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
For any questions about OTRS permissions, please visit the OTRS/Noticeboard

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ichkeria-Air Force roundel (1992-1995) (variant 1).jpg[edit]

Greetings. Don't understand why did you keep it? --Kwasura (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Because 'fantastic image' is not a valid deletion reason listed in our guidelines. Jcb (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK. So what is listed in your guidelines in case something is claiming to be something that is not? --Kwasura (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You meant 'fantasy image' instead of 'fantastic (=great) image'? Jcb (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry :) --Kwasura (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

David Epston Picture[edit]

Your email > Dear David Epston,

>This permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred?

> Yours sincerely,

> Johan Bos

Help Johan :( Please, would you mind giving the correct template to use? It's very hard to understand and find the good procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faimetti (talk • contribs) 11:53, 09 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that it was the wrong template, but that the permission comes from the wrong person. Permission needs to come from the photographer, not from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright files[edit]

Hallo Jcb, you write on the picture an movie that the copyrights are not enough. I have ask on german forum what i can do. Please can you give me a easy way to finish this. This not my pictures for me Bernd make this files but i became no answer from permission.
--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I did was resetting the timer. We grant 30 days after our first response to an OTRS ticket before we delete a file if the permission is still not in order. In this case we did receive your messages, but none of our German volunteers found time to handle it and the ticket is still open. That's why the files will be kept another 30 days. Jcb (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore File:Jan_Helgerud_portrait.jpg[edit]

Hi, We have got the permission for this picture in OTRS ticket Ticket#2015112410015131: File:Jan_Helgerud_portrait.jpg. Could you please undo the delete of it? Nsaa (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the file. Next time please use the correct template. {{OTRS received}} leads to deletion after 30 days. Jcb (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I can see that Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs) added it. I'm sure he would have added the correct one if he was notified (he is an earlier Steward on Wikimedia projects). Thanks for restoring the picture. Kind regards, Nsaa (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore File:2011_07-Internal_ReinventTheToilet_Animation.webm[edit]

We had discussed the OTR permission for "2011_07-Internal_ReinventTheToilet_Animation.webm" in the past already - did you not see that bevfre deleting it? We have the permission by e-mail from the Gates Foundation and this was forwarded to Commons; if they haven't reacted to it yet then that's still no reason to delete the file. Pleaae undelete it. USer:Doc_James would probably remember how to retrieve the OTR number or the previous discussion we had about this. I don't use Commons that often and can't remember how to access that for a deleted video now. EvMsmile (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if their was an OTRS ticket before but here is another one Ticket#: 2016011110013602 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Here was the previous discussion [1]. OTRS ticket was their I think.
Anyway E just upload the video directly to EN WP. As an admin there I can protect it from deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Restored here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The ticket is still not in order. If this is not fixed within 30 days from now, the file will be deleted again. I think an EN wiki admin should not 'protect' a file with unresolved copyright status at EN wiki. Jcb (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have emailed User:Darwinius through the internal email so I can get his email and forward him further documents from the Gates Foundation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand all this... We had several e-mails with the Gates Foundation (the owner of the video). In their e-mail of 20 October 2015 (which was forwarded to permissions) they said that "We do have approval to share both pieces under a CC BY SA license. " So what's unclear about that? Or, more specifically which other sentence does Wendy from Media at BMGF would have to e-mail us so that once and for all this video is "safe" from another deletion? EvMsmile (talk)
On 16 January a member of the OTRS team sent you a message. Please read and respond to that message. Jcb (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No did not receive anything Jan 16th from OTRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I just resent it to you. Jcb (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Yeda Crusius em fevereiro de 2010.jpg[edit]

Hi, Jcb. How are you? I have a question regarding to an edit made by you. Here you removed the {{OTRS received}} template. You could say the reason? Regards. Érico (msg) 23:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, the edit was intended to be like this one (adding a date to the template), but it went wrong on several files. Thanks for the notification, I will fix it. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay! Thanks a lot. Érico (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deleting in-scope used files[edit]

As you appear to be intentionally avoiding this subject, perhaps in the hope that it will go away, I'm letting you know that I'm giving your 24 hours to restore the files mentioned at User_talk:Denniss#Files_being_deleted_by_Jcb, otherwise I will do it myself and will propose it on the administrators' noticeboard that you be removed as a Commons administrator for abusing your privileges by deleting valuable and used content (without first nominating it for deletion through DR). I haven't yet looked at all the categories and templates, as my chief concern at the moment is to restore the files first, but I'm sure we'll get there eventually. I'm pinging Josve05a, Steinsplitter, Denniss, , Pokéfan95 and Jkadavoor since they were involved in the other discussion too. odder (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please update the blocking policy first [3] to avoid acting "out of process" as you did in FDMS4 case. Jee 14:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, please avoid creating a circus of forum shopping, it only creates pointless drama and takes meaningful discussion on tangents. You cannot claim this incident of mass deletion is irrelevant to discussions you have opened at two other places after this incident, while claiming they are relevant here. Even worse, it is illogical to claim that post hoc new threads in other places that you have chosen to create, must be addressed before anyone can discuss or resolve this case. -- (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you please stop responding to my comments using your usual keywords, "drama", "forum shopping", "soap", ... I had long decided NOT to respond you. I was pinged here by Odder; that's why I responded even though tired by long travels. Not interested in your games. Jee 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is getting boring, so I will comment only once. The FDMS4 case did not include any blocks and is therefore unrelated to whatever problems you might have with the current wording of the blocking policy. Now, move along. odder (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It is (blocking policy). It says nothing about handling a blocked user when he try to override it. (Note that the user in question is blocked here by {u|Yann}} and probably due to the reason Pokéfan95 mentioned here. In a discussion, you too told me that you're not aware of such insults. Otherwise your stand also will be different. (I'm not remembering exact context as it was sometime ago.) Now people come back with "nothing happened" attitude, and sad to see you too supporting it. Some people always lying and talking only about the WMF ban. They use this case also as a protest against WMF. Yes; you've the right to protest. But you should think about the situation of the affected parties who may also Wikimedians who approached the WMF with a complaint. This is where the FDMS4 case relevant. In that case, you (the Oversight Team) and CA team worked together; so you've no complaint. In older cases, the CA team didn't work together with you as they don't know what to do as there not such a precedent. Does this make the Wikimedians who had a complaint earlier is ineligible for justice? Now two users commented at Commons_talk:Blocking_policy that "importance of enforcing the "block means blocked" principle outweighs the risk of overzealous deletion/reverting".
When would you stop playing these wicked politics and start doing your job as an voluntter/admin/oversighter/crat and to help the community? You're here for more than ten years. :( Jee 01:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been very patient with you, but that's it, you lost me. I've got no idea why you insist on mixing up the issue of deleting in-use in-scope files by Jcb, the FDMS4 case, and the reasons behind russavia's (b)lock/ban. Who's coming up with a nothing happened attitude? Why is it sad that I'm supporting it? Where am I supporting it? Why do you keep accusing me of playing politics? Isn't this the same thing that you're doing right now? Are you mixing all this things just to make it harder for everyone? If so, congratulations, you win. odder (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
odder, instead of making threats here, why don't you request undeletion at the proper place? I personally wouldn't oppose such a request if it appears that these files are in scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the WMF (almost a week ago) to respond to this case and they told me they will try to give a reaction this week. I propose we wait for that reaction. Jcb (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The WMF do not manage Commons administrators. There are established legal reasons why that should never happen, so I do not understand how a reaction from a WMF member of staff would make any difference to existing Commons deletion policies unless it was something like an expert opinion on copyright law. -- (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Jcb, instead of waiting that WMF to defend you against the arguments we said, can you just restore all those files, and apologize to us (and Russavia). You clearly don't follow the Commons:Deletion policy, and you should not defend yourself for violating a policy. I am still waiting if you will restore the files, but it seems you don't want to restore them. I am giving you 48 hours, and if you still don't restore those files in time, I will move this whole discussion (and the discussion at Denniss's talk page) to AN/U. Risk yourself being de-adminned by the community. Poké95 11:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No it hasn't. odder (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, maybe you want to see Russavia's comment at User talk:Denniss#Deleting content has HUGE ramifications. It includes there the huge consequences of deleting the files of Russavia. Don't look at the user. Look at the content and contributions. And odder is right, the issue at AN/U isn't finished. Just because the WMF commented, it means the discussion is finished. Commons (and its sister wikis) has democracy, not autocracy nor dictatorship nor Communism. Poké95 10:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
They are not, in my knowledge. Jee 10:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Ah, ok.... Poké95 10:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)