unsure about. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC)I am not familiar with this source. I am e.g. not sure whether the uploader at Vimeo is indeed the copyright holder. One advice for future cases: You could convert the tagging into a regular DR. In that DR you can respond to the nomination and your comment will be clearly visible for processing admin. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand what is "a regular DR". If you look at the video you'll see that it's clearly made by Sidewalks Entertainment, their logo is all over it. It has a Wikipedia article, it's a long lasting if mostly local television program. https://vimeo.com/sidewalkstvshow/about is clearly their Vimeo account, if you go to their official web page, http://www.sidewalkstv.com you will see the link to it in the V in the upper right corner. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you mean a deletion review? I should nominate my own file for deletion? Rather, than, say, put a link to COM:WHERE LICENSE right next to where I put the {{tl:LicenseReview}} on the file itself? --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, in case typing hides tone - I'm not mad at you, I realize you are deleting a lot of files, which is a hard job, and can't be expected to do an indepth investigation of each one, to some extent you need to trust the license reviewers. I just think that once pointed out, it should be clear that this one should be undeleted. --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Below a {no permission} tag, there is a 'Convert to DR' button. This button converts the tagging into a normal deletion nomination, in which the original nominator and nomination reason are mentioned and in which you have the opportunity to oppose the nomination in a way clearly visible to processing admin. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, nice, I must not have seen that. Will next time. Meanwhile, this file? Any doubts that I haven't cleared up yet? --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Undeleted by User:De728631. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, good that it has been resolved. I personally prefer to have a fresh pair of eyes looking at the case if there is any doubt about one of my admin actions. That's why I often point to COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Filipinki band photos – Filipinki_1966.jpg and other files

Hello Jcb. My name is Marcin Szczygielski, I'm a writer and also manager of Filipinki band, son one of the singers, author of the book about a Filipinki (Filipinki – to my! Ilustrowana historia pierwszego polskiego girlsbandu, Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik) and co-publisher of this book (Publishing house Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik is run by my partner and me). Today I've notice that almost all files of the band was deleted from wiki commons. I upload those photos years ago with a permission and even on request of the band members - all pictures come from they privat archives and was taken before 1989 – as you know: {{PD-Polish}}, so everything is legal. What should I do to make them undeleted? I'll be very grateful for information and help. Regards Selenium (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

For each picture you should point out how they were published before 1989 without a copyright notice. If you have that information for a picture, you can go to COM:UDR and request undeletion with that explanation. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try Selenium (talk)

Speedied files

Hello, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheffield City Hall and Peace Gardens Panorama.jpg in which your deletions are mentioned. JGHowes ^talk - 13:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If a picture is published previously on the web as 'all rights reserved', the standard practice is to delete as 'copyvio' and to wait for OTRS. Jcb (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

mi pad

Please revert the image which did not break copyrights and was removed without any reasons.! It's a simple GIMP edit which is OK. I won't let a troll flag it and I will upload it as many times as I need to since it does not break any rules. --Bololabich (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Reuploading a deleted file is a blockable offense, regardless the circumstances. Don't do it. Jcb (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok :) Bololabich (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll remember to rename it. And somebody should do something with this troll flagging it and the reason given is he doesn't know that editing file this way is possible... Bololabich (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for deleting the file "iPhone X Sensor housing"! I wasn't sure what to do with it in the first place. =)

Itsquietuptown (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

zie mijn OP

Beste Jcb, zie mijn reactie op mijn overlegpagina (de ping werkt geloof ik niet). Ymnes (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jawel, de ping werkt prima. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Fonoon.Uploader

Sir pls take note inspite of your delition for copyvios Fonoon.Uploader (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has been recreating the files. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

i am just uploaded my own files, they are my own files, i am talking in English right? i read carefully the rules. i don't got what your point. --Fonoon.Uploader (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

excuse me? why i should be blocked ? what is wrong ? i am so confused. --Fonoon.Uploader (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fonoon.Uploader: You cannot reupload deleted files. Doing so could indeed be a reason to block you. If you think deletion was a mistake, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

File talk:TVS Automobile Solutions Private Limited.jpg

Hi Jcb. You deleted File:TVS Automobile Solutions Private Limited.jpg, but the uploader has posted at File talk:TVS Automobile Solutions Private Limited.jpg claiming they had permission to upload the file. Perhaps you can explain what they need to do to have the file undeleted. For reference, I saw the file and thought it might be simple enough for PD-logo, but not sure about the TOO for India. Also, the same uploader also uploaded File:MyTVS Logo.png which I tagged with npd. I did that because they weren't claimiing the file as own work and I thought giving them a chance to provide evidence of permission was appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably PD-textlogo, but if they are too lazy to add a license and the file is probably out of scope (not in use in article space), I tend to follow the krdbot speedy tagging. This may not be in line with the letter of the rules, but seems them most pragmatic. Jcb (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough and thank you for taking another look. Do talk pages for files which have been deleted get deleted on Commons like they do on Wikipedia per en:WP:G8? Is there a Commons equivalent to en:Template:G8-exempt? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. We do not have so many different procedures. You can add {{speedy|orphaned file talk page}} to such pages. Jcb (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Commons Picture for Politician Profile

Dear Jcb,

you deleted this Commons Picture which was embedded on this page.

My profile states that I work for the European Commission.

The Commission’s reuse decision applicable in this case allows reuse of the picture for commercial and non-commercial purposes without further restrictions. The credit provided was: © European Union, 2016 / Source: EC – Audiovisual Service / Photo: Jennifer Jacquemart

May I ask why this pictures was taken down and what other procedure should be applied to make this picture available on Wikipedia?

Thank you!

Source does not state a compatible free license. Please ask the photographer to contact OTRS if you want the picture to be undeleted. Also please be aware that Wikimedia/Wikipedia is not a profile website. We are building an encyclopedia, not a social network. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Source was the EC AV Portal. The FAQs on that page can be consulted here ( Link to the copyright section in the FAQs ). The page provides in its top menu a direct access to copyright related questions and a legal notice page summarizing and linking to the reuse policy, which enables CC BY. Please let me know should I be mistaken that this the appropriate license for usage here. The profile page was created under advisement from Wikipedians to ensure transparency.

"The material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and educational purposes." is not compatible with CC-BY or any other license that we accept here. For more information, see COM:L. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

GPL3 compliant deletion?

Please tell me what is wrong if a screenshot is GPL 3 compliant?

Could you provide more information? (Link to the involved file). Jcb (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Isometric tile projection.gif License: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/blob/master/COPYING

Regards --Manuel (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Manuel (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Zara 2017.jpg

Hi Jcb, what is the reason for deleting the file? The author Daniil Golovkin sent permission to OTRS. Check info@danilgolovkin.com --Floridorus (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We received the message, but the permission could not yet be verified. That's why we sent a follow up message 20 August, but we did not receive any response. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:PowerPoint (Windows 10 Mobile).png

Hello, Jcb

I see that you've recently deleted File:PowerPoint (Windows 10 Mobile).png. Can I have a copy of it (and its source) for use on English Wikipedia?

Thanks.

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I have temporarily restored the file. Please tell me when you are ready. I have tagged it in a way to keep it online at least for today. Jcb (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I am done. Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have also evacuated File:Word (Windows 10 Mobile).png and File:Excel W10M.png, which have the same copyright status. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted image

Why did you delete a screenshot taken from a YouTube video with a Creative Commons licence, mate? Wow!! --B.Lameira (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to video: check the licence used, it was taken from here. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Next time it would be helpful if you could provide the involved file name, so that I don't have to find out first what file you are talking about. Jcb (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

source

La source est image pieuse personnel, il faut lire... La fuente esta imagen une imagen religiosa personal, es necesario leer... --Majella1851 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviamente no estás el autor. No hay suficient información para saber la situación de copyright de este archivo. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Hot Star Logo with Black Bg.jpg

Hi Jcb. Would you take a look at File:Hot Star Logo with Black Bg.jpg when you get the chance? It's was uploaded and licensed as a "cc-zero", but there's nothing on the source url to verify that it has actually been released as such. I want to try avoid repeating any confusion/mistakes that I might have caused/made with repsect to COM:VP/C#File:Portlandia wide.jpg this time around, but still think this particular file should be deleted. I guess it's possible that the uploader might be an enployee of en:Star India, but not sure that means the logo has been released under a CC license. Anyway, if the tag I added is incorrect, please advise and I'll remove/replace it accordingly. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think speedy deletion was fine for this file, but in case of any doubt you can always start a regular DR instead. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: File GeorgeTscherny006.jpg

Regarding the file that was here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GeorgeTscherny006.jpg, you wrote on September 21 that there was "No OTRS permission for 30 days." I'm not 100% sure what that means, but I do know that the copyright holder, Max Milder, wrote to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on July 7, 2017, giving permission to post the image on George_Tscherny using the email template. Here is the text of that email, since I was cc'd: <cut>

Is that not sufficient to keep the image from being deleted?

Laurariding (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Permission could not yet be verified and an OTRS agent sent a follow up message 20 August, but we never received any response. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Krzysztof Jung.jpg

Author of this photograph sent the permission to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org so the photograph shouldn't have been deleted.

OTRS has a backlog. Please wait patiently until an OTRS agent handles the message. Jcb (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For You with respect. KOLI (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia file question

Hi Jcb. I know you are a Commons admin and also OTRS volunteer, but I am not whether the OTRS tools you have are also for use on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am wondering if you'd take a look at en: File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg. The uploader basically took all of the files you deleted as copyright violations from Commons, combined them into a user created montage, and uploaded them as a single non-free file locally to Wikipedia. This kind of thing is normally not allowed per en:WP:NFCCP, but I am wondering if you can clarify the sources of each of these individual files just in case it might be possible to upload all or some of them as separate non-free files. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems that the file has been deleted in the meantime. (I cannot view deleted files at EN wiki). Jcb (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The file was deleted, but the uploader simply re-uploaded it again. I've asked RHaworth (the Wikipedia admin who deleted the file) about this at en:User talk:RHaworth#File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg. If you can clarify the sources of the individual files on RHawroth's user talk, then please do. The uploader now seems to be claiming ownership over all of the photos, not just the collage. If that's really the case, then I think all the uploader should need to do is have OTRS verify things and the files could be undeleted on Commons. The uploader then could use those photos to create the collage as a COM:DW, and then release the collage under a free license, right? If so, then this would make any non-free file unnecessary per en:WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlisted Owner Poster Deleted

My name is Jed Brian I am the copyright holder for the film Unlisted Owner. We currently have a new poster that was uploaded recently on Wikipedia and was removed from the page. We would like to have this image put back as quickly as possible since the film is now available on amazon for pre-order and would like people who read the article to match the correct poster with correct film. Can you please re-upload our photo. Jed K. Brian Unlisted Owner

Please send permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ati stellram Kennametal Рувир.jpg

Hi Jcb,

I think, the web file has lower resolution than the file, which you've deleted. How do you come to the conclusion, that helvet.hu hasn't stolen the file from Wikimedia Commons? This it, what I presume.

Cheers, Foreman Eder (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's from another source, but at least it was at that website a year before it was here and it came here in grabbed-from-the-web resolution. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Suppression Motorboat_races_in_France

Bonjour, Merci d'avoir supprimé cette page, j'avais fait une erreur en voulant créer une catégorie pour y verser une série de photos et je ne savais plus comment y remédier. Bonne fin de journée. François de Dijon (talk)

Pas de problème. Cordialement, Jcb (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy Griffiths Image

How can I work with you to upload the image of Andy Griffiths without it being deleted?

Please ask the author to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Saludos y nuevos archivos

Cómo estás Jcb tiempo sin saludarte. Bueno, luego de un largo tiempo, nuevamente paso por aquí para cuando tengas tiempo puedas a bien revidar este, este y este archivo. Un correo de consentimiento fue recibido el día de hoy. El N° de [ticket: 2017101310009443]. Que bueno saber que aun sigues aquí. Saludos cordiales.--Deucaleon (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Hecho - Jcb (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Muchas gracias Jcbǃ Tú has sido muy amable. Saludos. --Deucaleon (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion rationale

Hi Jcb,

[8]: Are you sure it is a copyright violation? This user was not informed of the deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

With such watermarks it's probably copyvio. If it isn't, it would be inappropriate advertisement/spam. But the uploader should indeed have been informed of the nomination. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Agrostophyllum stipulatum subsp. bicuspidatum

Request: Rebuilding of Agrostophyllum stipulatum subsp. bicuspidatum. Pictures are available. Orchi (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Restored - Jcb (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

...thanks. Orchi (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo Kiano

Cześć! Dlaczego Logo Kiano to naruszenie praw a loga innych firm zostają na Commons? Ethize (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

For other companies the same rules apply, but we have some many files here that it may take some time before a copyright violation gets removed. Jcb (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Więc np. logo Apple, logo Opera, logo Google, logo Samsung są naruszeniami praw?

Some logo's may be below TOO or may be free for other reasons. I am not going to evaluate the copyright situation for random logo's with you. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

:( No niby rozumiem. Dziękuję.

@Ankry: @Jarekt: Could one of you help this user in Polish? Jcb (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

English: Looking at File:Kiano Logo czarne RGB.png I am actually not sure about reason for deletion. It did not have a license, but user:Krd tagged it with {{Copyvio}} instead of usual {{No license}}, Ethize added {{PD-textlogo}} used by most text logos, but it was deleted anyway. I do not know which text logos are are not unique enough to use {{PD-textlogo}} and which are not, but I do not see a straightforward distinction here. So let me undelete the file and nominate it for deletion so we can invite other opinions on the subject.

Polski: Patrząc na File:Kiano Logo czarne RGB.png nie jestem pewien dlaczego został usunięty. Początkowo nie miał licencji, ale user:Krd dodał tag {{Copyvio}} zamiast zwyczajnego {{No license}}, Ethize dodał {{PD-textlogo}} używany przez większość podobnych plików, ale mimo tego plik został usunięty. Nie wiem, które tekstowe loga są wystarczająco nie-unikalne, aby używać {{PD-textlogo}}, a które nie są, ale nie widzę tutaj prostego rozróżnienia. Wiec co zrobię to przywrócę ten plik i dodam tag do usunięcia, abyśmy mogli mieć szerszą dyskusje na ten temat.

--Jarekt (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Jcb (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dziękuję Ethize (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Coliop-Kolchovo

Hi Jcb. I saw the warning you left at User talk:Coliop-Kolchovo. I think there was a serious misunderstanding made by this editor regarding what constitutes "own work" and it appears that more of their uploads likely need to be reviewed (see COM:VP/C#Flag/seal uploads by User:Coliop-Kolchovo). Any suggestions on how to best proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk)

Just nominate them for deletion if you think there is a problem. Normally I post these warnings if I see a deleted file reappear. I add such users to my watchlist, so that every new edit to their talk page will draw my attention. Jcb (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Sam Oosterhoff - 2017.jpg (restore)

Hello, the photographer, Tavis Nembhard, has sent a follow up email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org indicating that he is willing to release the photo of Sam Oosterhoff. Please see Ticket#2017072410018099. Thank you. @sikander (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The file can be restored by an OTRS agent as soon as the permission is processed. Please be aware that this may take some time, because OTRS has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: OK, thanks. @sikander (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding OTR

Hello. How are you. I want to know that, whether you have received the OTRS E-mail for [9]. The copyright holder mailed me that he had sent OTRS e-mail. Thank you. Gazal world (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Gazal world (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please wait patiently until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Economipedia logo

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denorio#Warning

I have the copyright of that picture. It is not possible to upload a picture of which I have the copyright?

Please send evidence of permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Gert-Jan Segers nov 2016.tif

Hallo Jcb. Je hebt File:Gert-Jan Segers nov 2016.tif gisteren verwijderd. Het had iets met toestemming/OTRS te maken. Het zal wel kloppen. Wat ik me vooral afvraag is of niet iemand is vergeten/heeft nagelaten om Remcovdpol over het nominatieproces te informeren tussen 8 augustus en 8 oktober (deze datums haal ik uit de geschiedenis van diens overlegpagina). Weet jij hoe het zit? Apdency (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Je krijgt automatisch een notificatie als iemand anders je uploads nomineert, maar niet als je dat zelf doet. In dit geval heeft de uploader op 8 augustus zelf het volgende ingevoegd: {{OTRS pending|month=augustus|day=8|year=2017}} Dat zorgt ervoor dat als wij na het verstrijken van de OTRS backlog nog niets hebben behandeld in OTRS, het bestand automatisch 7 dagen in de 'no permission' categorie staat en dan wordt verwijderd. Jcb (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

O, hij heeft het ZELF gedaan! Ja, dan wordt het een ander verhaal. Dank voor 't antwoorden. Apdency (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo Le Soleil dans la Main

Hi JCB. You have deleted our Logo on the Wikimedia commons, although we uploaded our Logo as the active ONG, so I know we own the rights to publish this, as it is our own work. How can I avoid it being deleted? Thanks

Please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Solar Eclipse of November 3, 2013, Observed from Space.gif

Claimed copyvio source was published in 2017, but image was uploaded here in 2015. Not that the animation is necessarily free and clear - from the description it appears to have been compiled by http://www.moments-from-space.com/impressum.php , and they claim to share copyright with EUMETSAT... but it seems at least somewhat possible that Max r punkt is Dr. Maximilian Reuter, who would probably be able to license the file as claimed. Would you mind restoring and converting to a DR please? pinging also B dash, who tagged it as copyvio. Storkk (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I already commented to the ongoing UDR. I don't think this is own work, unless the uploader owns a spacecraft. But if it would be own work, I would rather see undeletion after processing a valid permission via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Though I don't think this file has an ongoing UDR. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Solar_Eclipse_of_November_3.2C_2013.2C_Observed_from_Space.gif - Jcb (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed that... I even Ctrl+F'ed the page for "Eclipse". Thanks for the pointer, and sorry for the confusion. Storkk (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Althingi protest iceland 04.04.2016.png

Hi Jcb. My picture got a takedown notice today. I was instructed to state my case in the pictures talk page, which I did, and now it's deleted. The photo is my property. It's published on Youtube under a CC license and here as CC0. The reason, apparently, was because The Guardian used the video in a news report about the protests in Iceland in 2015. Naturally, they could as this was free media. - Can you please elaborate on how I didn't fulfill wikimedia's requirements regarding the photo? Also, can I get information about who reported the photo?

Best regards, thorgnyrthoroddsen.

It was found at this website by a colleague. Please provide evidence of ownership to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

c:file:MVS8dvGFGCI2.jpg (Without Memory box art)

Why somebody each time removes box art of Without Memory? https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Without_Memory&action=history It's art laid out by developers in open access https://vk.com/album-61855301_240386872

'Open access' does not mean 'under a free license'. The page states: 'VK © 2017'. Uploading the file here is copyright violation. Don't do it. Jcb (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Solar Eclipse of November 3, 2013, Observed from Space.gif

What was that? Why was it deleted? Kruusamägi (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

See deletion log - Jcb (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Referred article was added 2017-08-18.
• This image was added to Commons as part of the science photo competition back in 2015.

Natural response would be "are you a ****** kidding me you ******* ********" or something along the lines. Keeping the Commons clean of copyright violations is an important task, but deleting things without making any checks what-so-ever is blatant vandalism.

When I work so hard to get some scientist adding images to Commons, and then someone comes along and starts deleting images based on some utterly ridiculous arguments, then I do not take that so lightly. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Just cool down and patiently follow established procedures instead of 'not taking that so lightly'. You will achieve nothing useful by making people angry. Jcb (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

After that, I sort of want you to be angry. And for a rather good reason. And don't hide yourself behind the procedures. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

JCB,

I seen you recently deleted the photo of Micheal Martin I uploaded. I would like to ask you for your reasoning? According to the Oireachtas Copyright Policy I do have permission to upload this file to the wiki as long as I attribute the Oireachtas themselves and their PSI license. I have uploaded many files from the beta.oireachtas.ie website and there have been no problems with them. If you cannot explain your reasoning for this I will either undo your deletion or reupload the file.

Please view these policies for more information: oireachtas.ie/parliament/about/copyrightandre-use/ oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/about/Oireachtas PSI -Licence Open Data.pdf

Thank you,

CnocBride (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The policies do not state that all images on the website have that license. There is no indication that this specific picture is included. The author and copyright holder may be a third party. Don't reupload the file, that's not allowed. You can request undeletion at COM:UDR if you think that I made a mistake, but the file will probably not be undeleted if you cannot provide additional evidence about the authorship of this specific picture. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your need to enforce the policies of Wikipedia and I respect that but my interpretation is that images are covered by the copyright policy. The policy states "All of the information featured on our website, including legislation, is the copyright of the Houses of the Oireachtas unless otherwise indicated". There are no indicators on the image source that it is the copyright of another person and I have decided to email the Oireachtas to double check this matter.

CnocBride (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Aks First Look.tif

Hi Jcb. You deleted File:NJAFLM S001 S001 T839.00 01 05 21.Still003.tif per COM:FU. The file then seems to have been uploaded as File:Film first look poster.jpg which was subsequently deleted by Y.haruo. The same poster has been re-uploaded once again as File:Aks First Look.tif. I guess it's possible that the uploader is connected to the film and maybe even created the poster art based upon Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Example.jpg, but that seems pretty unlikely without OTRS verification. I was going to tagged this new file as "fair use", but wanted to ask first whether {{Npd}} might be better instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content is a reason for both speedy deletion ({{speedy|recreation of deleted content}}) and a warning to the uploader. Jcb (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Miniya Chatterji jpg

Hi JCB,

Ticket#2017101310004555 was resolved once Ms. Chatterji declared her approval for usage of image.

Please check your database and update the page accordingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniya_Chatterji

Don't reupload deleted files. If an OTRS agent agrees that the permission is in order (which did not yet happen!), this agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Want to delete some files

Hello.. I want following images, uploaded by me, deleted from Commons. They were uploaded by me when I was new to Wikipedia/Commons and did not know copyright laws and its implications well. So I had uploaded those images from sources (some of them are offline) which are copyrighted. I regret my poor judgement and want these files deleted to avoid copyright violations. Now I understand copyrights well and will take care not to violate it. Regards and thank you.

(1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anil_Chavda.jpg

(2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rajesh_Vyas_Vali_Gujarati_Award.jpg

(3) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Rajesh_Vankar.jpg

(4) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Badhada.jpg

(5) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Bhavesh_Bhatt.png

(6) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Chinu_Modi.jpg

(7) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Chintan_Shelat.png

(8) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sitanshu_Yashaschandra_Mehta.png

(9) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sitanshu_Yashaschandra_Gaurav_Award.png

(10) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Ashok_Chavda.png

(11)https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Kiransinh_Chauhan.png

(12) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Vivek_Kane_Sahaj.jpg

(13) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Raeesh_Maniar.jpg

(14) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Ankit_Trivedi.jpg

(15) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Esha_Dadawala.png

(16) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Hardwar_Goswami.png

(17) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Hardwar_Goswami_-_Ahmedabad.jpg

(18) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Writer_Sitanshu_Yashaschandra_Mehta.jpg

(19) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Yogesh_Joshi.jpg

(20) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Writer_Dhwanil_Parekh.jpg

(21) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Harsh_Brahmbhatt.png

(22) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Vinod_Joshi.jpg

(23) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poet_Neerav_Patel.jpg

Thank you. Gazal world (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, we have established procedures to request deletion. (Click the 'nominate for deletion' link from the menu and enter a reason). Jcb (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ohk. I have nominated all of this. Thank you. Gazal world (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Чорнобаївка. Вчора, сьогодні, завтра.pdf

Hello! I am one of the authors of this file (it says so on the front page). The license CC BY-SA 3.0 is mentioned on the page 4, that's why the whole file was uploaded under this license. When somebody put a "no permission" template, I edited the file description and added the text that the permission is mentioned on the page four: it is written in Ukrainian, but there is a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 license there. Could you please check it and restore the file? Thank you! --Нестеренко Оля (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems very improbable to me that all images in the document would be CC BY SA 3.0. Jcb (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Screenshoot box.png

It wikiversity does not allows more uploading files locally, this to advantage commons too. I'am transferring all it Wikiversity files here. After they will be deleted. So please restore File:Screenshoot box.png because his local copy, that should be deleted, is in use here wikiversity:it:wikiversità:Bar/Archivio/Novembre2007-1#Template navigazione. It is important because it is in a page of the local village pump. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please transfer it again, this time properly completing the information template and this time without a bogus license. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

One moment please. What does it mean "Bogus" license. I do not use bogus licenses, never. It is a Mediawiki screenshot. What template have I to use?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 22:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So you think that {{PD-Italia}} would be a suitable license for such a file?!? Jcb (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No simply the [original template] was wrong and without a link to commonshelper. I simply put the first template I was remembering with the link and forget to change it. I am sometimes inattentive, I edit on 3 sometimes 4 or 5 projects at the same time, never a liar.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No now I remember. I try to upload before with v:it:template:screenshot Wikimedia but was not allowed by commons helper. You can try yourself [10]. Anyway I can't upload again because you deleted. So please restore otherwise I ask to another sysop--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the file. Please fix it, or I will delete it again. Next time, please fix the files you transfered, or don't transfer. Jcb (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ronny Matthes.jpg

Moin Jcb, ich habe das Ticket übersehen, war die Ticket Nr 2017090810006851 eingetragen? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the ticket number. I have restored the file so that you can process the ticket. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfekt thx,

vielen Dank, das gleiche Problem bei diesen Ticket, da ist die Genehmigung eingegangen.

Thank you, the same problem with this ticket 2017080110014741 since the approval is received.

File:Laudenbach, Hatzfeld-Grabmal-des-A.Kern Aedis Schmid-2002-423.jpg and File:Laudenbach, Hatzfeld-Grabmal-des-A.Kern Aedis Schmid.2002-424.jpg Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Restored - Jcb (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

thx -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

File: BP HEADSHOT6.jpg

Hello,

This file was recently removed from Wikimedia Commons due to no permission. However the copyright holder emailed permission prior to upload and would like the photo reinstated. The ticket number is 2017101110014913.

Thanks! :)

Amandadoyle543 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. As soon as an OTRS agent processes a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Merged at User talk:Halibutt where the conversation started. Jcb (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Double Platinum.png and File:Triple Platinum.png

Why you think this redirects was "not needed"? Several dozens of ruwiki articles used this redirects. MBH (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tommes: Please be careful not to speedy tag redirects that are in use. If processing administrator overlooks the global usage, deletion will cause a mess. Jcb (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being too speedy. I try to replace all the png-versions of record icons by svg-versions, for their advantages. --Tommes 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

asfandyar bokhari

Hi johan bos. you deleted some pictures from the page "asfandyar bokhari" due to copyrights violation. can you guide me how not to encounter this problem again? these pictures were freely available for download from those pages so i thought it would be okay to upload them. i asked those pages before uploading them here. can you tell me how can i share the permission of original owner on wikipedia so that i may avoid running into trouble with the copyrights policy? also tell me whether it is okay to share pictures taken from online newspapers? if not what is the method of procuring them? you seem like an experinced editor here and i am looking forward to your guidance on this subject. thanks.

In general, if you find a picture on the web it's copyrighted. Pictures from online newspapers have very poor chances to be available under a license compatible with our licensing policy. If somebody gives permission to release their picture into a free license, please ask them to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

File:19990168 832965363534277 647410954575666975 n.png.jpg

Hi Jcb. You deleted File:22050332 869721433192003 5028608741245524282 n.png.jpg as a copyvio, so I am wondering (given the similarity of the file names) if this is also from the same Facebook page since both files were uploaded by the same person. Also, File:Sam.shoaf.jpg was uploaded by the same person as well, but it might be taken from here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed all copyright violations. Deleted and uploader warned. Jcb (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

deleting a multilicend file under cc-by-sa-4.0 and cc-by-nc-sa

Licence (image 1, from Commons)	Licence (image 2, from another source)	Permissible licenses for collage	Explanation
CC-BY-SA	CC-BY-NC-SA	No license is permissible	The collage must be published under a licence which allows commercial usage (CC-BY-SA) while at the same time it must be published under a licence which forbids commercial usage (CC-BY-NC-SA). The collage is necessarily a copyright violation, since it can't satisfy both licenses at once.
CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC-SA	CC-BY-NC-SA	CC-BY-NC-SA is permissible	Image 2 requires a non-commercial licence (CC-BY-NC-SA) while image 1 allows both commercial and non-commercial licences. The collage creator must apply CC-BY-NC-SA.

You deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Det_JoKa008-Model.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 .

Please undelete it, if you are unsure about Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing (cc-by-sa-4.0 and cc-by-nc-sa), please put it just under {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}.

For more informations please read: c:Commons:Multi-licensing#Example and File:Vectorized_CC_License_Compatibility_Chart_compact.svg

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use."

— @Jcb: on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Det_JoKa008-Model.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1

This is nonsense, this file is ALSO published under a license that does allow unrestricted commercial use.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions (Author of the file) 11:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You may call it 'nonsense', but according to the page history, you where the one who tagged the file for speedy deletion. If you nominate a file for speedy deletion, please don't be offended if the file gets deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I know I should worked more carefully, but I think if I add {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}} there should be a peer review before deleting. If I add {{delete}}, it would have been my fault, also an admin checks if it meets the speedy-deletion criteria. I know on commons is much work and working in commons as an admin should be more appreciated.

Maybe {{Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}} should be just be a warning that it might get speedy deleted, but in my opinion it should not redicrect to {{Noncommercial}}. (Should I put that somewhere for discussion?)

Sorry I should have asked you more politely.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In general it's recommended to view a page after saving, so that you can see if your edit had the effect you intended. This should tackle these situations in most cases. Also, if something goes wrong, it's better to go to one place, e.g. just to the user talk page of the deleting admin, instead of four places. Now several users have spent time on this case, while it would have been resolved as well if you would just have posted it here. Jcb (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked in the German Wikipedia before the file got deleted, I pinged you that you also know that there is a discussion going on about it, due to the fact that you can speak a bit German, therefore this was only a ping.

After deleting, I asked on your talk-page.

I saw that you are not active at the moment, therefore I send you an email.

Then I saw that you do not work within the week (Userpage), therefore I asked at Commons:Undeletion_requests.

Yes sorry, that was to much.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi Jcb, the picture itself / pictures themselves have indeed been grabbed from somewhere; the depicted object itself does not cause a copyright infringment, being very old, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't double post fragments of discussions. I will respond at your user talk page, where the conversation began. Jcb (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

you are wrong!

There is licens on these files, it is in the template:artwork: File:Michael Ancher, P.S. Krøyer malende på Sønderstrand, 1907, HAF147, Anchers hus.jpg and File:Holger Drachmann, Halifax, 1899, X0148, Skagens Museum.jpg. Take a lokk. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no license at the moment I tagged those files. You know that. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - you are right - it was an old message. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

License now changed to CC BY SA (ND was dropped)

So can you restore this persons images?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guido4

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise I guess they can re upload them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently they have been reuploaded in the meantime. Please let me know if there is still something to undelete. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jcb, Hello Doc James. License is ok now, and I reuploaded the files already. So no need for further actions. Thanks for your help, guys. Guido4 (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like all is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

8-bit deletion

Hello. I'm here to complain about a recently deleted file that I uploaded to the commons, namely 8-bit-guy-logo.jpg. You deleted the file because it was deemed a "copyright violation" and you don't accept fair use material. However, I disagree that the image in question is copyrighted. The thing is, the image is not copyrightable. According to your article on the threshold of originality as well as Wikipedia's article, you cannot copyright an image that only consists of a typeface or simple geometric shapes. The image does not consist of any unique shapes, only simplistic ones, and the typeface for "8-bit" and "Guy" is simply the font that Commodore Business Machines used in their computers, most famously the Commodore 64. And the word "The" is either another standard typeface that I do not know about, or what I like to call "pixel-art letters" which may technically be a typeface but I don't see it that way. "Pixel-art letters" are basic letter "designs" that are very simple and easy to create for small pixel sizes and this is meant to replicate that despite being a 900x900 pixel image. I apologise for the potentially ranty nature of the complaint but I feel it best suits what I'm trying to convey. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, "DatGuyonYouTube"

You uploaded the file without a license. I think it's above TOO, but this may be borderline. Also the file seems blatantly out of scope. And you know too much for a new user. Using sockpuppets is rather impolite. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)