User talk:Jcb

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

Out of office until 6 August
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


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)

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)

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)

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)