User talk:Jcb/archive/4

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zu chan.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zu chan.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buffalo bell.jpg Why is this photo of the mask / costume no DW? You seem to know it - please tell the world. --Saibo (Δ) 01:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In the closing comment I linked to the page where you can read it. I'm sorry there is no German version of that page. Jcb (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you did notice - I also did link to this page in my OP. --Saibo (Δ) 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice, but reading the page carefully leaded to the opposite conclusion. Jcb (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleted Lose.jpg on false allegations

Hello. The photo you deleted today, Lose.jpg, was NOT a copyright violation. I was in contact now with the publisher and with the German photographer. The publisher took the photo from the Pixelio.de database, and their legal statement say that the photo can be used for free for a lot of things, including book covers. On the other side, the photographer Gropp, whom I contacted after David's "research", agreed to add his name as photographer to the metainformation of the file. (Following the Pixelio database legal statement, it has to have the form "(c) Jan Gropp / Pixelio" and online media need also to add a link to Pixelio. Here are the sentences I also put onto my discussion page where the discussion took place:

      :I just received an email by Jan Gropp in which he tells me that it would be ok for him if he as photographer is mentioned in the record. Now I ask how you could delete so quickly without waiting for any defense or correction. --Klaus Ebner (d) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

       :The publisher took the photo from the online picture database Pixelio. The database states that the use is allowed for a multitude of cases, including book covers (License rules (in German) of Pixelio). This proves that the use of the picture by the publisher WAS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!! In addition, as I said before, even the photographer agreed to keep the cover and simply add his name as the photographer of the picture on the cover. This information could be added in the metatext of the book cover. --Klaus Ebner (d) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How can this much too quick deletion be restored? It is already very embarrassing that several wikipedias now state a copyright violation, which wasn't one. However, I hope that the error of deleting the picture of the book cover can be corrected, and at least David helped to add the original photographer's name to it. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS. If they can verify the permission they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Info about File:42465-panel.jpg

You deleted the file with the text "Copyright violation: was also deleted at enwp because of copyvio: http://www.esatap.sg/basic/esatap-support-group/". It was not deleted on enwiki because of that. It was deleted because the file was on Commons. First time the file was marked as a copyvio it was reverted by someone with the reason "Original uploader of this image also runs the external web site - the source of this image." I do not know if we have proof of that some where. Just thought you should know. --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In fact I just pressed the trash can icon, thus copying the nomination reason. I think we can only restore the file if we have OTRS permission. The claim that it was deleted at enwp didn't influence my decision. Jcb (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of File:Messier.all.750pix.jpg

Hello. You 've deleted this image with the comment "As stated below: Excepting the use of my artworks and pictures by professionals that request royalties, ..." I cannot beleave, that this is true. The image has been on commons for years and i remember, that it is an table-sorted image of 110 public-domain-images (NASA / Hubble-telescope). In that case, there is no copyright. Please, tell me: Who has said, that it is a copyvio ? Who has declared "I'm the owner of the rights" ? Why shoudt this person be the owner. Has he shown an evidence ? Where in the web is a legal version of the image ? I want to compare with the declared rights.

Can you copy me the whole deleted text of the page File:Messier.all.750pix.jpg before deleting to (User_talk:Antonsusi/Temppage ) ?

Antonsusi (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked this before I deleted, the text was already present in the first version of the page. I pasted the content of that first version and the content of the last version before deletion to your temppage. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Huang Zijou.jpg, Lai Tek.jpg and Steven Yong.jpg

Hi. Can you please reconsider your "keep" of "File:Huang Zijou.jpg", "File:Lai Tek.jpg" and "File:Steven Yong.jpg"? You appear to have missed the point that {{PD-SG-edition}} per se is the wrong licence, so the fact that the photographs were taken before 1987 is irrelevant. {{PD-SG-edition}} only applies to editions of works, not individual photographs. For such works, only {{PD-SG-photo}} applies, and that requires 70 years to have passed since the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken (that is, it was first taken before or in 1940). Where is the evidence for this? The uploader appears to have been freely taking photographs from off the Internet. I am about to nominate the rest of this user's uploads for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe these pictures were only published as bare pictures. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, they probably appeared in some publication or another. But {{PD-SG-edition}} only applies to the "typographical format of published editions of works". "The copyright of a publisher in the typographical format is separate and distinct from the copyright in the work recorded. For example, Joe Bloggs writes a book on copyright. The book is published by Rex Ltd. If the book is photocopied without permission, two separate copyrights might be infringed: the copyright in the literary work and the entrepreneurial copyright in the typographical format.": para 2.40 of George Wei (1989) The Law of Copyright in Singapore, Singapore: Singapore National Printers ISBN: 981-00-0856-2. Thus, {{PD-SG-edition}} applies to the typographical format of the published edition, which has now expired. The copyright of individual aspects of the work, such as the text and images, are separate and other licences such as {{PD-SG-lifetimepub}} or {{PD-SG-photo}} must be applicable, otherwise they are still under copyright (or, at least, the copyright status is uncertain in which case we must not host these images under our precautionary principle). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My dictionary don't invent such a comprehensive story around the bare word edition. The law text we refer to doesn't either. Jcb (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I'd say that the interpretation given by the writer of a textbook on Singapore copyright law is to be given more weight than a dictionary definition. Which law text are you referring to? In any case, I will repost this discussion at the copyright village pump for other editors to comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Huang Zijou.jpg, Lai Tek.jpg and Steven Yong.jpg" that {{PD-SG-edition}} is not applicable to the above photographs. Can I invite you to delete the files? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated most of Arilang1234's other incorrect uploads that appear in "Category:PD-SG-edition" for deletion; you will find most of them at "Commons:Deletion requests/2011/10/11". Note also "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Li Shouzui.jpeg" and "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lin Qingxian.jpeg", which were nominated earlier. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Macieja Jaworka bonus enz...

Mag ik weten waarom je de foto van de omslag van mijn boek verwijderd hebt? Wat is de reden?

We hebben geen aanwijzingen dat de auteur van de omslag akkoord gaat met publicatie onder een vrije licentie. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletions

I noticed that you recently deleted, en masse, over three dozen images that were tagged about 1 1/2 months ago. Many of the images were discussed after the tagging on the image's discussion page, and at the Village pump, the Disputes noticeboard, and Administrator's noticeboard. The majority of tagged photos, all of which were disputed likewise en masse, were not responded to by either the original tagger or anyone else. Some were discussed extensively by a few pro and con editors.

During those discussions, it was also pointed out that some of the images were from the U.S. government or were original artwork by the uploader, and the tag was totally inappropriate. All of the images had an extensive rationale, and the "machine gun tagger" simply tagged the majority with a cut-and-paste boilerplate rationale, which was disputed, but never responded to by the tagger. Some admins considered the mass tagging as disruptive and have given him serious warnings about such behavior.

Since all of the images were just deleted by you over just a few minutes, and no comments about any of the above facts were added, I suspect that many, if not most, were erroneously deleted without due consideration. I request that the images be restored and only deleted after some rationale related to each particular image can be explained. Thanks for your consideration. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent about 45 minutes on the series. If there where individual valid reasons to keep specific images, you could have stated them in the individual DR. Jcb (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not including other various editors' comments, I personally spent many times that just discussing one single image. As mentioned on some of the boards, and acknowledged by others, it was essentially impossible to respond in any meaningful way to such cut-and-paste mass taggings, where few of the cloned rationales had any bearing to the images tagged. Hence, the responses were generalized on the various discussions. I had no intention, even if it were possible, of spending countless hours trying to respond to someone's five-minutes of mass tagging 44 images covering over a dozen different articles. Please reconsider. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was disruptive machine gun tagging. There is no copyright notice on these handouts. So they are free. Requiring a secondary "reliable" source as proof to say that a photo is free is just absurd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg already commented on the (lack of) meaning of the absence of a copyright notice in the young source. Jcb (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the images were not post-1989, so how about restoring the others? They were clearly publicity stills from earlier years, considered PD by all reliable sources provided in the rationales, and should never have been tagged. Nor have you given any reasons, besides the fact that an editor tagged them, why the others were deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussions in some of the DRs were comprehensive. Reading them will inform you sufficiently. Jcb (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please respect copyvio notices

Images unquestionably still copyrighted, such a statue by a sculptor who died in 2000 in a country such asd italy without FOP, are speedly deleted as copyvio. If you disagree, change the request in a regular one, but do not allow yoursef to take it away, it is vandalism. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. For FOP related cases speedy nominations are not suitable, you must use a regular DR instead. And being the original nominator, it's your responsibility to make a valid nomination. Jcb (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I just posted the matter of your vandalism to the villag pump. As an uploader of several dozen thousand images, I know very well that the burden to demonstate the free status of an image stays on the uploader, not on me or anyone else. There is no FOP related case: in Italy FOP is NOT allowed. Fullstop. By the way, you are supposed to put your messages on my message page, not on yours, and to give warning, as I did to the uploaders. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I answer comments below those comments. I told you how the procedure works. You MUST use a regular DR for FOP related cases. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FOCR

Hi Jcb, in relation to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FOCR I believe this is an incorrect closure. The issues here are exactly the same that was experienced with Kremlin.ru images a few years back, and which I eventually got clear release of images. If it wasn't for want of giving editors the opportunity to get proper permission, knowing that such discussions take some time, I would have deleted the template and all associated images myself. Can you please review this again. Cheers, russavia (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the images, you didn't even list them in the DR (and probably didn't notify uploaders, but I didn't check that). Regarding the template, the discussion shows that it will probably be possible to come to a valid OTRS permission. Deleting the template in advance will cause a mess. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As admins we should be closing discussions succinctly, and inline in policies. Your closing comment said that there is nothing that needs to be fixed; this is obviously not correct. Proper, and very clear, licencing needs to be obtained, and hence why the request was done in the same way at Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites before it. There is no need to unnecessarily tag hundreds of images; it is a consuming process, and editors who are familiar with the template (who appears on the discussion) have time to obtain OTRS permission. If OTRS was forthcoming, then it can be safely closed, but without OTRS we err on the side of caution and delete. It was made clear from the outset that it would affect hundreds of images, so the correct course of action would be to delete the template, then proceed to delete the images. Not close it as something for which there is nothing to fix. I would suggest re-opening the discussion, and inform the template author (as they have been active in the uploading) that they should attempt to obtain OTRS permission, and give a fixed timeframe, otherwise stuff should be deleted. russavia (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with your (native??) English, but "Your closing comment said that there is nothing that needs to be fixed" is a very strange interpretation of the real closing comment. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in disagreement....

The claim that a "valid reason" has not been presented is somewhat self deprecating and perhaps an automatic knee jerk reaction.

Can you replace your "press this button" response with the additional requirement that a valid reason to keep the image needs to be supplied?

How do your methods rank in productivity and when is the last time you reviewed the welcome template, which in a nice way states the goals?

I have, in my thoughtful non-button pushing way here, determined that if there is not a category for an image which is not one of the category dumps like "Photographs of men" or "Photographs of women" then it probably does not belong here.

I challenge you to not simply "keep" or "delete" but to also find a category or gallery which is not a dumping ground for images due to whatever reason, like there are too many twits managing deletions, or whatever the case is.

And then, more to the point. Do you see yourself as this image? Handsome male with no notable accomplishments? I admit, I feel badly sometimes like this with these images. This one had a resume along with it. It is a weird and strange world though -- notability often seems to belong to fictional people and no amount of personal accomplishments seem to change this if you are actually a real, living and sometimes error making human being, there is no voice for you or other living breathing and accomplished real people other than the almost always sarcastic noise that uses notable fiction characters to always say "stay down in the muck and retardation with us".

English wikipedia has an article about my high school and a list of notable people who graduated from there. Not only am I not listed there but also many of my peers are not there and some of them have done some extraordinary and occasionally selfless feats. However, that being said, if I encountered a photograph of one of those people and it was like this, not of them doing the thing they are known for and also without the mention in subject of their "feat" and just a portrait like the "kept yet uncategorized" image that you kept here -- I would request that it be deleted on the assumption that when the article would be written, a suitable photograph could also be obtained.

If you wish to comment about this, please do so on my talk page. Consider the inverse of your "reasoning" that if a suitable reason has not been given to delete, that a suitable reason should be required from you to "keep".

Or, keep being a knee jerk button pusher and tell me of the doors that open for you and this quality. Of the people who want to continue to work with you. Of how you like to work with yourself when you see a reflection like this.

Perhaps you are trying to stay on the same page as Fae? (Personal attack removed) Interesting reasons to be a button pushing ninny, but is that really what managing this image collection is about. -- Queeg (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Queeq, I have removed a personal attack in your above comment, and remind you that you must remain civil. --99of9 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I have put that image into Category:Media needing categories as of 8 October 2011; apparently commons javascript users need an expert categorization person. You can categorize the images that are there, the one you kept also and be that person; that categorization expert. Get your hands "dirty" and work without the buttons, perhaps. Review the photographs that are here and the category tree that they appear in. "Classic" theme puts the categories in the upper portion of the page. There are missing and needed categories here, familiarity will help you to find them. Once you have categorized several hundred images, I suspect that you will not be so quick to make half of a claim again. And then review that image as if it is yourself, perhaps. Is there really a category for this handsome portrait here? If so, you should, with your new found expertise, be able to find where it belongs.

You go dude! And remember, it is only the seriously retarded who need to recite rules, and most of them can do this. -- Queeg (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

msg

I'm not that familiar with procedures on this site, so you are very welcome to open a non-speedy deletion on my behalf, but please don't just rv me, at some point this evening another image was deleted for the very same reason. --Elitre (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To nominate with a regular procedure, go to the image page. In the left menu you can find the 'nominate for deletion' link (at the bottom). By the way, I didn't "just rv". As an admin I decided to decline the speedy deletion request. Jcb (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Globalreach rgb lrg.jpg

Can you explain why you removed the speedy deletion request on the file File:Globalreach rgb lrg.jpg? I do not understand that. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} applies, see threshold of originality for more information - Jcb (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, not original/creative enough. Okay. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Shah Durrani pic

About [1], I think you got something wrong; would you please reconsider? Nobody ever claimed the painting was from 1747, and it most certainly isn't. 1747 is the date of the event depicted. The painting, according to the uploader, is by a living Afghan artist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in that case the license is appropriate. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you evaluate the argument regarding apparent lack of publication? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no law, the law will not distinguish between published and unpublished works. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But US law does. If the first known publication was outside Afghanistan, then that counts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But you don't have any reasonable indication for the improbable scenario that the painting would have been exported before first publication, do you? Jcb (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What's improbable about it? If the painting was just hanging somewhere and the uploader took a photograph of it, it wasn't published. Mere display doesn't constitute publication. The burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate that it was published in Afghanistan, not on me to demonstrate that it wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

a request

You deleted File:Breast cancer survivors serve as models in the fashion show fundraising events organized by 'fashion for a cure'.jpg. Your entry in the deletion log said "Promotional material for uploader's organization. Orphaned. Out of scope.".

Images that are in use on another WMF project are automatically in scope. This image was in use, so it is in scope.

Could you please make a greater effort to make sure your explanations for your closures are clear, accurate and supportable? Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday the usage didn't show up. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

1. No offense, but I don't understand what this comment means;
2. Are you acknowledging the principle that all images that are being used on another WNF project are automatically in scope? Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real reason for deletion was the lack of evidence of permission. Normally the deletion reason will just refer to the DR, but you frustrated the use of DelReqhandler, by renaming the file without updating the DR. So I had to use the trash button at the image description page, which automatically pastes the original nomination reason. Jcb (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Montrichardia linifera - botanical drawings missing

Thank you for deletion of the two wrong images.

I only miss now the correct old botanical drawings:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montrichardia_linifera_inflorescence_Engler.png
There was another file with the fruit.

By the way: I took images of Montrichardia linifera in the Amazon várzea. Shall I add them to the category with the botanical drawings - when restored - or open a new category?
--Chris Krambeck (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You can search for the missing file in your personal gallery, here. I'm not familiar with the categorization, I cannot advise you on this. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a personal gallery. The two missing and correct botanical drawings were to find in the category "Montrichardia" before (and have been used by a portuguese and polish wikipedia site). Somehow they seem having been deleted together with the wrong "Montichardia linifera".--84.166.125.220 01:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't follow the link above, did you? Jcb (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I followed the link, at least for the first 25 items, it leads to user "enzo" and contains some botanical drawings, may be lateron also the missing ones. But the problem is not, that the files do not exist any more, but that they are no longer to find in the category Montrichardia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Montrichardia as they were before. The result is, that users who do not know that they exist will miss them now. --Chris Krambeck (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case just add [[Category:Montrichardia]] to the image description page and the image will be back in the category. Jcb (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Has been done. Thank for your hints.

Remains creating a subcategory for Montrihardia linifera parallel to the existing for M. arborescens ... I work on understanding categorization.--Chris Krambeck (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pau 3 crop 20101028.JPG

Hello!

Can you provide a rationale for your decision in this DR, please? Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading everything I found no reason to assume there would be a copyright problem. It would be good if the missing data would be filled in, but as long as we don't know, I see no reason to delete. Jcb (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is said to be a 1910 sculpture. It is highly unlikely that the sculptor would be unknown, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is unlikely to apply. And there is not a shred of evidence that the sculptor would have died over 70 years ago. Your decision is not in line with policy or practice on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rasierter und erschlaffter Penis - DSCF8141.jpg

Hallo Jcb, you forgot to provide a the deletion reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rasierter und erschlaffter Penis - DSCF8141.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope (I didn't forget, I just didn't have anything to add that wasn't already mentioned) - Jcb (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

K, then → Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Rasierter_und_erschlaffter_Penis_-_DSCF8141.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

French FoP closures

I was totally surprised that you closed these three French freedom of panorama images File:Gan tower.jpg‎, File:Tour Areva.jpg‎ and File:Juin 2008 003.jpg‎ with the reason "just a straight building". Because there is no freedom of panorama in France, the design style of the building makes no difference; either FoP appies or not. You also kept File:La Defense 4.jpg‎ because "several buildings, eventual FOP issues are DM". Again FoP appies and DM definitely does not apply because the building in question was greater than 50% of the height of the image. For DM to apply a building the building must not be prominent in the image but in this case it was prominent, so should have been deleted. These are the first French FoP images I nominated that have ever been kept with what I regard as improper reasoning. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The issues for FOP are mostly rather details than complete buildings. For example a close-up of artwork around a window has a higher change to get deleted for FOP reasons than a picture of a complete building. If what we see in the picture doesn't pass the threshold of originality (e.g. just another straight building), we don't have to delete for FOP reasons. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As you say freedom of panorama is based on the threshold of originality but I would hate for you to be in a discussion with architects about the original design elements of the buildings you deleted. In my mind File:Shinjuku mitsui building.jpg can certainly considered as "just a straight building" but to me the ones you deleted cannot be considered as having not passed the threshold of originality. I'm sorry but I disagree with your reasoning. Ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

drama at UR

Take a look at [2]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MS. Baburaj- Malayalam.jpg

Hi,

I think this file was uploaded first in malayalam wikipedia, and transferred to commons by someone else. Deleting it without informing the malayalam wiki user (the original uploader) seems to be unfair. --Vssun (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna do that. We delete more than 1000 files a day and I belong to the just 5 admins doing more than half of that. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree to you Jcb. If you don't mind, can you please let me know who was the uploader and from which wiki it was transferred to commons? Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And sorry in advance, if it was not a transferred image. It was my doubt only. --Vssun (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not transferred (there were at least no traces of that), but uploaded by User:Shalurajrisy, who has been informed at his user talk page. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That answers our concern. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

PD - TEXTLOGO

Your comprehension of the PD-TEXT LOGO is slightly incomprehensible : the PD text logo is correct for logo mixing free font text with simple geometry shape and no potential art creation. The closure of this nomination is clearly in opposition to that idea. Loreleil (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Commented at the (clearly inappropriate) renomination - Jcb (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Jcb/archive, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SAS Logo

I actually didn't nominate for speedy deletion, but applied this template from Wikipedia. Non-free use images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons so it defaulted to speedy deletion, since I used the non-free use template.

As I understand, whether it qualifies as simple geometric shapes or not, it's not a free image due to Trademark laws and therefore doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons, which is only for free images. There is an identical logo image on Wikipedia, where non-free use is allowed that can be used in its place.

I work for SAS and am very uncomfortable with people claiming our logo is free, putting it in a database of free images and tagging it with langauge like "is therefore in the public domain." This couldn't be further from the truth. There is logo image on Wikipedia that is more appropriately licensed.

Sorry if I sound a little irked. I don't mean to be ;-)

149.173.6.50

Being a trademark is not a deletion reason at Wikimedia Commons, it's a non copyright related restriction - Jcb (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Atheist campaign

Since you confirmed that you had not made a mistake and considered those files out of scope on purpose, I confirm that I felt really insulted as an atheist. I think I have not had any lack of respect towards believers on Commons so I expect the same from believers towards atheists. What's more, your irony about the ad itself increased that feeling of being unrespected. Maybe you were just clumsy but I hope you'll understand that it would be logic and pertinent that you apologize for your unrespectful words. It's the least one can expect from an admin. Thanks in advance. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, since it doesn't correspond to the UDR and the restoring by myself - Jcb (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, as I already said, I felt unrespected when someone states that atheist slogans may be "out of scope" and "not educational". And don't tell again that you'd do the same for christian files like this one or any proselyte picture, because I won't believe you !

Then you clearly mocks atheists when you write "Atheist stating that there is probably no God. They are not sure about that, LOL".

Again, I don't mock believers on Commons, I try to respect them (even if I don't understand them, but that's a different matter). So I expect the same respectful behaviour towards me and other atheists.

Am I clear enough ?

I'm sick of being insulted or unrespected on Commons. I've generally shut my mouth each time I felt "attacked", but I'm tired about such a lack of respect. So yes, I ask for excuses. You may have been clumsy or you may have not thought about the possible impact of your words, but you have to be responsible of your own words, especially as an admin. Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that you're not able to question your own behaviour nor to admit your faults. I'll do what can be done to complain elsewhere since you can't do that by yourself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Last warning

Hallo Jcb, this is my last warning to change your behaviour. It is annoying and time consuming and not how your admin work should be. Thanks. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking back this, be aware of that. So if you want to keep the possibility to communicate with me at this user talk page, you will have to stop spamming the page with your 'you forgot something' botlike messages. You're wasting my time a lot, thus harming Wikimedia Commons, because you waste admin capacity. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Saibo - while it does "waste admin time" just doing the job properly would make the work you do (considerable) far more effective. Not answering valid queries is really not the way to go with this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jcb: I am not spamming your talk page - I just have every time the same valid questions (which I ask you here) since you keep failing to provide reasons when they are really needed. And you know that they are needed. "waste admin capacity" is what you do. You induce repeated deletion/undeletion discussions by early and wrong closures, repeatedly without reason (despite a reason is needed in those cases). By all this time of other admins (including me) is wasted. Please change your mind and do a better work! --Saibo (Δ) 17:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

When I started to deal with DRs this way, a lot of DRs were very old, up to one year. Now we have only three DRs older than one month. I didn't do all that work alone, but if you're honest you will probably admit that without my effort, the backlog would be way more than it's now. Jcb (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Granted, some DRs can go without comment, but whenever there is a keep vote, you must provide a deletion reason, even if only "I agree with X". That's not hard to do. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jcb: Yes, I know (extrapolated since I really do not like to dig in your deletion log) that you do a big amount of work - mostly good work - but I would rather have a DR open for six month than have them closed with no or a not useful decision (example). The only effect is that the DR needs (hopefully it is) to be started again (or a undeletion discussion needs to be done). Late decision is better than fast decision by rolling the dice. Users who are not like me would probably just think when they stumble over (maybe because they are the uploader) a non-clear closure without reason: once more a fuc*** arbitrary decision by our admin elite and get scared away. I am sure this is not what you like. Please change your style and other admins will have time to do more DR closures (since they do not need to invest time to correct your errors) → all are happier and the same amount of work gets done. --Saibo (Δ) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to become seriously involved in this matter. I don't have time to waste ;-) Gadgets and JS stuff are waiting...

Just one consideration: While deciding about deletion requests administrators should act like a court. How "a second instance" should be possible when the first instance didn't say on which law their decision was based on. I am going to unwatch this page, so I won't read any reply. Thank you for your attention and for your great work on Commons. We are all volunteers. -- RE rillke questions? 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one to think that Jcb doesn't do his admin job with a correct behaviour... I feel less alone ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just thought the same thing. Looking at this deletions requests i nearly got the impression of just another crusade in which some people nominate, support each other, and one "convinced" admin does the dirty job at the end. Best practice is not comment, since then you don't need any valid argument. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo UTEM

Hi, about this change, I'm worker from UTEM and logo have copyright. Do you need an email from @utem.cl to confirm it?. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of its usage in official website. Another issue is this university is part of goverment and the copyright laws doesn't allow use an material from State, if we not licensed with Creative Commons or similar. So, in this case, all website (http://www.utem.cl and another in utem.cl) doesn't have a licence footnote, so we assume (like other projects) that have copyright (from chilean gov.). Regards (again!) Superzerocool (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that this logo does not fall under any copyright. It lacks the needed creativity to be protected as an artwork. See Threshold of originality. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note 2: A non-protection by copyright laws doesn't affect the protection as trademark (if it is protected as trademark). To inform others about this just add {{Trademarked}} to the file page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. To be safe I added the trademark-template. Jcb (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I send an "cease and desist" mail to OTRS. Thanks ;) Superzerocool (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Mikel Arteta Bohemians V Everton (39 of 51).jpg

I noticed that you deleted File:Mikel Arteta Bohemians V Everton (39 of 51).jpg without notifying me. I imagine, you deleted it because it's marked "all rights reserved" on the Flickr page, but it was a {{Cc-by-2.0}} image at the time of the upload (otherwise, I couldn't have uploaded it using the Flickr Upload Bot), and free licenses are non-revocable. I wish you'd ensured that the nominator contacted me before deleting the image because I could've explained the license at the time of the upload. Please restore the image, which was licensed correctly when I uploaded it. --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems clear flickrwashing, see watermark - Jcb (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Except not really - Eddie Lennon appears to be the contracted photographer for Bohemians FC, the owner of the Flickr stream. It could very well be Flickrwashing, but it's certainly not "clear", and it wasn't an unambiguous copyvio that it warranted speedy-ing without notifying the uploader. --Ytoyoda (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I started an undelete request at Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Mikel Arteta Bohemians V Everton (39 of 51).jpg. Your input is appreciated. --Ytoyoda (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ESCUDO ORIGINAL

Necesito volver a subir el archivo, para usarlo.. ese archivo fue tomado de una pagina de internet municipal del mismo municipio, por lo cual me han permitido derechos de uso de esta imagen. por lo que necesito una solucion, ya sea recuperar el archivo o darme la opcion para volverlo a subir.

No tenía una licencia, tampoco ningún forma de prueba de permisión. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Construction in July 2011.jpg

Can you clarify what you mean by "The buildings itself are not DM, but the possible FOP issues are"? I can't make heads or tails of that sentence. Powers (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple, just straight buildings don't form an issue for FOP. Note that a part is even unfinished. Some details around the clock could e.g. be an issue, but they are just a very small part of the picture, so DM. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FOP= Commons:FOP and DM = Commons:DM, if I'm not mistaken. Expanding acronyms may be helpful in an explanation. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have helped in this case. "The buildings itself are not de minimis, but the possible freedom of panorama issues are" is no more intelligible. I still don't understand what JCB meant even with the explanation above. If the buildings are not de minimis then the file should have been deleted. Powers (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich of Russia.PNG

Please, once again, not in use anymore. By the way, wasn't in use, when I've nominated it, but thanks to wrong filename was used. --Shakko (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, I checked the page history of the article, it was in use at the moment of nomination and remained in use during the entire period of the nomination. You can resolve the file name issue with {{Rename}} - Jcb (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, I see it now in the history. Anyway it is low res copy of existing file. --Shakko (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Forged flags

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:GokTurkFlag.PNG‎, "historical" flags were forged by TRT in 1969 for a their calendar. Flags are fictional. And copyrights belong to TRT. So my arguments are not inconsistent. Takabeg (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The files were also taken from https://www.fotw.info/flags/tr_imp.html and just converted to JPG so they are also copyright violations of the authors who drew the GIF images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why

Why did you think there is no copyright violation on File:Emblem of TuAF.svg, File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg ? Takabeg (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If a nominator claims copyvio, it's the responsibility of the nominator to provide a link to the source. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

PD-textlogo

You turned down my DR on File:Logo airberlin com.jpg saying that it is {{PD-textlogo}}. I would like to know whether File:ICICI Bank Logo.svg is {{PD-textlogo}} or not. To me it looks like either both of them are, or both of them are not. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the ICICI bank logo is even more obvious. User:Motopark is a notorious speedy nominator of ineligible textlogos. I already left several comments about this at his user talk page, but till know without any result. Jcb (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Édicules_Guimard_in_Paris

Hi ! You've just closed some deletion requests from this category by saying it is "simple street furniture". I can't disagree more, because this furniture is such simple it is indexed in the French architectural patrimony database and thus meet the threshold of originality. Léna (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, see Commons:FOP#France, where you can read that one of the conditions for copyright protection is that it doesn't belong to a series. These object do belong to a series, so we can keep them. Jcb (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grafiti Sn Fco Mostazal 19 8 2011 036.jpg‎

The image casebook only refers to illegal graffiti, and my argument was that this graffiti indeed can be legal, which you seems to have ignored. _→AzaToth 11:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find any evidence it's legal, feel free to ask me again to reconsider. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Skate parks are usually legal, and thus it's pretty logical that the graffiti might be legal as well. _→AzaToth 17:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to follow that logic. If somebody puts graffiti on a town hall, or on whatever building, the building itself will still be legal, but the graffiti isn't. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Indian Bank Logo.svg

Is this file en:File:Indian Bank Logo.svg in en wiki eligible to be called as {{PD-textlogo}}? I would wait for your word before I decide whether to move this image to commons. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be ok with PD-textlogo for this, it contains some text and three arrows, but this one might be a bit borderline - Jcb (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I would rather leave the image in en wiki itself. Thanks for checking. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Museo de Geología (Sevilla) (de la wikipedia en español)

Hola Jcb, me gustaría conocer alguna razón por la que fueron eliminadas algunas de las fotos del artículo al que hace referencia este apartado, no las he insertado yo, pero me resulta extraño que no se hayan eliminado todas (cosa que no me gustaría tampoco), ¿me darías una respuesta?, gracias por adelantado.

Recibe un cordial saludo,

Jesús.

--Lobillo (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lo que pasa es que los archivos no tenían una licencia y eso es obligatorio en Wikimedia Commons. Saludos, Johan - Jcb (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gracias Johan por la respuesta, pero hay una cosa que no entiendo, ¿las demás fotos si tienen licencia? --Lobillo (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tampoco tenían, pero para que no se van lo arreglé. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Dear Jcb/archive, We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win! The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall. Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone! Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 23:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/az

Hello. Please add: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js/az → MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/az. Best regards, --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but I'm totally unfamiliar with this type of code. I think the best thing to do is to ask at the Administrators' noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntonovA40.jpg

Hello Jcb!

Can you please explain what is meant with "option 2" in your rational in the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntonovA40.jpg? Is it "Lx 121"'s text or the second section of {{PD-Russia-2008}}: This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication. --High Contrast (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I meant the second section of PD-Russia-2008. Jcb (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for this "published anonymously"-thing? --High Contrast (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention an author, we have the common practice to accept that as anonymous. Jcb (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is no common practice. In the contrary, such weak sources (provided by the uploader) that do not give detailed licencing information should be deleted due to the "precautionary principle". --High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-Ukraine}} could also apply in this instance, given Antonov being based in the Ukrainian SSR, and it is more than likely it was also published in tandem in that republic. russavia (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is more likely to apply than PD-Russia-2008. I would suggest a replacement. --High Contrast (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! --High Contrast (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Disney Junior Logo.png ‎

File:Disney Junior Logo.png ‎ 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!

De-adminship request

Not my problem what the hell you and Saibo have going on, but I'm here only to tell you that this request is open about your tools: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2). Cheers, Béria Lima ^msg 20:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm working on a response to that page. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicates

Please could you delete these duplicates?

• File:Jacques Offenbach by Félix Nadar SW Opt.jpg (dupe of File:Jacques Offenbach by Félix Nadar (restored).jpg)
• File:Jacques Offenbach.jpg (scaled-down version of File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jacques Offenbach.jpg)
• File:Chopin1849 by Bisson SW Opt.jpg (dupe of File:Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg)

Thanks a lot! Best regards. Angelus ^(talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - you may also use {{Duplicate}} for such cases - Jcb (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I know! I had used it, but an admin has wrongfully undone my edits. I don't know why. Thank you very much! Greetings. Angelus ^(talk) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DR review

Hey mate. You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Recognition.PNG as kept, but I'm unsure about the reason. You said it's in use, but the only pages it's used on are archived talk pages on the enwiki. Do these count as use? If so, would it be acceptable to change the instances in the archives to wikilinks? Night w (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, such usage also counts. Replacing them by links won't be helpful, because those links won't be functional anymore after deletion. Are you aware of the fact that deleted files don't really get deleted? They remain accessible for administrators, so deletion won't save server space. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no I wasn't, but that wasn't really my reason for requesting deletion. Thanks anyway, Night w (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Kermit High School Photos

Hello Jcb, I would like to know why many of the photos from the Kermit High School page have been deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Kermit HS Late 2010.jpg These photos are under a section in the Kermit ISD Website (http://kisd.esc18.net) that are not copyrighted and are open for the public to use. The website states "Every effort has been made to comply with copyright laws. All images contained on this site are either the property of KISD, or are used by permission, or are from sources on the web that indicate that they are public domain or free to use. All images owned by Kermit ISD are intended for private use of Kermit ISD and the community of Kermit, Texas." Notice the last sentence, I happen to be from Kermit so there is no copyright violation. Also, the deletion debate was closed before I even got notification that the photos were under review. I really, really hate how some users get delete happy and try to be as strict as they can be with the current copyright policy. Please take another look into this issue, and please, if there is any way that the photos can be restored I kindly ask that you could do your best to restore them, they are very important to the article they were deleted from.

Thanks very much, KTownUSA (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The deletion request has been open for 20 days, where we mostly delete after 7 or 8 days. The statement as quoted by you doesn't give sufficient permission to fit within the policies of Wikimedia Commons. Not just your community must be allowed to use the files, but also whoever, for whatever purpose, even commercially, and with whatever modification. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eiffel tower at night

Dear Jcb,

I believe you were in error in your recent closure of deletion requests regarding the representation of the Eiffel tower at night.

The electric lighting of the Eiffel tower is indeed copyrighted, and the matter has been brought to a french court, where the copyright stood.

As a consequence it is not legal to publish images of the tower at night without permission.

Please see: [3]

As a result I have reported a number of copyright violations regarding the tower.

Regards,

D4m1en (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the specific deletion request? In general I can already tell you the court case was as far as I know not about electric light in general, but about a light show. Just simple electric light is not eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some deletion requests (I may not have found all of them):

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MG-Paris-Eiffel_Tower.jpg
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eiffel_Tower_at_twilight1.jpg
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eiffel_Tower_at_twilight2.jpg
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eiffel_Tower_Lighting_up_Paris.jpg
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:La_tour_Eiffel_by_night.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Eiffel de Paris.jpg

D4m1en (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the images and the thing I described above applies to these images. Please be aware of the fact that speedy deletion is not allowed for 'freedom of panorama' related issues. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of the court ruling. The exact words of the conclusion of the court of appeal were "la cour d'appel a souverainement retenu que la composition de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et, partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit ; qu'il en résultait nécessairement au bénéfice de son auteur un droit de propriété incorporelle" which I translate to : "The Court of Appeal held that the sets of light intended to reveal and emphasize the lines and forms of the monument was a "visual design" original, and therefore a work of the mind the result of which necessarily results in property right". As you can see there is no mention of any dynamic light show, just light to emplasize the shape of the monument.

In any case surely you agree that the following files do show elements of a dynamic lights show and should be deleted even by your interpretation:

• File:Eiffel Tower at twilight1.jpg strobe lights
• File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg strobe lights and lighthouse effect

I must also point out that just 1 day after your decision to keep in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower at twilight1.jpg you decided to delete a similar file with the exact same argument in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue Eiffel Tower - European Union.jpg so now I'm puzzled as to what the officiel policy is for those files ?

Finally I believe that the discussion at Category_talk:Eiffel_Tower_at_night resulted in an incorrect conclusion at it was started by a translation of the reasoning of the court of appeal, not the concludion I translated above. As you can certainly understand the concludion is all that matters for jurisprudence and in that case the court decided to use rather all-encompassing language. Wether we agree or not, we cannot ignore it.

I sincerely hope those decisions can be reversed to protect Wikimedia and the unknowing uploaders from unnecessary risks.

D4m1en (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say some are not eligible because of the quality of the picture (where light is quite blurry)... but should we keep them as they're of bad quality ? The others (especially File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg) are clearly against the law and should be deleted quickly. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

please learn from this

In the discussion over whether you should be allowed to continue to hold administrator authority I hope you learn from the discussion. No matter whether it closes with you losing the mop, or whether it is a near run thing, and you retain the mop, I urge you to try your best to learn from the feedback offered there. In that discussion I wrote:

Haven't you had an opportunity to consider every expression of concern here, on your talk page, or in the undeletion discussions your bad closures generate? Haven't you chosen to simply ignore all that previous good faith feedback?

You deleted good faith questions and expressions of concern I left on your talk page. I suggest this was a mistake. I expressed myself much more forcefully in the de-sys-opping discussion than I would have if I had seen you honouring the promise at the top of your talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to keep a copyrighted image in Commons

Please explain why you decided in favor of keeping the Stamp_of_Moldova_012.jpg in Commons after we received a valid email from the issuing postal authority, Posta Moldova, stating the above referenced stamp is copyright protected? I am also waiting for additional validation from other postal officials to further substantiate/validate copyright protection, even though the email from Posta Moldova should be sufficient. Thank you. Atsme (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stamp copyright protection depends on country to country. US Stamps after a certain point are copyrighted and other countries copyright their stamps; the UPU cannot control all copyrights of all countries on their stamps. I wonder if you have seen http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a comprehensive reply. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for right - rollback

Hello, I would like to be able to use this feature to help fight vandalism (rollback will make things much easier). I'm autopatrolled and file mover here, on Commons. Thanks a lot, best regards. Angelus ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think I should not handle such requests during the ongoing de-adminship procedure. But in the meantime you could try at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Rollback. Requests at that page normally get processed quickly. Jcb (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Angelus ^(talk) 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Your suggestion is appreciated. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Jozef van den Berg.jpg

File:Jozef van den Berg.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!

JuTa 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hou alstublieft op pagina's in te spreken!!!!

Waarom spreekt u allerlei pagina's in terwijl u geen goede stem en uitspraak heeft voor zoiets? U kunt Engelse woorden niet uitspreken en ook woorden uit andere talen klinken vreselijk, u heeft een veel te sterk Nederlands accent. Wat u zei op de pagina van Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch NL lijkt niet eens op hoe het moet klinken. Het hoort namelijk zo: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Ik snap dat dit een moeilijk woord is om uit te spreken, maar het gaat om het idee. Ook is het zo dat u in het Nederlands het klinkt alsof u, niet beledigend bedoeld, niet heel intelligent bent. Daarmee bedoel ik niet dat u niet intelligent BENT, dat u niet zo KLINKT. Ik stoor mij hier zo erg aan dat ik ben gaan opzoeken wie elke keer alles inspreek om hem te vragen dit alstublieft niet meer te doen.

Wilt u dus alstublieft geen pagina's meer inspreken!? Dank u wel!

Femme

Follow on the Donald Duck image

Hello. I just have two questions that are kind of related:

1. A while ago I nominated an image for deletion because I thought it was copyrighted. The dicussion you closed as a keep, which is fine with me. But I am wondering if the image should not have a tag that identifies it as a derivative work. It is still listed as a screenshot which isn't really accurate.
2. I was wondering if the same conclusion could be made for an image such as this one, or even this one. The reason being that the 1933 film The Mad Doctor fell into the public domain.[4] Is one image okay and the other isn't? I would like to use the color one since it looks like this image is about to get axed. But I'm not sure what the exact difference is as it was applied to the Donald picture, as far as a "copyrighted" derivative of a PD image. Thanks.

Pigby (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in general a screenshot of something that's (already) PD, will be PD as well. Making a screenshot of something doesn't create a new copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree... but (again) why don't you mention that in the closure ? Is it so difficult for you to write a closure explanation ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Another bad closure

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лион. Спасибо,Мария.jpg. You do accumulate mistakes ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a closure from more than six months ago and it does have an adequat closing comment. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But you commented the architecture (copyleft, I agree) but not the fact that it was taken by night with light art (see above the same debate about the Eiffel Tower, and also the link I added in the new DR). The first DR was launched based on comments about the fact that it was taken by night, which you didn't comment. Please try to be coherent with the debate elements (you often close by writing something completely disconnected from the terms and topics evoked by the discussions!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I did write "this way of lighting is not eligible for copyright" in that closure comment, I don't understand how this is not dealing with the lighting. Jcb (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My apology. Indeed you did on this one. But you didn't pay attention about the French law (although you had a link in the request). Therefore you didn't do your admin job correctly. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wilt u alstublieft stoppen met het inspreken van pagina's!!!

Waarom speekt u pagina's in?! U spreekt alles te "Hollands" in en de uitspraak klopt totaal niet zoals op de pagina Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch NL en op de pagina van Québec NL. Ik wil u niet beledigen maar op de manier hoe u de pagina's inspreek komt u nogal dom over wegens uw stem (daarmee bedoel ik dat het zo klinkt), en de klemtonen die u op elk willekeurig woord zet die je tegen komt klinken ook totaal niet. Ik raad u aan om hier mee te stoppen, maar als u percé door wilt gaan met het inspreken van pagina's, doe het dan A.U.B. niet op pagina's waar veel buitenlandse woorden en namen in voorkomen, dat kunt u best wel overlaten aan de mensen die die taal met een goede uitspraak kunnen spreken.

--Djawitogo

      Uw audio-opname van de Québec pagina, waarvan ik moet zeggen dat de uitspraak inderdaad verschrikkelijk is, is niet meer up to date met de pagina zelf. Ik snap niet hoe u dit verkeerd kan uitspreken aangezien de uitspraak is precies zoals je het spelt!  

Ps Waarom geeft u geen reactie op onze klachten?

Femme

Deleting of the Files:Autoroute A (BE) Logo.svg

Hello, I've seen that you deleting the files of the Belgian A-roads not completely. Why? The other files are not used anymore too. For example, the File:Autoroute R1 (BE) Logo.svg, there is a page in the uses list, that does not exist. If you look at the Polish Wikipedia you can see that the file does not used (pl:Plik:Autoroute R1 (BE) Logo.svg). --Gast32 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg

Hi Jcb, in the FFD discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg I became aware of the discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_21#OTRS_permissions_required_for_old_cases.3F which indicates that there is consensus to grandfather in old files from the pre-tempate era. PNVDstyrelse.jpg, which you deleted, was uploaded on 8 September 2006, 3 days before COM:OTRS was created. This file clearly falls in the grandfathering criteria. So would it be possible to reinstate this file, per COM:UNDEL? S_peakF_ree (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Jozef_van_den_Berg.jpg

File:Jozef_van_den_Berg.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!

82.172.160.38 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hola

Hola.

Con insistencia me solicitan que debo categorizar imagenes que he subido a commons... No sé cómo hacerlo. Por favor, ayúdeme.

--190.36.211.12 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Useless OTRS?

I see you closed Commons:Deletion requests/From skijumping.pl without OTRS with the comment "the OTRS ticket is useless". The OTRS mail seems to be in Polish and you do not indicate you know that language. Could you please explain in some more detail how you reached your conclusion? --LPfi (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jcb is as far as I know inactive so you may not get a response here. You might want to try the OTRS noticeboard however I notice that Bencmq seems to indicate a translation was made and that the licensing was ambiguous/inadequate. I must stress I have no knowledge of the case etc - I merely realised this page was still watchlisted - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed his absence note after leaving the enquiry, but thank you. There was a machine translation, but I think it is bad practice to rely on those, especially when done by somebody else or from a language one has no grasp about. --LPfi (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I Raised the issue in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Polish ticket (skijumping.pl) --LPfi (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NO SE COMO CATEGORIZAR IMAGENE QUE HE SUBIDO

Hola. Gracias por ofrecerte para ayudarme. No sé cómo categorizar imagenes. Por fa, ayudeme. --RASECZENITRAM (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in case you haven't realized it already, Jcb is no longer active on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For information

Hi,

For information, I just let a message to Krinkle (talk · contribs) about a RfD you closed (last year).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point

You missed the point here. I didn't ask for deletion because I didn't want my picture to be CC, I'd love to. But I'm not the author of the painting on the picture, and this author never asked me to put her work on Commons. Jean-no (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments NL

Beste Jcb/archive,

Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders.

Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/.
Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 14:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Block needed

Following this. User again reverted to his version, without any new agreement on commons. Admin help needed. Is it that hard to upload different file? :( --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The admin rights of User:Jcb have been removed. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buddha with gods.jpg

All uploads of the user Sacca are from the same source like File:Buddha with gods.jpg. All are derivative works, photographs of art. There are all copyright violations as there is no Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Laos. It warrants a mass deletion. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you are writing this here, as Jcb isn't admin since quite some time and hasn't be active at all since July. --Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)