User talk:Jcb/archive/2

Deletion reques[edit]

you have decided in this request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse.jpg not to delete the image. This request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse - Fassade.jpg (showing a detail of Tour Montparnasse) was deleted by an other admin. Can you please check this. Either boath images must be deleted because of the FOP-regulatory in France or both have to stay. Thank you, Grettings --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: there are other images in Category:Tour Montparnasse showing the Tour Montparnasse. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pending undeletion request about this case, see here. You may wish to add images to that request. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hachiko200505-2.jpg[edit]

Hi, if you look at it you'll see the above request covers all the files in Category:Statue of Hachiko in Shibuya, which are all tagged with the same request and listed with it. They need deleting too. --Simonxag (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png[edit]

Why was this deleted? According to cited case law and the State of New York itself once released this booking photograph is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you linked to is about GIS-data. Jcb (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the California public records case that resulted in a general ruling that triggered the revival of Template:PD-CAGov...and I didn't mention it for this image taken by a New York state employee. The linked information for the Sid Vicious booking photograph deals very specifically with New York law. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left two comments in the deletion review related to the Sid Vicious mugshot. In this comment, I noted you forgot to identify yourself as the deleting administrator, and I asked if you had considered explaining the reasoning behind your deletion. In this comment I warned the nominator that I thought it would be a mistake for them to follow your example and use the term "clownish" when referring to someone else's efforts. I said I thought you were setting a bad example. Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gary Dourdan.jpg[edit]

California booking photographs are in the public domain (e.g. here and here), as I indicated in the discussion. Why was the image deleted? Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this DR you also mentioned something that applies to GIS-data, which this picture isn't. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cases that triggered the Commons revival of Template:PD-CAGov was specifically dealing with GIS data, however the court generalized their finding to all releasable California public records, as I quoted on the discussion page. See also here and here. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Édouard Guillaume.jpg[edit]

I disagree with that closure. The photographer of the original photo with 100% certainty not died before the 1950s. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the DR didn't convince me of that statement. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion just throws in people of the same or similar names. The photographer is clear (Jacques Boyer), the photographer is identifiable in a database of Roger Viollet, and that person (not the random other boyers thrown into discussion without clear evidence that they are the same person) is described as active till 1950s. --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. --Martin H. (talk)

File:Uli_Metzner_fürs_Album.JPG deleted![edit]

I don't understand that decision. And I heard no reason why IMSLP should have no pictures. It seems ridiculous and quite oldfashioned to me. it is the wrong way to show what is wrong or right. I've lost my interest in this department of wiki. Please play alone these strange actions. Yes, it is a sort of strange action . I would say it is a fundamental misunderstanding. Nothing to do with the aims of wiki. Did you check some articles of IMSLP ? I can+t believe it. Well, go ahead. That is a very strange form of communication! Thank you so much :-)) Is that your form of humanism ??

--Metzner (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for information on the deletion. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg[edit]

Please revert your closure here. Given you !voted keep early in the discussion, I do not feel it is appropriate for you to decide it is time to close the debate in your favour - this should be done by an uninvolved admin. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Saying something in the DR doesn't make a moderator less neutral. I keep closed it just because our guidelines leave no other choice. The fact I voted as well didn't influence my decision. A closure should be even not based at all on number of votes. Jcb (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This type of DR is clearly a judgement call from the closing admin; there's no clear policy or even cases of law that would make it obvious whether or not this image is above the threshold of originality. So the closing admin needs to make a decision based on the general consensus expressed in the discussion, and if they already expressed their opinion there, it looks like they might be biased. Notice that I said looks like, because the question is not whether or not you were biased, but how it may seem. In order to have a fair system, it's not enough to be unbiased, it has to be apparent to everyone that the circumstances cannot make you biased. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sole fact that I expressed the same standpoint a few weeks ago doesn't make me biased and doesn't make me seem biased. You seem not to understand the real meaning of the word 'biased'. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand the meaning of the word biased, thank you. And yes, expressing you view beforehand does make you seem biased, as evidenced by mattbuck's comment above. What would you think of a judge who publicly expresses the opinion that a person is guilty, and then presides their trial and eventually condemns them? Maybe the judge's decision is correct, but it doesn't look like a fair trial, does it? –Tryphon ^☂ 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Spain (lingüistical)[edit]

Hi, I have a consult for you: This map has been kept in Commons beacause it was in use. But, in the other hand, this other, which has the same problems than the previous one, but is unussed and is a modificatrion of an already in use correct map has also been kept with the "invalid deletion reason for Wikimedia Commons" justification. Are you sure this reason is good/bad? which should I do for having modified the map? I remind you that this last map is a modified version of an accurated map, which is in use. Thx--Coentor (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a file is in use, we are not allowed to delete it for quality reasons, but if it's not in use, we also don't judge if a map is completely correct or not. It's simply not our task. Of course we can delete blatant nonsense, but that's not the case for this file. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Polish OTRS ticket[edit]

Hi,
thank you for contacting me; I have added all the needed information to the image's description page and replied at the OTRS noticeboard. Regards, odder (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Фотография - комсомольская площадь[edit]

File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpgPublished by Евгений 07.11.2010: http://2.www.gorodsalavat.ru/photos.php?id=654 Art-top (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Qweasdqwe signs as Евгений in Russian wikipedia, and I'd give him the benefit of doubt on this one. He has a peculiar way of stitching together panoramics (File:Гафури.jpg, File:Горького.jpg, File:Квартал2.jpg), they should be reviewed as a package. NVO (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Панорамная фотография мною сделана из моих же отдельных фотографий см. ссылки отдельных фотографий http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/jane6666/view/353973/?page=0

Хотелось бы узнать причину стирания фотографии Комсомольская площадь - то ли от Вашего незнания Русского языка, то ли от желания вандализма? Я же дал ссылку на составляющие этой фотографии...

Может Вы не хотите читать, что я пишу - копивио со своей же фотографии, зачем тогда обсуждение устраивать. если лучше устраивать вандализм?

Please see my 'babel' here, I'm unable to read Russian. Could you try to formulate your message in one of the seven languages mentioned at my user page? Jcb (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user says that the panoramic photo File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg was created from his own photos. He uploaded the source pictures to a photo-album at fotki.yandex.ru -- [1]. Trycatch (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I acted according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Qweasdqwe. The fact that most of his pictures were proven copyvio, made me decide to delete all of them. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that quite a bit of these picture were really created by Qweasdqwe -- at least pictures created using Nikon Coolpix L1. In at least several "proven copyvio" cases the pictures in fact were uploaded to the external sites by the user himself (jane6666 -- his photostream at fotki.yandex.ru, http://salavat.jimdo.com/ -- his personal site). I've asked the user about all these photos in ru-wiki -- w:ru:Обсуждение участника:Qweasdqwe#Уточнение. Trycatch (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me which files are (probably) OK, I'm willing to undelete those files. Also regarding this specific DR feel free to undelete them yourself. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AE.jpg[edit]

FYI, I reopened this DR. I'm curious to know how you checked that the copyright hasn't been renewed, or that it wasn't published outside the U.S. first. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen it by starting a new nomination, not by reverting my decision. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, forgive me for reverting thy "decision". Now that order has been brought back into the Universe, would you mind answering the question above? How did you check that the copyright hasn't been renewed, or that it wasn't published outside the U.S. first? –Tryphon ^☂ 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COA of Ventspils[edit]

Please do not replace real arm () with "pin" version. Arm of city is without inscription. Thanks! -Kikos (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated why I reverted the file. The image you uploaded over the other file was already present as File:LVA Ventspils COA.svg. Please use it from there. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I clearly state that this bullshit is used in every wiki (except lv for now). May be better is to save this "pin" image as "Coat of Arms of Ventspils (pin).svg" and there keep reverted version (not to force every wiki for manual replacing of "standardized" name for "LVA...")? You should think really, not formally! --Kikos (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not the task of Wikimedia Commons to decide what image should be in Wikipedia articles. Jcb (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gulag.jpg[edit]

Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gulag.jpg. Deleted file reuploaded by new account of the same user. --Art-top (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kogaru1.jpg[edit]

I have to say, this was a spectacularly bad edit. Considering that on Commons its pretty hard to get a general consensus that an image is out of bounds, when this does happen its usually a pretty good indication that the image is pretty toxic. For you to ignore this and keep the image anyway shows quite poor judgment in my opinion. If you want to be an administrator, you should pay some mind to the overall good of the project, I should think. Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to follow the rules. People are free to post opinions in the DR which are incompatible with the rules, but I will have to follow the rules anyway. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. You're a human being, not as robot or a lemming. The good heath of the project takes precedence. If you are unable to see this you may lack the temperament to be well-suited for making these judgments. When you make a decision that goes against a clear majority of reasonable editors, you may wish to ask yourself "Is it possible that all these people are right and I am wrong, rather than the reverse?" I ask you to consider your decision and reverse it. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't understand the status of the rules. Jcb (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand that status of the rules well enough. For instance, look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Seedfeeder. It appears that the images in question are in violation of the policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle given the Commons:Project scope#Evidence. Nothwithstanding that the images are in violation of policy, are you going to delete them? Of course you are not. You cannot point to consensus in the discussion, since in the case under discussion you have used the opposite reasoning (that is, that you must follow the rules and ignore consensus). But I expect you will find some other reason, and if you can't you will just ignore me. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Bolesław_Makochan_1975.jpg" " Jerzy_Długoszowski_MO_legitymacja.jpg" and "Jerzy_Długoszowski_90.jpg" on 3 April.[edit]

I must admit that I don't quite understand this decision. User "Jergen" had some suspicion about this images. I have answered to them and got no additional remarks about that pictures (at least got no notice, what's more interesting " Jerzy_Długoszowski_MO_legitymacja.jpg" the request for deletion was withdrawn - or at least I didn't even got any notice that it has been marked again), . Especially that I was apalled to read that they were "Scanned from a printed source". Not sure how has "Jergen" come to this conclusion, but to me, the photographs owner, they simply seemed ridiculous. What was I supposed to do? add a scan of this photographs on the background of today's newspaper? I understand the care for keeping the commons away from any copyright violation, but wouldn't it be better if You would at least give people chance to answer to any kind of logical arguments? Best regards and sorry if the above sounds rude, Kamil Szustak, Al_muell

Situation is clear. No permission from the copyrightholder and not old enough to be Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear? Should I request the families to write letters (hard to do, concerning that Długoszowski's heirs don't speak English)? Or maybe take a photograph of the photo and it's film cliche (which is present with Długoszowski's ID)?

Or maybe I should Start asking photographers in Łódź 'Hello, did You do an ID photograph of kpt. Bolesław Makochan in 1975?'

Your explaination sounds strange, concerning that "Jergen" said that the problem was "obviously a poor quality scan from a printed source" - which, if asked to, I could proove without problems. I have been however denied the right to prove it wrong. The photos were deleted, even tough I have presented a clarification and got no further notification about any other doubts.

I am afraid that You don't even care to ask, You just take everyon'e doubt as a 100% guarantee that it requires deletion.

Regards, Al_muell

You need permission by the copyright holder before you upload a file. If you can't get it, you can't upload. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did You care to read the clarification I posted after request by "Jergen"? All the photographs came from the heirs, and thus I have aquired also the right to use them. It's impossible to find Makochan's photographer, but I have said at the militia ID photo what was the situation: Who was the author, that he is dead and that the photograph and film cliche was aquired togeather with copywright from Długoszowski's heirs. I think it has even covinced "Jergen", as the last time I have checked that (march) the deletion request was removed.

Also, wouldn't it be better to just ask if I can provide a proof of what I have written before deleting? What about audiatur et altera pars? Where's in dubio pro re? I have been prepearing this project for quite some time, but I don't like having to proove that I am not a camel (if You forgive me this idiomatic mistake) and with such a policy, wikipedia turns oput to be no longer a good place for free knowledge share.

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg[edit]

You were the admin who closed this and now it's back. I'm wondering if that's through consensus or an editor who had not seen the IfD. gren (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Southern painted turtle plastron.jpg[edit]

You only deleted one file: File:Crop of source image.jpg needs to be deleted. —innotata 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jcb (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Mudin.jpg[edit]

Any chance you could provide some explanation regarding what evidence/statutes/case law you felt were relevant or irrelevant beyond just a "correctly licensed" statement regarding this image? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in the DR convinced me that the license is applicable to this image, so no further evidence/statutes/case law or whatever is needed. The license template says all. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should reword my question then: Why does the license template apply, or rather; which arguments convinced you, and of what? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the keep comment of Smallbones. Jcb (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, your agree with the anecdotal statements that all actions by a soldier on duty are part of his official duties (unless proven otherwise), even though taking the pictures was explicitly against orders, and a federally produced copyright FAQ states "Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty"? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to overlook the significant difference between the 'duty' of an e.g. town hall employee and the 'duty' of a soldier on mission. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I asked in the DR was that if anyone had any actual evidence that any such difference in duty translated into copyright law; no such evidence was provided, nor was I able to turn up any on my own. That said, your answer sounds like a "yes" to my most recent question, so thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your decision[edit]

If you look at your decision here, [2] , you will notice that you said that this should be kept because there supposedly is a source. It is not enough for there to be a link however. There is no data on that site that says ethnic composition of any municipality in the country. Therefore there is no source for the production of such a map! The file is not used on any wikipedia project, and is therefore redundant. (LAz17 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's not necessary for a file to be in use at any project. Regaring FZS, they will produce such statistics. They may be not always on their website. The map may be source by a document no longer available at the website. Jcb (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been keeping a close on any population figures that talk about ethnic composition in Bosnia, especially according to municipalities. There have been absolutely none of the kind, and definitely not on that website. The site is the statistics office for only one half of the country. So they for sure won't be producing the data for the other half. Come on man, think about it for a moment - you made a big mistake and don't want to admit it. (LAz17 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Well?? Got nothing to say because you maybe made a mistake? Could it be speedily deleted? (LAz17 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I see no convincing reason to change my decision. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that I may make fantasy maps with that source too? (LAz17 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

COM:POINT - Jcb (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I wouldn't disrupt it, but your action does set precedent for disruption. There clearly is no source. I want to list it for deletion again- but what am I supposed to do when you say "oh maybe there was data there in the past"... I mean come on man, nobody has even heard of municipality population figures by ethnic groups in Bosnia since the war. Nobody. They can't even get their act together to have a population census, let alone publish data on such things. They have some rough estimates of people in the municipalities, but they do not have any sort of data that can be used to make such a bold map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Libya.png[edit]

This thread concerns you. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb, please, "always crying like a kid" is not an appropriate wording, and that is independant of the fact that Tryphon was an admin himself (he renounced voluntarily over the Jimbo/p*rn crisis). --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not appropriate to make a personal war of every disagreement, like Tryphon has been doing for several months now. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm not sure you should consider every question after closing a DR as a sort of war. As Tryphon has now added on COM:AN, closing DRs is a tough or nasty job and that includes that the own decision may be questioned by others. You can be assured that Tryphon doesn't do this per default. To be honest, I for myself did and do disagree quite clearly with some of your DR decisions, but hadn't the time (or the nerve) to go in a "fight". --Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MosMetro VDNKh 2011.jpg[edit]

I do not quite understand this decision, there is no FOP in Russia. The background to the question is the debate here. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first comment that there is nothing protectable in the picture. It's just a corridor. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your point of view. You mean: this is a simple corridor with simple lamps with simple arcs, and there is no special creative art or memorial. This is true from the common sense position. But the Civil Code of Russian Federation do not use common sense, it is a law with clear and crisp conditions. Please see the Code, article 1259. If there is a work of architect, it is protected regardless of merit and purpose. If an architect creates a primitive underground station of flat platform, metal doors and simple lights — it is fully protected, and a man cannot create free photo of such a station.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an architect creates a concrete pedestal for some statue, this pedestal is protected separately from the statue. In case the sculptor gives me a right to make free photos of the statue, I still cannot make the free photo of the statue on its concrete pedestal. I obligatorily need to gain the permission from its architect. And even more: if such a memorial is a composite art (composed of statue and pedestal), I need to get two permission from both sculptor and architect even to shoot the part of statue.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you see the horrible face of "no FOP in Russia" now.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article[edit]

Reading the article 1259 in full, we see the hell in details.

"Objects of copyright are works of science, literature and art, regardless of the merits of the product and destination, as well as the method of its expression:

literary works;
dramatic and musical-dramatic works, a scenario;
choreographic works and pantomimes;
musical works with or without text;
audiovisual works;
paintings, sculptures, graphics, design, graphic novels, comics and other works of fine art, decorative applied art and stage design;
works of architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture, including in the form of projects, drawings, images, and layouts;
photographic works and works obtained by processes analogous to photography;
geographical, geological and other maps, plans, sketches and plastic works relative to geography, topography and other sciences; other works.

2. Objects of copyright are:

1) derivative works, ie, works representing the processing of other work;

3. Copyrights apply as promulgated, and on unpublished works expressed in any objective form, including written, oral form (as a public utterance, public performance or other similar form), in the form of images, in the form of sound or video, in three-dimensional form.

7. Copyrights apply to the part of the product, its name, the character of the work, when in nature they may be recognized as an independent result of the creative work of the author and meet the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of this article."

And the article 1276 states:

"Allowed without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without payment of remuneration to reproduce, to broadcast by radio or by cable — photographic works, architectural works or works of fine art permanently located in a place open to public access, except when an image works in this way is the main object of this play or broadcast, or if it is used for commercial purposes."

You may see that an underground station photo cannot be reproduced by free photo (allowing commercial purposes) without the consent of the author (architect).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOP is not an issue where the Threshold of originality is not met. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Code don't use any threshold of originality in those articles, all the architecture is protected. The Code denies the threshold of originality: "regardless of the merits of the product and destination, as well as the method of its expression". It states the protection regadless of originality.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop debating in stereo. Jcb (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please search for 'stereo' in you English dictionary. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your impeccable judgement[edit]

and timely close of Plutchik-Wheel.svg; the thought of it nagging at me for months was very bleak.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancient Mechanical Artillery. Pic 03.jpg[edit]

According "my" interpretation of german law, this deletion was a failure.--Avron (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already read that in the DR. According to Pill, Jim and myself it isn't. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said. With this misinterpretation of law, we should delete for more images.--Avron (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominated them. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? A few minutes of search I found following imgages which could be deleted with the same argumentation:

--Avron (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's appropriate to nominate them, feel free to do so. But please make sure that you are aware of COM:POINT. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to nominate them, but I give you examples that you made a bad precedent.--Avron (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kentucky state flag.png[edit]

One of the reasons for deletion of this file is the PNG, in the terms of the image size and design, does not match what is currently in Kentucky state law. Images like this, for the reason that I stated, have been deleted before. May you reconsider your decision? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file is in use, so quality related arguments are irrelevant. Jcb (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That works, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daag, Johann Bos[edit]

Om deze reden schrijf ik U dit bericht, met de hoop dat U ze gaat ontvangen.

I don’t understand why the change of my account Spiridon MANOLIU (pseudonyme) to Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (my real name; my mail :cepleanu@orange.fr), so easy resolved in the french and romanian Wikipedia, is impossible since mounths in Commons, where my real name account is, since you (and you, since Art-Top) considered as a „sockpuppet” of my old pseudonyme account? So, please see below:

Als beheerder van Commons ...

1) Mag ik U vriendelijk verzoeken om mij opnieuw toegang te verlenen tot Uw forum. Indien mijn leerlingen Aoleuvaidenoi en Mitica-Misha fouten hebben gemaakt bij het uploaden/downloaden van beeldmateriaal, is er m.i geen reden dat er mij persoonlijk toegang zou geweigerd worden. Zij en ik hebben trouwens de Russische deelnemer uitleg gegeven over ons werk ; het is hij die U toen gevraagd had ons toegang te weigeren.

2) De kaart van de GOELAG (die we aangevuld hebben o.a op basis van documenten van de "fondation Memorial"), en enkele andere kaarten, komen van verschillende bronnen ; de kaarten hebben we gescand en verwerkt met Photoshop. De bronnen van de documenten worden meegedeeld. De "fondation Memorial" is een NGO die weerstand biedt aan de Russische machthebbers, en het is de inhoud van de kaart, en de gevolgen hiervan, die een aantal Russische deelnemers storen. De foutieve manipulatie van mijn leerlingen bij het downloaden/uploaden zijn maar een drogreden om deze kaart, waarvan de inhoud storend is (alhoewel ze aanvaard wordt door alle geschiedkundigen, ook de marxisten onder hen) te verwijderen. U vindt ze hier in bijlage.

3) Spiridon Ion Cepleanu is mijn echte naam, mijn leerlingen heten Dumitru Grosu en Madalina Ciobanu. Ze komen uit Moldavie en gaan binnenkort terug naar hun land van herkomst. Ze hadden Mitica-Misha en Aoleuvaidenoi als pseudo gekozen, ik heette Spiridon Manoliu op de lijst. Sinds we samen gewerkt hebben aan een aantal artikels over de geschiedenis van het communisme, werden ze beschuldigd (enkel op Commons) mijn naam misbruikt te hebben ; dit is echter niet het geval.

4) Mag ik vriendelijk U verzoeken om mijn inschrijving op Commons met mijn pseudo Spiridon MANOLIU te veranderen in Spiridon Ion Cepleanu ? Dit heb ik succesvol kunnen doen op Wikipedia in het Frans, Engels, Duits en Roemeens ; maar het bleef onmogelijk op Commons ...

5) Indien U in het Nederlands aan iemand bevestiging wilt vragen dat ik echt besta, kunt U een vriendin van mij, Anne Portielje, aanspreken op telefoonnummer +32.2.466.62.67. Anders kunt U mij in het Frans persoonlijk contacteren op het nummer 00.33.689.747.715.

Met dank bij voorbaat en vriendelijke groet,

Spiridon Ion Cepleanu <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Spiridon_Ion_Cepleanu> alias --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scale model of a police car based on an FSO Warszawa M20-57 or 200 of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg[edit]

Hello!

With interest I have noticed the closing rational of this DR. This rational applies to different issues as well, like e.g. for this debate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. There, a model of a russian submarine was deleted to, well, read the admin's comment in the end yourself. Would you please undelete File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? Thank you. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may have some change at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, but the situation seems quite different to me. The submarine is not just a scaled model, but somebody carefully decided where to leave out the outsite so that the visitor can see the inside design. The pictures on top could be an issue as well, but they may be cropped away. I'm not yet sure if I would undelete this one. Feel free to start an UDR and we will see. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had similiar thoughts about the submarine interior but this made according to published blueprints of this watercraft. These scaled-down-models-DR-issues seem to arise in last time. I think we should create some official guideline because of this. There are users that want to delete all scale models (of course only those that are "young" enough). Could you start an undeletion request about File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? As to the line of argument it is more consistent if you'd do this. Regards and thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should have a guideline for this, but maybe you could better raise this at the administrators noticesboard. Writing guidelines is not may specialty and we also need a broader discussion to come to accepted guidelines. I think the submarine image is not a suitable example for that discussion, because it could be a borderline case and thus confuse the discussion. Jcb (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, could you start an undeletion request about File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? --High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not start an UDR for a file of which I really doubt if it is OK. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daag voor Spiridon Ion (Cepleanu = Manoliu)[edit]

Bent u ervan doordrongen dat als u het betwiste materiaal opnieuw plaatst of laat plaatsen dat u dan het risico loopt dat er opnieuw door een beheerder maatregelen kunnen worden genomen? Jcb (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Avez-vous bien realise que si vous remettez ou faites remettre le materiel conteste vous courrez le risque que l'un des manager prenne a nouveau des mesures ?[reply]

I understand, and I will transforme my Gulag map into two others, one in english, another in russian. I'm agree with the Wikipedia's rules, evidently, and I cannot understand why maps draw by me or my pupils (but since sources, not from our own dreams) and pictures maked by me (for example Ammonites and Belemnites, or Flag of Mapuches of Argentina) are contested ? If someone contest an image, it's this contestation automatiqually considered right, it's this image automatiqually deleted? I dont think so...

Have a nice day, Spiridon Ion Cepleanu <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Spiridon_Ion_Cepleanu> alias --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you for now, but please be aware that you may easily get blocked again if you re-upload a map without a better explanation of the copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FredM Large.jpg[edit]

I would like to understand how {{PD-anon-1923}} applies when there is no proof of publication. Again, there is no evidence supplied that shows this image was pubished prior to 1923 or when the athor died, meaning it must be 120 year old not 88..--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those days people were not yet taking pictures of everything with their mobile phones, A picture with this age and of this kind is very unlikely to not have been published promptly. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where is your evidence for this file being published before 1923? --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the case that the photo was taken at the end of 1922 and published at the beginning of 1923, {{PD-US-not renewed}} will apply. So it's PD anyway. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one could agree with {{PD-US-not renewed}} but {{PD-anon-1923}} is quite dubious. But what would you say if this photo was published in 1929? --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a photo of this kind published in 1929 I would have used {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking, too. As a result I can assume that this photograph of "Frederick M. Smith" was first published in the USA. So the time between 1923 till 1946 (year of death) is safe. For the time before 1923 we hope that the authorship is unknown. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both {{PD-anon-1923}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} say "because it was published in the United States" I have seen nothing that says it was published in any way shape or form. Per COM:L#United_States "Photographic works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for 70 years after the death of the creator. Works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) or 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first." We have no idea how the "creator" was, if it was published, if it was a anonymous or pseudonymous works, or anything else simply because the uploader failed to supply the information. Therefore per {{PD-US-unpublished}} is the only legitimist tag to use and it says "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1891." I'm sorry but the Keep was clearly an error.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk

I addressed this in my 15:21, 25 April 2011 comment above and wil repeat it now: A picture with this age and of this kind is very unlikely to not have been published promptly. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Koerner Hall.jpg[edit]

Hello. Sorry to add to the list of posts on your talk page from people questioning a DR closure. I don't want to make your life more complicated. First, I am delighted that the older images were salvaged. Thanks for that. As for this DR, I am not sure how "AGF" applies in these circumstances. This is clearly a professional rendering, and I don't think anyone believes that the {{Own}} tag (or the {{Self}} copyright tag for that matter) were correctly applied in this instance (although, AGF certainly kicks in when we assume that none of these tags were used to mislead and that the uploader has the best intentions; given past experience, it also gives us license to keep the DR open for enough time to ensure the uploader has more than enough opportunity to get the necessary release). Unless the OTRS ticket for the older images is of a general nature and covers a range of images, I am not sure how it is that we would not require a new confirmation from the RCM freely licensing this image. Just because a copyright owner freely licenses other images does not mean that we assume subsequent images are also freely-licensed. Also, we have no idea what connection the uploader has with the RCM and under what circumstances the RCM decided to issue the previous OTRS email. I don't mean to be a nitpicky ass, but I must admit I am scratching my head as to how AGF helps us fully get to where we need to be on this one. Thanks for your time with this.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the uploader also has an email address at rcmusic.ca. (You could not know that, but I have access to the ticket) - Jcb (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather suspicious image, I have to say. Looks like a composite of [3] (for the public) and [4] (for the stage). –Tryphon ^☂ 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have also File:Koerner Hall RENDERING.jpg of the same hall. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's a rather high resolution image, which has specifically received permission through OTRS. I'm much less inclined to believe that a web-resolution image, with nearly identical duplicates available at the same resolution on the internet, is entirely the uploader's own work. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said above we know that uploader himself forms part of RCM. There is no need to verify that again. Jcb (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Conservatory of Music is a school, and most of the people with an rcmusic.ca email address are students. Even if the uploader is an employee, that doesn't mean (s)he has the authority to upload the school's intellectual property onto the Commons under a free license. Does the email indicate under what capacity the uploader granted the previous free licenses? Even if we assume that the uploader has the authority to freely license works, which is I guess where AGF kicks in (assuming the previous OTRS email wasn't more explicit), don't we still need to OTRS ticket from an rcmusic.ca email address authorizing this particular image, given that this is clearly not his/her own work? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The permission came from the marketing/communications department, with a CC to the uploader. Uploader will clearly be able to provide a permission from a rcmusic.ca address (his own address for example) so what is the point of spending more time of the contributer and of our OTRS volunteers by trying something we already know? Jcb (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is that a new OTRS principle? Once an organization has consented to freely license some specific images, we assume that they would agree to license any future uploads? Unless you tell me otherwise, we still don't know if the uploader is a student, and employee or an alumnus. I know at my firm I could probably convince the powers-that-be to agree to freely license some intellectual property for upload here, but it would be a pretty big mistake for anyone to assume that all future uploads are also okay simply because of my email address. Are we not also assuming the license under which the RCM wants to release it? The only mitigating factor that I can see is that this image is very similar to one already freely licensed. But otherwise, in my opinion (which with you are obviously entitled to disagree), this is quite a stretch. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief note to the talk page, linking to this discussion. I doubt I will be the first one to see the rendering and question the {{Own}} and {{Self}} tags, and this discussion will explain how we got here. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did an investigation (having access to the real name of the uploader himself) and I found out that he is an employee of RCM, also working at the marketing/communications department. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but we are still making the assumptions about intent and licenses. We have no confirmation from the RCM, other than presumption, that they intended to freely license this. But I've wasted enough of your time on this. As I said, I put a note on the page, and I hope this remains a unique instance. Again, thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fa. Kohlbecker[edit]

I was just about to do almost the same thing here -- but I would not have deleted the last one.

The OTRS ticket does mention Kohlb hist 66xx karl kohlbecker rolli.jpg The file you just deleted was a tif, but I'm prepared to assume that they're the same file -- the license would extend from one format to the other. Regards, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubted about that one and it ended in a very weak delete. I undeleted it. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Single Purpose Account"[edit]

Please assume good faith with my Deletion rationales [5]. I may be a "Single Purpose Account" in that I want to ensure the copyright of architects is respected, but I am not related to whoever you think I am, and have a moderate history on the English Wikipedia [6]. Instead of throwing slurs around, why don't you focus on trying to refute my arguments? I don't understand how that building could possibly be De Minimis: it is clearly the main subject of the photograph. Would you care to explain your unconventional views on De Minimis so that I can understand why you close discussions the way you do? Buddy431 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For FOP-related issue, we take into account the threshold of originality. A simple straight building does not meet that threshold. If a building has original aspects (like a special shape) we have to see if those aspect are that prominent that they cannot be considered DM. Jcb (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up that claim that a "simple straight building" does not meet that threshold? Even the simplest building, provided it is not a slavish copy of another, has some creativity (i.e. originality) put into it. The threshold of originality in the U.S. is extremely low; do you have a citation that it's higher in the UAE? Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be something in the guidelines, but I couldn't find it for now. (I read it before). Although I found something interesting: Category:UAE FOP cases which did not result in deletion. Jcb (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about simple buildings in the guidelines, you are mistaken. There has developed an informal consensus that buildings under construction are not copyrightable (something which I very much disagree with, but whatever). I don't like this aspect of copyright law either, but we should follow it, if we want to only host images that are truly free. Buddy431 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PPoC logo sge sm.png[edit]

Why did you keep File:PPoC logo sge sm.png? It contains an original work logo. If you feel that this logo can be allowed on the commons, could you please undelete File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg, which was just the logo? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the file, because it is PD-textlogo. I'm not going to undelete the other file by just a talk page request. You will need to request that here. Jcb (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Салаватцы.jpg[edit]

I really don't understand this deletion, how it's in line with our conversation at #Фотография - комсомольская площадь? There is no doubt that jane6666 on fotki.yandex.ru is account of user Qweasdqwe (he uploaded several pictures to his jane6666 photostream on request), http://salavat.jimdo.com controlled by Qweasdqwe as well (it links to the very same jane6666 fotki.yandex account -- just click on the picture in question on the site). Trycatch (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, restored. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Καστοριά 1903.jpg[edit]

Hi! You are aware that nearly all images of that uploader are in use simply because he immediately after upload he includes them at his home-wiki no matter if they are really usable or not. He even managed to find use for a painting with 50x50 pixels no matter that you can't recognize anything on the upload except that it is greenish with two light points that probably are people? And you are aware of the upload-history of this user which mainly consists of very copyright-problematic images? We have the rule that in case of a doubt we delete. A seems to be free is not a is free. If you can say without a doubt that this image is free than keep it, but when you can't even manage to not write about doubt in your own keep-declaration then there is something seriously wrong with keeping it. Keeping should be done if it is a sure thing and with that kind of uploader you can't be sure unless you get a second source of information (which in this case misses). All you have are some dates by someone who among other things claimed copyright to the Wikipedia-globe. -- Cecil (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe of interest: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Dgolitsis. -- Cecil (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formulation, but please don't try to catch me on word choice, I never stated to write english on native level. The file is use. You may have any opinion about the use at EL.wiki, but it is simple not our task to judge that. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can quite simply get it out of use by removing it from the one page. The only user at greek Wikipedia who would add it again would be the uploader as he knows that pics in use are less often to be deleted. But since you say it is not our task to judge them (after all he uploads here and not there anymore as they disagreed with him too) it is our task to judge his uploads. Where is your proof that the image was made 1903? Where is your proof that it shows the people he claims are on it? Where is your proof that the author died in time for it to be old enough? You seem to have it and as I can't see anything exept a user whose uploads are that problematic that adding new templates on his talk-page causes problems, a user who stated as his home-wiki that he does not care about copyright I want to see where you have the information from that this is definitely PD. -- Cecil (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old}} certainly does not apply though (we don't even know who the author is, how would we know when they died). As Sv1xv suggested, you may argue it's {{Anonymous-EU}}, but since it comes from a family archive, I doubt it was made available to the public more than 70 years ago. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image description page states clearly: photographer: Λεωνίδα Παπάζογλου (1872-1918). What reasons do you have to think that this information may be incorrect? Jcb (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the author field, which doesn't indicate who the author is. And following the history of sources from this image, from the uploader being the copyright holder through hereditary rights to the photographer being someone unrelated to him who conveniently died in 1918 (plus the uploader's history pointed out by Cecil above), I do have reasons to believe this information is incorrect. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but this is not DR related, but user related. I propose you further deal with this at the user problems page. Jcb (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Banknotes of Mexico 2[edit]

Given the lengthy-ish discussion I and another user were having on that page (in Spanish), could you elaborate a bit and comment on that discussion on the talk page for both of our sake? Preferrably in Spanish, as User:Inri doesn't speak English at all (or understands it with great difficulty). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. How does someone from the Netherlands speak passable Spanish in the year 2010? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked the complete Spanish part of the discussion, due to its wrongly leveled heading. I will read it now. In 2002 I lived in Spain for 5 month. From 2003 I yearly visit the Dominican Republic for development aid. I run my own organisation. We have a project in the slum area of El Seibo with a basic school and a medical center. So I have to speak Spanish quite often. Jcb (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping of image without correct license?[edit]

I would like to hear your reasoning to keep this image. Did you keep it because a license with further restrictions is valid for commons, or because the additional requests of the uploader have no meaning and can be removed? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this license allows such specifications. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, because the license allows to mention the authors credits in any reasonable manner (not the wording). Even using this images inside articles of Wikipedia projects would violate this additional restrictions, which are enforcing the mentioning of the author directly under/next to image:

Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained.

Also usual usage in books (image directory at the end) would be questionable. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to ask the same question. Please be aware that this is an important decision and will be used as precedent in similar cases. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a precedent, I saw this already in 2008 with File:Scott, Melody Thomas JPI 2007 4.JPG, were a subscript in the article, "(foto: JPI Studios)", was enforced, see nl:Melody Thomas Scott. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scott, Melody Thomas JPI 2007 4.JPG. I really hate such abuse of the license, but the community in 2008 decided to support this behaviour. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both cases are not comparable. The wording of the credits can be defined by the author. This is perfectly fine. But he can't define where to place the credits. In this case Wolfgang enforced that the credits have to be directly under the image. The license does not define the placement. I allows it to be anywhere. "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; [...]".

If this additional restrictions made by Wolfgang would be allowed, then someone else could also insist on a watermark inside the image. Which is not the case. See latest decision under Commons:Watermarks. Also the usage of icons could be lead to absurdity. Using the images inside articles would also be illegal, since it is not common practice to note the author under the image inside articles. Instead the credits are placed reasonably inside the description page. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 23:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not what we should accept here. The JPI image decision was IMO completely wrong. I removed the restriction. (other comments will be answered later, time is up). Jcb (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also consider that some of Wolfgang Pehlemann's images have the additional restriction "re-using only with my original file name"? Just to make my point clear: If the community agrees that such restrictions are allowed, I have to accept it, whether I like it or not. Before this, however, we have to verify that the community really agrees on such restrictions (and is aware of potential lawsuits based on such restrictions). --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of deletion request[edit]

Just to make the further discussion easier: as I understand, there were essentially these point of views:

The license restriction is compatible with commons and valid. This was supported by

Túrelio 08:13, 22 April 2011 (later changed?)
smial 13:16, 22 April 2011
Martina Nolte
NVO 11:06, 23 April 2011

The license restriction is not compatible with commons but can be ignored (or deleted). This was supported by

innotata 22:08, 22 April 2011
Chaddy (22:56, 22 April 2011
High Contrast 07:02, 23 April 2011
Túrelio 15:47, 23 April 2011 (Mind changed?)

The license restriction is not compatible with commons but is valid. The license restriction can only be deleted by the copyright holder. This was supported by

Niabot (who started the deletion request)
Me (NeoUrfahraner)
Lokal_Profil 22:30, 22 April 2011
Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011
Wiggum (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2011

The discussion is waste of time

Alchemist-hp 18:32, 25 April 2011
ST 09:48, 26 April 2011

The copyright holder Wolfgang Pehlemann insists that his restriction is valid, might it be compatible with commons or not ("Free ...freeer ...freeest :-) ...this will not work.")

Please check and feel free to correct if I missed some votes or assigned them to the wrong opinion. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Tryphon reverted my removal. I reverted that action. If he or somebody else again places the restriction, I will change my keep decision into a delete decision. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to remove the restrictions. If this is the authors will, then we have to respect it. He released it under CC-BY-SA + His own restrictions which is legally valid to do so. The license itself does not forbid to add additional terms (It's only forbidden for re-users). The question is: Do we keep such images with further restrictions or not? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the situation gets more clear to me. Well, if restrictions make it impossible to use the image within our projects, then there is no place for it at Wikimedia Commons. I deleted the file. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that you don't get the impression that I systematically disagree with you, I just want to point out that I completely agree with this decision. Thanks for doing the right thing. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the restriction would have been an option if we could assume that the copyright holder does not understand the license (and would agree with the removal). In our case, however, Wolfgang Pehlemann is well aware of the license and repeatedly said that his licensing stays as given. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb, there is no hint at all, that Wolfgangs explanation would make it impossible to use the image within our projects. Where did you get that from?! He agrees to the usual Wikimedia usages and integrates his images into Wikipedia articles without direct credit. --Martina talk 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's impudent to enforce a credit below the image within the article. Somebody may have spend hours on the text of the article, but he will not be credited below the text. And then somebody inserts a picture with a credit below it. We just cannot accept it. It's also incompatible with Wikimedia Commons, because it restricts in a certain way the posibility of derivatives. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why does he impose further restriction on the image description pages? Why does he insisted multiple times, that the images are only licensed in the way he wrote it? You know, that an permission only for Wikipedia isn't enough. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to repeat myself a hundred times. --Martina talk 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:20110221 美国之音新闻中国低调报道茉莉花抗议活动.ogg[edit]

If I may ask, how does this outcome work? The previous nom had nothing to do with copyright violation. It was a completely different issue, and hence I do not understand how "as per previous outcome" makes sense. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia sufficiently addressed the copyright situation in his keep decision. Jcb (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xhe was referring to original VoA works, which are released into the public domain. This work is not an original VoA work, as it contains AP derivative material. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your DR closes[edit]

For Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMS during F1 interview.jpg, note that Flickr's WinterRose84 and Commons's WinterRose84 both uploaded the image on April 20, 2011. It is highly unlikely that someone else would immediately see the image on Flickr, create an account with that username, and then steal the image, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that they are the same person. For Commons:Deletion requests/File:WgaTray.exe dosası.png, threshold of originality is somewhat subjective, so consensus cannot be ignored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first one, I am willing to restore the file if uploader changes the license at Flickr. Regarding the second: consensus is a big word for one nomination and one vote. Closing administrators have to take into account the arguments, but don't have to count votes. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First one: It doesn't matter. By your logic, we should delete all photos that are not available anywhere else online, because they are under a proprietary license by default. "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL." Even if they decide they want to use a noncommercial license, too bad, they already released it under the full CC license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to clarify: Do you have any doubt that the Commons and Flickr users are the same person? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davina van Wely.jpg[edit]

OTRS has received permission for the file File:Davina van Wely.jpg from Evert Sillem, son of the photographer Astrid Sillem-Klink. The OTRS ticket # is 2011050110432564 . Can you please undelete this file? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I see Adrignola already restored the file. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristiansand Gamle Varoddbrua 1956 auf der Varodd-Brücke L 618 m Spannweite 337 Foto 2010 Wolfgang Pehlemann DSCN1547.jpg[edit]

Hello, you decided to keep, than deleted this file and worte After some additional discussion I changed my mind. Where did this discussion take place? I'd like to have the possibility to join that further discussion. Where can I open a review of your decision? --Martina talk 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such further discussion. I revised my decision, but I'm not a yoyo. Jcb (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What than did you mean with After some additional discussion? Again: Is there an official site for deletion revisions? --Martina talk 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. --Martina talk 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service. -- smial (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [7]. Thanks to Smial. Neo's and Niabots Summary even is not correct, they distort some user's statement ignoring their other contributions on one ore more of the three other discussion sites on this matter. I'd really like to request a CU on these two accounts. --Martina talk 21:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU? No problem. Go on. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Martina: If you mean that I distorted your statement, then I agree that this might be the case. Actually your statements moved between "license restriction is compatible", "license restrictions are not valid" and "do not discuss". Indeed I am not sure what you are really thinking. If you think that I misinterpreted other user's contributions, please feel free to inform these users so that they can correct or clarify their position. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jcb, be consequent and delete all files files uploaded by User:Wolfgang Pehlemann. Your "decision" easily appiles to almost all of his images here. --High Contrast (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

service again -- smial (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I process a DR with the same reason, I will act the same. After this decision I already deleted one other file from this series. I'm not actively searching for files that could be nominated for deletion, but feel free to nominate such files. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service ---Martina talk 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any new non-functional comment about this file on this talk page will be reverted. Jcb (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeltaOmegaEpsilonCrestB.jpg[edit]

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeltaOmegaEpsilonCrestB.jpg as delete, but I think you forgot to delete File:DOECrestA.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I see another admin resolved it in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Election posters in Singapore[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've deleted the category as well. Can you restore the category and the notice that was in the category? I am going to upload some photographs from the Singaporean general election, 2011, that do not pose copyright issues. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of files by Mr. Jcb[edit]

Ooh yeaah, i'm very happy with your deletions, I was waiting for... - some people in the WMF are renaming and re-licensing my photographs not in a correct definition of file name and licensing from the global Wikipedia to the WMF - please, do me the favor to delete all this renamed and wrong re-licensed photogroaphs wich are in the WMF without agreement from my side. Deletion must happen by your opinion, - with your deletions like this I'm feeling there is no wrong understanding in all the WP and the WMF by transfering, renaming and relicensing of transfered photographs. Don't stop your activities. Thank you very much.
-- 91.43.69.46 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/All images from the Remote Sensing Tutorial from NASA Goddard Space Center[edit]

Have all images on this list been deleted that need to be?, there appear to be some that still have DR templates and show up on that list as blue links still, even after the closure of the DR. Thanks, --Tony Wills (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some files have been restored after an undeletion request, see e.g. here, but the processing admin forgot to remove the deletion tags. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungarian Rhapsody No 2.ogg[edit]

Why did you keep this file? We don't know anything about the copyright of the arrangement (or even the arranger, beyond his surname), so we should assume it's copyright. —innotata 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reasons to suppose that the changes made by the arranger are sufficient to create a new copyright situation? Jcb (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about that, but in most cases arrangements are according to Fishman's The Public Domain: and this one is an orchestration of a composition written for the piano. —innotata 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still searching, but I already found music from Ernst Schmidt-Köthen from 1929. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you've noticed, but it also mentions some by him from 1938, and this mentions an arrangement from 1912.

By the way, can you delete the files listed at User:Innotata/sandbox. They're artworks from the U.K., tagged {{PD-old}}, but the artist (en:Frederick William Frohawk) died in 1946. I've previously nominated others by the artist for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/Aves Hawaiiensis illustrations by Frohawk), and I've moved these to Wikipedia and told the uploader. —innotata 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the arranger, this seems to mention something from 1940. —innotata 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With works from 1938 and 1940 it gets risky. I deleted the file. The files from your sandbox will need a normal DR. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) This says he died in 1942, and looks like User:Mikemoral added it.

Bother, too much trouble to make a multiple dr. Sure it's not a clear cut case? —innotata 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply not allowed to ignore the procedures. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I've missed files, it's been fine to ask admins to delete them referring to the dr. Just a lot of copy-and-pasting making a mass dr, perhaps I should ask if a tool to do this faster can be cooked up. —innotata 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:POL 5 złotych rybak 1958.jpg[edit]

Hi! Can You explain me why did You delete this image? I have sent a permission to OTRS and I could publish it... TR (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the copyright holder of the coin? The deletion nomination was not about the copyright of the picture, but of the subject. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, but I have a permission from the holder. I send it to the OTRS and they said that everything it's OK, and the situation is clear. I know that there was a discussion about deletion of images of Polish coins but I am sure that this image is allowed to be showed at Commons. TR (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a Polish collegue to have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: the ticket is OK. I restored the file. Jcb (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but can You restore the file to articles in all versions of Wikipedia? This picture was placed in many articles, but I don't remember all. It is possible to find a list of them? TR (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a list, here. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much. Greetings from Warsaw :) . TR (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request for File:Suicide_bag.jpg[edit]

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Suicide_bag.jpg and leave your comments. Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One admin didn't have the decency to wait a little for some comments and speedy restored it ?!? - Jcb (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See now. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey there. May I ask why you elected to keep a file that (a) was deleted in the recent past, (b) was re-uploaded by a banned user abusing yet another account, (c) was not the uploader's own work as claimed, (d) did not feature the claimed subject either, and (e) was most certainly not taken in Italy let alone in Italian territory (Ethiopia is not Italian territory ), and therefore does not fall under PD-Italy? I'm very confused here because I was under the impression that Commons:Essential information requires source, author and date info, not just unproven assurances that a file is "public domain". Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Blackcat as mentioned. Jcb (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are the above unproven claims. Middayexpress (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarification please...[edit]

I wrote here that, after checking your recent contribution history, it seemed to me you still had not offered an explanation as to why you discounted the keep arguments for the suicide bag image.

Clarification please -- have you offered an explanation as to why you discounted the keep arguments?

Were you planning to offer an explanation? If you were not I would encourage you to do so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did explain why I deleted the file. I did it at the two most logical places. So I'm sure you read it before you posted this comment. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am sorry, but I think I have read all the logical places, and I didn't see any policy-based explanations. All I saw was an expression of your personal opinion, with no attempts to address the arguments you didn't agree with. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Macedonia[edit]

Hello. Can you explain this decision please? All involved users were against the content and the map, except the author and it promotes nationalistic propagandistic Greek POV. Besides that, the map is not used at all, but it is shown on BG Wiki as a funny thing that exist on Commons. I hope you will correct yourself. Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the map shows Greeks and Bulgarians but they do not exist in Macedonia at all. The user tries to represent the ethnic Macedonian population as Greek or Bulgarian. Additionally to that, the names of the countries are incorrect and Macedonia is reffered as Vardarska or FYROM, two names that harass the Macedonian nations. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see insufficient reason to delete. (And we are not going to spend another 40 kb on this). Jcb (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive name, incorrect data, POV. What is insufficient here?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see now that it is too different and imaginative? That map is created out of fun and it is useless. I do not know whether you have read the discussion at all. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read a big part of the 40 kb (!) you produced and we're not gonna repeat it. Jcb (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how can you make a decision when four or five users were against the map, only the author was? BTW, the author is already blocked for personal attacks over admins. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? What is your problem? If you do not know anything about Macedonia please stay away. Unblock the file.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload another map, choose another file name. Jcb (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really does not understand the map, do you? Have you ever took a look at the map? Do you know that there are only 2000 Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, but the map says over a million? Are you aware that you are taking care of propaganda? I am trying to correct it, but you abuse your rights. I am not here from yesterday and I know how to edit, but by blocking pages I do not. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may just throw in a brief comment here, while I can see how Commons standards would lead to a keep here, the rationale "kept: in use" seems just slightly off: the only place it's currently displayed is on a talk page on bg-wiki, where it isn't actually being employed for anything but merely cited in a discussion about whether it should be used in the article; the discussion ended with an explanation that it should not. I'm not sure that really counts as "being in use". – But I can well understand if you're not too keen on having the debate continue ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain why you deleted the following files? You closed the discussion, but you didn't offer any explanation.

I remind you the nominator's justification was double redirects. In actual fact most of these redirections were not double redirects. I went back and fixed all those that were double redirects.

Exactly one other contributor weighed in, in the discussion. The only attempt they made to justify the deletion of the redirects was an assertion that there was a COM:PEOPLE concern. However, in January 2006 US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled that these individuals had no reasonable expectation of privacy. I believe this makes COM:PEOPLE inapplicable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I delete files? If so, please tell me which and I will restore them. Unused redirects after renaming are often speedy deleted. The deletion of those redundant redirects is non controversial maintenance. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, you deleted redirects, not files.

I request the restoration of the redirects listed above.

I agree that the deletion of REDUNDANT redirects is non controversial maintenance. Perhaps you were distracted when you read the deletion discussion, and did not understand that these redirects were not redundant, that they were in active use? Their deletion will considerably complicate the uploading of other files, related to them. Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use diffente file names for the same file. Jcb (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a request for undeletion. Geo Swan (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you left a response at the discussion for undeletion. However, you didn't openly acknowledge that you were the closing administrator. I pointed this out to readers.
Tony Wills had already commented in the discussion: "Our aim should be to to assist users who are working towards the projects goals, not to hinder them because of some sense of tidiness..." In my followup to your comment I wrote: "I'd be very interested in your response to this [ie Tony Wills] comment." Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request you consider reverting your deletion of these redirect. First, your deletion of these redirects has been extremely disruptive of my efforts. Second, it seems to me you never really offered a policy-based justification for your decision to delete here.
If there was a genuine policy concern, that would be a different matter. But since neither you or anyone else has offered a policy based justification for this deletion I think I can safely assume there is no policy based justification. Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you really haven't

- There is an ongoing UDR about this started by you, please don't try different ways in the same time to push your request. Jcb (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sleeping Beauty Castle, Disneyland Paris, France.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb, I saw you closed the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sleeping Beauty Castle, Disneyland Paris, France.jpg. The file is not deleted, but has just been renamed into File:Gardens of Sleeping Beauty Castle, Disneyland Paris, France.jpg. Perhaps you can reopen it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I reverted my closure and repaired the DR. Jcb (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coen en Sandershow[edit]

Wist je dat je meerdere keren op de radio bent geweest? Een keer bij Timur Open Radio en één keer bij de Coen en Sandershow. Hoeveel tijd kost het eigenlijk om al die artikelen in te spreken? Doe je het altijd allemaal in één take? Je zal Wolfe+585, Senior zeker wel vaak over hebben gedaan? 77.170.198.67 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ik weet het. Je hebt het televisie-optreden bij Man Bijt Hond dan nog gemist. Opnemen kost ongeveer tweemaal de duur van het resulterende geluidsbestand. Als ik aan een artikel begin, dan ga ik er in principe ook mee door totdat het af is. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ik weet niet of je nu thuis bent, maar je zou ieder moment gebelt kunnen worden door de Coen en Sandershow! 77.170.198.67 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ik weet het, ze hebben me gemaild. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Het was grappig om je daar te horen. Kun je trouwens Uncyclopedia inspreken? Ik ben zelf controleur (een gradatie onder admin, 't schijnt dat jullie die hier niet hebben) op de Oncyclopedia Neerlandica, dus het zou grappig zijn om te horen. 77.170.198.67 16:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dankje! Erg leuk! 77.170.198.67 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:QC_-_Quantum_Fourier_Transform_on_Three_Qubits.svg[edit]

Hello. You decided to keep this image because the "files are not duplicate". Can you explain what you mean by this? I agree that they are not exactly the same, but the ways in which they differ are superior in my image.

Both this image and the one I created represent the same process (a quantum circuit representation of the quantum Fourier transform on three qubits), so when viewed from the perspective of quantum computation, they are exactly the same (in the same way that 1 + 2 and 2 + 1 both equal 3). In addition to my image being of a high quality (visually speaking), the rearrangement of the two quantum gates is also an improvement (that can only be appreciated when compared with the quantum Fourier transform on n qubits).

If any further argument is needed to differentiate these images, I created mine programmatically using standard open source tools, mostly notably Q-circuit, which makes the creation of high quality quantum circuit diagrams a breeze (see some examples). People looking at the page of my image (which contains its source code) can quickly learn how to recreate this image, thus facilitating improvements of this image and the creation of new ones like it.

Sorry if you expected this full argument at the time of the deletion nomination. Not only did I think it was unnecessary, but there might be a character limit (I mean, you don't get a text box to type into, only a text field).

Does this make you reconsider your decision or are there more issues that must be considered? Bender2k14 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind the Commons doesn't just keep the best image on a subjects. More than one image may be available in the same category, giving a re-user the opportunity to choose the one he likes. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more reasons for keeping similar images:

the licensing may be different, so they can be used in different circumstances,
it is good to have some redundancy in case the image currently in use is withdrawn or deleted for some reason.

If you are sure that one image is superior in all respects, you can mark the 'inferior' image with {{Superseded}} which suggests that the user use the 'better' image, but they can of course use the older one if it has some advantage for their particular use. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for informing me about the superseded template. I will use that. Bender2k14 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revision delete[edit]

Hi Jcb, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:RogerPenrose CapturingInfinity.jpg. However, may I ask you to use the revision delete feature to just hide the file contents of the oldest file version instead of deleting the file version in total? It would be much easier to understand what is going on in the file's log and see who is the original uploader. Just in case you do not know the revision delete feature: it is the "(+/−)" signs in the log. Or do you have any reasons why you delete the whole file version? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will see if I can use this feature in future cases. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Just an example where this Mediawiki feature has been used: de:Datei:Thelegendofzelda-TP-logo.svg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion discussion[edit]

You closed this discussion as keep because the file is in use. Actually the file is not in use now .The creator, who has been indef blocked, pops up now and then to add it back to en wiki articles - he uses a multiple ip ranges and thus sneaks in now and then to use the file before anyone detects and blocks him. As of now, the file is not in use and can you please reverse the decision and delete the file--Sodabottle (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm careful with the deletion of maps. My experience is that it is dangerous to choose if the nominator is pushing his pov, or the uploader. Even sometimes the admin who blocks an uploader of maps seems not neutral in the case either. Let local wikis keep the responsability about what maps they want to show in their articles. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad de la Costa[edit]

Hi Jcb, and thank you for closing the deletion discussion of File:Ciudad de la Costa El Pinar.jpg. Actually I proposed the deltion after I heard that I might be violating copyright. But it turns out there are more opinions and facts that I didn't know when I nominated it. Now, this map is a low resolution derivative of this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ciudad de la Costa.png, which has not been closed yet. Can you please also close or comment on the original too? As long as this remains open I am not sure how to proceed with using the derivative map (actually it is a series of 8 or 9 to be used in infoboxes as small location maps). And if the original must be deleted can I still use the derivative ones in Wikipedia? Hoverfish (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcb, i wanted to ask you why you closed this deletion request when there wasn't a clear consensus to keep the image (or delete it). I think commons can benefit for further discussion about a method that could be considered by many as derivative work of a non free media. Thank you for your time. --Zeroth (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both DRs it has been concluded that plain information is not copyrightable and that in this case only plain information was used. Jcb (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Heraldic Crowns - KEPT?[edit]

I don't understand your reason. I am infact the author of all those pictures and I replaced them with SVG updates instead of further updating the old png versions. So why don't you agree to my own request to delete my own old files. They are of no more use and messing up the categories they are still sorted in to. --David Liuzzo (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our policies, SVG images are not considered to be exact duplicates of PNG images and cannot be deleted for that reason. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This policy was made up so that no user deleties rasterpixel works of other users just because a SVG version was available. But this case is different. I myself replaced the the PNG with updated SVGs completely and ask to remove them, because they are completely obselete data rubbish now. --David Liuzzo (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why a policy may have been introduced according to somebody, does not change it. Jcb (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at this case. Take a look at the categories of Category:Heraldic crowns by country. for example Category:Heraldic_crowns_of_Spain, pretty much stuff in it, and since my update uploads some of them are completely obsolete. Most of the pictures are used in the article en:Crown_(heraldry) or the other language versions of it. Since I replaced my old PNGs everywhere, they won't be used anymore anywhere in the future, being nothing more than data legacy filling up the category and complicating my work and the work of others busy with these categories. So you could either be so kind and help to create more order, or you can stay bureaucratic. --David Liuzzo (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be so kind and help to create more order: please visit this page, that will explain everything to you. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have galleries for complete sets. It's really disturbing how much Requests of authors depend on the administrator which supervises them. Some of my other earlier created outdated PNG files in fact were deleted in favor of my SVG without complaint. --15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, the images are not prohibited from deletion according to Commons:Superseded images policy if a regular deletion request is opened. Therefore, the argument about the policy is not so relevant anymore, and it can be decided according to consensus whether the images can be kept. The request did not generate consensus, therefore it is alright for David Liuzzo to renominate the images and suggest doing so if he still wants the files deleted. --ZooFari 16:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three Soldiers[edit]

instead of deleting commons photos that are in active use, as you did here [8] why not migrate to wikipedia english under a fair use tag, as i did? [9] is it not a better practise? 198.24.31.118 14:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my task. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

issue[edit]

What was your reason for keeping this map, [10] ??? It is not used anywhere, and the drawn units simply do not exist! (LAz17 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I don't trust your neutrality regarding maps, your nominations seem as pov as you call the maps. I normally dont delete maps for pov accusations. Jcb (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have serious problems with Cehas maps. I do not list all his maps, only the worst ones. Your excuse "that you don't trust", when I gave sources proving them to be wrong is clear evidence that you are not competent to be judging. In this map in particular there are all sorts of units that simply do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist. It is what ceha wants to some day some how exist.

If you have a problem with the domination, seek a second opinion, or more. Don't use your own uniformed judgement. User Panonian has commented on the stuff that I listed - he supports some maps being there only because he feels that one can make a better map, and post it over Ceha's image. However, he saw very well what I listed, and he did not oppose deletion of this outrageous image - and I think that there was one more just like this one. You have to understand that Ceha has a long history of making b.s. maps, and uploading redundant images. (LAz17 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

fyi[edit]

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cite Radieuse.jpg. You wrote: “Kept: straight building, no originality.”

I am concerned that this closure is inconsistent with the closures of other images with FOP concerns.

I live in a country where there are no restrictions on images of building or sculptures and find FOP restrictions counter-intuitive and annoying, but if our policies require us to respect other nations` restrictions, then we have to do so.

That building had either an architect, or an engineer, paid to take charge of and be responsible for its design. Even if architectural critics were to characterize this as the most boring, “uncreative” building in the world, legally, I am sure their design required some originality. So, I am afraid you offered an indefensible keep justification.

Could you have closed as keep, based on deciding that the trees that framed the building make the building “de minimus”? I have seen keep closures based on this kind of reasoning. And frankly some of those keep conclusions seem to be stretching the meaning of “de minimus”.

If you think I have voiced a meaningful concern what should you do? I dunno. Maybe:

rewind your closure, and let another administrator close the discussion...
relist the discussion, requesting more input...
change your closing comment, offering a new keep reason you could defend...
change your conclusion, and delete the image, as a FOP violation...

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We normally don't delete pictures of straight buildings like this for FOP reasons. There have been plenty of comparable keep closures, also by other admins. This building, or at least the visible part, doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:POL 5 złotych rybak 1958.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb, thanks for contacting me & sorry for not answering that long — I've been in a train back from the Berlin Hackathon 2011 :) The permission included in the ticket you've mentioned does not come from the Polish National Bank, but from a heir of the original designer, Józef Gosławski. I believe that if there was no formal contract between the bank and the designer about transferring the copyright of the coin, then the claim may indeed be correct. Cheers, odder (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jcb (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy McNatt 39-40 Oklahoma.JPG[edit]

You closed this deletion request with inadequate explanation. This case seems very complex to me and although the picture was "presented" to the uploader's grandfather, there is no evidence that a copyright transfer took place (the uploader never claimed that such a transfer took place, and I think it's very unlikely that it did). You didn't allow sufficient time for anybody else to comment on the images. Unless you can explain your reasoning in more detail, I'm going to renominate these images immediately. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enhanced the keep statement. Jcb (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remain concerned with this closure - I don't think we can safely assume a work was not registered, especially if it appeared in commercial applications like newspapers, at least without consulting registration/renewal records. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on given explanation I find it very unlikely that copyright has been registered. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée Mécanique 181.JPG[edit]

JFYI: You might want to vote for keep with an reason at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée Mécanique 181.JPG. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Jcb, sorry again. I did really not see those two letters. Please see my response in the DR. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salimsulaiman.jpg[edit]

Jcb, I understand where you are coming from, but the nominator simply made a mistake. The url from where the file is obtained clearly notes that the picture is from a party/event where the subject of the image attended. Such imagees are allowed per {{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}} and it was a mistake to delete it. Would you please restore it. -- Legolas ^{from Mirkwood} 05:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is the background, which is not covered by the license. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angelica_Rivera.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests[edit]

Hi Johan, Im trying to understand why was the picture deleted if it does have the license needed to be used. The owner of the picture (Angelica Rivera) used it on her Facebook page some weeks ago and she changed the licence to CC-BY on her flickr page so that I wouldn't have a problem uploading it on Wikipedia. (if she is the owner, it is not a "flickr wash" case, is it?) What else do I need in order to upload a valid picture? And in the other hand, you commented on my talk page that when you erase a file I cant upload it again, but I didn't! The new file has the same name than the one you erased before, but it was a different picture. Thank you for your help,--Maxlags (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given de doubts by more than one user, OTRS will be needed to verify. Jcb (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion[edit]

Hello Jcb, just want to inform you that I closed the undeletion request for File:Coital Play.png and restored the image.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sdgffghfj.png[edit]

Hello Jcb, you only deleted the redirect, the real thing is still there. See File:Escudo Castellblanch.png.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jcb (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg[edit]

Hi! Can you look at this file? You closed a deletion request about this file and it was decided to keep it but User:Fastily has deleted it. I've asked him about it but I'm not a Commons expert so it would be great if you can take a look. Thanks! --B1mbo (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Fastily clearly overlooked something. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at my talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about appropriate file names for photographs[edit]

Hi, I try to make images I upload have a name that identifies the subject and source - that's why I add those "useless numbers" from the Flickr image name. Are you saying I should cease douing that ? I consider the existing image name File:Three masted Navy vessel in dry dock.jpg pretty useless, seeing that I have identified the ship. I wasn't aware that I could request it be renamed, is that what {{tl|rename}} does ? I want to rename it "HMS Torch in drydock". Please don't just delete files I upload, because a lot of effort goes into the accompanying text, which I have just had to add to the retained image. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we rename the file, the original upload will remain visible. Good descriptive file names are ok, but the series of numbers should not be in the file name. To identify the source, we have the source-field at the image description page. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your recent deletion activities[edit]

hello;

i see that you have recently deleted 4 files, where the deletion was in dispute/discussion

in EACH of the debates (except for one, where there was a neutral/critical comment @ my opponent), there were only 2 active participants; myself & the person supporting the deletions

the original noms were ALL made by an "anonymous" IP, whose only activity was to create the noms.

in ALL of the deletions, you made no effort to comment and/or justify your "decision"

i suggest that you should refresh your familiarity with deletion procedures

i would like to receive your detailed rationale for each of the 4 deletions

please respond soon, or i shall pursue the matter elsewhere

thank-you for your time

Lx 121 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the involved DRs. Jcb (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:D.jpg , Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maleerection.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ball Skewering.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nackter Mann.jpg Lx 121 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides of your claims and what I wanted to ask anyway: what is the idea of your strange text layout? @Jcb: I think he is referring to those dispensable copyvio pictures of some dicks. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi yikrazul; what a surprise finding you here! ^__^ & so quickly too! & what are you talking about, re: strange text layout? Lx 121 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

& btw: a) you never did provide ANY proof of copyvio, or even decent probability of same

b) "dispensable copyvio pics of some dicks" - i'd say that expression of opinion on your part pretty clearly shows the real rationale for your wanting them deleted. it also shows your lack of understanding and/or lack of acceptance of the terms of commons scope

Lx 121 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it also shows your lack of understanding and/or lack of acceptance of the terms of commons scope

What now? "And" or "or"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in english, the combination "and/or" indicates either or both "and" & "or" Lx 121 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yepp. Anything else you have on your mind? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The files don't have educational value and are therefore out of scope. There is no need to upload just another dick, we have plenty. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

several things come to mind here:

1. that's a rather "selective interpretation" of scope; sexual/anatomical material is a part of our mission

2. there is no agreed policy for "quantity limits" @ commons

your statement "There is no need to upload just another dick, we have plenty." reflects your personal opinion, not commons policy; & if we ever do happen to reach a consensus on "quantity-limits" @ commons, then there are many other categories suffering from far worse "overpopulation"

3. you are required to explain your decision, when closing a deletion; closing a deletion, especially a contested one, with no comment/explanation is not good community practice; once an item has been "deleted" the action is no longer subject to open community review, only admins are able to check the file, to verify the appropriateness of the decision.

if writing an adequate explanation for every deletion debate you close is too much work, then perhaps you should do fewer "closes"

except for deletions due to legal concerns, or due to technical/security issues (i.e,: malware infected files), NONE of the deletions are "urgent", & there is no "time constraint" on clearing them out.

also: there are many other areas of work on commons, that are far more seriously backlogged; for example, properly categorizing new/incoming files is MUCH more important to the project.

4. this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ball Skewering.jpg was a unique depiction of a particular paraphillia (i.e.: we don't have any other images of this specific activity in our collection); if you can find any other images @ wmc, depicting the same activity, please provide links

otherwise, the decision to delete fails, even by your own self-declared standards

Lx 121 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need pictures of any possible stupid juvenile action. I clearly stated why I deleted the files: "The files don't have educational value and are therefore out of scope.". That's sufficient reason. Period. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcb, you wrote: "There is no need to upload just another dick, we have plenty." Could you please clarify whether you think you are citing a policy, or whether this is your personal opinion. If you are citing a policy, I would appreciate you providing a link to it. If you think there is a policy may I suggest you should have offered a link to it in your closures.

If there isn't a policy, then I think you are mistaken. Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, not a friend of the environment, famously said "if you have seen one Redwood tree you have seen them all." He said this when he vetoed a bill to preserve some of California's very few old growth Redwoods. I think we can usefully paraphrase his comment, to characterize the position of some puritans who work hard to trim the commons of all but a small number of images related to human sexuality. Some puritans seem to say, "If you have seen one woodie you have seen them all."

Human sexuality is a very important topic. I suggest it is far more important that sports. Yet, we have far more images related to sports than we have images related to human sexuality. The first time I remember weighing in on one of these discussions someone had nominated a file for deletion for essentially the same reason you offered -- we already have enough images of penises. I was curious. I had no idea how many images of penises we had. So I did a rough count. We had about 100. There were no other images like the one nominated for deletion. The file showed five images showing the steps in an ordinary penis going from flaccid to erect. The resolution and focus were not ideal. But it was a highly educational image. I pointed out in the discussion that there would be something like half a billion pre-pubescent boys, who would benefit from seeing the process of an adult penis becomine erect. I pointed out that there would be even larger number of girls who would benefit from knowlede of what the process of erection looks like. I pointed out that there would be a large number of women whose only knowledge of erect penises was in the dark, and they too would benefit from seeing this image.

What about those other 99 images? A disproportionate number of those images were of unusually large penises or of penises of individuals who had shaven their public hair. Ideally our images of penises, to be most educational, would have penises of ordinary individuals, ordinary individuals of all races, ages, and states of health. Those penis images would be just a part of a larger set of images, that included childbirth, the steps in pregnancy, again, of expectant mothers of various ages, ethnic backgrounds, and states of health.

When would I personally accept the argument "we already have enough images related to human sexuality?" When we have more images related to human sexuality than we do of images related to sports. Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Texasstateseal.jpg[edit]

File:Texasstateseal.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fry1989 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gesproken wikipedia: Bruchem[edit]

Beste Jcb,

Graag wil ik mijn waardering uiten voor het werk dat je doet voor de gesproken wikipedia. Vandaag heb ik de gesproken wikipedia beluisterd over Bruchem: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/bruchem. Ik woon zelf in Bruchem en ik hoorde dat je het verkeerd hebt uitgesproken. De juiste uitspraak is met een u, uitgesproken zoals in vuur. Als je tijd hebt, zou je het dan een keer kunnen verbeteren?

Vriendelijke groet,

Henk Jan

Beste Henk Jan, ik heb het artikel op de verzoekpagina voor het maken van een nieuwe opname geplaatst met een verwijzing naar deze opmerking, zie hier. Dan zal iemand anders of ikzelf binnenkort een nieuwe opname maken. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the South Lebanon Army.png[edit]

Could you possibly delete File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png too please? I was planning on adding it to the other nomination, but I was too late. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to nominate it regularly. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to do that? It is the same image, only with a flag shaped background instead. If the first image has been judged to be a non-free logo, that makes the second image a copyright violation. O Fenian (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do that, because our official policies require that. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in Commons:Deletion policy that copyright violations need to be nominated in that way? O Fenian (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps[edit]

Hi Jcb, I have a question. Do (scans of) old maps follow the "Works published before 1923 are in the public domain"? Are all old maps (if so, before what date?) public domain? Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if I find in the web an old map (say one they are selling on ebay), is the digital (small) image free to use? Hoverfish (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an original 2D work is in the public domain, a scan of that work is also in the public domain, even if you found it on a website. Whether the map is in the public domain depend on several things, like: country of origin / year in which the author died. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel, Jcb. I also found that there is a special template for what I am after: {{PD-Uruguay}} Hoverfish (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nkc.jpg[edit]

You have missed to give a rationale for your deletion action. Is it because you think it is in scope or is it because you think the reason of the nominator is not optimal? --High Contrast (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was mainly because of missing deletion reason. At that time nominator made hundreds of nominations like this, apparently without spending reasonable time on it. His only criteria seemed to be if the image was currently in use. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your input. --High Contrast (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:L-proline.svg[edit]

Hi Jcb. We don't want to be too bureaucratic. The situation (usage) has changed and the image is just inusable. --Leyo 14:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual situation is that you are the nominator and that you didn't even check the usage. What if they want to revert you at fr.wiki in the coming days? As nominator you are certainly not in the position to revert the decision. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert the decision. I just changed it into a “pending mode”, because I am sure if I haven't forgotten to replace the image in one article, you would have decided to delete the file. Nobody would want such a buggy image in an article. Hence, there is no danger of a revert. --Leyo 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jcb, where exactly is this images used? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was used in fr:Collagène. --Leyo 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oudemirdum - Herv kerk - rm 15928.JPG[edit]

JCB waarom wordt een verzoek van mijn kant om een verkeerd geuploade foto iedere keer gecanceled. Ik wil deze foto graag verwijderd hebben hij was onbedoeld geplaatst, de info is fout en ik heb hem in mijn eigen database ook verwijderd. Ik wil hem niet renamen.

Gr Rob

Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

De vrijgave van een afbeelding kan niet ongedaan worden gemaakt. Je kunt je er waarschijnlijk wel een voorstelling van maken wat voor bende we krijgen als we toestaan dat bijdragers hun bijdragen zomaar naar believen weer kunnen laten verwijderen. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of admin tools[edit]

Hi Jcb,

Please be more careful when using admin tools, such as rollback. Rollback is meant for reverting vandalism. If you revert other users, you are required to state a (valid) reason with your revert. -- Docu at 17:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits that way, because I consider them vandalism. It was clearly visible we were waiting for a bureaucrat to close the procedure, not for a docu. You are frustrating the procedures. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to bring your definition of "vandalism" up for discussion. If you can't distinguish between vandalism and other contributions, maybe you should consider limiting your use of admin tools to the activities you initially mentioned ("I often have to ask a Commons administrator at IRC for assistance, to look at or restore a deleted picture"). From various problems that came to the Admin noticeboard about your closure of deletion requests, you probably understand that there are discussions you shouldn't be closing yourself, but others may. -- Docu at 01:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no place for files which this kind of restrictions at Wikimedia Commons."[edit]

Concering this decision: my full support. -- Eynbein (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you mean "with". -- Eynbein (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Hello, what the ticket with these pictures File:Corbin Bleu 2010.jpg, File:Raven-Symoné 2010.jpg ?

Look at these pictures the same File:CorbinBleuDec10 2.jpg, File:Raven-SymonéDec10.jpg

Deleted the first, the second is not a duplicate. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

	Hello, Jcb/archive. You have new messages at De728631's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

New file with possible copyright violation[edit]

Hello

Can you please tell me which was the site where this file had been taken from?

(Deletion log); 15:08 . . Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Tubular voltage generator.gif" (Copyright violation:)

I am asking it because the user (in fact a sockpuppet of him) has just uploaded a new file (File:J.Dinamomasina.jpg) and declared himself again as being the copyright holder of the work. He added it to an article, together with the link to the recently deleted file.

My impression is that this editor is lying again and the image in taken in fact from the same source

Thanks in advance for your answer(Iaaasi (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It came from this site. Jcb (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obvious copyvio[edit]

I nominated File:Painting of reza pahlavi.JPG for regular deletion. But why, when it's an obvious copyvio, we should use RD? Have a look at the uploader's talk page! He seems has no attention to copyright violation .--Razghandi (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why a picture of a painting in some cases is acceptable. Users must have the opportunity to tell such a reason if it exists. That's why this needs a regular DR. It would be different if the picture itself has been grabbed from the internet. That would be a reason for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern Warfare 2 Logo.jpg[edit]

The font may be not, however the outer glow which surrounds the font is "sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection". Delta 51 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it definitely isn't. That 'glow' belongs to the font. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Could you quickly delete the image Special Eduaction (1977 film) because of copyrights and transfer it to en.wiki with this code: {{Non-free use rationale |Article = [[Special Education (film)]] |Description = The picture is necessary for illustrating the article. |Source = Template on the bottom. |Portion = full |Low_resolution = yes |Purpose = for article, non-free |Replaceability = low |other_information = }} {{Information |Description= DVD cover of “Special Education” film. |Source= [http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Specijalno_vaspitanje.jpg Serbian Wikipedia] |Date= May 11 2009 |Author= [[:wikipedia:sr:User:Pinki|Pinki]] |Permission= |other_versions= }} [[Category:Film DVDs]] Aleksa Lukic (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't transfer images to other projects, but if you upload it to EN.wiki and then tag the file at Commons with {{Copyvio}}, it will be deleted soon. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Moved to / traslado a User_talk:HombreDHojalata - Jcb (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Como has borrado la conversación en esta página iré enlazando las novedades a mi página de discusión o a donde proceda para que estés informado y puedas leerlas allí. Un saludo: [11] [12]--. HombreDHojalata.^talk 22:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hay necesidad para hacer eso, leo mi lista de seguimiento como cada diez minutos cuando estoy enlínea. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete images that are not exact duplicates[edit]

I recently replaced uses of File:Leonardo da Vinci 020.jpg by a better version, but it is policy that we retain lower quality versions unless they are "exact or scaled-down duplicates", which this image is obviously not (it's from a different source, includes a different portion of the painting, has different colours, etc.) Another admin deleted the image, I restored it with a clear summary, and seconds later before I could even revert CommonsDelinker you deleted it again, ignoring the deletion log and the differences in the image. Please be more careful in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can prevent this confusion by not using CommonsDelinker if the intention is not to delete the file. Projects can also make their own choices in which version they like. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of an alternative tool for this purpose - I could write one from scratch but that seems like redundant effort when a suitable one already exists. Local projects are welcome to revert the replacement if they want to (another reason not to delete them), but new higher quality versions will almost never get picked up by local projects if they are not suggested first via replacement. In any case, in the future I will try to include an explicit message in the replacement summary saying "(Do not delete original)". Dcoetzee (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Maybe you could use a message like this to create some time to come back and remove the delinker-report. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schachtanlage Conow um 1920.jpg[edit]

Hallo Jcb, did you read my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schachtanlage Conow um 1920.jpg? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did (and I did notice that you don't share my standpoint about the usability of the license). Jcb (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I guess you do know my answer already ;-) → Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Schachtanlage_Conow_um_1920.jpg Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Avenged Sevenfold Nightmare.jpg[edit]

This image as been scan with my scanner. I took the album cover, put it on the scan and then upload it to wikipedia, there's no copyright about an image taken from the internet.

You violated the copyright of the cover designer, that's the issue. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland[edit]

I think, taht you went a little bit too far with the deletion ;) Only money issued by National Bank of Poland (NBP; Narodowy Bank Polski) were subject of our considerations. Some deleted files listed there, might be simply PD-old or some weren't issued by NBP (like: - issued by Bank Emisyjny w Polsce ("occupational bank of Poland")). With these ones it's kind of funny situation - because occupation of Poland was regarded as "illegal", but this bank was somehow aknowledged by the Polish Exile Government. Therefore they can be considered as "polish symbols" (even if not, certainly they have nohing to do with NBP. NBP was created later, in 1945). I'd consider undeleting these files. Masur (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but could you use Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests for this? So that other people can share their comments as well before somebody takes a decision. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion question[edit]

Jcb, Thanks for the note on my talk page, telling me that if I put a speedy deletion request on a file's talk page, it is the talk page that is deleted. Could you please tell me the correct way to request speedy deletion of an image file? Hate to trouble you with what is a very basic question, but I'm trying to learn to do things right. I appreciate your help! NearTheZoo (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the appropriate place is de image description page itself. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Look/BadPhotographer[edit]

Would you undelete it? I plan to use it. --Damiens.rf 15:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already place it again yourself. For future cases it will be helpful if you don't tag your work for speedy deletion :-) - Jcb (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File:Vincent_Basciano.jpg[edit]

You might like to take a look at this. Regards, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grafitti (1).jpg[edit]

It was an upload error. Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please explain this if you nominate it again. Jcb (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about comment on logo[edit]

Hi Jcb. I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion nomination from File:Matkal.jpg. I don't see why it is necessary to post this up for a discussion. There are two facts that are clear about the image which don't need to be proven or argued:

The image is a logo.
The image belongs to an organization. It even says so in the caption: "Coat of Arms of the Israeli General Staff."

From these two facts, it can clearly be inferred that the license cannot be correct. It says:

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

Obviously the creator of the image does not own the original work, by his own admission. I can't really see why this needs to be put up for debate if there is no plausible way that the license is correct. For now I will report the speedy deletion with a source that displays the image and asserts copyright (although again, I don't see why this is necessary). —Ynhockey (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to provide the source, otherwise it isn't obvious copyvio. For speedy deletion, the processing admin should not need to do comprehensive research. Remember that non-admins will not be able to see the image, they will only see the deletion reason you entered in the log. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESCUDO ESTRELA BRANCO.png[edit]

Hi Jcb, seeing this, would you consider the file above also as a {{PD-textlogo}}-candidate? Or not? I have difficulties to identify Commons tolerance what or what not "consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text"... --Gunnex (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for that file {{PD-textlogo}} would also be OK. See for example File:Best Western logo.svg, which was proven to be too simple to be eligible for copyright in an official copyright case in the USA. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. In the following case I can´t - even with good faith - identify simple geometric shapes and/or text in this logo of a brazilian football clube founded in 2001 --> File:Novo Linhares FC.png (from http://www.linharesfc.com/). Would you recommend {{Logo}} here? --Gunnex (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a candidate for speedy deletion. The easiest way is to use {{copyvio|http://www.linharesfc.com/}} in such cases. Jcb (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#More_penises[edit]

FYI. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vorhaut eines Penis.JPG[edit]

Were you aware that this image was in use, linked to from 3 other images as part of a set when you deleted it? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it was linked, but they were nowhere in use as a "set". Jcb (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at File:Penis - Mensch.jpg's image notes. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tickets[edit]

Perhaps you can add the correct OTRS ticket to these images below by uploader Dennis Wubs (user Wikiwal)? Adrignola has ordered panoramio reviews for all these images (I guess he doubts it is own work) and notified the author here but I see you previously added OTRS tickets to other images by this uploader as you did to this picture File:4784380 Ferwert Orgel.jpg Only an Admin with OTRS access can add such tickets to the pictures below:

I fear that there will still be a few more images by this uploader here as I cannot list them all on your talkpage. Its just too many that Adrignola tagged. I hope this helps. Maybe the best solution is if it can be proven that the panoramio author is the same person as the uploader? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the coming few days I will not be in a place where I can have access to OTRS. But Adrignola is OTRS member as well, so maybe you can draw his attention to the existence of the ticket? Jcb (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will tell Adrignola. I hope that he can add the OTRS ticket. The Ticket number is supposed to be 2011061510013551 from the uploader's talkpage response to Adrignola's remarks. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is to change the license at Panoramio, just like it is with Flickr. We cannot associate an email address with a Panoramio account and I will not accept emails in to OTRS that attempt to bypass this process. If someone has a problem with that, you can post to OTRS/Noticeboard. – Adrignola talk 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Admin Jcb, Is there someone at OTRS that you know who can OTRS all these images by user Wikiwal (Dennis Wubs)? Adrignola refuses to act. You must know someone else at OTRS. Im afraid the images will be deleted if someone doesn't check Ticket 2011061510013551 and see if there is indeed a legitimate permission there. Thank You. I'm afraid MGA73 is on a Wikibreak so he is unavailable at OTRS. There is nothing more that I can do. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be shopping around for some other OTRS agent that's going to break the rules. I said I won't act and that should be true for any other qualified OTRS agent. Anyone can send in an email to OTRS and claim they're some uploader at Panoramio, Flickr, or Facebook. I can register any free email address I want and put someone's name in there as the sender. The only way we know the copyright holder agrees to a free license for images displayed at those sites is if they change the licensing at those sites. If some other OTRS agent tags them as confirmed without following this process I will tag them all for deletion myself. – Adrignola talk 21:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I confirmed the ticket is that I could verify the email address to belong to the Panoramio-account. The email address is listed at that Panoramio account, see here. I will act accordingly and I trust you will agree after taking a look at the page I linked. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. – Adrignola talk 13:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Java platform.svg[edit]

Hello. I'm the user which put the {{Copyvio}} template [13] on File:Java platform.svg, which is clearly a derivative work of a diagram by Sun Microsystems. But the source image is under copyright, and this means that no one is allowed to make a derivative work unless he or she gets explicit permission by the owner of the source (i.e. Sun Microsystems).
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is no such a permission mentioned in the description page of the SVG file by Waldoalvarez00, which implies that it is legitimate for anybody seeing the picture, to think that it was made illegally. Therefore, I think that the file should be deleted from Commons. Please write your reply on this very page instead of my talk page, so I can read it the next time I come here with a different IP. Regards, --151.75.15.157 00:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image just contains plain information, that's why it's not eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the PNG version - which you see, has the same exact layout and contents as Waldoalvarez00's work - is under copyright. As a matter of fact, it was uploaded in fair use on en.wiki. Please read its description page carefully.

Copyright does not apply to the information itself, but it applies to the way the information is expressed, written, or drawn. The graphical form of the diagram - i.e. the colors, the layout, etc. - is an element of original authorship actually, which means it is subject to copyright. The file does not fall into PD, if that's what you think. Regards, --151.75.9.152 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way of presentation doesn't meet the threshold of originality, so it doesn't matter whatever copyright claim one may state. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - as I stated above, there is an image which is just identical to Waldoalvarez00's work, and is under copyright indeed. Hmm, I have started a thread here so that some other user can help me understand who is right - whether you, or me. Regards, --151.75.42.55 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Wubs photos[edit]

Pls see the message on the OTRS tickets for Dennis Wubs photos. Adrignola has responded not in a positive way to OTRS them. I made a suggestion too. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ill Met by Moonlight - first edition cover.jpg[edit]

hi you deleted a picture of an old book cover that has been freely available for a long time ie published in 1950. our family have the copyright to the book although I suppose the artist possibly is still alive. It was relevant to the page it was on. may be this should be a fair use type case like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Cretan_Runner_cover.jpg. If so please would you put it back again with the fair use approach if you think that is more appropriate? Many thanks. Huguº (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For fair use please upload it at en.wikipedia.org. Fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PEO Soldier illustration of Black Beret portrait.jpg[edit]

Uploader has multiple OTRSs on file and can't be copyrighted as a work of a military organization. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. I didn't notice nominator removed the license. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which block[edit]

Hi Jcb,

During the patrol of anonymous user contributions I came across edits by 84.61.164.57 (talk · contribs), didn't appear anything out of the ordinary until I noticed it being blocked. However the reason isn't very descriptive or helping in finding any record of vandalism. Can you fill me in here ? Thanks, –Krinkle^talk 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original block was this. The duralex troll changes IP every few days. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif[edit]

Hi, could you please have a look at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif" and see if it can be dealt with urgently? See my (not very successful) attempts to communicate with the uploader at "File talk:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for this edit --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif[edit]

I'm sorry, but it isn't "PD-simple". Rather, it's a low-resolution and low-quality version of image http://www.psdgraphics.com/icons/male-and-female-signs/ which is not released under a free license (see http://www.psdgraphics.com/about/terms-of-use/ ). I really don't think we want to establish the principle that any sufficiently crappy and sufficiently small version of a copyrighted image is somehow in the public domain... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how you can think this is not PD-simple, this is quite an obvious case. Jcb (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's borderline. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That work was an old file, you can delete it... However, I uploaded new original work with the same filename.--Susan sponder (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Just wondering... The graphic is so basic that it nearly can't get any simpler. A hangman has more strokes, the symbols are included in many type faces (e.g. ⚤ + 45° turn) and aren't protected itself. I see no room for creativity in this case, or whatever the creativity should be. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletes[edit]

Hello. Can you tell me what do we need duplicates with signature and frames for? Thank you, --tyk (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but as long as is isn't an exact duplicate, speedy deletion is not an option according to our official policies. Jcb (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images copied from a source with NC and ND[edit]

Hi, please see COM:MONEY - Jcb (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please note that COM:MONEY has nothing to do with the reason given for this speedy DR. The reason given for this speedy DR is about the false licensing of actual photos/images copied from a website. Please read the reason and the copyright notice that was linked with the request. The reason is that those particular photos have a non-commercial and no-derivatives license. The uploader copied the photos and misrepresented them with a false license that does not correspond to the real license. Compare the real license with what the uploader tagged and you will see the difference and why the tag is bogus. Simple as that and obvious copyvio. When photos/images that are directly copied from the internet are blatant copvios, and that is plainly visible by just looking at the source, it is immaterial that they are images of food, money, people, animals or any subject. If you read the reason for the DR, you see that it was not nominated for being a derivative of a coin or anything, but because it is a copy of an image with a non-free license.

(That is why I didn't even mention the coin design, because it is not even necessary to examine that point. And that is why this has nothing to do with COM:Money. It might have been necessary only if the uploader has taken his own photos instead of copying them from the internet. But if you want to speak of COM:Money anyway, i.e. the coin design, then that would only add a second reason for the deletion of the files, this time as derivatives of other works, as the Estonia section of COM:Money is obsolete because now the the design cannot be used for advertising without prior permission and is thus not free, as per this article of Estonian law (2009 version). But, like already explained, it is not even necessary to go into this because this was not the reason for the DR.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source website is of the bank itself. We know the position of that bank regarding the copyright of the coins. Combine those facts and you get the reason why I kept the images. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not about the copyright of the coins. This is about the copyright of the images. Just like they were images of hippopotamuses or anything. The materials (not excluding images) on the website are under NC+ND restrictions, which are not accepted by Commons. We have the link to the terms of use. Their statement is clear, we cannot ignore it. To challenge their statement, we would need supporting evidence. Is there a link to any other official statement by the Bank saying the opposite?

Although the copyright of the coin designs was not the object of this DR, may I ask, out of curiosity, what it is exactly that you say we know about "the position of that bank regarding the copyright of the [designs of the estonian sides of the euro] coins"? (not the kroon banknotes). It cannot be assumed that a work is free without an explicit declaration. Is there a link to any official statement by the Bank telling that their coin designs are free (including commercial use and modification)? If so, we could add it to the information pages, so users would not need to ask the question if cases arise. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand what is going on regarding User:CutOffTies[edit]

He got irked with a cartoon I made of Sarah Palin and Paul Revere; so he's selectively targeting many of my uploaded pictures on copyvio technicalities. I had permission from the people in the pictures, or who took the pictures; they sent them to me via email expressly so I could put them in Wikipedia. Please do not delete any pictures until I have a chance to get the people in them, or who took the pictures, to email permissions via this OTRS thing that I don't fully understand. And please understand that for Wikipedia/media volunteers like myself (who, through an editing for donations project, got a serious check for the Wikimedia Foundation), that it is a lot of work to upload even a single picture, even to jump through all the poorly-explained hoops, and it's a perfect environment for bullies like User:CutOffTies to push hardworking volunteers around.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how this case is related to me? Jcb (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Paleo image -- the one with the two zebras and the music artist? And the Paleo image was nominated for deletion by User:CutOffTies. The indie music label which gave generously to WMF clearly wanted the picture in Wikipedia, owned the copyright, and gave permission, and I, as a volunteer, are trying to help them with my time by facilitating this, but apparently I need to ask people at the label to send a permissions email with each picture? But what I wanted you to understand is that I feel that I'm being picked on by another user who is deliberately targeting many of my past contributions on a personal basis because of a dispute about a Paul Revere cartoon a week or so ago. I've always tried to follow the spirit of the rules here (which are difficult; which are poorly explained) and I'm trying to get up to speed on the letter of the rules here too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they sent their permission to OTRS, the file will be restored while processing that email message. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I am getting up to speed with the rules here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File: BannerSquarebudduso.jpg deleted[edit]

Hi Jcb, the church image is not under copyright, i've asked weeks ago to the web site administrator, and he give me the permission. The image stand alone is already published in Commons File:ParrocchiaSAnastasia.jpg . I have published only when they told me that the permission email was send. Can you check this. Regards --Antonnicola (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image you linked was a copyright violation, now deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If permission has been sent to OTRS, the file will be restored while processing that email message (OTRS has some backlog) - Jcb (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groepsverwijdering?[edit]

Hallo Jcb, Zo te zien is er sprake van copyvio voor alle foto's in Category:Samantha Baker. Kan dat in 1 keer worden opgepakt, of moeten die stuk voor stuk worden genomineerd? ComMonster (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ze moeten stuk voor stuk worden genomineerd. In dit geval lijkt een speedy deletion aan de orde, want rechtstreeks gekopieerd van een website. De nominatie bestaat dan uit het plaatsen van zoiets: {{copyvio|http://www.website_van_herkomst.com/naam_van_het_plaatje.jpg}}. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jammer, dan ga ik maar aan de slag... Thanks. ComMonster (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you delete an obvious copyvio?[edit]

The uploader of File:Alexey Brodovitch Design .jpg discovered that this was not a free file, and tagged it for deletion. Unfortunately, the DR was incomplete. Completing malformed DRs is a hassle, so I changed it to a speedy copyvio. You seem to have a problem with that. It is difficult to understand why you want to make it difficult to delete obvious and uncontroversial copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcb and Pieter Kuiper, I've speedied it. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always careful if a files has not been obviously grabbed from the web or something like that. Somebody might provide new information about an image like this, that changes our knowledge about the copyright situation. That's why a normal DR is recommended. Also making a normal DR is not that difficult. Simple use the 'nominate for deletion' option and then remove the first {delete} template from the image description page. I think this talk cost more time and energy than the regular procedure would have cost. Jcb (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have to do anything. Why did not you just leave the copyvio tag in place? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish I only act if I agree with you, I cannot help you. Jcb (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another case: File:Example of a Lego Minifigure.JPG. Look, if you think it should be a DR, it is your job to make the DR. Instead of protecting copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: File:Oscar icon.svg, had been deleted before per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes; reuploads of deleted files are obvious cases for speedy deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 2009 (!) DR. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Java platform again[edit]

Hello guy. I just want you to know, there's a deletion request open. Please read Commons_talk:Licensing#Java platform first, then feel free to add your opinion here if you wish. --151.75.45.110 05:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potmarnock Under 16 B Team.JPG[edit]

Could you please have a look here, and then in the image file itself. Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just looking at the DR and this file again too. I usually agree with your philosophy and decisions regarding deletion requests, but in this case I think we should have agreed to the deletion. The request was made shortly after the upload, and that reason alone should be enough for us to delete it as a courtesy. Otherwise we just ensure that the user will never upload another image, and will go away with a bad taste in their mouth. In reality (if they knew how things work) they would just need to tag the image with "no permision" and it would get deleted in a very efficient manner. I think it would be better if you deleted it, rather than waiting for another deletion request. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking it should be deleted when posted this - it looked like a user uploaded a picture without consent of others and soon got a request to remove it. Further, we can also not verify what people are actually shown there. Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It must have been in use the first time when I closed it, which was the actual reason to keep the file. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of the uploader?[edit]

Silly, of course not. Not even a woman, in fact. The files I nominated for speedy deletion either had a copyright notice in the watermark, or even in the file name. Since certain files are clearly not free to use, they should be deleted. Furthermore, some files even showed copyright information from another website, which means the photos are stolen and should therefore be deleted too. Might want to check files first before removing a speedy deletion tag. PPP (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most files had 'Max' in the watermark, uploader had 'Max' in the username. This is sufficient reason to use a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also had © in the watermark, which means they're not free. The license tag used for these images are for GFDL, thus free, thus non-copyrighted material. Furthermore, you are right in one thing: most files had 'Max' in the watermark, thus others didn't but had someone else in there. Those pictures were obviously stolen. Come on, this is so clearly copyvio I can't believe we even have this discussion... PPP (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader Max is the author Max, then the other authors are within the same organisation. This may be a reason to AGF. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Following your logical protection, please protect two other ones.

Thanks in advance. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put them at my watchlist and if necessary I will revert them to first version and protect them. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I closed the deletion nominations. This fight between two POVs about maps must stop. New nomination will mean block. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unité d'Habitation Marseille 2.jpg[edit]

The Unité d'Habitation is one of Le Corbusiers's most famous works, it proved enormously influential and is often cited as the initial inspiration of the Brutalist architectural style and philosophy.. I respectfully request that you reconsider as it is therefore not a DM. --Grcampbell (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation of the architect or the building are irrelevant to judge this. We just need to watch the picture, which shows an ordinary straight building with some maybe non-standard colors, but those colors are insufficient to cause a FOP related issue. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Hi. Ok, you declined my deletion request for these two maps:

However, my point about references was valid. User:DIREKTOR abused and falsified references for these maps. Just see my last post here where I provided evidence that I was the one who introduced these references in November 3, 2010, and user:DIREKTOR simply copy-pasted them from my map in June 1, 2011: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1941-43.png I will repeat: these references are not supporting idea that user:DIREKTOR is pushing. So, if these two maps are not removed, then you (as administrator) should ask user:DIREKTOR to provide his own references for info in these maps. So far, he did not presented a single source for his claims (neither in Commons neither in English Wikipedia) and, as far as I know, Wikimedia policies are requiring that such work is properly sourced. PANONIAN (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of arguments belong to local Wikipedia projects, please finally stop tiring Wikimedia Commons with this. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you are not right in this. Did you even saw the sources you restored? That is copy paste from the original file, and those referenced are not referring to those images. Those images does not have sources. Leaving them in place will be obvious violation of main wikipedia and commons guidelines. Please, remove those sources. And i already started talking with user DIREKTOR on en wiki, and we will agree. But those references should definitively not be there. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And i already started talking with user DIREKTOR on en wiki, and we will agree." - OK, get to an agreement and after that the page can be changed according to that agreement. Case closed for now. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb, please read my post again and examine my arguments and links that I provided and, due to that, please remove false references from map pages. Otherwise, I might complain about your behavior to other administrators. This action is not an example of how an administrator should behave. Do you realizing that you added false references that completely contradicting to info presented in that map? PANONIAN (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Otherwise, I might complain about your behavior to other administrators." - future comments of you at this pages containing this kind of threats will be reverted. Jcb (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a threat by my right to ask for help in other places. Can you answer at least these two simple questions: 1. Is this my edit where I added these references in November 3 2010? If answer is yes (and it cannot be otherwise) then question number 2 would be: how user:DIREKTOR can use these same references in 1 June, 2011 for an map that present completelly different POV which is not supported by such references? I am not asking that you delete his maps. I am only asking that you remove my references from his map and to ask user:DIREKTOR to provide his own references. I do not understand what problem you have with that? PANONIAN (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this answer I posted above is sufficient for now. Jcb (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. Anyway, I see that discussion with you is pointless. I will open appropriate thread about this in administrators noticeboard. Feel free to participate in discussion there. PANONIAN (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Complain_about_behavior_of_an_administrator_.28User:Jcb.29 PANONIAN (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace?[edit]

OK, I apologize if my post in administrators noticeboard looked like an intimidation. It was nothing personal. We both should behave professionally and disagreement about some issues should not be understood in personal way. Anyway, what you think about this compromise that I proposed: [14] PANONIAN (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have at least no problem with the adding of the {fact}-tag. For the removal of 'references', please be very careful. It's better to give it some time to come to a good agreement, than to act too quickly. Jcb (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In another words, you do not agree with what I proposed. OK. I have another proposal then: would you agree that I replace inappropriate references of 1943-44 map with valid ones, i.e. with those that showing situation in 1943-1944, and not in 1941-1942:

PANONIAN (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have this talk with WhiteWriter and DIREKTOR. I'm not going to spend a lot of time to become familiar with the subject. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

84.19.165.217[edit]

I have changed your block to 3 days rather than indefinite - you should not be permabanning IPs, they can frequently change. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Jcb (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it crystal clear that I totally disagree with you blocking this IP as I feel its edits have not been, as you called it, trolling in any way whatsoever. I, however, agree that it seems a one-purpose-only account but I think that you shouldn't have acted that way, for it hasn't done anything wrong. I would like to see you unblocking the said account so we could avoid any other accusations of personal involvement, especially in such a stressful situation. Thanks, odder (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could unblock, but only after protecting the page for IP edits, this is an unworkable situation. Jcb (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a fair bit of checking, I have realised that the said IP as well as the other one seem to be open proxies, as their edits have been made in several various language versions of Wikipedia. Feel free to block them both stating that they're open proxies. I will semi-protect the desysop page as advised. Thanks! odder (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I unblocked the range, which was actually far too large. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editwar[edit]

Beste,

U bent zojuist betrokken aan censuur en een editwar, u heeft 8 keer teruggedraait zonder waarschuwing naar de gebruiker, u heeft 2 gebruikers geblokeerd die een andere meningen hebben dan jijzelf heeft. Ik verzoek je eenmaal vriendelijk de edits van de Duitse mensen weer terug te zetten, anders zal ik een blokkade verzoek openen. En informatie aanwinnen voor verdere stappen, De regels zijn simpel: Je gebruikt je knopjes niet als je zelf betrokken bent.

You are involved with censor and a editwar, you removed 2 user comments for 8 times without a warning to the users. You blocked both users and a complete range, making sure they cant give there opinion anymore. The problem part is that the comments you removed are against you, therefor its missuse of the administrator tools. I request you to edit and place back the comments made my our German friends within 30 minutes or I will make a request to block you for a editwar. And I will start a discussion about your recent behavior as a administrator, according to your own opinion you are unfit to be a administrator. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite sure you were behind the IP edits. Jcb (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lenin Red Star Adamovich Bild 35.jpg[edit]

Hi, I don't understand this decision to keep the image at all.

This is from a museum in Germany. FOP does not apply to any interior rooms in Germany, and surely not to anything in a temporary exhibition inside a museum. So the file should probably be deleted as derivative because the artwork itself is copyrighted (IMO it surpasses any threshold of originality).
Secondly, the photo of this three-dimensional plate is copyrighted. The uploader simply took it from the press material at the museum's website (as he has stated). Nothing there indicated that this press pictures should be freely licensed, let alone by the cc license (what should the "attribution" be anyay? the uploader? or "museum staff"?). The uploader never produced any evidence of the license, the lenghty "essay" in the permission field is vague and factually wrong. So this file has to be deleted for two reasons. --FA2010 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to reconsider a DR almost four months after closing. Feel free to start a new DR, using 'nominate for deletion' in the menu on the left. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't even bother to explain a decision? What a great admin. --FA2010 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File: Tumulou-j.jpg[edit]

I received an e-mail of FRANCESCO RAFFAELE that says:

"I think there should be no problem: it'd be good for my site too, which I recently happen to update seldom (but I have new pages in preparation).

Many are scans of images which cant be used for selling material, but in this case Wiki has no such finality"

Like this, i think that there isn't a violation... --Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Although the project itself has no commercial purposes, according to our policies all our content must be also free enough for commercial use. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]