User talk:Jcb

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

archive May 2005 - March 2011 - April 2011 - June 2011 - July 2011 - September 2011 - October 2011 - December 2012 - January 2013 - December 2013 - January 2014
Limited availability from Monday till Thursday. Messages at my talk page during those days might remain unanswered till Friday.


Contents

Copyright File:Coat of arms of Batavian Republic.svg[edit]

Beste JCB,

Uren heb ik gestoken in het natekenen van dat Bataafse wapen, een pipo dowload 'm, spiegelt hem (wat ook nog eens verkeerd is) en load het weer op onder de noemer "eigen werk" en dat noem jij geen copyright schending?? Als we zo moeten werken op Commons, dan stop ik vandaag nog definitief met tekenen voor Wikipedia. Die afbeelding moet weg, ik ben er erg boos om! Laten ze zelf maar gaan tekenen als ze het "eigen werk" willen noemen! --Arch (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In het speedy-verzoek werd om te beginnen verwezen naar het bestand zelf ipv naar een eventueel ander bestand. Als het bestand afgeleid werk is van een ander bestand, dan kun je m.i. het beste simpelweg de bronvermelding corrigeren. Een speedy-tag is alleen voor als het origineel geen vrije licentie heeft en dan wel graag met een werkende link naar het origineel. Jcb (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Een vergissing van mijn kant, waarvoor excuses! Ik zat te worstelen met die "gebruiksvriendelijke" methode een afbeelding te laten verwijderen en trof daarbij (een voor mij) onbegrijpelijke ellende aan. Aanvankelijk had ik meteen voor de standaard verwijderprocedure gekozen, maar door het geharrewar i.d.d. het verkeerde bestand opgegeven. Maar het neemt niet weg dat het wel er wel degelijk sprake is van copyrightschending. Daarvan heeft die gast intussen een fraaie status van dienst opgebouwd in korte tijd.
De warrige handeling kwam voort uit mijn boosheid. Probeer het maar eens van mijn kant te zien, ik ben écht boos door die aktie (en dat is érg zeldzaam) omdat ik met die specifieke tekening uren werk heb gehad, dan zie ik ineens dat een of andere pipo (met een naam die ik niet eens uitspreken) mijn werk spiegelt, daarmee mijn afbeelding vern**kt omdat de schaduwen allemaal links gericht zijn en door de spiegeling daardoor verkeerd gericht zijn, maar nog erger dat iemand er vervolgens "eigen werk" onder zet. Hij/zij is 1 minuut bezig geweest met downloaden, spiegelen en heruploaden. Anderen hebben het fatsoen om keurig aan bronvermelding te doen, dat is prima. Figuren als die pipo moeten van Commons geweerd worden, die brengen Commons/Wikipedia ronduit schade toe met hun methoden. Nu kost het mij een hoop tijd, en nog erger, mogen anderen "meebeslissen" of die afbeelding weg moet of mag blijven, de omgekeerde wereld dus! Bah bah bah!!! Ik begrijp in zoverre dat jij iemand onder een IP adres een vreemde nominatie zag plaatsen met een verwijzing naar nota bene hetzelfde bestand, dus wat dat betreft kan ik je handelswijze niet kwalijk nemen. Ik blies te hoog van de toren door mijn eigen vergissing (niet ingelogd doordat mijn hernoemde account niet gekoppeld is aan mijn Commons account) daarnaast ook nog eens een verkeerde verwijzing. Ik ben onterecht "verhaal komen halen" hier, nogmaals excuses. Vervelend dat ik nu aanspraak op je tijd gemaakt hebt, compliment voor je tactvolle opstelling na mijn onterechte kritiek. Ik zal dan de nominatie maar afwachten. MVG --77.251.211.19 12:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, geen probleem. Nog een vraag: Is de gespiegelde versie per definitie fout of zijn hier meerdere interpretaties mogelijk? Jcb (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Er bestaat (zover ik weet) geen officiële beschrijving van het wapen hetgeen "leading" zou kunnen zijn. Op prenten komt de afbeelding wel gespiegeld voor, echter tref ik daarentegen wel weer prenten waarvan de graveurs bij vergissing een tekening "normaal" etsten en daarbij vergaten dat een afdruk ervan een weergave in spiegelbeeld wordt, waardoor drukplaten juist in spiegelbeeld hadden moeten zijn. Mogelijk dat de tekening (geen prent) een ontwerp voor een graveur was dat deze van te voren om die reden "gespiegeld" werd getekend, maar dat is speculatie. Eerlijkheidshalve kan ik daarom geen uitsluitend antwoord geven op deze vraag. Wat betreft de gewraakte afbeelding, deze is een reproductie van de originele ontwerptekening voor het Nederlandse wapen, die in het Rijksmuseum word bewaard, deze specifieke versie hoort de leeuw dus links in beeld. Dat lijkt me ook correct omdat de figuren allemaal (heraldisch) rechts (voor de kijker links) kijken hetgeen standaard is binnen heraldiek. Omgewend is zeldzaam, zeker niet in het rijkswapen toegepast lijkt me. --Arch (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in dat geval is de gespiegelde versie eigenlijk toch wel gewoon fout. Ik zal eens kijken naar de juiste afhandeling. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Alvast bedankt voor de moeite :) --Arch (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ik denk dat de rommel nu helemaal is opgeruimd. Jcb (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Geweldig enorm bedankt :-) :-) :-)

Why?[edit]

Can you explain the reason for you deletion of the copyvio mark here? This is a work of art by an artisti dead less than 70 years ago. There is no discussion to be held: Italy has no FOP. If you are aware of any exception, please let me know. But do not delete marks, if you think they are not adequate, then change them into usuale deletion request yourself, as the rule requests. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First you missinterpret the rule. In fact it says that if somebody disagrees with speedy and you, as nominator, still want to have it deleted, you will have to start a regular DR. Second, for FoP cases we demand a regular DR. Third, this file already had a regular DR for FoP and was kept. Jcb (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Sale 1.jpg[edit]

Hi, please start a normal DR instead, in which you explain the reason. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. I thought I took the photograph years ago, and now I realise that I did not, so Commons does not have the copyright because I did not ever have it to release in the first place. Now you are aware of these facts please delete it. Giano (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Only via a regular DR ('nominate for deletion' from the tools menu) - Jcb (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Jcb, if the uploader didn't have the right to release the image as PD, then it's a copyright problem and qualifies for speedy deletion, no matter how long ago it was uploaded. Blocking him for trying to address the issue in good faith is really not a good idea; could you please reverse your block? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

People who try to revoke their release (which is not allowed) tend to invent all kind of reasons. For nomination by uploader a normal DR is really needed. And I warned him I would block him after the next speedy nomination. Tomorrow he can try again to start a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, Giano is a prolific and well-respected content contributor on en-wp, but is an absolute newbie on commons. He only created his account here six days ago to tell you he wrongly uploaded an image to en-wp; that it had been uploaded to commons without his knowledge; and that it ought to be deleted because he wrongly thought it was a picture he had taken - therefore he's not the copyright holder and can't release it under a free licence.
Now your response has been to tell him (i) "Hi, please start a normal DR instead, in which you explain the reason." and (ii) "start a normal DR instead, next speedy nomination = block" - and then you blocked him. Do you have no concept of BITE here? Surely you can treat newcomers to commons better than that. Giano has no idea of the difference between "speedy" and "normal DR", and blocking him does nothing to improve his knowledge.
Please unblock him. Please take the time to explain to him what it is you want him to do. Or better yet, start the DR yourself - you are in possession of all the facts and could resolve this easily. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If he declares at his user talk page (which he can edit) not to tag for speedy again, I will unblock. Jcb (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Jcb, there are absolutely no grounds for blocking a new Commons contributor for good faith-edits, or for correctly tagging for speedy. You have no reason to assume he's lying (remember COM:AGF?). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If an administrator decline a speedy, the only remaining option is a regular DR. At two places the user stated that he refuses to follow this instruction. That's not what we call 'good faith' at Commons. Jcb (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that the administrator in question gave no valid reason for declining, accused the user of lying without any evidence of same, and blocked claiming "abuse of tags" when in fact the tagging was absolutely correct...that admin should unblock and allow an uninvolved administrator to review any future deletion requests for that image. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If a regular DR is started, I will not close it. So if another admin has to take a look at it, just nominate it for deletion, using 'nominate for deletion' from the menu. I will only lift the (24 hours) block if the user promises to stop tagging the file as speedy. Jcb (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
JCB--you are way out of line here. First, you are in grossly violating the AGF and don't bite the newbie rules. Second, Giano didn't have the license to the photo so he rightly upload it to Commons, therefore, it needs to be speedy deleted. Third, there are the issues Nikki mentions in the post just above. If you don't unblock Giano and back down, I'll unblock him. PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, please asume a little bit of good faith here and don't threathen to wheel war. You are way out of line with that threath and an appologies would be nice. That is never a good idea. Jcb's offer sounds perfectly reasonable. This can be talked over without threaths. It happans way to often that uploaders keep requesting speedy deletions without a good reason. So it is perfetly normal to start a regular DR instead of speedy deleting at uploaders request. A reqular deletion can be started and this can be easely solved. If he is an experienced EN-wiki user he should know not to editwar with an administrator over an speedy deletion and that he should ask him why and if he gets the awnser start a regular Dr that it is wise to follow this advice. If I would start editwarring over a speedy at en wiki I probadly would be blocked to. Just start a regular DR and don't start to threathen with wheelwars. Jcb is just following procedure. Natuur12 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
JCB is violating so many rules of admin conduct I can't begin to count them. This sort of thing is what drives people away. His offer is not reasonable as Giano doesn't own the license and hence can't give commons-compatible permission. That makes it speedy deletable. That is what JCB should have done, not block a new Commons user. It's not a wheel war if I talk to him first, which I've done.PumpkinSky talk 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Natuur12, if you were to correctly identify a copyright problem at en-wiki and request its deletion, anyone edit-warring with you about it would be subject to blocking. Particularly if the person edit-warring to keep infringing material were going against multiple editors and site policy. Here, there is a good reason to speedy-delete, and no good reason to block the person appropriately requesting same. Jcb is following no reasonable interpretation of procedure at all, and I would again urge him/her to reverse the inappropriate block to prevent a wheel-war. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
JCB didn't even put a notice on Giano's talk page. Mark up another breach for JCB. PumpkinSky talk 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No, Natuur12, he isn't following procedure. There's no procedure here that suggests that you block a newcomer after a single threat over a revert war where the admin is clearly INVOLVED and then claim in the block log that it's for "Abuse of tags after multiple warnings".
I have rarely seen such abusive behaviour by an admin and Jcb should be ashamed of himself. Why do you, Natuur12, think it's ok to block a newcomer to commons for not knowing the difference between "Speedy" and "normal DR"? It's pure jargon and needs to be explained, not punished for not knowing. No wonder our projects are failing to retain editors. Overturning an ill-founded block is NOT a wheel-war and you should know that as well. If any apologies are due, they are from Jcb for his disgraceful treatment of Giano, his inaccurate block log summary, and for effectively calling Giano a liar when he maintains that he erroneously uploaded that image to English Wikipedia as it was not a photo that he had taken after all. However you look at it, the only person in this who knows whether Giano took the photo is Giano himself and no amount of pontificating here will give you any other answer than what he's already given you. He says he was mistaken when he thought he was the photographer; you either accept that or call him a liar and run the risk of keeping a file which has not been legitimately released with a free licence. You know that you're going to have to delete it eventually; Why insist on all this stupid procedure for procedure's sake that alienates decent contributors? Do the decent thing: unblock; apologise; and delete the file as soon as possible. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not judging here if he should or shouldn't have been blocked but the warning next time you will be blocked seems clear to me and it seems to me that an experienced editor is wise enough to ask for explaination if he doesn't understand. Deleting by uploaders request really should go to the regular procedures. I'm not saying that Giano isn't honest but it happens a lot that people are just making excuses because they just regret the release. So there is a valid reason to go through the regular procedures. In this previous controversation I see some clear expanation about what should happen. Natuur12 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the same fallacious reasoning JCB is using. It's a copyvio so it's can be speedied and none of this bureaucratic red tape is needed. Since JCB has had plenty of time to respond yet has disengaged I've unblocked Giano and speedy deleted the file. PumpkinSky talk 10:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, after your last message he went to bed and he is probably at work right now..... So no, he didnot have plenty of time to react. Your conclusion is just plain wrong on that part. I don't really care that you unblocked him myself but I don't think that your approach of Jcb is very wise Imho. Natuur12 (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you :PumpkinSky for bringing some common sense to this ridiculous place. This will be my last edit here, but I shall not be forgetting Commons; from now on, I shall be doing everything in my power to convince others from permitting images to be uploaded here. A place where deceitful admins create their own blocking rules, openly lie about warnings and promote a culture of bullying needs to be stamped on and closed down. I am very much afraid that the wrong person has been picked on this time; they will find that I am no push over. The desysop of JCB would be a good starting point to restore some confidence in the disreputable place, but even that will not deflect me. Thank you once again - I can't see that you can have much in common with the others here. Giano (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not really assuming good faith either isn't it? Talking about a desysops and about starting campaings against commons after one negative experience with one administrator. Natuur12 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I imagine his good faith ran out shortly after coming here to try to have an image deleted that had a false copyright tag and finding himself blocked by an involved admin for not understanding the jargon thrown at him.
Remember, he did not upload the image to commons, and the image he uploaded on English Wikipedia was deleted without fuss there. If you are capable of seeing it from Giano's perspective, Jcb has punished a grown adult like a naughty schoolboy who didn't carry out instructions he didn't understand. One negative experience with one administrator was the entirety of his experience on commons, so no wonder he's not pleased with the site. Well done all round - you kids have demonstrated again your lack of social skills when dealing with human beings, and lost commons another contributor. --RexxS (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
One really good part of the governance of Wikimedia Commons is that the process for desysoping an admin is straightforward. If anyone feels that Jcb's actions are unacceptable, then so long as they have established some prior discussion (talking it out on COM:AN/U is a good step and Jcb might feel obliged to explain their actions were it raised on that noticeboard), the process at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship is simple and transparent compared to the Wikimedia projects that Rexx and others might be more used to.
I see that Giano is thanking PumpkinSky, it should be noted that they are an admin here as well. As for kids, well, compared to oldies like Rexx and myself, most people here seem like kids and it is an unfortunate fact of life that in a multilingual project like Commons where English is not a first language nor a requirement, communications can appear unhelpfully abrupt or unkind, it is not necessarily meant that way. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Since when has lying over warnings and pressing a blocking button needed language skills? This incompetnt needs desysopping and desysopping fast in an attempt to restore good faith in the project. If Admins can't understand the basic requirements of a project they should'nt be administering that project. Presumably, his English is good enough to go through an RFA process, or am I to assume the magic tools are handed out here like ice creams and lollipops? I have no intention of editing this disreputable to site to achieve that desysopping goal, but it will be interesting to observe if anyone other cares enough about this project to do so. Giano (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I might be a bit young myself but not a kid anymore ;) but Jcb a couple of years older. I do understand Giano's perspective but I do also understand Jcb's perspective. It's sad that it has ended with a block and all this hate. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I can promise you that nothing has 'ended' here; it's just starting! Giano (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it a joke?[edit]

Hi. When I've realised it, I've shocked. Could you give me the detailed explanatipon for this deletion? because I think that it is a kind of joke or an interesting mistake :)

I took this picture in 2007. Even I don't remember the exact date. I scanned that photo and I'm in wikipedia for 6 years. I'm also an admin on Turkish Wikipedia and I always care about copyright rules. I've checked the website of Turkish Ministry of Edution but I find nothing. I think you mean this website, don't you? Let me explain it. This website belongs to a junior high school in Igdir and they used the short part of this featured article which gives information about Igdir. ıf you compare that featured article and content of website In Turkey, all educational institutions use the same website infrastructure of Ministry of Education. So, this is an official website page belongs to a junior high school. Ministry isn't responsible the content of the website. And, using the wikipedia information. Also, if you look at the bottom of the page, you can see this writing: "Güncelleme:07.12.2012 - 21:43". It means that "it is updated on December 7, 2012". You can easily realize that I've written that featured article and taken these pictures before that day.

It is so easy to prove there is no copyright violation. So, did you see another page which is related to Ministry of Education? Or if you realize your mistake, will you revert this deletion? Best regards.--Sabri76 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards.--Sabri76 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I did have a look and fix the mistake yesterday, but I was too absorbed by another case to remember to answer here, I'm sorry. Every seems fine now. If not, please feel free to leave another message. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored image[edit]

[1] How is it not found there? Why was this restored? It's from an official website of the Turkish government. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the linked site and it wasn't there. Jcb (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I suggest just looking again. You must of missed it. [2] Click the link and look down. If you want CTRL+F it and search "Ermeniler", it'll be right there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I found it. But did you notice that they actually embed it from Commons? You can see that if you right click on the image and then choose something like 'view image'. The governmental website uses the Commons image. That also explains why I didn't see it when I looked for it. When it was deleted on Commons, it was inevitable invisible at the government website. When I restored the file here, it re-appeared there. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Lledoner roig Espolla.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb,

I asked for this image to be deleted but just because I put the wrong license. So I would like to upload this image again with the right license but Wikpedia say me "NO, this archive was already deleted you can not re-uploaded". What can I do? Thanks a lot.

I restored the fix, so that you can fix the license information. Jcb (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted files[edit]

Hi, you deleted some files which I asked for restoration here. User:INeverCry restored them, but I wasn't here to add OTRS tickets. Please, can you restore them again? Thank you. And sorry for troubles. --Harold (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Sharp Sword.jpg[edit]

By request of uploader of File:Sharp Sword.jpg, which be deleted at 2 Fed, here is the information he would like to provide:

The webiste http://tupian.baike.com/a4_20_68_20300001248577138504687078551_jpg.html, as you might noticed,at the right of the photo introduction, with a big blue button, the upload time is 2013-11-21, and the author said this photo is definitely made by him and uploading time should before 2013-11-21. Since I can check it, so here to ask you double check, to make sure the photo created by Wikimedian, won't be deleted because of copyright violation of other website.

By the way, as an admin of ZHWP, in my opinion, it's not a news that baike.com copy content from ZHWP to their website.

--AddisWang (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, the file has been restored. Jcb (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Samuel Parr by William Artaud.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb. I appreciate your reluctance to remove content from Commons, but your response does not apply in the UK! Please could you take a look at Wikimedia Commons' own guidance on the issue: Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#United Kingdom. I would appreciate it if you could kindly delete the image since I am unable to myself. Regards, Duffit5 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this picture does not contain sufficient input from a photographer to be eligible for copyright. If you still think the file should be deleted, please use a regular deletion nomination. (Click 'nominate for deletion' from the tools menu). Such a nomination will give the opportunity to exchange arguments and after 7 days an administrator will take a decision based on the arguments. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the file for deletion through the channel you have suggested and hope this issue can be resolved there. Duffit5 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human review[edit]

Do you know who may have time to mark some of these flickr images? I have been busy these past few days and can mark only a few. So, the category keeps growing. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some active Dutch colleagues, like User:Sjoerddebruin, User:Natuur12 or User:JurgenNL? Jcb (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacqueline Fernandez judges the Femina Miss Diva 2013.jpg[edit]

Hi, Jcb. I'm afraid I can't see anywhere the source of this file, and the link you provided appears broken. I see the image from source is similar to the file, but not the same. --Allan Aguilar·/t/ 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I have seen those arrow buttons :) --Allan Aguilar·/t/ 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I had to look twice as well to see it. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the mass-deleted Konkani Vishwakosh files[edit]

Dear Jcb,Please refer to this thread. Now the license status of the files you have deleted is pretty clear. I request you to kindly restore the deleted files at the earliest. Regards, Muzammil (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

I did undelete the files 27 January. Have I missed some files? If so, please give me a link and I will fix it. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted images on Wikipedia[edit]

Dude, why deleted the images of the BG VHS edition of Tomcats in Alexandra Video? I was first time to upload here. --Krisi tranchev.1999 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the files because these are copyrighted works and there is no evidence of permission from the author. (No, we are not going to block you immediately, but please be careful not to upload unfree files.) - Jcb (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? I was upload images on Wikipedia. Please, tell me! --Krisi tranchev.1999 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What is your native language? It may be helpful if somebody supports you in your native language. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Category:Maronite Church St. Louis, Haifa[edit]

It looks quite empty to me. I had moved everything off to Category:St. Louis Maronite Church, Haifa before tagging and checked to make sure. Was there maybe a problem with the server cache? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly happened, but I did refresh the page and it did not appear empty. Now it is empty, so I deleted it. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Category:Stencil graffiti in Portugal I'm afraid you're mistaken; I did not tag that category page because it was empty, I tagged it because I had erroneously moved it from "Category:Graffiti stencils in Porto" which you would have seen easily had you checked the history of the category page, and I need to recreate it with proper attribution to "Category:Graffiti stencils in Portugal". As the sole author/contributor of that page, I believe as a general rule I am fully within my rights to have that page deleted, a custom commonly observed both here and on enwiki. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for deletion. You could have done a small edit to the page to leave a message in the page history. But I have deleted it for now. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Eric Weber.jpg[edit]

I don't know what was wrong with this file, but according to ticket:2014020310004621 everything shall be ok. The client who contacted us via support, Eric Weber, has all rights to this photo. Maybe he did it on a wrong way. According to his mail to the support it shall be published as cc-by-sa. --Filzstift (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Filzstift, I can't access the ticket, but does it contain a written permission from the photographer? In principle the photographer is the copyright holder, not the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It's in the info-de queue because this is only a part of his problems with "his" article. He said he had created the photo himself. I'don't know what he meant (self-timer?) but I'll ask him again. --Filzstift (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
He says, it was self-taken. But I see this file was recovered, so on my side there is nothing more to do. --Filzstift (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio template[edit]

Hi. What was wrong in my using the copyvio template insted of DR template? -Htm (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

We use {copyvio} if the file itself has been copied from somewhere. If the copyright of the depicted object is infringed, we use a regular DR. The two most important reason for this are: Regulations on Freedom of Panorama are quite complex and differ from country to country. Some cases are very clear, but others need discussion. The other reason is that a lot of uploaders are not at all aware of the fact that they can infringe the copyright of an artist if they take a picture of a work of art. A normal DR gives such uploaders the opportunity to ask questions and gives the community the opportunity to answer those questions. For those uploaders, who uploaded the file in good faith, a normal DR is friendlier. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. -Htm (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong deletion[edit]

You deleted this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hernanes.jpg for "Copyright violation" while there wasn't any copyright violation, the license was CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 and it was clearly documented in both the file page and the discussion page. -- Ekerazha (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the reason of the deletion is "Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved.". NC? Since when does Wikipedia need the commercial-use permission? -- Ekerazha (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I read the image use policy and it looks like Wikipedia needs the commercial-use permission, I wasn't aware of this. And I think this is a good reason to not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. -- Ekerazha (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. The goal of Wikimedia Commons is to offer only content without ND or NC restrictions. This choice has advantages and disadvantages. It's a pity that this situation discourages you to contribute. Jcb (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Hbc88.jpg[edit]

Hey, it was my photo of the QSL card of HBC88. Please undelete. --Cqeme (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The depicted card is copyrighted. Jcb (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Afficheamericaine2.jpg[edit]

Your tagging of this image with a tag which will result in its deletion after 7 days was unfortunately rather pointless, considering that it will not be deleted after 7 days, since it says "U.S. Army Official Poster" in the lower left corner... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing! Jcb (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please restore[edit]

File:Highway 400 at 407.png. If you do a little more looking around, you'll see the creator has authorized me to upload it under a CC-by-SA licence. Please undelete this photo. - Floydian (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did read the conversation at Flickr, but I am not convinced that the author really meant to release the file into a CC license. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Meant to? I didn't mean to sign that contract with the phone company, but here I am locked into that decision. - Floydian (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, a contract with a phone company is not an empty paper with 'I agree' and a sign. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Recovering deleted pictures[edit]

Hi sysop. I uploaded some pictures from Panoramio.com a few days ago. but they have not free use license and you deleted them. So, I mailed to Mr Ali Sharifi (photographer) and requested to change the license. He appreciated and changed license of pictures to «Attribution ». Now, Please recover his deleted pictures listed in my talk page.

thank you.Iranian engineer (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great. I have restored the files, except for one from a different Panoramio account. Jcb (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I dont forget your help. :) Iranian engineer (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Of Hostiran[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86.jpg was the logo of hostiran that you deleted. I've the permission to use it. just teach me how should i license it. the same as other companies logo which is available on their website and i can't upload it anymore. please make it back and teach me to license it as a logo but the owner let us to use it on wikipedia of IRAN

Hi, permission should go to OTRS. If the OTRS team finds the permission valid, they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on my deletion request about File:Nikon rangefinder d.jpg[edit]

What are you doing here? I requested the deletion of this file because of MY ACCIDENTIAL upload. Do you understand that? You don't need to erase MY deletion request.Frank Gosebruch (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I declined your speedy request. Frankly I do not believe you. You uploaded the file in September 2012 and apparently you was aware of its presence in March 2013, because you nominated it for deletion for a different reason. Jcb (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Frank, please understand that once you upload a file to Commons, you are releasing it under a free licence. One of the terms of such a licence is that you cannot simply "take it back". If you uploaded it accidentally, that happens, and we'd probably delete it as a courtesy; but since a year ago you requested it be deleted for a different reason, making no comment of it being an accidental upload, it does seem curious that now, so long after upload, you decide it's a mistake. Further, admins have the right to decline speedy deletion requests if they feel they do not meet the criteria for deletion. If you wish for this file to be deleted, I suggest you create a normal deletion request, as it will not be speedily deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Portraiture - Jake Rodkin.png[edit]

Dear Admin Jcb,

Perhaps you know what to do with this image because I don't know what to do. From the way it is used on the Wikipedia article, the flickr account owner seems to claim to be the creator of this painting but of course the flickr account is new and only has 1 photo--this one. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I share your doubts. Let's ask of verification of identity via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Their youtube channel at least seems to contain non-free content. Jcb (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Balkans-political1.png[edit]

Hoi Jcb, waar ben je mee bezig? Welk gedeelte van {{PD-self}} is niet duidelijk voor je? Ik zie dat je uploads van 5+ jaar oud nogal onvoorzichtig aan het behandelen bent. Deze uploads zijn later voorzien van {{Information}} en blijkbaar niet helemaal ingevuld. Dan moet je er niet blind een {{No permission}} op plakken, maar de boel verbeteren. De semi-speedy templates moet je überhaupt niet voor zulke oude uploads gebruiken. Oh boy, ik ben net door je recente wijzigingen gegaan en poeh, wat heb je er een zooitje van gemaakt. Je maakt mij hier echt heel erg ongelukkig mee. Vriendelijk doch dringende verzoek om deze schade te herstellen voordat het te laat is, ik heb niet zo'n behoefte om op Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems te moeten aankloppen. Multichill (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Op de gelinkte pagina wordt nog steeds niet duidelijk waar de gebruikte base map vandaan komt en of die dus vrij is. En nee, ik ga er niet per default vanuit dat al die uploaders zelf een base map hebben getekend. Jcb (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jcb_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Multichill (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please fill me in with some more information on ....[edit]

your deletion of this photo. I was not informed about a possible deletion and got no chance to do something against it. I don't think that it is good practise to delete without informing the author. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You tagged it yourself, a few minutes after upload. But I conclude this was an accident. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks alike ... Weird ... perhaps I used accidently a photo template with that tag ... Anyway, I'm relieved now. Thank you very much, I appreciate your help. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Veronica Boxberg Karlsson[edit]

Hi, this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Veronica_Boxberg_Karlsson.jpg has been deleted. The lady concerned, Veronica Boxberg Karlsson, tells me that she has sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the normal text, i.a. confirming that she owns the photo, but that has apparently not helped. What is the proper procedure for getting the photo back on-line?

On a related topic, is it allowed to include url links to existing photos on Internet, for example linking to an existing photo of Ms. Boxberg? --Klättermusen (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Permission by email may take a few weeks before it is processed. Also permission will have to come from the copyright holder (= photographer), not from the depicted person. Linking to external pictures is not allowed. Jcb (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted file[edit]

Hi, Jcb. The file just deleted had the right license to share and adapt the work. Check it out and undo the deletion. Otherwise, tell me exactly why was deleted and I'll try to fix it. --Giorgio Zeniquel (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the exif data, the file belongs to WireImage images. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of old images: File:Monument national.jpg, File:Fête à Plainpalais le 1er juin 1814.jpg, File:Vue de Genève au XIXème siècle.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I think it would better to add a license {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} to old images rather than deleting them. It would not take more time. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The second I must have overlooked. For the other two, no year is visible. Thanks for fixing. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi sir. please look at File:Nilu.gif. this picture stolen from this page but administrators didnt good check and pass it. please if you confirm my idea, delete this picture. thank you.Iranian engineer (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have deleted the file. In future cases, you can click 'report copyright violation' from the tools menu and enter the link where it was stolen from. It will be deleted within a few hours normally. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I got it.Iranian engineer (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0"[edit]

Hello there!! I'd like to ask you a question about the deleted the file "Walt-Heisenberg....jpg". This was a edit I did from the File:Breaking Bad - Dean Norris.jpg (CCA2.0'). Well, I suppose I should learn something about this, but I don't see exactly what went wrong, since the licence tells one copy/adapt the work would be ok. Could ya please do some clarification on this? Why is the cropped poster considered copyrighted, but the whole thing don't?
Cheers!! -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If a copyrighted work forms a small part of a picture, that picture does not violates its copyright, because it's de minimis. COM:DM is a useful page on this subject. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!! -- AlchemistOfJoy 21:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I added {{De minimis}} to the source image to prevent similar issues. The source image is borderline though. --Denniss (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's Uploads[edit]

There is nothing wrong with this user's uploads but he just gives numbers for his image file uploads. I renamed one image file but I don't know if you can ask him to give a better description. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Engineer111's maps[edit]

Hi Jcb - you recently nominated a number of User:Engineer111's maps on his user talk page for deletion for not citing the source - I checked these, and it turns out to be due to a formatting error in Template:EngineerBird used on all of them (the line "| source =" was missing). As User:Enginer111 clearly claims to be the author on this template, I've added the missing line | source ={{Own}}, so the maps are correctly formatted now and can be kept - MPF (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Where does the used base map come from? That's the actual question. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
File:World blank map countries.PNG or one of its many derivatives - MPF (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If that map is the base map, it must be mentioned as the source, otherwise the files are lacking source information. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Correction: from the earliest version of File:World map model.png. As to the mentioning it as the source - technically yes it should be, but that's a very common oversight (hardly any of the thousands of distribution maps cite which map they were developed from. I don't think that's such a serious omission as to require their deletion, there'd hardly be any distribution maps left. - MPF (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added a link to File:World map model.png on Template:EngineerBird - MPF (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have untagged these files. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:PL Bolesław Prus - To i owo.djvu[edit]

Could you please hide (delete) the initial revision of the .djvu file? It contains remarks by Zygmunt Szweykowski (1894-1978); deleted in the later revision. Undelete category added already. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Ankry (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Milvus, daar gaan we weer[edit]

En opnieuw en opnieuw en opnieuw!!

 B.p. 10:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ik heb je verschillende keren gevraagd wat de naam dan volgens jou zou moeten zijn en nooit antwoord gekregen. Ik heb geen verstand van het onderwerp en kan je hier dus verder helaas niet bij helpen. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that he prefers File:Milvus milvus (portrait).jpg;but MPF challenged the ID. So either it can be kept as it is now (I had added the Flickr source and author's claim) or rename as author's preference of name and add a {{fact}}. I think current status is better. Jee 17:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I prefer not to involve myself in the naming issue, because I simply do not know anything about birds. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm pretty certain (90%+) this is a hybrid between Milvus milvus and Milvus migrans - note the intermediate length tail, and the brown (not strongly rufous) plumage, particularly the tail colour (a Milvus migrans character), but also a pale head (a Milvus milvus character). For comparisons, see e.g. the head colour and tail length and colour here, Milvus milvus and here, Milvus migrans. It is strongly intermediate between the two, but does not fit well for either, suggesting hybrid origin between them. I don't have definite proof of its being a hybrid, which is why I put it in Category:Unidentified Milvus. Maybe the owners (Pairi Diaza zoo in Belgium) might have documentation of its origin. This hybrid is frequent in captivity, e.g. London Zoo famously had 3 which escaped in March 2008, causing many identification problems for birders as they roamed around southeast England over the subsequent months. I would definitely say that this photo (and the other two of the same bird File:Milvus milvus (in vlucht).jpg and File:Unidentified Milvus (sideview).jpg) should not be categorised as an example of Milvus milvus, as done before, as it is misleading in that context. Note that this is the third time I have posted this information, but page moves by others have orphaned this information. - MPF (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Image for Undeletion[edit]

The image at File:Stephan Nance at OUTmusic Awards 2012.jpg was deleted at the end of last month. I am now prepared to provide the correct licensing information; would you be able to restore the picture? Thank you.

Please send the permission to OTRS. They can restore the file if they find the permission valid. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

George Meegan Images[edit]

Jcb, here's where I am on someone else's talk page, which I'm copying to you, since you or your bot seem to be the ones who deleted my George Meegan images. I thought I had sent the required permissions, then all of a sudden you removed the images. Why? I never received any notice from the permissions entity or query asking me for more information. You or your bot just decided to delete the images. From another person's talk page, I left a comment (I think):

George Meegan [25]

from my talkpage - Could you please be so kind and answer him? Thanks a lot & nice weekend --Frze > talk 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC) FRZE, can you help me with what I need to do to have the photos restored on George Meegan. I had had George send an email to the appropriate to the permissions email address giving full authorization to use the photos. Why doesn't that authorize use of the photos. Did someone not receive the email message? What angers me is that nobody even mentioned to me that there was something wrong with the approval before pulling them down. Please HELP!!!!!! Bwisok (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

   Hi Bwisok, I had a look and could not find an good answer. After finding no information on en.wp or commons.wm I did a quick Google found a cached page listing them all under OTRS ticket number 2013122710001535, but nothing more. I'm surprised that your talk page on commons does not have any feedback on the deletions! I can only suggest asking the commons admin Jcb who deleted them for help, or you could try the Commons OTRS Noticeboard. Sorry I can't be of more help. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
       Hi Bwisok, I did some more research on this issue. There was some problem with the information sent to OTRS providing the permissions for the files you want to use; the images need to be released under a free license. You, or the person who sent the original e-mail providing the permissions, needs to respond to that e-mail, providing the information that was requested. If you can't find the original e-mail, you should be able to send something to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. It might take a while for them to respond (I think there's a backlog, as listed at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard) but it's important to be patient. Hope this helps! - tucoxn\talk 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch to the generous souls who have tried to help me with this. I do not remember receiving any email from OTRS whatsoever. I'll go ahead and resend the original email that I forwarded from George with the permissions. Is Jcb a bot or a human? And either way, how do I talk with Jcb? I still haven't quite figured out how this Wikipedia talk function works. Sometimes I can reach a person and have a conversation and sometimes someone else just crops up out of right field to comment to me. The Wiki implementation for Wiki is slowly driving me completely bananas. Is there any good reference manual someone can suggest to help me as an author of occasional Wikipedia articles (and an experienced, published writer and editor of 20 years)? Has anyone written Wikipedia (is) for Dummies? Exasperated in Michigan. Bwisok (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Bwisok (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have opened the OTRS ticket and I see that my colleague concluded that the permission was invalid, because the depicted person stated to be the copyright holder, while normally the actual copyright holder is the photographer. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Bianca Ryan promo.jpg[edit]

Proof of permission to use this image was mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on February 13, 2014, at 21:25 PST per the tag I placed on the image page. Please restore this file. Thank you. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Permission via OTRS may take up to several weeks to be processed, but if the permission is valid, the OTRS team will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged. I was a bit surprised by the dispatch with which the file was deleted, I've never quite seen that before... xD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, you weren't kidding—it's been three weeks! Is this normal? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry to say that this is normal. I will try to process some tickets myself this weekend. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A question while we wait[edit]

The image in question was a crop of an image e-mailed to me by Ryan's assistant; this image is quite large (2544px x 4398px, 682.8 KB) and does not exist anywhere on the Web per Google and Tineye (though it was used to make the much smaller images used at biancaryan.com, which was presumably why you deleted it). If I were to upload to commons a new, much larger version of File:Bianca Ryan promo.jpg (as, say, File:Bianca Ryan promo large.jpg) to make it obvious that it wasn't co-opted, would it be allowed to stand pending OTRS? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The best thing is just to wait for the ticket to be processed. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Altgens with JFK photos-large.jpg[edit]

Meantime, please delete this file with dispatch. Blake Sell with the AP confirms they maintain ownership of this image. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Mario Balotelli — "Super Mario" Goal Celebration — A.C. Milan.jpg[edit]

Dear Admin Jcb,

I notice that you deleted this image. Unfortunately, I may have passed some other images from this flickr account. Please feel free to check and see if the uploader uploaded other images from this flickr account...and consider if the other images should be deleted. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to search images by original flickr account, but this picture was pretty obvious a copyright violation. Jcb (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks anyway for your comment. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Pescadoteja2.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you explain why this picture was deleted. I took the picture and the item is the photograph is property of my family. Please advice how could I get this picture online. Thanks.--Javier Virués Ortega (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not just a picture from a camera. To get it back online, please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Sosten Gwengwe.jpg[edit]

I assume this image is free since there is an OTRS ticket but perhaps an Admin like you should mark it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also can Commons keep this other image below which Alan renamed:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the Flickr review procedure. Other users are dedicated to that part of the process. Jcb (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I would be interested to hear why you think this is not copyrighted, since you didn't convert the copyvio to a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not think this is not copyrighted. I did not convert it to a DR, because it's my experience that if I correct such mistakes, I will have to keep doing it for the user. Now you got a notification from the system, so that you had the opportunity to use the correct procedure yourself. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who samples[edit]

Hello Jcb,

I may disagree with your point of view about File:Poem Matt Smith.ogg and File:Raggedy Man, GoodNight.ogg. These may not be cases for SD but I don't think a CC license is suitable. These files are actually audio samples extracted the last braodcasted Doctor Who episode, The Time of the Doctor, so they might be owned by BBC UK. Hence, one can not consider these extracts as free materials, don't you think ?

Unless I missed something, there is still a problem about these files... Kelam (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You just replaces the license with a copyvio tag without any explanation. That will normally result in a revert. An admin cannot judge your statement if there is no statement. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I get your point. Thanks. Kelam (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Sochiolympicrings.jpg[edit]

Please feel free to decide if Commons can keep this image--as a photo of the generic Olympic rings. Or if the building behind the rings means it should be speedy deleted since it is modern architecture. I thought the Olympics rings were copyrighted...but I am not an expert here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

'Modern architecture' is at least no reason for speedy deletion, for FoP issues a regular DR is needed. The olympic rings are not copyrighted, because they are too simple to be eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There was someone else in another DR who claimed that the Olympic rings were copyrighted. But I'll pass this image and in this case, I won't file a DR but ask Dennis for his opinion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Museum of Art-Rocky-Philadelphia5728.JPG[edit]

Hi Jcb,

I'm just curious as to why you suggest using DR over SD for this file. The sculpture (a current registered copyright [VA0000203798]) is the main focus of the photograph and there is no Freedom of Panorama. As is typical, I marked this because I saw it as an obvious copyvio. The Haz talk 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If not the picture itself but the depicted object is the copyright problem, a regular DR is necessary. Jcb (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your reply on my talk page. Thank you again for the clarification! The Haz talk 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ork Boyz.jpg[edit]

This file, which I uploaded, was taken down by you because the copyright status was not confirmed. An email from the copyright holder was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org a few days ago. Could you please restore this file?Kurzon (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Our OTRS team is able to restore files if they receive a valid permission. Processing the message may take up to a few weeks. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Maps of Cherkasy Oblast[edit]

Hi, I found, that You have nominated bulk number of maps of Cherkasy Oblast for deletion. I believe, it has been done by mistake. All of them have been reuploaded by me to commons from uk.wiki. The original uploader and, as he/she claimed, author is Вальдимар and he/she had publish these maps using GNU FDL licence that, as I believe, fit well for licences permitted on commons. It looks like Magnus's tool have uploaded them with inconsistent description. I will try to solve this issue. --Magul (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with maps is often that users take a map from somewhere, do some modifications, and claim own work without attributing the original map. The number of users who can create an entire map from scratch is very small, I wouldn't assume that by default. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Image of Engratia of Braga[edit]

Didn't I had still six days to do something about the rights of that picture? For god's sake, I was just trying to contact with older wikipedia users to understand why I can't still use that image and you didn't waited even 24hours for people to fix things...

Files copied from somewhere can be deleted immediately according to our policies. If OTRS receives a valid permission, they will be able to undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal 3D_Origami_Teddy_Bear.jpg[edit]

Why did you remove http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_Origami_Teddy_Bear.jpg ?

This file seems to be copied from somewhere and no source was indicated. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image uploaded again[edit]

Hi: Remember?. Well, you have it here again. This user wask blocked on Wikipedia in Spanish for being a puppet Thanks in advance.--Fixertool (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize for being here again. This guy is an annoyance. Just another puppett for him (he will be blocked by an admin later. It's a well known case). You have here the same picture we've talked about. And another one already already deleted by Fastily. I appreciate your help. Thank you a lot. --Fixertool (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion process for File:JudithButler2013.jpg[edit]

Hi. Back on January 27, I received a message from Czar on my talk page which read: "That Butler picture is great, but it's missing the photographer's permission. Please forward the permission to the address above. czar" Then you deleted the image on February 4. Since then, I was in touch with Professor Butler, and she sent the necessary email agreement to publish the photo under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License to the following email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I sent an undeletion request and FASTILY responded saying that OTRS will process the email and restore the file. However, the email was sent a number of weeks ago, to no avail as of yet. Please let me know if there is a way to follow up on the review process and to ensure that the photo will be reinstated to the commons. Thanks very much in advance. --Bmwer2000 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but OTRS has some backlog and at the moment I am too busy in real life to be able to handle some tickets. Jcb (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jcb, so might you recommend if there is anyone else who might have a bit of time to look into it? Thanks so much. --Bmwer2000 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tickets are processed in order of entrance. I will try to do some next weekend. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to get a sense of where in the cue this particular ticket stands? And how will i know once the photo has been undeleted? Thanks --Bmwer2000 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
To see when it gets undeleted, you can put it on your watchlist. To speed up the process, you can help by not bothering us. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ingesproken tekst[edit]

Beste Jcb, u hebt Nl-Keijenborg-article.ogg ingesproken. De gesproken tekst correspondeert niet meer met het artikel. Wat moet er nu gebeuren? Afz. Haagschebluf

Als de verschillen erg groot zijn (bijvoorbeeld een artikel dat inmiddels veel uitgebreider is), dan kun je het melden op deze pagina: nl:Portaal:Gesproken Wikipedia/Update gewenst. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Loves Monuments Ukraine 2014 Exhibition-Chernihiv[edit]

Hi! Category:Wiki Loves Monuments Ukraine 2014 Exhibition-Chernihiv and Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Ukraine Exhibition in Chernihiv are two DIFFERENT events! Why do you delete first category? :-0 --Nickispeaki (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If a category is empty, it gets deleted. You can simply recreate it when needed. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating File:Logo Beczka Polska.jpg[edit]

Why did you deleted File:Logo Beczka Polska.jpg from wiki page of this company ? eg https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Asseco_Poland_Logo.svg has no problem with copyright at Asseco web site. What to do to add this logo into Company wiki site? Best Regards

The file at PL wiki is too simple to be eligible for copyright. The deleted file isn't. Jcb (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Walter Tournier animando a Selkirk.jpg[edit]

The File:Walter Tournier animando a Selkirk.jpg, deleted for copyright violation (Ticket:2014030710010686), was included in a press packet for promotion of a film. Email was sent to head of studio (and photo subject), Walter Tournier, asking if it would be possible to release the photo under a CC copyright. Sorry you have been troubled by this. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We received a claim of copyright infringement for this file. Please remember that the copyright is normally held by the photographer, not by the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood. But the person portrayed may either own the copyright to the publicity materials or have worked with the person who does. Don't know what is required and assumed it would have to pass between the copyright owner and Wikimedia anyway. Is there a process/form we're supposed to use here? — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The supposed copyright holder should contact OTRS for further instructions. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

HI Dr.Gulliver I´m Martín De Rossa the Photographer who took the picture walter. Sorry for the inconvenience, what I need is to write my name (the author of the picture)

thank you

Watermark[edit]

Hi again: I'd like to ask you about watermarks here, and in other contributios by the same user. Please, put an eye on this. Thanks in advance. --Fixertool (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the files as 'no permission'. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Fixertool (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Boris Vian - WIKI.jpg Ticket#2014011710011973[edit]

Hello

I do not know where to send the confirmation message that we can use thise photograph freely on commons. I have received it and set it to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons (fr) <permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org> with the photograh attached to the messag. CaN you give me another adress where to send it. Thank you. --[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Lepetilord

It's a correct address, but we have a backlog there. I'm sorry. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
What is a backlog? Thank you.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/backlog Jcb (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well..hemmmm...Thank you all the same.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Otra vez[edit]

Aquí vamos, saludos.--Inefable001 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Borrado y bloqueado. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gracias--Inefable001 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Del Erich Hecker.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb, after your deletion of the Erich Hecker.jpg the owner (s.jacoby@evkhg-herne.de) of the picture had send an email (Tuesday, 11.Feb. 2014 08:31) to "permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org" as requested. Maybe he did a mistake. but till now it's no undelete performed. What we have to do? Foo308 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The email address is correct, but the email department is busy and it may take up till several weeks until a permission gets processed. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In Search of La Che Poster[edit]

Hi, you seem to have deleted the poster for In Search of La Che which I uploaded despite the fact its copyright was cleared by email from me to Wikipedia. --TheDeadRat (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, the file will be restored as soon as the permission is processed. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
But it was sent ages ago because the first email wasn't successful but they confined they had the 2nd one. --TheDeadRat (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the removal being reversed? --TheDeadRat (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but don't count on me please. I am currently too busy IRL to process OTRS tickets. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
But it was yourself that removed it. I can't reverse it. --TheDeadRat (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Verwijdering meerdere afbeeldingen[edit]

Beste Jcb,

U heeft meerdere afbeeldingen verwijderd die door mij waren geüpload. Onderaan elke webpagina van de Haagse Beeldbank http://www.haagsebeeldbank.nl/ van het Gemeentearchief Den Haag staat 'Gebruiksvoorwaarden'. Klink dat aan dan kom je op http://www.denhaag.nl/home/algemeen/gebruiksvoorwaarden.htm.
Citaat uit de Gebruiksvoorwaarden:

"Gebruik van content op het Platform: Op het gebruik van de content op het Platform alsmede de bijdragen van gebruikers van het Platform, is de Creative Commons Licentie :Naamsvermelding-Gelijk delen van toepassing. Voor meer informatie zie: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/."


Het is om die reden dat ik meen er vanuit te kunnen gaan dat tenzij er bij een afbeelding expliciet iets anders staat vermeld, deze licentie van toepassing is. Ik ben er niet op uit om oproer te maken, maar zou wel graag willen weten wat ik dan over het hoofd heb gezien, en of ik mij daadwerkelijk heb vergist inzake de licentie. Anders valt er voor mij ook geen les uit te trekken. Ik ben nog niet zo gek lang actief op Wikipedia. In elk geval ga ik uit van uw goede bedoelingen. Mocht de vergissing uwerzijds zijn gemaakt dan zou ik het op prijs stellen als deze worden gecorrigeerd.
Met vriendelijke groet,
--OSeveno (talk)

Ik zal er eens naar kijken. Zo te zien zijn ze met een reguliere veegronde meegegaan, maar daar gaat ook wel eens wat fout. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Bij geen van de afbeeldingen is de Haagse Beeldbank de eigenaar van de auteursrechten. Wel is voor drie afbeeldingen {{Anonymous-EU}} van toepassing. Die afbeeldingen heb ik teruggeplaatst. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

About "Smite_generic_logo.jpg" (Again)[edit]

(You might have forgotten about this since I know this isn't the only thing you take care of so)Long ago, the file Smite_generic_logo.jpg got taken down by you, so I contacted both support And Hi-Rez's Press team, and Hi-Rez ended up contacting support themselves to fill the permisson. Thing is, I've never heard anything from that again. Support is taking even longer to reply (Months now), and I can't message Hi-Rez to ask since they already talked. Do you have the means to know if we are allowed to have this file or not? If you do: Could you confirm that to me so that I can finally add (or not) this file?--Malvodion (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Was the permission sent to OTRS? Jcb (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it was, or atleast I was told it was. It's weird that I haven't heard a single thing from anyone since then.--Malvodion (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Then it will be processed some time. But OTRS unfortunately has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. I just hope it doesn't take too long. The game is going to be released in 5 days, it'd be good to have that logo up before then.--Malvodion (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This DR[edit]

If you have some time, please check this DR and try to make a reply. Perhaps I was mistaken in filing a DR here. I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your comments in the DR. The uploader had uploaded the same image a day earlier and it was speedily deleted but this time I decided to file a regular DR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:AreThereAtheistsinFoxholes2013.jpg[edit]

Hey there! Hope you are having a great weekend (so far). I've been able to verify authorization for the above image. Could you help me out by restoring the file so I can update permission? Your help is appreciated. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am currently not doing OTRS tickets, too busy IRL. Jcb (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you restore the image? There is sufficient permission in ticket 2014021110014247. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My images are deleted due to copyright infringement but that link is on my site, and these are my images. Can you reinstate please?[edit]

JCB please help. Not sure where to fix this, but my images I uploaded re: NITRC-IR, NITRC-R, and NITRC-CE, etc. are our own artwork and belong on our NITRC page. The copyright notice on our site is for OTHERS using our images.

All licenses accepted by Wikimedia Commons do allow reuse by whoever (including 'others'), for whatever purpose. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Martin Millerioux.jpg + other photos[edit]

Hi Jcb

The author have sent the permission of photos by mail to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org,you can verify this please

Thanks Iffrit51 (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Tickets are processed in order of entrance. That's the way it is. Jcb (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of picture.[edit]

Hi, my name is Luis Antonio Muñoz. I would like to know whay did you deleted the picture I used for Vanessa Montfort's page, changing it for and older one I published some years later.

This is what I found as the explanation of deleting: (act · ant) 18:30 6 feb 2014‎ CommonsDelinker (discusión · contribuciones)‎ m . . (9394 bytes) (-84)‎ . . (Bot: Eliminando "Vanessa_Montfort_2014.JPG". Borrado en Commons por Jcb. (No license as of 29 January 2014 - Using VisualFileChange.js.)) (deshacer)

I'm not used of publishing in wikipedia. I´m the owner of the picture and don't find any reason to delete it. Maybe license? Wiki is complicated about this issue and I don't know how to publish. Could you help me to publish this photo again? Can I undo?

Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience and my basic english.

The reason is: "No license as of 29 January 2014". On 29 January 2014 is was tagged as not having a license indicated. Uploader did not repair this in the week that followed. Jcb (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


renaming of categories[edit]

I would prefer that you fix all links in all wikis when you rename categories, otherwise links to the categories in all wikis will point to a wrong location. Job isn't done by simply renaming. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember any category that I have renamed? Jcb (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

category:Erlöserkirche_(Freiburg), category:Dominikanerkloster St. Albert (Freiburg), category:Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Freiburg) --Jörgens.Mi Talk 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not rename those categories. I just deleted empty categories, which is a standard maintenance procedure. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Permiso OTRS Orden Martinista[edit]

Hola Jcb. Paso nuevamente por aquí para solicitar su ayuda. He notafo que han puesto una planilla de verificación de permiso en el archivo Orden Martinista. Este permiso fue enviado el 14 de Marzo de 2014, cuyo asunto es: Liberación de la Obra: Orden Martinista bajo la licencia CC BY SA- 3.0. Espero usted pueda ayudarme con este archivo. Un Saludo.--Deucaleon (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)