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 - February 2014 - April 2014 - May 2014 - October 2015 - November 2015 - April 2016 - May 2016 - June 2016 - July 2016 - September 2016 - October 2016 - November 2016 - December 2016
For any questions about OTRS permissions, please visit the OTRS/Noticeboard

Photo Deleted[edit]

Hi Jcb :)

I received the following message for a photo I uploaded to a page:

נמחק מוויקישיתוף ע"י Jcb עם הסיבה: Missing permission as of 22 December 2016 - Using VisualFileChange

Which means it was deleted by you because of missing permission.

I don't know much about wikipedia I only edited this page of a teacher of mine who is also an author in Israel. He sent me photos of his books and himself to upload.

can you please help me and tell me how to upload them?

thank you!

Roi —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:26, 01 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know which file you are talking about (I delete about 15.000 files a month), but I think the problem was that there was no evidence of permission from the photographer. According to copyright regulations, the copyright is normally with the photographer, not with the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)



the uploader had left a note on the talk page saying that it was his image and was trying to identify himself. You deleted the page apparetnly without taking that into account. Could you restore the page (and maybe start a normal deletion process instead of the speedy one) while I reach out to the uploader to see if we can have this image under a free license and without a watermark? It was a really really good image, so it would be sad to lose the opportunity to have a good photographer participate to Commons. Thanks -- notafish }<';> 16:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Happy New Year! -- notafish }<';> 17:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


I answer to you. I don't speak English. I don't know finish the delete system. Thanks--Macassar (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated in French at your talk page. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Whisperer in Darkness by Alexander Moore.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb !

Alexander Moore, the author of this illustration, send the permission mail on 1 December 2016.

Could you explain me if there's a problem with his mail, please ? Thank you very much ! :-)

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that our badly understaffed OTRS department did not find time yet to process his message. That's why I reset the timer, to keep the file another 30 days online. As long as the message is open for processing, we will not delete the file. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Licensing question[edit]

I'm not as familiar with the licensing issues here, so I was wondering if you could look at this [1]. Is it ok to have a requirement to link to the site? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to nominate this for deletion. We cannot satisfy this requirement to begin with. External links at our servers are always 'no follow'. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to create that much work for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


So, do you really think that a bot is able to determine if a logo is bellow or above the TOO? By reading your deletion summary, apparently yes. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A bot cannot and apparently you neither. You added {{PD-textlogo}}, which was an obvious error. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ConEvoSkinjpg.jpg deleted[edit]

@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, Ww2censor:Ok, I am a totally confused newbie. As far as I can tell, you are the one that actually deleted the file after ww2censor tagged it, but I might not be using the correct terminology. You wrote "the source for the girl on the left is which has a non-commercial CC license". Sooooo, why is that inappropriate? Is wp a commercial enterprise? Like I said, I'm sitting here smh...DennisPietras (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, While WP is a non-commercial venture, it's also a free venture, meaning that all content has to be available for use by anybody for any purpose (this is the en:Definition of Free Cultural Works that WP uses). That anybody includes all re-users of WP, and some of them have commercial uses (yes, there are people who print the articles you write and bind them as books and sell them). If we were to have non-commercial only content, those people wouldn't be included in the "anybody for any purpose" and WP wold no longer be the free encyclipedia it claims.
Nom-commercial only licenses are thus not acceptable. You can read about it at Commons:Licensing, and indeed at Commons:Flickr files. Finnusertop (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: Wikipedia isn't a commercial enterprise, but I might be and the way the file was licensed means that I can download it, put it on T-shirts and then sell those T-shirts for profit and not pay you or the Flickr account holders any kind of fee or royalty in the process. You might not care, but the Flickr account holder who copyrighted that particular image explicitly stated that it could be used for anything except commercial purposes. Of course, I could do basically the same thing without getting the file from Commons, but that's not really a Commons issue then, is it? That's something just between me and the Flickr account holder. That is why Commons does not allow files, even CC licensed files, to be uploaded with any type of restriction placed upon commercial use. Ideally, you should be able to use any file you find on Commons in pretty much any way you want. Of course, the real world is not always ideal and Commons is in the real world, which is why inappropriately uploaded files are constantly being deleted by Commons administrators. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, Ww2censor:::Ahhh, now I understand! Thanks! BTW, should I be getting some sort of commons username? (I notice that my username is appearing in red) Also, I just uploaded a new version of the image. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, Ww2censor::: I forgot one more thing. Some of the images I collated were license as CC2.0, yet 2.5 was the oldest version listed on the upload form. Is that OK? DennisPietras (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Your Commons username is in red because you've yet to create your Commons userpage. The rules for Commons userpages are pretty much the same as on Wikipedia, so check en:WP:UP for reference. As for the licensing question, maybe Jcb can help with that. After all, we've been filling up his user talk page with our little drama, and as a Commons admin and OTRS volunteer he should be alble to help with any questions related to licensing. Just be patient and he will respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @DennisPietras: Perhaps you did not check out the links I gave you or did not understand what I wrote but at w:File talk:ConvergEvoEyesjpg.jpg I pointed out that copyright can be difficult for new editors and there is much to learn, even for us old-timers find out new stuff. I also wrote exactly which creative commons licenses we accept which did not include those with commercial restrictions. Regarding the replacement image you made that has been deleted, on the enwiki media questions page I told you that it is preferable to upload the full original Flickr images first and then crop them here, so we have the full source. I also suggested there are many commons images that would do you instead of you having to do any Flickr uploads at all. This is just some advise for the future. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
About the CC 2.0 license, we have {{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} available. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Light art[edit]

I can't understand how you can close that as kept and deny the elements proving that it's art. Could you just explain that to me because there's no argumentation in your closure ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

More information about the artist here (this work being called The kings’ visit). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Although a light show may be eligible for copyright, we have to look only at what is visible in the picture. The light as visible in the picture is not eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And could I have a real explanation about the reasons why this is not ?! There's a colour composition as any painting or animated film. Whereas we would never accept a photograph of a painting or a screen capture of a movie, we strangely accept such a picture ! I really don't understand the logic ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
What is visible in the picture is not above the TOO. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Then let's upload any colourful abstract composition on Commons ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of three images[edit]

Hi, you refused to delete this, this and this because they were still in use. Now, they are not. These maps contain an error. The good versions are File:Comarcas de la provincia de Zamora, España.svg, File:Comarca de la Tierra de Tábara (provincia de Zamora, España).svg and File:Comarca de La Carballeda (provincia de Zamora, España).svg. Please delete them and redirect to the good ones. Ferreras de Arriba belongs to La Carballeda, subcomarca of comarca of Sanabria, it is checkable on websites of Ministerio de Agricultura, Diputación de Zamora and It is everything already explained with citation in articles of Wikipedia. --LucasTR4 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't game the system. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Game? I don't understand you. --LucasTR4 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pourquoi ils ont détruit mes nombreuses années de travail![edit]


Beaucoup de wikipédiens m'a aidé avec la légalisation des photos des programmes A.T. Kijowski Nouvelle Television de Varsovie. En 2009, nous avons fait descendre l'accord de votre billet 2009092310048132 Kijowski, qui, comme je me souviens inclure tous les fichiers des programmes. La station n'existe pas, donc il n'y a pas de problème des droits du radiodiffuseur. Outre Kijowski a également produit des programmes. Ce moi que faisais le film photo comme caméraman , alors je traité les instantanés des images individuelles - donc je pense que j'avais le droit de signer le consentement ATK. '

"Dernière quelqu'un Antry a collé une photo de Jack Snopkiewicz "auteur est Andrew Kijowski, pas vous, Je ne vois pas l'émission de télévision à partir de 24.02.1994 avec Jacek Snopkiewicz dans une lettre de permission: 2009092310048132 ticket ".

J'ai demandé A.T.Kijowski il a envoyé et signé ma photo avec son programme comme le sien. J'ai exprimé son consentement. Et cette image a survécu. Pendant ce temps, vous avez supprimé tout le reste! POURQUOI!

17h46, le 5 Janvier 2017 CommonsDelinker (Discuter |) | (Cur. Préc.). . (5919 octets) (-36). . (Supprimé A.T.Kijowski & L.Balcerowicz.jpg; supprimé par JCB parce que: Mass fraude OTRS - Utilisation de VisualFileChange ..)

- ce genre de comme! Je truqué la permission !?


Tout a volé! Je ne comprends pas. En outre, je ne me souviens pas des mots de passe et je ne suis pas en mesure de vérifier le consentement (OTRS je me souviens), qui il y a sept années, je reçus. Je ne vois pas de commentaire, pas d'appels - seulement que je signais les photographies elles-mêmes mais pas A.T.Kijowski.? - La seule trace laissée Wikimons delincker. Je vais traiter même en termes de l'attaque de hacker!

Pouvez-vous me aider en quelque sorte de récupérer ces fichiers? - Bien sûr, A.T.Kijowski peut comme Snopkiewicz envoyer seul et signer leur propre œuvres mais ... un peu difficile d'argumenter qu'il a fait un "selfie" :-)

Commons - dépôt de médias libres Modèle: Commons: modèle: PermissionOTRS-ID (ticket)

Il existe un consensus pour utiliser les fichiers des programmes de la nouvelle télévision Varsovie données par mail à: Andrew E-mail soumis to' 23.IX.2009 --Poezja (talk) 19:40, 24 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Ticket: 2009092310048132[edit]

Ce permis couvre uniquement les fichiers spécifiques dans ce / personnel. Vous ne pouvez pas l'étirer à d'autres images. Ce qui est nécessaire est un accord distinct. Ankry ([talk [User: Ankry | talk </ span>]]) 16:29, le 5 Janvier 2017 (l 'UTC )

--Poezja (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The ticket is OK for the following 23 files:

And nothing else. The upoloader was clearly asked to add the ticket template himself. I do not know if it was the standard procedure that time, but at least for theese files it was not OTRS fraud. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I restored them. @Jcb: feel free to create a DR if you have any doubts. Ankry (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, not problem. Actually such an instruction was even then bad practice. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:FSUUpedia Restore Division[edit]

Hi Jcb. I saw that you deleted File:Filoil Flying V Centre Building.jpg and File:UniversityOfMakatiStadiumAo9nMJJCQAAuzcM.jpg. The uploader was listed as a "possible" at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anitnovic2016, but no action was taken. The uploader is indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for a username violation, but the pattern of uploading files (mostly copyvios) and then using IPs to add them to Wikipedia articles like en:List of football stadiums in the Philippines and en:University of Makati Stadium is the same pattern used by other socks blocked on Commons. Any suggestions on how to procede on Commons in a case like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the copyvios, places a warning at his talk page and added him to my watchlist, so that any copyvio nomination of his uploads will lead to a block. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken deletion[edit]

The file File:Transite Felipe Baenninger Final 2.pdf was deleted even though there was a message in the discussion page noting that the uploader had already submitted the OTRS confirmation which was being processed. Please undo your hasty deletion. Thanks. Solstag (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not 'mistaken' or 'hasty', this is the established procedure. Files get deleted if there is no evidence of permission and they can be restored if a valid permission has been processed. But even if you would be able to provide a valid permission from all the photographers, the file is still out of scope and would have been deleted anyway. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is much easier to be rude and not care to respond when people have been careful enough to start a dialogue, or at least to excuse yourself for overlooking it. Whether the file is out of scope is a different issue and is not clear to the author, who is making an effort to contribute a significant and relevant body of work to Commons. And though it might well be the case, this is not the place to discuss it. Happy new year to you too, Solstag (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Aurora image[edit]

Re: 13 Jan 2017 (Deletion log); 21:36 . . Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Aurora aircraft in movie.png ‎(Copyright violation: Not "Own work". Screenshot) - See new upload File:Aurora in the movie.jpg PeterWD (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Thibaut120094 in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Finalize Advertisement[edit]

Hi Jcb, please can you finalize ASAP this deletion request because of advertisement, regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


@Jcb: I hope you don't mind my contacting you but there is a problem, whereby one Wiki editor (Discasto) is now reverting my image uploads without a second thought. This has been proven today by my taking a camshot of my own OStJ decoration which I uploaded, only for Discasto to delete it repeatedly (so therefore it wasn't a mistake) & he/she has even incited my recent return from being blocked - is this acceptable behaviour? There is clearly a problem so what can I do? Many thanks in advance for any guidance you may be able offer. L'honorable (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@L'honorable: Don't, absolutely don't, remove DR taggings. Voice your point of view in the DR instead. You are now committing an edit war, which will unavoidable lead to a block if continued. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I trust you & thank you - I shall do whatever you say. But this really is an issue brought on by another - can I just say that the image I uploaded is my property, it was awarded to me by HRH & I took photo before uploading it myself. Therefore, how on earth can this be applicable for deletion? L'honorable (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Public domain Flickr for deletion?[edit]

Hi. Could you please explain to me why the photos released by Flickr photographer to public domain are listed for deletion for copyright reason? Thanks. Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not stated to have been released into the public domain by the author. They are marked as 'public domain' without explanation. We have the well established procedure to delete files from flickr with the public domain mark, for not having a valid license. Jcb (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

URAA is no longer a deletion reason for non USA works[edit]

Do I understand correctly, that URAA is obstacle for new uploads for non USA works as before (which were not in PD in country of origin on Jan.1,1996)? Alex Spade (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. You can upload non-USA works if they are PD in the country of origin. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... Commons:Licensing - "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media... are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". I see conjunction and - then what does this phrase mean? Alex Spade (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA for the story behind the established practice. Please be aware this is a controversial subject. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If non USA work is not in PD in the USA by other cause (not URAA), is it deletion reason as before? Alex Spade (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For what other reason could a file be PD in the country of origin, but not in the US? The whole ID of the Berne Convention is that participating countries respect the copyright of eachothers citizens, just that. Jcb (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For example, foreign work could be republished in the USA within 30 days in compliance with all US formalities, so the USA is also country of origin, but the USA do not use rule of shoter term in this case too. Alex Spade (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. In such a case, it's no longer just a non-USA work and the file will need to be PD in the USA as well. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:LCDR Richard Marcinko, USN.png[edit]

Hi Jcb,

is this file identical to the deleted File:Richard Marcinko.jpg?--Shmuel Silberstein (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion File:1705 agent side grinder.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb

Peter Fristedt, the copyright holder of the photograph, send a permission mail on 18 December 2016 (update to OTRS ticket #2016111010028884). This mail has probably not yet been processed by OTRS staff. Can you keep the file online longer until the mail has been processed? Thank you very much

Best regards --Marcfrijns (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found the message from the photographer. It was somehow not connected to the original ticket and still open to be processed. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Bujdosó Márton: the unshapeable shock night... (G. M. Hopkins), audio and score[edit]

Hi Jcb, Excuse me: I don't understand the arguments for the deletion of my score and audio.

This is my own, original composition, in the title quotes a verse from the English poet G. M. Hopkins (1844-1889). The musical material of the piece contains no musical quotation or transcription, (not even from free materials). The work was performed three times in Hungary and Slovakia, on contemporary music festivals. I myself (through the good offices of Attila Szervác, librartist, creator of my Hungarian Wikipedia article) want to publish it with CC BY SA licence.

The audio file, recording of my work at concert, was an illustration of the Hungarian Wikipedia article.

What is the real reason of "out of scope" qualification? Ticket#: 2016112510017171. 11:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC) 11:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of scope means that your work is not considered to be within the goals of our project. This is not a copyright related deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I ask you: WHY not considered? This is an accepted, more time performed piece in community of musicians in Hungary, and illustration of an accepted Hungarian Wikipedia article. What are those requirements, which are not complied? BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I did consider it and I agree with Ellin Beltz that this is out of scope. This is not about requirements, this is about the type of files we want to have. I am affraid there is nothing you can do at this point. Jcb (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I want in this moment nothing to do, I want just understand. What is the problem with "type of files"? BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If "this is not about requirements", who decides: what is in scope? This is an accepted, more time performed musical piece, and illustration of an accepted Hungarian Wikipedia article. What kind of music files "you" (you personally? or the wikimedia project? all the editors?) "want to have"? Please, tell me, personally, what is your problem with my piece? I want to get an answer. BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ongoing at COM:UDR already, please keep it there. Jcb (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Thank you for your message. I didn't reupload any copyright violations. Please check the origin of the photo and its license. I added a link that proved that the photo has a license CC BY 4.0: This link hadn't been provided before. Please assume good faith and don't delete without even checking. With your permission, I will upload it again. Thank you!--Raderich (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you just assumed that it was the same pic as the first one that you deleted with the message Copyright violation: the file is under a CC BY-NC-ND license This is not the case. It was the second pic, a different one, even though I gave it the same name. I should have given it a different name, sorry about that! This was the first pic with a NC licese that I NEVER tried to reupload. Please give me your permission to reupload the second photo with the now proved CC BY 4.0 license. I'll wait for your reply. Thank you so much. Kind regards.--Raderich (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I did see the different versions, but the file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blas Piñar1.jpg. If you disagree, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR, but you can not reupload the file. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:funke abimbola.jpg or Funke_Abimbola.jpg[edit]

Hi All the necessary mails has been sent to the OTRS team,

See the detail below ( Unedited) <cut> Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If the message has been processed by an OTRS agent, they can restore the file. Please be aware that OTRS has a backlog. If you can provide a ticket number, I will have a look. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Schliesszylinder Funktion und Bauweise.png[edit]

Why did you delete File:Schliesszylinder Funktion und Bauweise.png although the file was correctly marked with a CC-BY-SA 4 license and the source weblink was marked this way also (at least as I saw it last time)? – Please recosider your decision. Thank you. -- Karl432 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I have restored the file. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Karl432 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)