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


Contents

Fleets[edit]

You have posted a message on my talk page which was not only rude in tone, but also not a constructive comment. I do not understand what I was doing wrong and as such would welcome some human interaction. I have posted the link showing these are freely available, with links to the author and the page. If it is a question of the incorrect license then please point me in the direction as other English speaking people having cleared these and reviewed the licence.Fleets (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

'Visible to everybody' does not mean 'free from copyright'. The source website did not mention a CC license or another compatible free license. Absence of a free license means: 'all rights reserved'. You reuploaded one of the copyright violations shortly after I deleted it. That's why I posted a warning at your talk page. That's not 'rude', it's a friendly alternative for blocking you instantly. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow there must a language thing here, because here was me thinking that if you ask for civility you get that, you ask for education, you get that. What I've got is the rules, which is appreciated. A timeline which is appreciated, though lacking the fact that others had deemed them good, and not a reason why at that stage to the uploader. I still believe your tone to be excessive, which is borne out by your final sentence. It may be a language thing with English not being your first language, but I still seek to engage and to seek how to remedy the situation either through a mass cover-all OTRS or other such way that allows the very good work of Gerard to shown to a wider audience. Still looking to do what I have done, and still seeking the more correct way to upload these photos from Gerard.Fleets (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
These files can only be accepted if we receive a valid permission from the photographer at OTRS. And there is not a language barrier, not from my side at least. As you can verify here, I have a Language Proficiency Endorsement level 6 (on a scale of 6). The problem is that you are not understanding that administrators are in a position to protect the project against copyright violations, no mather how you may call us. Jcb (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I will take the OTRS route, and perhaps there was a harshness derived from the bluntness and lack of communication at those earlier stages, which flowed through and was perceived as rude. Misunderstood rather than lacking proficiency is the olive branch offered. Perhaps so, and that protectionism comes first and foremost. Understood, but I still feel that there should be a way to assist those after the fact. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "no mat(t)er how you may call us"Fleets (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
These two links would be at the heart of my confusion here [1] & [2]. The first link says it is acceptable, and as previously stated other users had cleared other photos. I'm afraid I don't understand what is wrong if the first link is correct. Any assistance on answering this questioned would be very welcome.Fleets (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The source link you provided on upload, see here, did not mention a compatible license. We are not searching the internet if we can find the file at another place with a different license. If we can't verify permission with the provided source link, we will delete the file. With this new information you can try to get the file restored via COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks JCB. That was where it all stems from; Google and Picasa and flipping between the two. Many thanks for the link I will look into that. Cheers.Fleets (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture Deleted.[edit]

Hi I am the owner of a photo that you have deleted from the profile Nicole Paparistodemou. As I haven't been accepted yet from wiki because I haven't done 10 edits yet I can't upload a photo. So I gave the permission to a friend of mine to upload the photo which is my own work and you have deleted it. Can we put it back please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairytale91 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 01 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide the file name of the involved picture, so that I can tell why it was deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Dear Jcb, I am the owner of the picture Logo Accessi Prof that you have deleted the 14 july 2016, so I don't understand why you deleted it. Could you explain what was the probleme of this picture ? Vvirginie 14:47, 20 July 2016

Deleted files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stimmen für Van der Bellen (Konzerthaus 2016-05-16)[edit]

Hi Jcb,
you deleted 12 files of mine per nomination. The nomination stated: All of these show the election posters .... That is simply not true. None of the images showed the election posters, as I already stated in a comment there. They showed the backdrop of the stage at the event, the text displayed there ("Gemeinsam für Van der Bellen") was not a slogan used on his election posters, but the name of the voluntary association that organised that evening and supported him in his campaign.
Additionally, concerning de minimis, on each one of these photos the speakers are the ones in focus and the images could not be cropped in a way that the backdrop could be used as a photo of it alone. --Tsui (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not important whether the background was an election poster or another copyrighted work without permission. And no, DM cannot be applied here. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Though I don't agree in this case, I can accept that point of view. It's just a little unnerving to see images (like these) deleted on the one hand, but on the other hand pictures that I myself as the photographer as well as the people depicted themselves would like to see deleted have to stay, because colleagues here do care about legal restrictions (which is a good thing, no doubt) but don't really care about the photographers respectively the depicted people's reputations and wishes at all. But that's another discussion that does not have to concern you, it's just something I have to give vent to from time to time. --Tsui (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alex_Gilbert_-_2016.jpg[edit]

Update: Have re-uploaded with my own permission under my Commons Photography Account. Thanks. Please disregard this message.

Thank You --TheDomain (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Yamamoto Kanae[edit]

Hello, can you please clarify your reason for closure, "non-USA works" ? Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 07:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a long standing practice not to delete files for URAA reasons when they are free in the source country. Please paste {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} instead. Jcb (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The documentation of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} says : "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012. Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are". I do not see where URAA reasons would apply if not to such cases. — Racconish ☎ 09:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Kindly advise. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 10:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My advice is not to bother about URAA restaurations. Nobody knows exactly how we should deal with this subject and even the WMF has been changing their point of view. DMCA takedown requests for this subject are still unheard of. Jcb (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Kindly advise is a polite way of saying : kindly provide an explanation based on community positions and not your personal opinion Clin. The community consensus seems to me to be clearly expressed in the template documentation I quoted. Kindly explain on what basis, aside from your personal opinion, you discard it. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As a very active admin here, I come accross a lot of discussions and decisions by colleagues and apparently the current standard practice is not what is expressed in that template. Unfortunately I do not keep an archive of links to such discussions or decisions and I am not prepared to spend the rest of the afternoon digging into it. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What about COM:URAA then ? Please understand I don't want to bother you but I am just following the standard procedure in case of disagreement on a DR closure, which is to contact the closing admin and to ask him to revise his closure or better explain it. I don't want to waste your or my time about this, but to take an informed decision about a possible renomination. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 11:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Over the years we have had massive deletions and massive undeletions of NOT-PD-US-URAA files and still nobody exactly knows. But what we do know is that the supposed copyright protection in the USA only exists imaginary. There are no known situations in which such a protection could be exercized. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I just found what you have in mind : Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Kindly confirm. If such is the case, it might be useful to change your closing rationale to URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. — Racconish ☎ 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you, I will go to bed less stupid tonight Clin. — Racconish ☎ 12:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi, I forgot to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1949 in Cologne. The following files seems to be in PD:

{{PD-GermanGov}} Best, --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Files with Template:GJSTU1[edit]

Did you notice that the files below had a license tag which is currently in discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GJSTU1? For example, This version before the SD nomination had the license tag (which was removed by the nominator). The template has been used over a year, and there seems to be a good chance that it survives the DR. In any case, I think the decision to delete these files should wait the closure of the DR. I'd suggest that the files should be nominated in the said DR and discussed as a whole, in order to ensure consistent results.

whym (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice that. User:Scanyaro removed the license when he nominated as copyvio, which is bad practice. I will restore the files. If the decision is to delete the template, then the files can be deleted at that moment. Jcb (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Humanoo (talk · contribs) files[edit]

Hi!

Don't you think it's better delete all his files? He is a copyright violator, all images have the same caracteristics.

Tks. Yanguas (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Forgive my English, not too good)

Deletion is progress per COM:PCP - Jcb (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis skull by bricksmashtv.jpg[edit]

I have seen that you originally deleted File:Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis skull by bricksmashtv.jpg without discussion, and then after it was restored immediately deleted it again in the same ground without a discussion again. I am in personal correspondence with the author, and I can confirm without a doubt that BricksmashTV on Wikipedia, Deviantart and Wordpress are all the same person by the name of Gunnar Bivens., I find it frustrating that you repeatedly have deleted the image in question without a discussion, as is the unwritten policy about all dinosaur restorations and photographs and such. Please restore the image and begin a proper discussion, allowing another admin to choose whether to delete said image or not. Thank you, IJReid (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring administrator forgot to remove the speedy deletion tag, that's why the file got deleted again. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Hansmuller in own category?[edit]

Dear Jcb,

I wouldn't have created a category about myself. However, now it's there i just thought i should follow the convention of Dutch veteran wikipedians of putting their userpage into their category. What to do? Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gebruikerspagina's horen niet in een afbeeldingen-categorie te staan. Als een administrator of andere gebruiker die actief is in het onderhoud van Commons zo'n categorisatie tegenkomt, dan zal die worden verwijderd. Wat sommige andere Nederlanders misschien doen weet ik ook niet. Ik zou meer in de categorie 'Dutch veteran wikipedians' vallen dan jij, ik liep hier al zo'n 9 jaar rond toen jij hier begon, maar ik heb nog nooit van een dergelijke 'conventie' gehoord. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Beste Johan, dat is een onlogische reactie, ik had het niet over jou of mij maar over anderen. Kijk maar in de categorie en je ziet wat ik bedoel (ongeveer de helft, ook links, wel minder dan ik dacht). Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Als een administrator iets tegenkomt dat niet hoort, dan kan hierop actie worden ondernomen. Er is echter geen beginnen aan om dan maar meteen een zoektocht te starten naar vergelijkbare problemen en dat doen we dus ook doorgaans niet. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This user's first edit on NL-Wikipedia took place on 19 March 2006 & his first edit on Commons on 18 May 2007. No arguments, but I like to stick to the facts. Regarding users & categories: it doesn't sound foolish to make a distinction between "users" (working on articles in Wikipedia) and "persons" (being active in committees etc.), especially to keep these two things separated. If conventions prescribe otherwise, no problem. I like Category:Goudurix (speaking of user pages in Categories). Vysotsky (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed - Jcb (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanx. Vysotsky (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Category deletion[edit]

Hi, could you please revisit your deletion of a few maintenance categories? I didn't have time to look any further, but Category:Media missing permission as of 20 June 2016 to Category:Media missing permission as of 30 June 2016 all contain files. I suggest you delete the files or recreate the category. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Both categories were empty at the moment of deletion. I have deleted the files. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jcb[edit]

Thanks very much Jcb, I now understand your point but haven"t learn"t enough. Which type of media are being upload on wikipedia to prevent deletion?. --Cynthiakruz (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Typically at least not media of which you are not the copyright holder. So if you find something on a website, don't upload it here. Jcb (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks Cynthiakruz (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of E.O.J. Westphal[edit]

Hi Jcb, The photographic image of my father (Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal) has been deleted. I am the sole owner of the image, which I uploaded, as I inherited the photograph when my father died. Unfortunately I am not tech/media-savvy enough to get through the process of uploading it properly to the page. Can you help? Regards, Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:193:8300:8F77:24B2:CE3D:E507:16EC (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder normally is the (heir of the) photographer, not the (heir of the) depicted person. Owning a physical copy of a picture does not mean that you are the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Museum Catharijneconvent[edit]

Dag Jcb, onlangs heb ik - namens Museum Catharijneconvent - foto's gedoneerd. Deze staan/stonden in de categorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Textiles_in_Museum_Catharijneconvent. Jij hebt hier 'the' aan toegevoegd: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Textiles_in_the_Museum_Catharijneconvent Mag de 'the' ajb weer weg? In de naamgeving van Museum Catharijneconvent gebruiken we geen het/the. Daarom kreeg bv deze categorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_contributed_by_Museum_Catharijneconvent ook geen 'the'.

Groet, Marieke —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.125.4.194 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Marieke, ik heb de hernoeming niet uitgevoerd of bedacht, ik heb slechts een technische onderhoudshandeling uitgevoerd die daaruit voortvloeide. Zo te zien heeft User:Sailko dit gedaan. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! If i inderstod correctly, "the" is necessary in English language(see similar categories about 'the' Louvre, 'the' Metropolitan Museum, 'the' National gallery). Also the other categories in Dutch should be all renamed, sorry, the basic language of Wikipedia Commons is English. Please let Marieke know. --Sailko (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sailko geeft aan dat 'the' in het Engels een noodzakelijke toevoeging is. Categorisatie gebeurt hier altijd in het Engels. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The? Some collections of UK museums in Commons: Collections of Pontefract Museum‎, Collection of Staffordshire County Museum, Collections of Tate Britain‎, Collections of Tate Liverpool, Collections of Tate Modern‎, Collections of Wrexham County Borough Museum‎, Collections of Bankfield Museum‎, Collections of Derby Museum and Art Gallery‎, Collections of Herbert Art Gallery and Museum‎. Vysotsky (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
They look like minor museums, compared to the ones I linked, and by the way, no one of us is native English speaker, as far as I can see. I don't mind picking a standard with or without, I just noticed the most popular museums have it, and in the case of catharijneconvent 80% of categories had and 20% no, so I made all the same.--Sailko (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all the responses. Sailko, are you now going to add a 'the' to the collections of Tate? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.125.4.194 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Imruh Bakari[edit]

Hi Jcb You deleted this man's picture despite the fact he donated the pic and gave us permission (it was a WMUK editathon) and proved it to COmmons.

Did you not see that?

It should be re-instated.

Here is part of the dialogue: Dear Jon,

I can confirm that I have copyright of the photo I sent you through Savannah Mediaworks, and that I am happy for it to be released under an open license (CC-BY-SA) as per Wikipedia requirements.

Yours Imruh Bakari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowFratello (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this picture over a year ago, because the OTRS procedure was never completed. Also Imruh Bakari is probably not the copyright holder. Normally the photographer is the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Undelate[edit]

Hi Jcb, may I ask you if you can finalize this undeletion request I made? Appartently 2 files of mine were cancelled as duplicates, but they were not duplicates (see message of another user). It looks like it only miss an admmin to finalize the request, otherwise it will be cancelled soon. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not usually process undeletion requests. Somebody will handle it. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per nom?[edit]

You closed this DR «per nomination», but, while there might be some interesting lessons to be extracted from that DR, a nomination is something that it didn’t include at all: That DR was created by converting a speedy nomination over lack of permission, and the user who created it (me) voted for keep. There’s no way deleting these files was done «per nomination»; I’d like to see the closing remarks amended to show something accurate, at least formally. -- Tuválkin 00:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faveo Helpdesk Community Edition Screenshot.jpg[edit]

Why did you close this discussion as delete? Contrary to what you stated, I did provide a valid reason for deletion. The only other commentor did not provide a valid reason for keeping, and even his logic didn't make sense, since this is the only file with this license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think OSL is incompatible with our licenses? Jcb (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your undoing of my tagging of the file as having no license[edit]

The file right now does not have a license. Quote with my own bolding:

“[...] the author has released it under a free license (which should be indicated beneath this notice), and as such follows the licensing guidelines for screenshots of Wikimedia Commons. You may use it freely according to its particular license.”
“License tag wrapper for free software screenshots. Only valid as a license when a valid license template or license template name is provided in required parameter "license".”

Template {{Free screenshot}} is not a license. Josve05a (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. License added. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Better now. Nemo 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) However you did not specify which version of the license they released it under. In order for this license to be valid, a version number must be given. Sorry, I know I might be nit-picky...not trying to be too assertive, just want to see this resolved so we all can be happy to have saved a file from future discussions (again). Josve05a (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :D Josve05a (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the EN-wiki article as well, so that we don't have to search for the version number next time. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's hope here won't be a next time :) Josve05a (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Message from Vvirginie[edit]

Hi, I'm the owner of the file : Logo Accessi Prof.jpg, so I don't understand why you delete this file the 14 july. Could you explain me the reason of this delete ? --Vvirginie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvirginie (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dolf Unger, Gerrit Jan Heering en geografische afbeeldingen[edit]

Beste Jcb,

Ik zie (nu pas) dat je een aantal afbeeldingen uit het artikel over Dolf Unger, een foto van Gerrit Jan Heering en een paar geografische afbeeldingen hebt voorgedragen voor verwijdering. Inmiddels zijn ze ook verwijderd. Wat betreft de geografische afbeeldingen was je opmerking terecht; ik heb er niet bij stil gestaan dat ik het auteursrecht van de Bosatlas-uitgever (daar komen ze vandaan) heb geschonden. Ik dacht "een Bosatlas uit 1961, dat is zo lang geleden, die mag ik wel op Wikipedia zetten. Bovendien waren ze toen al openbaar, dus waarom nu niet?" Fout dus, ik weet niets van auteursrecht, sorry. Maar de foto's uit het Dolf Unger artikel komen uit een familiealbum dat ik in 2009, na diens dood, van de kleinzoon van Dolf Unger heb gekregen. Familiefoto's dus, ik ben ver weg familie, en hij zei "ik heb liever dat een Unger ze heeft dan dat ze in de vuilnisbak belanden", omdat hij geen nakomelingen heeft. Ik denk dat ik integer heb gehandeld door, in een encyclopedisch artikel, wat van deze familiefoto's te gebruiken, ter illustratie. Wat heb ik hiermee fout gedaan? En wat betreft de foto van Gerrit Jan Heering, die komt uit de DBNL, een service van de KB in Den Haag. Ik heb toestemming gevraagd, en gekregen, van de DBNL-redactie om deze foto, die zelf weer uit een jubileumboek uit rond 1920 komt, te gebruiken voor bij het (al bestaande) artikel over Heering. Het bestand is inmiddels verwijderd van Commons. Hoe los ik dit op? --Hansung03 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bij het gebruik van foto's uit een familie-album geldt (net als bij andere foto's) dat het van belang is wie de fotograaf is. De fotograaf is immers de auteur. Als de fotograaf al meer dan 70 jaar geleden is overleden (deze termijn geldt voor de meeste landen in Europa) dan is het auteursrecht verlopen en kan de foto worden gebruikt. Zo niet, dan zal er toestemming moeten komen van de fotograaf of van diens erfgenaam. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Bedankt voor de uitleg. De foto's bij het Dolf Unger artikel, zowel het portret als het exterieur van de galerie, komen zoals gezegd uit een familiealbum. Geen idee wie de fotograaf is. Laten we zeggen zijn vrouw. Die is overleden in 1954, dus nog geen 70 jaar geleden. De enige erfgenaam die ik ken was zijn/haar kleinzoon Dolf, en die is overleden in 2009. Andere kleinkinderen zitten in de VS. Moet ik die letterlijk om uitdrukkelijke toestemming gaan vragen om deze foto's op Wikipedia te plaatsen? En wat betreft de foto van Heering, is de toestemming van DBNL per mail voldoende voor legitieme plaatsing? --Hansung03 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Een toestemming van DBNL is waarschijnlijk waardeloos, omdat zij een dergelijke toestemming alleen maar kunnen geven als zij het auteursrecht bezitten, wat nogal onwaarschijnlijk is. Als duidelijk is wie de fotograaf is van een bepaalde foto, dan kan er inderdaad toestemming gevraagd worden aan een kleinzoon van die fotograaf, maar let op: toestemming voor gebruik op Wikipedia is onvoldoende. De rechthebbende zal expliciet toestemming moeten geven voor vrijgave onder een specifiek benoemde vrije licentie, bijvoorbeeld CC-BY-SA 3.0. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hankyu-logo.svg[edit]

Can u tell me in English or any other language that I understand why did u delete this file?--Sanandros (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of permission by copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Querweltein Unterwegs chinesisches Cover mit Drache.jpg[edit]

Hello Jcb. Thanks for your work, but you deleted a image i uploaded:

Can you explain why? The creater and owner Stephen Iwanowsky sent his permission to publish his work under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. The file will be undeleted as soon as a valid permission has been processed. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Icelandic artist deleted photos[edit]

Hi, I was helping Icelandic artist about wikipedia. He wanted to donate some photos of his artwork/installation to the Commons with creative commons copyright. I told him to create user name on wikipedia and upload the pictures and read instructions and make sure they were donated under the creative commons tag and it was the copyright holder that uploaded. He did that and uploaded three photos he has copyright to, I explained to him what it meant. Sadly it seem that all the photos were immediately deleted by you. The photos are

"See It" project, Iceland, installation 2011.jpg
"Dialog" project, Iceland, Installation 2008.jpg
Fiann Paul.jpg
Could you please undelete these photos?
Being a wikipedia volunteer myself I do not have time to help him more than direct him to what he shall do and tell him to read the instructions. It seem that the condition are extremely hash and unfriendly for people like him who want to help adding to the commons. --Salvör Gissurardóttir (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Verification via OTRS seems necessary for these files. Then he can also explain who the photographer is of the picture depicting him and provide us with a valid permission from that photographer. Jcb (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photos from the National Gallery in Prague[edit]

Hi, you have deleted photographs, which I received officially from the National Gallery in Prague, with the permission of its general director. I have correctly quoted National Gallery as the source of photos. I have already asked for additional statement of the institution for OTRS, and I hope that deletions can be reverted.--NoJin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS is indeed the right way to follow - Jcb (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of large number of historical files uploaded by Mo-yan[edit]

Hi. I see you closed this deletion request recently and deleted all of the files uploaded by User:Mo-yan. I was surprised by this outcome. You mentioned in your closing statement that some of the images could be found on this page (a website hosting photos originally taken by a person called "Mo-yan"). This is indeed true, but all of the photos on that site are very small (330x218 or 700x470 pixels for the larger ones), whereas the images uploaded to Commons were larger. That website was not actually produced by the photographer ("Mo-yan"), but it contains a link to Mo-yan's own website, which is no longer in existence. It is however archived on the Wayback Machine, and all of the original photos can still be seen here. Again, all of the photos on the site were smaller in size compared with those uploaded to Commons. For example one of the photos (No. 83 on this page) is only 496x320 pixels, whereas the version uploaded to Commons was 1000x641 pixels. My question to you is: were any of the images uploaded to Commons previously published on the web in the same size? If all of the images uploaded to Commons were actually larger, doesn't this imply that the uploader was indeed the original photographer and owner? These are all extremely valuable historical images of trains taken in the early 1960s by someone who is presumably now in their 70s (his website says he retired in 2001), so it is really sad that a bona fide new editor who appears to have honestly uploaded his own images ends up having them all deleted. Based on the above, I'd be grateful if you could reconsider your decision to delete the set of images. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think verification via OTRS is really necessary in this case. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Raffaele Calzini.jpg[edit]

Hi! I copied over the source of this file (http://www.bellaciaoag.it/foto/grandi/calzini.jpg, "Autore sconosciuto" (i.e., "Author unknown:)) when I transferred it here from it.wp – which I did because it appeared to be eligible. The file is licenced {{PD-Italia}} as a "simple photograph". Do you see some problem with that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your so called "source" only tells us where it is supposed to have been grabbed from the web. No source is provided to any aspect of the copyright situation. We have e.g. no way to know whether PD-Italy could apply. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

About a deletion[edit]

Hello Jcb, excuse my low level in English. It is important to let File:Lans-en-Vercors. Square.JPG because of summers hollidays of administration of Lans-en-Vercors as I explain in a mail

  1. to : 'Permissions - Wikimedia Commons (fr)' <permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org> (Charles Antonier)
  2. object : RE: [Ticket#2016060910000415] TR: Demande de licence avec pièce jointe. Cliché Lans-en-Vercors

Sincerely 6PO 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As soon as the OTRS agent agrees with the permission, they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jcb,
I understand that the file will be restored to allow the mayor of Lans-en-Vercors to give authorization. Is it correct ?
Thank you very much for your answer.--6PO 11:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No. The file will be restored after we receive authorization. And please be aware that permission has to come from the photographer, not from the Mayor of course. Jcb (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jcb,
thank you for your answer.
  1. The author of the image is an employee of Lans-en-Vercors ;
  2. The Credit/Provider is the city of Lans-en-Vercors (as the image of Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance - File:New Task Force Kandahar Commander Optimistic About Upcoming Year 100909-A-+++++-071.jpg - is released by US Force Army)  ;
So the administration tell me I have to write to the Mayor (like File:Lans-en-Vercors. Jacques-Antoine Biboud.JPG; ticket: 2015113010024084 ) . Unfortunately his secretary don't give him the mail before summers holidays.
How receive authorization about a file who will be in Commons before put it on Commons ? It seems impossible.
I am waiting for your answer but don't have trouble with me.
Very sincerely --6PO 13:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I cannot help you, please finish this with OTRS. Jcb (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jcb,
thank you very much for your patience. I shall follow your advice.
Very sincerely--6PO 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion[edit]

Hi JCB, can you check this page. writing bottom on the page All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. If is it ok can you undelete [File:Kazakhstan at the 2016 Summer Olympics.jpg this photo]. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

For undeletion requests, please use COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeletions regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Macreanu_Iulian[edit]

Hi JCB, I've raised several issues regarding your decisions in this DR. Please express your opinion on those. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not take into account your comments in that DR, because that was not managable. In the list of over 300 files, several contributors left their comments, but you decided to leave your comments in a separate version of the list. If you provide valid undeletion reasons at COM:UDR I'm fine with undeletion. But for now I am not going to spend more time on this case. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo Deletion[edit]

Hi you have deleted a profile image from a Stephen Fears profile page which we have full copyright for and we would like it added back on please. I have tried to email ccommons but have had no response and also updated our link in flickr where the phot is also available - please can you add it back in to the page at the top in the info box?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/feargroup/28709750840/in/album-72157638668152903/ —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.41.168 (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of permission can be sent to OTRS. Please be aware that the copyright normally belongs to the photographer, not to some random "we". Also we don't have 'profile page', we are not Facebook. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Vladslo[edit]

Dag Johan. Ik zag dat je in de gallery van Vladslo alle plaatjes van het Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Vladslo weer hebt terug gezet. Er is een subcategorie bij Vladslo van dit kerkhof. Het lijkt mij beter om een gallery te maken bij deze categorie en ze daar in te zetten en in de gallery van Vladslo alles van Vladslo behalve van het kerkhof. Eventueel een link naar de gallery van het kerkhof. Wouter (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ik kwam hem tegen doordat er maar 1 afbeelding meer in stond. Gallerieën met slechts 1 afbeelding worden verwijderd. Een gallery hoeft niet strak overeen te komen met een categorie. Je zou met kopjes en subkopjes kunnen werken op de pagina zelf. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Figure 2.6 The United States Unemployment Rate.jpg[edit]

FYI, I was undeleting and adding the permission to these as a group, because I needed to clean up the file pages, and you re-deleted it while I was still working. See the ticket if you have concerns, or poke me. Reventtalk 15:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, apparently I overlook it in the deletion log. I saw (and kept) several of these files, but apparently I missed one. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I think I must have hit save seconds before you hit the button. Now to rename them to something less terrible, lol. Reventtalk 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain me ...[edit]

this revert. In Germany law it is a copy vio. --Codc (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

First it is NOT a copyvio in Germany, see COM:FOP#Germany. Second, if a picture itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object may cause a copyright issue, you cannot use speedy deletion. You must start a regular deletion nomination instead. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong and this is the same case like wrapped Reichstag. Regular deletion is started. --Codc (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused[edit]

I am confused regarding this edit. The source is claimed to be English Wikipedia, which surely is no source at all? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It was kept a few months before in a regular DR, so not eligible to be tagged as {no source}. English Wikipedia is wrong of course. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused too[edit]

As you seem to be insensible to arguments, prefering to bury your head in the sand i opened Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Public_Domain_photos_by_National_Park_Service.2C_clearly_marked_as_such.2C_but_delete_by_Jcb_just_because_it_lacked_an_template. Tm (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dzielnice_i_osiedla_w_Chełmie.jpg[edit]

if falsehood and inaccuracy is invalid proof of deletion (???), please show valid reasons for deleting such images... (google translation), --Tecra (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not judge the factual content of an image, it's up to local Wikipedia to do so. Jcb (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:附有裴坚、马铠果、卞江签名的2016年北京大学化学夏令营营服闷声成大环.jpg[edit]

File:对闷声成大环图片使用的许可.jpg
对闷声成大环图片使用的许可

Hi. I am the person who uploaded this picture named File:附有裴坚、马铠果、卞江签名的2016年北京大学化学夏令营营服闷声成大环.jpg. I don't know about the copyrights first. But now I have asked the person who took this photo that whether I can use this photo in the Internet, and he said just use it as you like. But this photo is deleted now. So could you please recover this photo? Thanks. :) --Dqwyy (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS. If they think the permission is valid, they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have the right to restore the file? If you can do that, please restore that file. When I was uploading this picture, I don't know what is "Creative Commons licenses" , so I chose "I found it on the Internet-I am not sure" . In fact, I found this picture on a forum. And after uploading the picture, I left a message to the person who took this photo in the forum and he permitted me to use it. So the picture should not be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, should it? Just like this screenshot, I ("wengcong2008" in the screenshot) ask "Can I use you photo?". And the author ("Memory_0328" in the screenshot) said "Just use it as you like". Then I said "Thank you". So I think now I don't need to contact OTRS. And please restore that file. Thank you very much. --Dqwyy (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this kind of permission has to go via OTRS. In the first place somebody will need to verify the copyrightholder explicitly released the file into a valid free license, e.g. CC-BY-SA 3.0. Statements like 'you may use this file' won't do. I cannot read Chinese, but some colleagues at OTRS do. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images[edit]

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images. I think you made a terrible mistake in doing so, for several reasons

First, you had your administrative bits removed several years ago. If I recall correctly the main reason was that either you had been a terribly insensitive bully, or you were unaware of how your behavior looked like that of a terribly insensitive bully. I was one of the individuals you targeted. When you had your administrative bits restored you told me that you hoped I would let bygones be bygones.

Fine, but as one of the targets of your bullying, there is absolutely no way you should close a deletion discussion of files I uploaded. You should have left the closure to an uninvolved administrator.

Second, if you checked a few of the files I cropped, and you disagreed with how I cropped them, you should have stopped, and informed me, specifically, as to what you thought I missed.

I did my best to be tactful, years ago, when I had concerns over what I saw as lapses in your closures of other discussions of other people's uploads. Then, a few weeks later, when someone made a completely indefensible nomination of material I created you made a completely indefensible delete closure. It took me well over one hundred hours to finish uploading the 700+ files that WikiLeaks released from Guantanamo. It took that long because the WikiLeaks site was under a denial of service attack. Over about ten weeks I did get them all uploaded. But it took about twenty hours longer than it should have, because you had deleted files I needed. Although you couldn't give a meaningful explanation for your deletion, you refused to restore. Every day, for ten weeks, during the 100 hours or so I spent on that project, I had lots of time to think about the appearance of malice your intransigence presented.

I call upon you restore these files, re-open the discussion, and be specific as to instances where you thought I missed proprietary material. Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that I deleted these (out of scope) copyright violations to bully you? I have clearly explained my closure. If you disagree, go to COM:UDR, but then you should come with some real argument, not with wild accusations having nothing to do with the actual DR at all. Jcb (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


RAOBZFCH (talk · contribs) files[edit]

Hi Johan,

You deleted the picture of Ambassador Martin Dahinden from his page in German (and maybe also from all other languages?). It says because of a missing permission? Why is that? The Embassy of Switzerland (which created and edited these pages) is the copyright owner of the picture in question. Please undo it or let us know how we can upload a picture so it's permitted in Wikipedia terms!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAOBZFCH (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images[edit]

Hi Jcb,

Please check re-uploaded files in Category:The Wire (JTF-GTMO) cropped: are these ok or not? Sealle (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

These files were apparently missed in the DR. I checked them and all (still) had copyright issues. Jcb (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal work[edit]

Hello,

I'm surprised by your choice "not out of scope" on this page [3]. File:Honore kolora.jpg, as File:Honore busto.jpg are just personal works by user Odilino. IMHO, they are "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.".--Markov (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The file has been in use in a Wikipedia article and is therefore in scope. It's not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide differently. Jcb (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check OTRS for deleted images[edit]

Hi. I have seen that you have deleted two images I uploaded: File:Batalla de Noordhom -Hugo Cañete-La Guerra de Frisia.jpg and File:Batalla de Lochem-Hugo Cañete-La Guerra de Frisia.jpg. The authorizations for both images were emailed to the OTRS system (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) on 10 June 2016 by Ediciones Platea. Could you please check it and restore the deteled files? Thanks --Hispalois (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. As soon as the permission has been processed and the OTRS agent finds it valid, the files will be restored. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File Red de museos para la atencion a personas con discapacidad.webm[edit]

I am resending the mail I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org back on 27 May 2016. Please let me know if you have received it.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog, but when the message is being processed you will hear from us. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ithaka-Ithaka Darin Pappas-in Brazil-Photo Barbosa-2007.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Sorry to bother you with the following but I need to understand to not doing it wrong later.

File:Ithaka-Ithaka Darin Pappas-in Brazil-Photo Barbosa-2007.jpg is a photo used for this album cover. At this point, don't we need to be sure that the uploader is Joao Barbosa?

In general, when an uploader says that his upload is authored by someone and says that he is this someone, do we need an OTRS evidence or is good faith enough?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"when an uploader says that his upload is authored by someone and says that he is this someone" - in principle we assume good faith, otherwise we would have to delete all own work uploads from every user. Regarding this file: I could not take into account the album cover, because you didn't link to it in the nomination. But still I would assume good faith. The uploaded file contains full exif and cannot have been extracted from the album cover. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb:
Thank you. I have a problem with good faith and I may have asked for permission a little too much... OK, when the quality is too good and unfindable on the web, I'll assume goodfaith. In the case of Ithaka/Barbosa, it was clear that the cover derive from the photo; I was going against the flow.
I didn't find in No permission since a parameter to add a reason. Is there is one? If there isn't, I may use the talk page.
Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What I often see is that a reason is inserted behind the tag after tagging. That works fine. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016 Summer Olympics opening ceremony 1035326-olimpiadas abertura-4006.jpg[edit]

How is FOP not a valid reason for deletion in this case? It is clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted work of art, portrayed in a context that I do not believe fits within the definition of being permamently located in a public place (i.e. it is only temporary for use during Olympics and Paralympics, and ticketed events are not nessecarily considered public places). ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read what others wrote in the DR. No need to repeat it all here. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I did. And its completely invalid. The first does not provide clear legal citations. Second and third talk about importance and signifigance (invalid argument). The fourth is correct and brings up good points, but doesn't quite factor in that there actually was a second cauldron in a different location with a smaller sculpture. Going by the precedents of other Olympics with public cauldrons (i.e. Vancouver), this looks more like its going to be permament than the one in the Maracana. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Julia Efimova in Budapest.jpg[edit]

Dear friend,

You recently deleted the picture File:Julia Efimova in Budapest.jpg . The matter is that I am the author of this pictures. I agree that the term «My collection» is not clear but I just wasn’t too familiar with the proper terms. Sorry for that. I am the author and the owner of copyright. Could you please undelete it. Thank you in advance. Goldsgym (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS. They may want to see a full resolution version of the picture. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor[edit]

Hi Jcb, Hope all is well,
Just to let you know "that certain editor"'s still cropping their own work [4][5][6] , I've not said anything to them however the discussion on their EN talkpage indicates they're fully aware of what they're doing and couldn't careless, As you're the recent admin to have dealt with them I thought it'd best to let you know, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This crop doesn't look problematic to me. The problem with this user mainly was that he kept nominating his own uploads from years ago for deletion for no apparent reason. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah right sorry, I guess I'm being over-cautious here so sorry about that, Anyway thanks for your help again, have a great day. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roycegrubic[edit]

Hi. These file's usage in a Wikipedia article does not change the fact that they are uploaded to Commons only to showcase the artist's skills. The Wikipedia articles are created by the uploader (see the uploader's global contribution [7]) and this is clearly an effort to promote the artist among Wikimedia projects. Also the reason for deletion is explicitly stated in COM:EDUSE indicating that such files are out of scope. Therefore I believe this is a clear case that these files should be deleted. Please reconsider. Thank you. --Wcam (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If files are in use in a Wikipedia articles, that's a demanding reason to not delete a file for scope reason. There is nothing to be reconsidered here. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Please use a regular DR"[edit]

Komolyan az a megoldásod, hogy visszavonogatod a jogsértésre jelölést, és adminisztrátor létedre arra kényszerítesz, hogy egy nehezebb eljárást vigyek végig, amikor egyértelműen jogsértő képről van szó? Ha szerinted DR-re való, akkor miért nem írod ki DR-re? Ráadásul úgy, hogy te tudsz angolul, vagyis neked jobban menne a DR kiírása. Kicsit visszaélsz amúgy azzal, hogy adminisztrátor vagy. Nem ártana elgondolkodnod a lemondáson. Csak úgy mondom, barátilag. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If the file itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object may cause a copyright problem, you must use a regular DR. Also when and administrator declines a speedy nomination, you may not revert that. I have warned you before for this exact same behaviour. Jcb (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are administrators who helpfulness anything that's not found. You just commands deeds (what is allowed to do it, what you should not), but not so much you can do, if you believe the cancellation of the meeting is appropriate, you can write it out. The only skills in short supply, and threatened to withdraw. This seems to be more important to you than it is to avoid the offending images uploaded. In this approach, I think we should not be in the administrator. Now you can safely block the view to edit my sake. At least confirmed for what I said. (Machine -translated text, errors may occur.) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:RalphFlanders1910.jpg[edit]

JCB, I see that this file was deleted while I was away on a camping trip. The file description clearly indicated that the source was a physical copy provided by an individual, who happens to be a descendant of the depicted person, and therefore could not be cited in the manner requested as a link to someplace on the web. The 1910 date of the image determined the copyright status as being in the public domain, since the unknown photographer can be presumed to be dead for over 70 years. Please consider undeleting this file. I'll look for a reply here. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We cannot presume that everybody who could have taken a picture in 1910 must have died before 1946. The license template is based on publication before 1923, but no source was indicated to support publication before 1923. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The image was a headshot when Mr. Flanders was an editor of a machine-tool magazine, Machine, used in that magazine during his period there between 1905 and 1910, so it meets the pre-1923 publication criterion, too. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your speedy keep[edit]

You've kept the file nominated for deletion twice. It does not mean that expect every file I nominate to be deleted finally, on the other hand you can't just keep them without paying attention to the presented argument. Did you just follow this discussion? I would be thankful of you could bring your voice there, or at least say why my arguments did not apply in that RD, instead of pushing swiftly the keep bottom! Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This particular file is obviously too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and has been correctly licensed with {{PD-textlogo}}. No valid reason for deletion. Jcb (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you did not follow the discussion regarding the files attributed to rebel/terrorist groups. I wonder how you could be so ignorant of that! --Mhhossein talk 04:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photo of Moshe Ha-Elion?[edit]

Hello, my name is Antonia and I created the page about Holocaust survivor Moshe Ha-Elion. I don't understand why did you delete several photos in the Moshe Ha-Elion article. Would you be so kind to add them again? All the photos were correct and were under Creative Commons or public domain. Thank you very much and greetings from Madrid / Antonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see your files were deleted by a colleague, not by me. You can request undeletion at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bro[edit]

The original source for File:2012 Busan International Motor Show in Heo Yoon-mi (3) allows free use due to the CCL 4.0 International Mark. Source There is no reason for this file to be deleted--고려 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Verified and restored. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank You !--고려 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Warning[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about Non-Free material on Wikimedia Commons. Will do better next time. SaintSummit (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Кое-что за даром.jpg[edit]

Hello! I imagine this film, and so loaded with permission poster of the film producer. Restore please. Здравствуйте! Я представляю этот фильм, и поэтому загрузил постер с разрешения продюсера фильма. Восстановите пожалуйста. DENAMAX (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
He confirmed producer https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001905606047 https://vk.com/alexeytalyzin Alex Talyzin. DENAMAX (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Alex Talyzin (moviemagic@mail.ru) sent a letter to OTRS. DENAMAX (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
We received a letter from a producer? DENAMAX (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop bothering me here, contact OTRS instead. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand. The letter was sent OTRS. Thank you. DENAMAX (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Giorgio De Chirico alla sua mostra di Milano.jpg[edit]

I'm changing the coppyright of the photo. Can you please verify if i have done the correct choice for publishing in Wikipedia?
Thankyou
--Asch58 (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If the license at Flickr has been changed, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
sorry to much complex for me. Do you thik I can upload again with new copyright?
Second: I have seen that under italian low after 20 years the photos are in public domain if thei are not artistic. Can I upload under this statement?
--Asch58 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No, you must request undeletion if you want it back. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photos of Moshe Ha-Elion?[edit]

Hello, my name is Antonia and I created the page about Holocaust survival Moshe Ha-Elion. I don't understand why did you delete several photos in the Moshe Ha-Elion article. Would you be so kind to add them again? All the photos were correct and were under Creative Commons or public domain (I took many of the photos that you took out!). Please add again the photos in the article as soon as possible. Thank you very much and greetings from Madrid / Antonia Tejeda Barros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please request undeletion at Com:UDR / Por favor pide restauración en COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Verify license in OTRS[edit]

Hi Jcb, could you please verify the licensing of File:Eugen Eger 1953.jpg in OTRS? I and other de.wikipedians have some doubt. The picture was registered as an "own work" of a younger user, what is not possible in view of the date of the photograph. Thank you very much, --= (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The permission in the OTRS ticket seems fine, but the information at the file description page was incorrect. I have changed it in accordance with the ticket. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! --= (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Hola Jcb. Hay un usuario que no es miembro de OTRS y en esta imagen el usuario añade un tícket de OTRS indicando su permiso (ver ticket:2012051810000701) ¿Podrás verificar si ese tícket de OTRS es válido dentro de esa imagen? porque ni Russavia pasó la revisión de la licencia de la imagen. Gracias. Ks [在这里找到答案] 17:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

El permiso de Vitalykuzmin.net está bien. El único es que Russavia no tiene que hacer nada con eso. Borré su nombre de la plantilla. Jcb (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Perfecto. Ahora sí lo veo bien. Saludos. Ks [在这里找到答案] 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

Blasons uploaded by Micheletb[edit]

Please stop notifying that such files have "no source": being hand made blasons no source is needed. You can add "source:own work" on these files if this seems necessary to you for whatever reason, it does not add anything. Being the author of the file File:Riazan blason.png, and this being a blason, no further source is needed : it is my own work. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Micheletb:, it is a bit unbelievable that you are an admin here on Commons (but in fact nothing surprises me here anymore). Please compare COM:Source. There is also evidence needed for the file description, but you also give nothing!?! User: Perhelion 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Micheletb, if it's your own work, just add {{own}} to the source field. And Perhelion is right, you have to add a description as well. Those things are your responsibility. I am not creating a list of uploaders with special needs. If I come accross one of your uploads in the state as File:Riazan blason.png, I will tag it and you will receive a notification. It's up to you to fix it. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Perhelion: and @Jcb:, please use commons sense. What makes you think the source may not be the author in such a case?
Those files (there is a whole series of a few hundreds in the same state) were uploaded in 2006. The COM.source policy was then the following one, with no need to systematically add both "source" and "author", since -quite obviously- if you are the author of a vector graphic file you are also its source (which may be different for photographs, where derivatives are frequent, but that is another thing). Unless otherwise specified the {{own}} is implicit in that case. So these files were conform to common's policy at that date.
If for some reason the policy has changed, and implicit information should now be explicated lest the file be severely deleted, this should not change the status of past conformant files (what would happen with disappeared contributors if such a rage were allowed?). So, if a missing {{own}} bothers you on such old uploads, it's much easier for you to add a {{own}} directly in that case, than to (1) flag the file with {{Lacking insignia source}} and (2) flag the file with {{No source since}} and (3) check the author is still active somewhere to (4) notify the author, for (5) the author to add the source and remove the tag. Pfiew...
As a matter of fact, you did add the {{own work}} tag in its correct place. Why would anybody make more fuss of it? - Just explicit the implicit information and that's that.
As to the file description, the File:Riazan blason.png file can be justly and fully described as being the blazon of w:Riazan, as its title suggests. Adding the file name in the "description" field won't add any information (though of course feel free to do so if you want) since the title is searched and retrieved by the search engines.
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Micheletb: I only see that you are trying to avoid. Also the COM.source policy at 2006 says both "source" and "author" are needed. You have now removed the tag {{Lacking insignia source}} without any edit comment (that is also a fail for an admin). Why?? There are many information left on the file and the only thing what you do is to debate vigorously and revert people which try to correct. That's a shame and not common sense (but a Commons sense). The template says clear "Own work” is therefor no proper source." Is it to meticulous to add the Category:Symbols of Ryazan? So if you are not willing to add information the file is out-of-scope and can be deleted!? ( what goes around comes around ) User: Perhelion 09:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity pictures Upload[edit]

Hey I want to upload pics of some Pakistani celebrities to link them to their wiki, they have authorized me to do that. How is it possible to avoid copyrights violation? how do I use a proper channel to do that? please help me on that. I am already warned to get blocked if I upload any other image. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf fangirl (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First make sure the authorization comes from the photographer, not from the depicted celebrity. Then ask them to send their permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anetta Kahane[edit]

Hello Johan, what exactly was missing in the upload of that picture hours ago? I think it is an original from their official website in Germany, which you deleted here. I could make good use of it. Kopilot (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the photographer released it into a valid free license. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
What evidence would you accept? The website allows the use and the institute is lead by Anetta Kahane herself. If they send you a permission per mail, would that be sufficient? Kopilot (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The photographer (not some 'they') has to send permission to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the photo deletion[edit]

Hello Johan hoping you're fine. You've deleted this photo File:Free sotoudeh s (5090402899).jpg. Does it violate copyrights? It is uploaded on flickr under creative commons liscence.--Marwa Ahmed Atia (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It was correctly taken from Flickr, but there was too much doubt about the Flickr user being the actual copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That Rhamphorhynchus picture[edit]

What's the problem? The artist released into the public domain (apparently, I can't read Russian) uploaded it to the Russian Wikipedia, and someone else uploaded it here. Abyssal (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We have no evidence that the original uploader at Russian Wikipedia is the author. Jcb (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Armada Music logo.svg[edit]

So why does this pass the threshold of originality but File:Armada Music Logo.svg does not? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you as this question in this wording. As far as I can see, I have never taken a decision regarding File:Armada Music Logo.svg. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove of copyvio Sendak[edit]

Sendak recently died so his work is still copyright protected. Freedom of panorama is not quaranteed inside buildings. So why have you took out the copyright violation templates? --Micha (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Gestumblindi: maybe you know that better. --Micha (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is not an accepted procedure for 'no FoP' issues. Please use a regular DR instead. (The 'nominate for deletion' link from the left menu). Jcb (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Micha, Jcb: In a way, I agree with both of you: File:16 05 001 sendak.jpg and File:16 05 011 sendak.jpg most likely should be deleted for lack of FoP - in fact, "doubly" so: Apparently, these photos ware taken in the US ("exhibit at the Breman Museum in Atlanta, GA"), and the US have FoP only for works of architecture, so there is a deletion reason apart from Micha's remark that FoP is not applicable inside buildings. The same applies to two other files in Category:Maurice Sendak, and File:Irma Black Seal.JPG also doesn't seem to be licensed correctly (certainly not "own work"). So, I agree with Micha. But I also agree with Jcb; as FoP issues are often complicated, the accepted procedure on Commons is a regular deletion request, not speedy deletion. Though it may seem a bit bureaucratic in this pretty clear case (as there is no realistic other outcome than deletion, I'd say), I think that's how it should be done. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: This files are _obvious_ copyright violation and I have just remarked it how I should as a copyright violation what it actually is. If you think there shoud be a regular DR instead, because your unsure than it was your turn to change it. Just to remove it was just wrong because you just restored the illegal situation. --Micha (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Red Scinde Dawk stamp.jpg[edit]

Only because Scinde Dawk‎ is on my watchlist did I notice this had been deleted. No philatelist seems to have noticed but as the first Asian stamps I am pretty sure I can fix the source issue even though the known examples are scarce finding the source should not be too much trouble as they are well written up. Obviously no reviewed bothered to let any philatelic editors know. I do watch quite a few stamps but it's impossible to watch them all, so some like this one may slip under the radar. If you temporarily restore it I'll have a look and see if I can rescue it, if ot just delete it again. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:, User:Michael Romanov made a mess of it by reuploading the file without waiting for a proper undeletion. I have fixed the situation and restored the original upload. Please fix the information fields. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my reuploading. I did not know that you are discussing this issue on this page. At least, I added the missing info. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
For future cases please be aware that it is not acceptable to simply reupload a file if you disagree with deletion. You can try to get a file undeleted, e.g. by asking and administrator or via COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. The original uploader was Fconaway and we will find the missing info to avoid another deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Palacio de Recreación y Deportes.jpg[edit]

I was permitted to use that image by its owner. Why you deleted it? Investigate before doing something only because you want. Seriesphile (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

further information[edit]

Dear JCB.

Is reversing File:Image30000.JPG a result of my not well used delete application? I also read the article in which this file is used and with that information I could find something of the shape of the image in the premises of the Zona Franca. I will adjust the categories and try to make something more of the image with some more info. (were you previously also engaged in the NL wikipedia?) --Jos1950 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)