User talk:Jcb/archive/1

Welcome message

Thank you for providing images to the commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

• Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
• State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly.
• If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
• Add a Copyright tag - images without a appropriate license tag will be deleted.
• Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate Categories, so it can be found by others.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more Information, have a look at Commons:Licensing, Commons:criteria for inclusion and the Community Portal. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you. -- Joolz 18:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:La Romana.jpg

Teruggezet. Plak ajb even een {{GFDL-self}} of andere licentie erop. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nl-Agnosticisme-article.ogg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by ABFbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (abf /talk to me/ (using a bot)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --abf /talk to me/ (using a bot) 19:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Solved. Jcb 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nl-Slag bij Zierikzee-article.ogg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Solved. Jcb 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:DomRepSalcedo.png

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:DomRepSalcedo.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Abigor talk 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Date format, auto-translate

Hoi Jcb, Het valt me toevallig op dat je de datum in {{User:Jcb/swu|}} niet in JJJJ-MM-DD maar wanneer het getal onder de tien is, ook JJJJ-M-D. Omdat op Commons datums worden herkent in een bepaald formaat en in dat geval automatisch worden voltooid en vertaald is het wel nodig de maand en dag in 2 cijfers te noemen. Bijvoorbeeld 2010-09-05 i.p.v. 2010-9-5. Zie het verschil tussen deze en deze. Groet, –Krinkle^talk 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Ik kan trouwens, wanneer je dit onhandig vind, dit automatiseren door in User:Jcb/swu een functie aan te brengen die parameter {2} en {3} automatisch aanvullen tot 2 cijfers wanneer dit niet het geval is (m.a.w. dat "5" dus "05" worden na het subst:'en). Ik hoor het wel, groetjes ! –Krinkle^talk 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, ik zal erop letten. Het is voor mij een kleine moeite dit gewoon zelf in te vullen, ik verander deze parameter maar een keer per dag en kopieer het daarna steeds. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS tickets

Hi, an issue relating to tickets you have previously added to images was raised on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. In future please be aware that tickets are only supposed to be added by OTRS volunteers in order to ensure that someone is responsible for confirming that ticket's permission at the time. If you add tickets yourself, the ticket may be subject to being removed or challenged in the future. If you wish to have new images approved under an existing appropriate ticket, please either email permissions again, contact an OTRS volunteer directly (such as the one who approved the original ticket) or leave a note on the OTRS noticeboard. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Strike that, there may have been some confusion as you were not flagged as an OTRS member. That seems to now be corrected. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I noticed that the abuse filter complained as well when I added the OTRS permissions :-P - Jcb (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Vetere ticket

Hi Jcb, I've seen that you've added an OTRS-ticket to File:THOMAS MANN exil seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg. Did you check whether it contains a credible permission to use the photo of Thomas Mann (still without source and author credit), which was surely not shot by the artist and uploader? see File talk:THOMAS MANN exil seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading all the involved email, I'm convinced it's OK now. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with this uploader is that he claims a lot of things ... Thomas Mann died in 1955. Copyright protection in Germany is 70 years after the death of the author. As the uploader did not provide any meaningful source for the photo ("photo of thomas mann is from the internet"), there is no justification to assume that this photo is PD. To the contrary, we have to strongly assume that it is still copyrighted. In addition, the uploader did not provide the name of the photographer, whereas crediting the author is required per copyright law of Germany and per current jurisdiction in Germany. While I can easily understand that you want to get rid of this "case", I really want to make sure that you realize the problem. As Vetere is not the author of the photo, of which he produced a derivative (which does not go by de minimis, IMHO), he has no rights over this image and cannot authorize it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Use in this way (low resolution, just a non-prominent part of the artwork) is afak not prohibited by the copyright law. And I don't want to just easy 'get rid of it', I spent a lot of time in the communication with the uploader. Jcb (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense meant by "While I can easily understand ...". I do have my own share of attempted communication with this uploader and I know well what that means. --Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Use in this way ..." is questionable with the above image, not the least as THOMAS MANN is the subject of the image. But even if it where ok to use the photo, it violates copyright by not crediting the author. Even US fair-use does require credit of author and source. Besides, the uploader has been asked more than once to provide source and author name of this and of other photos, he used for his works. He simply ignored these requests. Or did he provide these data in his "permission"? The same copyvio problem by missing author and source credit have File:Wolf biermann seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg and File:Zen s by mischa vetere 2010.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This data is not findable and *not needed* for the moment. If somebody comes with a valid copyright claim, we may investigate again. Jcb (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "not findable"? We are talking about photos of well-known people made (likely) in the 1940ies in the 1st and (likely) between 1970 and 1990 in the 2nd case. "If somebody comes .." is this new policy? Sorry, but this is no longer fun. If we go by this, I can save my time for uploading own images instead of deleting thousands (clear and likely) copyvios per year. --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not ok. The photo is from >1940, I fully agree. So in no case its copyright is expired. The "work" is named after the person, so noone can claim that it is an insignificant part or COM:DM. It also does not matter how ridiculously low the quality of the photo or of the work is. The work is a derivative work (german: Bearbeitung) of the photo, the user is allowed to make artwork based on other peoples work without even crediting them, but he is not allowed to push this under a free license. In fact the license claim " I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain" is untrue. The uploader holds the copyright on the modifications but not on the base work, so he is not the copyright holder of all data he uploaded, he only helds copyright on a part of his upload. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect category added to File:Rahway15 at Scranton.jpg

How do you get "Biologists from Ukraine" as a category in File:Rahway15 at Scranton.jpg and why can't I cate it out unless I reverse your edit? ----DanTD (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't see that category in that file. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Jcb/archive!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Tommy Ebben & the Small Town Villains.jpg was uncategorized on 27 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Garcia Goodbye.jpg was uncategorized on 27 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Logo Goomah Music.jpg was uncategorized on 29 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image:The Horse Company.jpg was uncategorized on 29 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Farida Merville.jpg was uncategorized on 2 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Alexander de Croo - Lode Vereeck - Bert Schoofs.jpg was uncategorized on 2 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Armand van der Smissen.jpg was uncategorized on 5 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Skyline image

Hi there. Could you please take a look at this discussion, and let us know if I'm correct? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to check this, for I'm not an administrator at Commons. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Mischa vetere seen by rodolphe carterot.jpg

Hi Jcb,
as you added on OTRS permission to File:Mischa vetere seen by rodolphe carterot.jpg and removed my no-perm-tag, which is actually not at all a work of the uploader, I would like to know whether 2010092410010891 really contains evidence of a permission on behalf of the alleged photographer Rodolphe Carterot, Lyon - as opposed to a general permission by Mischa Vetere himself. You don't need to disclose anything confidential, just a plain yes or no would be welcome. Besides, you might change the {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} to {{cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, as the uploader is not the copyright holder, even in case he has permission. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the ticket, his friend Rodolph Carterot gave his permission. In the future please post questions like this at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

other

Hi Jcb,
sorry to write again in OTRS things to your talkpage, but I want to keep this low-key. As I am not in OTRS, I would like to know, if a uploader (not me) thinks/fears a OTRS-reviewer (not you) is biased or has some conflict of interest, is there any standard procedure what to do/how to start without creating big drama? the potential case. --Túrelio (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The IRC #wikimedia-otrs channel could be a helpful place. I will have a look at this case. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS "fraud"

I'm sorry, but there is no "fraud". I am an OTRS operator and I managed that ticket. So I'm going to revert your deletion requests and to ask the revert of you deletions. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, images have already been deleted...

Please, may I know why do you think it was a "fraud"? I'm not questioning your good faith, at all. I'm just asking politely what led you to think like this. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the ticket on OTRS... -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

??? I cannot access that ticket ??? - Jcb (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Crookhaven Heads exterior.jpg and File:Crookhaven Heads stairs.jpg (OTRS 2010111110008235)

May I inquire what was the problem with OTRS 2010111110008235? I've sent Phil he exact email template to send, and he told me it was done, was something not done properly? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found one image at Flickr with a non-free license. Jcb (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. I asked him to change the license on flickr. He said from some technical reason he can't do that. I asked if he is willing to send me the image, I will upload it, and he will send consent. He said he is willing, so that's the path we took. Is it against some guideline I am not aware of? An author is not allowed to have an image here on CC and on another website on another license? --Muhandes (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I dug up his exact answer on flickrmail: "I've tried to change the license but I must be doing something wrong and getting a new tab opening up." This was regarding this image. Our correspondence continued, with the conclusion being him sending me the images to upload. --Muhandes (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's our task to hear such things from the author himself. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I'm sure the author will confirm. I must say that I am surprised from two reasons. First, this is not the first case where an author gave me permission to upload work they already had elsewhere. Yet previously an author's consent was all it took. Second, by not accepting the consent it implies a suspicion of fraud. With the level in which I was careful of uploading images in the past, that's very unexpected. However, I accept that, as I suppose your work at OTRS is the opposite of assuming good faith, and maybe someone has to do that as well. For future reference, could you point me to an email template where an author gives consent to his work which is already published elsewhere under a different license? Is there some compact standard addition to the template that will satisfy this? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We are free to ask any question to the author and to use {OTRS received} in the meantime. The {OTRS received) template shows that there is something in progress. We are not in a hurry, are we? Jcb (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We are in no hurry at all. I apologize if I sound itchy, keep doing the good work! --Muhandes (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:AEFML02.jpg

And the permission is for the logos used as well? (+similar files from this serie) Masur (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I did not notice the company logos at the bottom. I will check all of them and communicate this with the uploader. Thanks for your notification. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploader replaced the files by versions without this problem. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Negative OTRS / Nomination

Hi Jcb, Regarding this file, I'd like to ask to please use the {{speedy|reason}} template. If OTRS did not receive a valid permission, there's no need for discussion (ie. deletion nomination through {{Delete}}), for that reason it's better to use speedy to have it deleted immediately. –Krinkle^talk 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Done for the other two involved images as well. Jcb (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures taken by myself from art works and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license ?

Hello Jcb Johan,

I found your link on a message, I can write also in dutch but here the english site think it's better to write in egnlish.

I 've uploaded today several pictures on wikipedia commons, user: Jurgenborgers subjet, Albert Muis à Dutch painter My question is if it 's possible to publish this way on wikipedia commons??

If there is a problem can you leave me a message Sincerly Jurgenborgers--Jurgenborgers (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

YOUR MESSAGE: 25 November 2010

   * (diff | hist) . . File:Albert muis.jpg‎; 22:18 . . (+28) . . Jcb (talk | contribs)

24 November 2010

   * (Upload log); 18:21 . . Jurgenborgers (talk | contribs) uploaded a new version of File:Albert muis.jpg (Albert Muis dans son atelier, 1944 à Amsterdam)

I will check this out later today. I transfered your today email message to my personal queue. Jcb (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing link Artist Albert Muis

Hello Jcb,

Thanks a lot for your email today. There is a missing link in my last message, about the Creative Commons 3.0 license.

The pictures are already published on Flickr

The following link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/albert-muis/

Perhaps this could be helpfull

Again thanks Sincerly Jurgenborgers--Jurgenborgers (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but who put those pictures at Flickr? How can we know that they are uploaded legally under that license? Jcb (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

2010112310024892

Hi, you may want to reply to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#ticket_2010112310024892 which appears to be a ticket you have closed recently. Thanks, --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take care of it. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission for images?

Hi

Why have you not given me permission for my images. I have permission from all the authors, who have said i am aloud to use their images on wikipedia and commons. So why not? I sent the email clearly stating their permission as well with proof.

You didn't receive my answer to you email message? Jcb (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the message please?

The message was as follows (should be in you mail box):

As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the copyright holder to provide a specific release under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If you can supply this, then the content may be hosted on Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not adequate enough.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing> for more information. If you require a sample email, you may visit <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates>.

Jcb (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thankyou, i have emailed the authors to change their liscences, so please dont delete just yet.

We use the {OTRS received} template to show to the moderators that the process is ongoing, so that they give it some time. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead Frontier Logo image

Hello Jcb, about the Dead Frontier Logo:

the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard.

The e-mail address that sent the permission is from the owner or the responsible for this file. I didn't quite understand what is required now, am I the user that added it to the template? What do I have to do now?

Thanks, --WizTheDoc (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The permission as sent by email is not yet sufficient. I responded to the email with additional questions to clear things up. In the meantime I placed the {OTRS received} template to show to administrators that the permission process is ongoing. The administrators will give it some time to be resolved. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you :) If anything is required from me, please let me know it in my talk page, --WizTheDoc (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not a free logo as I have placed. Is it possible to have it under the same licensing of [1] or [2]. Thanks in advance --WizTheDoc (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That license is allowed at en.wikipedia.org (if you upload it there) but not at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for your reply, I understand now... Wikimedia commons is only for free content (sorry, I should have seen that). How can I upload the image to en.wikipedia.org directly? Thanks, --WizTheDoc (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to disturb you. I think I have placed the correct permission and licensing, with the respective rationale. Do you confirm? Thanks :) --WizTheDoc (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see it's OK now. Jcb (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks again! --WizTheDoc (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, you have processed some of my OTRS requests recently and I have 2 questions. First is that since my user identity and the one of my Picasa albums (my real name) have been established several times here, is there a shortcut to requesting OTRS for every photo I upload to Commons that was previously uploaded there? My other question is about file moving. Today I uploaded by mistake File:Dsc03785small.jpg without setting an appropriate destination name. I tried to delete it and re-upload it with another destination name, but it didn't work. So I found out about renaming files and listed it there. Since I will be contributing a lot and this mistake may happen again and again, my question is, how can I apply for File Mover rights? Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The best way is to state in the Picasa album that the images are under a free license (like CC-BY-SA 3.0). Then while uploading new files, don't use the {OTRS pending} template, but paste a link to the place in the Picasa album where we may verify the license. User rights may be requested at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. Hoverfish (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gratulation to your adminship. Regrettably, I only saw your request when Julian closed it. --Túrelio (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jcb (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Jcb. I have closed your RfA as successful, and as such, you are now an administrator. Congratulations! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks and good luck, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jcb (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sub High 2 Cover.jpg

Hello. The Image was deleted because of an old OTRS-pending, set by you. What was the reason for the OTRS-Pending? If there is a ticket, you could give me the number so I may look at it too. I was quite sure that the uploader was the artist, so it should not be a copyright violation. --Don-kun (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I added 'OTRS received', because we received an email. I responded to that email with an additional question, but till now he didn't answer. Jcb (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Was there any problem with the image? --Don-kun (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the mailer actually is the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:CorbinBleuDec10 2.jpg

Hello Jcb, possible to add Permission ((OTRS | 2010121410003591)), this same version Look, Good luck. --2.88.106.86 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that ticket also covers that picture. Jcb (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS and license changes

Hoi Jcb, I noticed [3] and [4] by accident. Looking at your changes the OTRS permission seems to confirm that the original uploader actually is the author, so the original licensing from en.wikipedia should be ok and applicable. Now you replaced the original GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5 tags (which were visible to the public for years in both cases, and which were/are legally valid for all re-users) with Cc-by-sa-3.0 tags. What's the reasoning for this? I don't understand why you didn't just add a second license tag … if Cc-by-sa-3.0 is explicitly wanted. Why did you remove the original tags?
And, well, that's a minor issue, but could you please use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} instead of {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}? The latter is only a redirect :-) --:bdk: 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The mail in OTRS mentioned Cc-by-sa 3.0. Is it necessary to keep 2.5 and 3.0? I would suggest just to keep te newer version. Jcb (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Well, if an old license tag was and is legally valid (because the original uploader is the author and once published an image under a specific license), then it should generally be kept. This is mainly important for third party users who already republished an image elsewhere with correct licensing (correct at least before the change) and with reference to Commons (usually a link to the file's description page). So such a license change could lead to a situation where a reuser's image caption appears wrong (even if it isn't, in fact), and it seems as if the reuser acts carelessly. This is basically an issue of reliability of Wikimedia Commons therefore, not a per-image or per-author issue. Anyway, we had a short discussion about such license changes on the German VP recently, see here (maybe you understand the main points). In short: if a user wants to change the tags for his own images from GFDL-self to PD-self, is this possible? (yes, because PD is "more free"; it isn't accepted the other way around; but it's recommended to just add a license tag, not to substitute one with another), and should GFDL be kept? (yes, for reference, see above)

I hope this explanation is comprehensible :-) --:bdk: 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. I've also read the German discussion. I will keep this in mind. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Foto's bedankt

Hallo Jcb, ik heb gezien dat je het OTRS-label op de foto's van D66 hebt geplakt. Reuze bedankt voor de snelle reactie, groeten --Ziko (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Graag gedaan! Jcb (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Del Req Handler

Welcome to the Admins. I noticed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exlibris-Hans-Adolf-von-Moltke.JPG that you aren't using DelReqHandler. It's a very useful way to reduce closing a DR to only two clicks, if you leave no comment, or three, if you do.

In English it's at My Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for admins and special users.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I will check this out. Jcb (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Image kep

Hope you have seen the FoP section for File:Atlantis_palm_EDITED.jpg, if not kindly visit these pages

1. Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates
2. File_talk:Dubai_051.JPG#Summary
3. User_talk:Túrelio#FoP_for_review

As a big discussion is going and will be ended soon...--Captain - Talk to me 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, but the FoP issue is about architectural artwork, not about functional buildings. Jcb (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Architecture means any type it includes buildings also, see the dictionary details..

architecture |ˈärkiˌtek ch ər|

noun

The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings.

• the style in which a building is designed or constructed, esp. with regard to a specific period, place, or culture : Victorian architecture.

2 the complex or carefully designed structure of something : the chemical architecture of the human brain.

• the conceptual structure and logical organization of a computer or computer-based system : a client/server architecture.

More over, running building is also an architecture...--Captain - Talk to me 14:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Odessa St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Church.jpg

Hi

Thanks for reviewing the permission request (Ticket#2010121510017252) for Odessa St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Church.jpg.

Please note, that though the license mentioned in Flickr is not compatible with Commons, the user allowed publishing the photo at commons with license CC-BY-SA. Please check the 5^th and 6^th comments (the permission is in Russian language).

Thanks,

Best, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you respond this to my email messages, I will send it to the Russion queue for verification. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Kannst du bitte deine Entscheidung begründen? Peter glaubt nicht an das Urheberrecht 'legal theory und PAterMyFly hat verstanden, warum das Plakat urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. (Ich gehe davon aus, dass du dies hier verstehst, da die Diskussion ja auch überwiegend in recht schwieriger deutscher Sprache geführt wurde.) sугсго 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can read German (native Dutch speaker, took German in high school and had to read several technical and theological books in German afterwards), no problem. I expect for you it's also not a problem that I answer in English. In contrary to what you are stating it DOES matter whether the author is known or unknown. If the author remains unknown, PD applies from 70 years after first publication. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It does matter in Germany, but only if they would not be longer protected by the older law: § 137 f UrhG: § 137f Übergangsregelung bei Umsetzung der Richtlinie 93/98/EWG (1) Würde durch die Anwendung dieses Gesetzes in der ab dem 1. Juli 1995 geltenden Fassung die Dauer eines vorher entstandenen Rechts verkürzt, so erlischt der Schutz mit dem Ablauf der Schutzdauer nach den bis zum 30. Juni 1995 geltenden Vorschriften. . Before 1995 it does not matter, whether the author of a Werk der bildendenden Kunst is known or not. § 66 IV Fassung vor dem 30 Juni 1995: § 66 Anoynme und pseudonyme Werke (1) Ist der wahre Name oder der bekannte Deckname des Urhebers weder nach § 10 Abs. 1 noch bei einer öffentlichen Wiedergabe des Werkes angegeben worden, so erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung des Werkes. (...) (4) Die vorstehenden Bestimmungen sind auf Werke der bildenden Künste nicht anzuwenden.

See Template:Anonymous-EU: In Germany certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. See Aktuelle Rechtslage in Deutschland, last paragraph. -sугсго 07:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ticket Request

Hello Jcb, is there a ticket for this image : www.flickr.com/photos/tomdog/5015250309 ? .--Amazing.O (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything. Please use Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for questions like this. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

DR close

Regarding your closure reasoning here, a photograph does create new copyright if the "artwork" is three-dimensional. Please see COM:DW#Casebook under Photographs of three-dimensional objects. Wknight94 ^talk 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the link and explanation. I chose the safe way and changed the decision. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:단원고 원경.jpg

I usually just shrug when another Admin closes a DR opposite to my way of thinking, but I really don't understand your action here. Although there's a lot of grass and sky, a modern building stretches from side to side. There's no way in the world the building is de minimis, so how can we keep it, given that there is no FOP in South Korea?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain in short here. Lots of users have difficulties to exactly understand the difference between 'a building' and 'architecture'. I understand that, it is difficult. But it is quite relevant and the base of the decission in which I deleted one and kept other. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The law says "architecture" has a copyright. Architecture is the work of an architect, just as sculpture is the work of a sculptor. Therefore any building or other structure is architecture, just as any sculpture is the work of a sculptor. There is no requirement in the law that a sculpture must be good art or fancy art in order to have a copyright, only that it not be a copy. A blob of clay molded by a two year old child has a copyright. Any building has a copyright. In the USA, architects publish books of house plans for very simple houses and enforce their copyright against anyone who builds one of their houses without paying the fee.

So, this building clearly has a copyright. I can't pretend to know the Korean law, but in France, and other countries where there is no FOP, it is clear that the architect has the right to profit from photographs of his buildings and that the copyright extends not just to building a new building, but also to photographs of it, just as a sculptor can prevent photographs of his work from being published, even though they are 2D and not copies.

Or, put it another way. On your line of reasoning, FOP doesn't matter, because a photograph of a building "is not a copy of the architectural design (construction overview, base plan, foundation calculation, etc.) of that building." If you are correct, then why do we delete photographs of buildings in non-FOP countries? Let's keep them all and ignore the law.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you completely missed my point. Jcb (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Db buried.jpg

I'm not sure how I came to the original decision that I did on that page, although I clearly remember seeing some of that uploader's images as "copyright Corbis". That said, I only see a few Blaine pics on his photostream now, and I could swear I'd seen more... maybe I'm getting old or something and my memory fails, although perhaps the uploader saw my nomination and immediately scrubbed the copyvios.

ANYWAY, further research presents an interesting dilemma here. On one hand we have the flickr uploader with clearly professional images: [5], including images like [6] and [7] which was uploaded after it existed elsewhere at a higher resolution. However, the uploader's username is "james.spector" and James Spector appears to be an agent in David Blaine Productions. Do we have some sort of way of {{Npd}} with flickr, or should we just assume good faith until it should become an issue (e.g., David Blaine Productions writes the WMF and complains)? I would absolutely hate to deter a professional from releasing something as cc by requiring too much proof. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith as long as their is no obvious reason to doubt about that. Also a possible copyright holder does not need to write to WMF. If they send their complaint to permissionswikimedia.org, we check the situation and if necessary we delete the pictures. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ricci - Trigault - Histoire de l expédition chrestienne au royaume de la Chine, 1616.pdf

This file, deleted because each page is adorned with a logo "Google" under copyright, was used in french Wikisource. I do not understand the rationality of the deletion. Hundreds of files obtained from Google Books, and used as fac-simile by Wikisource have exactly the same logo on each page or image. If Wikimedia Commons administrators want to delete all these files, please say it first to Wikisource contributors. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I processed an individual request. I concluded that the file was not free in the way it must be to remain at Wikimedia Commons, so I had to delete it. I did not look at other file, but similar cases will be dealt with similar. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I do not ask to have the file restored. I did upload the file to fr.wikisource to resume my work on it. Krinkle must be gratified. I hope no other Commons contributor will have the fantasy to have all files copied from Google Books (more than a thousand in french language, and a very large quantity in other languages) destroyed because there is a Google logo watermarked on each page, and a more explicit one on the first page. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Beys Afroyim with son.jpg

Hi. I note that an e-mail message was received for this image but was not considered sufficient to confirm permission.

I forwarded two e-mails from Amos Schüller regarding this photo. The first (sent on December 23) was a very vague permissions statement, but the second (sent this morning, December 27) was a more precise permissions release based on the Commons template.

I don't have an OTRS account, so I'm unable to see which of these two messages has been rejected. Can you let me know? If the rejection was with respect to the first message (sent on the 23rd), could you please look for the second e-mail (sent on the 27th)? And if the rejection was with respect to the second message (sent on the 27th), could you please explain to me what is still wrong so that I can contact Amos Schüller again and try to get the problem cleared up?

Thanks. Richwales (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a backlog of a few days at the moment. Jcb (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. As long as people are aware that another (hopefully acceptable) permissions statement is in the queue, and the file won't get summarily deleted before the new permissions statement has been evaluated, I'm OK with the delay. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Today we got rid of the backlog, but it seems we didn't receive your 27 december message. Could you send it again? Jcb (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

re deletion

Hi. Could you consider recreating this file? The deletion request was erroneous (it was claimed it was an election campaign poster, which was false). By the logic of this deletion, all files in Category:Graffiti could be CSD, including this one. --Soman (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a poster for something else, but it looks like a poster. I saw many of this form, not only on walls, but also on rocks. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the photo myself. It is painted on a wall. If re-created, I can translate the text for you. --Soman (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carreau-four.jpg

Please take care about rest of files mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Zhangzhongjing.jpg

[8] why u keep this picture, this is a modern work in western style, not a tradition chinese art style--58.176.42.242 09:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't provide any evidence for that claim. Jcb (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MV Hyundai Fortune port side aft hole.jpg

FYI. --Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will ask Multichill to have a look at it. He knows more than I about Dutch government permissions. Jcb (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of most images in the Emaux de Briare French WP article

Hello,

I was a contributor of the above named article and regret that you decided to delete most of the images that illustrated it: can you explain in plain English what made you do that (are there in your opinion copyright issues or is it a user "Jolies Ceramiques" related procedure?

Thanks in advance for you speedy comment. Chaanara (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carreau-four.jpg, no evidence of permission. This page might be helpful: Commons:OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Air masses .svg

This was marked at Commons:Deletion requests/All images from the Remote Sensing Tutorial from NASA Goddard Space Center as not being a trace of a similar image. It used a free image with data points plotted on it. The source map and source for the data were clearly indicated on the image description page. I'm hoping this was simply overlooked in the effort to delete all the images at once. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been overlooked, because somebody forgot to strike it. It has been restored. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. – Adrignola talk 15:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Lakhdar Belloumi (champion d'Algérie 1984 - GC Mascara).jpg

Thank u for your message, and thank u for the information. Greetings. Faycal.09 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DRs closed by you with FOP claim

Hi Jcb, FOP is existent in this countries.. but it does not apply to the interiour of buildings. Do you have information to the contrary? (If yes please add it to COM:FOP.) Therefore I started them again:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barcelona.Museu.de.la.Ciencia.Interior.1.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:HKU Stephen Hui Museum 地球模型 Earth Model.JPG

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's just not specified in the Spanish law. Public space located inside a building is not excluded. Jcb (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For the China case you have a point, I will change my decission on that case. Jcb (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DR

Bedankt voor het verwijderen van de foto van de "blauwe berg". Zou je ook knnen kijken naar de andere bijdragen van die gebruiker, die vast iets met die "god" te maken had, gezien het artikel die hij op es.wiki gecreëerd had. Bedankt, Savh, Any questions? 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ik ga liever niet de bedragen van een bepaalde gebruiker aflopen, zolang geen sprake is van acute problemen als vandalisme of auteursrechtenschending. In vind het belangrijk om te werken zonder aanzien des persoons. Eerlijk gezegd vond ik deze foto een beetje een twijfelgeval, ik kan me voorstellen dat er moderators zijn die de foto behouden zouden hebben. De Bijbeltekst die ik aanhaalde, heb ik bewust niet in mijn beslissing gezet, maar erboven, omdat dit in het kader van de richtlijnen niet van belang is, maar als theoloog kon ik het toch niet laten het even te noemen. Als je vindt dat de andere afbeeldingen ook verwijderd zouden moeten worden, dan kun je ze nomineren voor verwijdering. Een willekeurige moderator zal er dan een oordeel over vellen. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/All images from the Remote Sensing Tutorial from NASA Goddard Space Center

Hello Jcb! Just a small comment on your closure of this DR, which I think was a bit too soon. It was a huge DR that was not done properly and it came just before the holidays. So it would've been great if you gave it a little more time or at least a deadline or heads-up. Luckily we're done with most of the files, so I won't be asking for reopening or anything. Best regards and happy new year! -- Orionist ★ talk 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"it came just before the holidays" - it was started 25 november, not 25 december - Jcb (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not done properly. Uploaders were not notified and deletion tags were not added to the images until 19 December, just before the holidays. It's all evident in the discussion. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. If you think a specific image should be restored for a specific reason, you may always ask me. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Emaux de Briare massive picture deletion

Hello Jcb,

My name is Paule CLUZEL and I work for Emaux de Briare in Paris. I am at the marketing and communication service. In Spetember, we started to think that we could make a contribution to wikipedia by adding an article about the company that has had a huge impact on the Briare Region at the end of the 19th century. We thought that, since there are other companies on wikipedia, we wouldn't be bothered on the basis of wikipedia spirit, and we thought it would be interesting for the wikipedia French community (mostly) to know that there were still some real old French companies still producing in France.

In order to make our article more interesting and joyfull, we included our own pictures. Everything went well for a month or two (I lost track) and sudently our pictures are being deleted. What did we do wrong? We didn't claim any restriction on the pictures... We didn't use them for a pure commercial purpose... We just gave them to wikipedia to inform people of the great work and art we do. We have all the rights to use thoses pictures as WE took them... What do you need to prove that? Would you like a copy of my hard drive? I can't help but say that we're desappointed. We thought we could work in harmony to make a nice contrubution but since we arrived, it's been nothing but reproaches and deletions... We really don't get it...

So please, help me understand what we did wrong what you need to get thoses pictures back on the article... Because from our point of view, it seems that you don't want us in the wiki community.

I hope we'll get the information we need to keep going.

Best Regards, Paule CLUZEL +33 1 46 07 03 26 p.cluzelemauxdebriare.com

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carreau-four.jpg, no evidence of permission. This page might be helpful: Commons:OTRS. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

abnormal deletion of Emaux de Briare pictures

Sir,

You have given us as only "explanation" please refer to "OTRS", but this doesn't seem vey relevant, and in any case not useful.

As we clearly stated, "joliesceramiques" is not only the WP name under which we decided to contribute (we chose it so that it is not ambiguous who we are) but the official name of the holding company and sole owner of the rights pertaining to emaux de briare intellectual property & assets.

We do not need permission of ourselves I suppose to use our own pictures.

You have both our telephone number and e-mail address (which is by the way registered with WP) to contact us if anything needs to be clarified.

We trust you will behave appropriately in the future and not solely vandalize articles without knowing what you are doing.

sincerely

Joliesceramiques (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS is about how you may contact us by email. This is my last respond about this case at this talk page. But if your mails are that rude as your message here, I don't think we're going to help you. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests

Hi, Jcb. I would like to know why the Commons:Deletion requests was not removed in the image File:Iris-Prêmio Mãos e Mentes que Brilham.jpg.

Thanks in the advance, Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with the automated script. I now removed it. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:GermanyPSkyline-He.jpg

Since you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:GermanyPSkyline-He.jpg, could you please find an appropriate tag to correct the licensing section of File:GermanyPSkyline-He.jpg's file description?

The current tagging, {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} is invalid because User:RhoneDmDery is not the copyright holder and because File:Berlin-zentrum-by-RalfR-026.jpg, which makes up a significant part of File:GermanyPSkyline-He.jpg, does not permit derivative versions to be licensed that way. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO the image description page is currently clear enough about the copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the Summary section, but rather the Licensing section, which, as I mentioned, is obviously misleading. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the debate here. If you know a better solution for that section, feel free. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the misleading information. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

COM:UDEL#Deletion after only one vote...and a keep vote at that.

Hi Jcb, one of the DRs closed by you got a follow-up at COM:UDEL. I'm notifying you as apparently nobody else did. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Coliseoodesurmedellin2010.jpg

Dear Jcb, Pls kindly confirm why did you erase the File:Coliseoodesurmedellin2010.jpg? --Edwod2001 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I agree with nominator, see here. Jcb (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, I don´t understand the comments "small resolutions", "missing EXIF". Are pictures not good enought? --Edwod2001 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That are indications that the images have been grabbed from websites. Also the fact that it was almost impossible to find two pictures from the same camera between your uploads. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mylopharyngodon piceus.jpg

Hi Jcb, sorry, but I really do not agree with your premature, fast DR closures. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mylopharyngodon piceus.jpg there is a clear copyright notice on the image. If he took the image in his holidays it is not PD! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He put it (as a government employee) on a government website. Whoever may claim whatever copyright, but such a claim may also be not true. About your "premature, fast" claim, please check yourself that there were 30 days between last comment and closure. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes - he put it on this website - but with a © mark. As the copyrights page (I linked it in the DR) mentions the website also uses some material with permisson of the copyright holder. This could be such a case and could be tagged with © to indicate it.

I said early because there was no consensus or whatever too keep the image. Maybe we have somewhere in our rules that a DR with 30 days no comment may be closed. However, I regard it as too early in this case. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not going to repeat the deletion debate. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But I do - see (if you are interested) the DR which I started again ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a more appropriate place than my talk page, which gets overloaded with people trying to debate with me about image deletions. Jcb (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Schwarz-_Rot-_Goldene_Fahne_vom_12._Juni_1815.jpg

Hi!

I saw that you have closed the deletion request. Please note that we still do not know from which source (which book) this image comes. --ALE! ¿…? 23:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For obvious PD-old that's not an issue, is it? Jcb (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anwynd deletion

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to rename this category rather than deleting it? Now the legendary chieftain has no category at all, instead of one with a controversial name. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not follow the good suggestion made by Ilmari Karonen given in that discussion? SergeWoodzing (talk)

It was empty. I only delete categories when they are empty. Jcb (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It was emptied so it would get deleted. Any input on that discussion and Karonen's good idea? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with a processed deletion, you may wish to use this request page. Jcb (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zbigniew Wąsiel - Tors I.jpg

According to this short info: pl-wikinews, the scultpure was part of an exhibition, therefore temporarly displayed, and it's not permanently installed at this place. And polish FoP law requires permanent installation. Masur (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't provide that Wikinews-link in the deletion request, so that I couldn't reckon with it. If you have new arguments, you may start a new deletion request. Jcb (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lyubov Romanova.jpg

Hello. I came across this nomination by accident and I tend to agree with the nominator. The article about this person was speedily deleted [9] in ruwiki. If the article went through regular deletion, this page would not be regarded as sufficient proof of notability (it is a writer's bio on free-download-website, not a reliable source). Could you reconsider your decision? Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you google her name (try images and you will find book covers) and you will find a lot. To me it seems she is a notable person. Commons does not follow deletion at local wiki's. There may be various reasons for a speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the link above states that this writer wrote two books, and only one of them was published - last month in the amount of 3000 copies. I doubt this would be enough to satisfy notability criteria in any project and therefore the image hardly falls within project scope. --Blacklake (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for a deletion debate. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, whenever one appeals a keep closure, one should first discuss it with admin who closed the discussion. That's why I am asking for rationale, since at the moment I don't see how the file may be reasonably used within project scope. --Blacklake (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where can I read this in the policies? As far as I know one can ask for reconsideration or explanation at the talkpage of the administrator, but if the administrator does not change his decission there are other ways. For deleted files you may request undeletion. For kept files you may start a new deletion request. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by saying first. Ok, I'll start a new DR. --Blacklake (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In future cases please use "Nominate for deletion" in the left menu, to make sure that you use the standard deletion request page, so that the old request stays together with the new request. That's also exactly the reason why I don't want deletion debates at my talk page. A closing moderator must be able to see all stated arguments at one single page. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg

Tried to reply on the Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests page but the discussion was closed. Thanks for coming up with an alternative file. If you want to include it in any wikipedia.en articles, please feel free (if you haven't guessed, I'm a newbie). My only concern is that it may be speedy deleted also because the subjects are recognizable; the Homosexuality article had an image of two women who are also recognizable, but that image was removed yesterday. It's still on Commons, though. Thanks for your help! Wi2g (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The important difference is that this image is publicly shared by one of the subject himself. Actually I'm not an active EN.wikipedia contributor. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedro Rosello.jpg

The requirement is not "on an official website" but "portraits and oficial photos [...]in the Capital Building of Puerto Rico". I disagree with your exemption of the one website image, it is not included in that permission. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand the text, "in the Capital Building" is about the military heros. But I didn't notice it was actually a fake template. I just read the (Spanish) law and it doesn't say at all anything that's in the template. I will delete the image and have a look at other contributions of the uploader. Jcb (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The template is an import from en.wp, I think that it is correct in the core: The press office claims to be the copyright owner on the paintings they have in their halls and that the original painters dont have any copyright, and the press office allows reproduction of the paintings. Thats the core meaning imo, a user tried to broaden the scope of this permission to various other content. There are a very few paintings on en.wp with this template and I asume they are legit, based on what the press office claimed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the OTRS in the deleted template and the only relation was that ticket handled also something in Puerto Rico (some artwork). Jcb (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:HPL.jpg

Hi Jcb. I don't get that far-fetched comment, to me it's so obviously painted after the image, you really don't think so? Is there a way to relist this to generate wider discussion, because if this closing comment is all the discussion that happened I find that a weak case for keeping. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody responded for 32 days, so a wider discussion was not expected. Do you realize there could have been other photographs with about the same head angle? If you want to reopen the deletion request, I think you should first provide some evidence about the relation between that very picture and the image. Jcb (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files from backdrop.net - sm-201

Only two images didn't have proper source link, yet you deleted many more. Please restore the ones that did have proper source link. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked all them once again and none had a proper source link. Jcb (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 November 2010.jpg

Hello!

Can you please specify why you decided to keep this image? As you can see this image is discussed controversally. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I kept it, because I think it's likely this is the work of a US army employee. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion that is not based on facts. As long there is no evidence for a PD-Army licence, this DR must kept open. This is no proper way to deal with deletion requests. I have reopened the image and transformed your "keep" statement there accordingly. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will revert that action, because it's an improper (and not functional!) way to reopen a DR. To reopen a DR, the proper way is to click 'nominate for deletion' in the left menu at the image description page. This will also cause a new entry at a DR-log for a day that not yet has been archived. (The situation you created was an open DR in a DR archive). Jcb (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Inproper is your way in dealing with deletion requests. You seem not to know the difference between your thoughts and opinions and hard facts. On Commons personal opinions do not help to solve licence problems. You might understand this. --High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that people who don't agree with you are wrong. You could also have been happy that I noticed how you tried to reopen the DR, because if I hadn't said anything, your new request would never have been processed, because it was just included in a log archive. The next time please be a bit more polite or stay away from my talk page. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

People will see this DR. I do not have problems with people that have different opinions but I do think that people whose work is to be optimized should get help. And you are admin here for not a long time, so try to learn. Consider that things like "in my opinion it's like this and point" is no way to deal with licencing questions. Facts count, only hard facts. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:P history.png

Hey hey, that image is heavily used!! it should be replaced before the deletion, Trycatch pointed it out in the DR. You must be extra-careful with such high used images. I've restored it until a replacement is found (maybe this or this) --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 09:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I've added the other versions of that image to the DR. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 09:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is somebody working on it? Jcb (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Trycatch replaced the copyrighted element. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Placemats - Cork and Fabrics.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Placemats - Cork and Fabrics.jpg For some reason I missed to crop it - it could be kept then of course. Undel, I will crop, give you a note and you can del the old revision then. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Delete the old rev please. Btw: was it intentionally that you did not order delinker to delink the file everywhere? Next time please just give me a note if the uploader does not care about his file like in this case... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I don't know why the delinker didn't work, normally it works automatically. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Collage of Six Cats.jpg

I see that you closed the request with a reference to another montage of six cats. Please note that two of the images used in the collage I nominated for deletion are different from the original collage and are still without licence.

I don't know if there is a second instance in deletion request, but I still maintin that there are missing licences. The mock-up nature and the low quality are other aspects making this particular file worthy for deletion.

Yours virtually 134.96.231.113 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Its license at Flickr is OK. As long as there is no reason to assume copyright problems, I will just assume good faith and keep the image. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 15.png et al

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 15.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 20.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:County road 35.png

You recently closed these requests with the statement "svg is different." However, that does not address at all the rationale for deletion; "redundant to" and "the same as" are not equivalent. I never claimed that the images in question were identical to the SVGs, rather, that they are poor-quality and they are inaccurate representations of the depicted signs. Since reasonably accurate SVGs do exist, these PNGs no longer have any encyclopedic value and as such do not belong on Commons.

I ask that you either reconsider your decision to keep or re-open the deletion request. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not policy to delete png files if there is a svg file with more or less the same subject. Jcb (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please reconsider Commons:Deletion requests/File:LatchingRelay tn.jpg. The image was never given that license on Wikipedia. In fact, you can see it was recently deleted there for that reason: [10]. Unless you are suggesting we presume PD-self, I don't think your judgment on this case holds water. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is present in the first version at Commons. Could you double-check if there was really no template at the date of move (2010-08-16 12:39:21)? Because that would mean that Homer Landskirty added the template manually to the bot output, which would generate questions about this comment. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit baffled too, to be honest with you. The version on the date read as follows:

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=self-made
|Date=
|Location=
|Author=[[User:Fmarkos|Fmarkos]] ([[User talk:Fmarkos|talk]])
|other_versions=
}}

As you see, there is no template. I've temporarily undeleted all of the text revisions for that file so you can see for yourself [11]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I see. I deleted the file. Jcb (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ohoh - did/shouldnt i add that license thingy? maybe i thought the fact, that the uploader uploaded his own work, means that he wanted to express that it is pd-self... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be very careful with license templates. If the uploader doesn't add a license to his own work, we cannot just add one. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

oki doke... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FoP deletion request closures

Hello, just to let you know that Captainofhope (talk · contribs) has raised concern over some of your recent DR closures at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Closing of deletion requests without any valid reference, or subject to commons FoP situation. CT Cooper · talk 17:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Frühes KaDeWe-Firmenzeichen.jpg

Hi, could you explain to me why you added PD-old? Who is the copyright holder and when did he/she die? That should at least be on the page if you claim it. Right now all it says is "KDW". File:Grundriss KaDeWe 1930.jpg makes the same statement - if a cooperation has the copyright, why use a template that makes statements about people unless they are mentioned? Hekerui (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but actually I don't know a better template for this situation. If the copyright holder is not a natural person, the copyright expires 70 years after publication. Jcb (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to where that is stated? Maybe there is a template. Does this apply to the U.S. as well as to Germany? Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I took some time to browse through the PD templates and the best I could find was PD-anon-70. Jcb (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was correct, how would that make it PD in the U.S.? Hekerui (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know if it's PD in the country where it was created and first published, it's also PD in the US. (Otherwise we can flush half of the PD files from Commons I guess) Jcb (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty grave misunderstanding of official policy found on Commons:Licensing: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." For example: a photo published in an India newspaper in 1950 and not published in the U.S. within 30 days is out of copyright in India but still copyrighted in the United States until 2045 because its copyright was restored in the U.S. with the Uruguay Round Agreements - it would have to be deleted from Commons or at least be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until a deletion discussion happens. Copyright is something that we must handle with care to protect the integrity of the project, especially the admins who close deletion discussions, so please review old closures of yourself for mistakes and check out something like http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm for guidance on works first published outside the U.S. by foreign nationals or U.S. citizens living abroad and other possibilities. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If that would be true, we can flush most of our PD templates, because they are just useless. As long as they exist I will feel free to use them. Jcb (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true. Just because works are PD in their home country, does mean they're PD in the US. Take a look at {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Feel free to join the people arguing it doesn't matter if it's PD in the US, but don't say they are PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why templates like {{PD-anon-70}} would exist if they are actually invalid? (Hekerui failed to explain that, he missinterpretated my comment, stating that I said that I don't care about the policies. Jcb (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not invalid. Imagine some photo was published anoymously in France in 1921. It's then PD-anon-70 for the source country. Now you have to give a rationale for the U.S. In the U.S. foreign works published before 1923 are in the public domain in pretty much all cases. A lot of users leave out the U.S. note for foreign works published before 1923 for that reason, but what if the image is from 1924? Then you have to give a proper rationale and PD-anon-70 is not sufficient.

Regarding what you describe as misinterpretation, I found "I will feel free to use them" to mean "I don't care". Hekerui (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked several random uses of PD-anon-70 for post 1930 files and almost none of them had an adittional template. This might need a wider discussion (not on the person but on the subject please, so the 'user problems' page is a totally inappropriate place), because it seems that I'm not an exception in my interpretation about the copyright situation. I also conclude that from the arguments I read in the maybe more than 1000 DRs I still closed. I think that the mayority of the European active contributors would end up puzzled after a discussion like this. Jcb (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also European and I'm not puzzled because I read the official policy, which is a better guideline than comments of people who haven't. That many people don't correctly identify copyright is a reason to improve it, not to ignore it. I hope there were not too many cases like the ones I saw among the 1000. Best wishes for the future Hekerui (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

why? I fixed them.

Hi. two files that I uploaded had problem that a user mentioned and I fix the problems. but they deleted now!

the source of one of them (Iran Gas Fields Location.png) was missed at en.wiki that I fixed it. so why it deleted? if you read reason of reguest deletion and analys my edit can accept my talk and recover it.

this is original source of first that I mentioned in that talj page.

please check it again.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The source at EN.wikipedia doesn't seem to be reliable either. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look at font of the text:source Wikipedia. Font of this passafe is like font of other words in the map. shape of all of the words in this picture are same. this is own work. also if you check other pictures that he uploaded (for example) , pay attention that his gob is in petrolum industry in iran. so it isnt unbelievable that he can design this map.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's for EN.wikipedia people to judge, but regarding you I play safe. Jcb (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

for another pecture. that user wanted to specify the permission of picture. if you look at down of first picture of main page of that website, undrestand that pictures of that website are under GFDL. so we can upload the pictures in commons by mention GFDL permission.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The link in that article didn't work, so I couldn't even check if it was from there. Jcb (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

please check presented license at down of main page of official website. and this is translate of it. and this is same picture. if you confirm, please recover that picture.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked an Arab speaking administrator to have a look at this. It may take a while, because his last contribution was two weeks ago. (The only other Arab speaking administrator I could find has been inactive for months.) Jcb (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

An arab? why? if you dont beleive translate of google,! you can check englich version of this website.

unfortunatly there isnt this description (about license) at the arab version of website.(that version didnt update mostly) so, you can check descriptions about license at englich version and farsi version. User:Martin H. has a experince about check the license of this website and accept it. if you know him, can ask him or check yourself.

thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, why don't you ask Martin H. yourself to have a look at it? If he concludes it's OK, I have nothing against undeletion. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I contact him. He answerd me.[12] so, can we have that?(recover) Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

thanx. I want upload some important pictures from this website by this license.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: ES Wikinews request

Hi, here the change of file picture, thnaks Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Query: How did you do that?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/w/index.php?title=U.S._negotiator_calls_Kyoto_Treaty_%22not_based_on_science%22&diff=prev&oldid=1168613

You're not an admin on that project? - Amgine (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, protected after you edited the supposedly archived article. Never mind. - Amgine (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Jcb, what's goin on? Sorry for bothering you, I just would like to know if I can upload a scan of a photo -taken in Italy in 1945 and published, even in Italy, in 1949- using the PD-Old license (or other license if necessary) and if I can upload (with PD-old) some photos taken in Africa in the early 30s. Bye, thank you very much! -- Theirrules yourrules 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PD-old can be applied after 'life of the author plus 70 years', so for the 1945 picture it's impossible and for the early 30s pictures it's only possible if the author died before 01-01-1941. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other kind of license I can use for 1945 picture? -- Theirrules yourrules 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they are just non-free. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Theirrules yourrules 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nederlands-speaking OTRS agent requested

The issue is described at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:S-Jaume-Llierca.jpg.--Chaser (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Taketa resolved it in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wetten das schweizer stimmvolk laesst sich entwaffnen.jpg

Hello!

I think it is right to keep this file. But, please get familiar with the Commons' Deletion policy: DR should be closed after seven days. In addition: do you really think that "nomination[s] by IP[s] without further contributions" are impermissible? All in all, I find your comment there quite strange and inappropriate. --High Contrast (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it may look a bit strange, but I have far more information about this case, confidential information. There is an OTRS ticket on this with more than 200 entries, mainly processed by me in the past months. (mayby I should name the ticket at the DR page). Jcb (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving RfAs

What's was that Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV ? --  Docu  at 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons is not playground. Jcb (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So why not leave it where it was? --  Docu  at 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

Hi Jcb,

could you please be more explicit about your (wrong) keeping decision there. --Isderion (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The image description pages must contain a nomination-template and the uploader(s) must be notified of the DR. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats a reason to keep the request open and fix the problems (or to move it to a later date), it is not a reason to close the request as keep and therefore judging about the copyright based on the arguments. Its not even a reason to close the request because a serious concern about the copyright must be followed and can not be quietened or ignored so simply. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DRs like this are always at watchlists. The fact that two different users respond to the closure within 48 hours proves that. Please make sure you add the nomination to an open deletion request log, because if it's only in an archive, it will remain open forever. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you value procedures more than one of the projects core values (free content without copyvios) I think you should resign from your admin position here. As you don't beliefe Martin H. and me that your actions were wrong, maybe you beliefe others, so I opened a discussion on Commons:Village_pump#wikilawyering_beats_copyright_issues. --Isderion (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, you must give valid explanations why you decided to keep files. Remember, results based on personal emotions cannot be accepted. --High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please finally stop accusing me of acting based on personal emotions. I DO NOT!!! Jcb (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Then try to deal differently with deletion requests: give valid explanations why you decided to choose a certain result instead to keep or delete images, partly in contrast to previous discussions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

'"in contrast"'? The previous decisions where also 'keep'. Jcb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful. Look closer: #1 reason was against the article page; #2 was closed because this DR was too long open - that is no valid reason as well; #3 was reopened because "too long open" is an invalid closing reason and #4 was closed by you without any reason. #5 is still open and I hope others get the chance to take part in this quite difficult issue. --High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Others will only take part in this, if it is listed and an open deletion request log, which it is not. Somehow renominator still refuses to list it at the Today deletion request log. Jcb (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be an act of cooperativeness if you support the "renominator" to list it at the Today deletion request log. I find it a bit unfriendly to snub other while you know how you can help. This is not good for our teamwork on Commons. We, as Users, must enhance Commons in such issue as well. Provoking conflicts due to technical things is really no good way. --High Contrast (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the fact that some very active administrator seem not to understand how the deletion nomination logs work. Being IRL a specialist in development aid, I know that you don't improve anything if you keep doing what the person actually responsable for it doesn't understand. The only thing to improve things is to encourage and support the responsable person to discover himself how it works, while doing. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(It has been fixed in the meantime.) Jcb (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

??? Because you work in development aid, then please try to be as helpful as you can be here on Commons as well. Give your very best. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg

Can you elaborate on the ORTS ticket? You simply state the "Canadian government", however highway works and signs are done at the provincial level. Was it the BC government that submitted that ORTS? --Svgalbertian (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That permission came from gov.sk.ca. It think it doesn't "cover" this image literally, but it shows how Canadian governments see these cases. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't cover the image literally, then I don't think it should be tagged with the ORTS ticket.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been tagged with another ticket, containing photographer permission. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran Gas Fields Location-PesareAmol.png

Hello again. if you remember, we talked about this picture in commons. and you said you have doubt about license of this version of this picture. so, I wanted one of my friends redesign this map. he did it.(File:Iran Gas Fields Location-PesareAmol.png)

but there is a problem. I cant remember categories of that picture. I want you recover that picture to detect it categories and copy that categories here and I add them to this map. then if you want delete it again.

Please Help us. thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It had [Category:Natural gas maps]. Jcb (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

yahhh! this is. thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:HERMANN-VON-NATHUSIUS-MEDAILLE Seite 1.JPG

Thanks for deleting. Those articles with fotos really suck. WP is not supposed to be a picturebook. The issueing association once mailed to me for publishing in WP. Probably they did so to sue Wikimedia later. So good, the crap is gone ! Go on, you will find more, make my day !--Wistula (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I check all images one by one. I hope I take the right decision for all of them. They nominated quite a lot of your uploads :-(. Till now I could keep most of them. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Its not them, who nominated but one person. She seems to have some personal approach here. Guess, one has to live with that. rgds --Wistula (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord2.jpg

Very peculiar. You haven't addressed my concern: Are you saying that a) Sealand is indeed an independent country and British Law does not apply? and b) Are you saying that the (c) on the webpage is null-and-void and we can copy anything from that page and use it? (on my watchlist) Seb az86556 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The (c) means nothing as long as there is no applicable law. The government of Sealand states that they are an independent country. This implies also that they don't apply the British copyright to their work. They will state that the Sealand law applies. So as long as they don't publish any copyright law, it's true that their works are not copyrighted. Jcb (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

reason for keep is missing at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Theodor_Wiegand.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Theodor_Wiegand.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

same here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chemnitz-Synagoge-1.jpg. Even the source seems to me doubtful. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In both cases PaterMcFly says all. In future cases when you don't see a keep reason and one or more other users stated keep reasons above, you may safely assume that I had nothing to add to the already stated keep reasons. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's policy to require information to verify the copyright status. How can you say no author is credited when no source is given? It's convienient if you want to keep the image but not if you require at least a good faith effort in finding out whether the image is actually free. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Drinking poo?

Sorry but I do not understand your reason to keep this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paradox hermaph 060924 ltn-captioned.png. The test says you are drinking the poo of this animal. And you keep it with the reason that it is true? Not sure I really want to know if you like to eat/drink poo of animals but even if you do I fail to see why that is a valid reason to keep a file on Commons. So I hope there is something I'm missing here :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article, you we see that the poo of this animal is used to make coffee. I understand that sounds unbelievable. But to be honest is was a weak keep. Feel free to renominate the image. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let it be..but text over an image is ones thought, and such kind of thought's can be added on pictures description itself. This text makes image unusable.......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I could imagine use for educative purposes. Maybe not within Wikipedia, but that is not necessary. That's why I saw no need to remove the image. I new the facts about the coffee, because I made a spoken version of the NL-version of this article. Without knowing this fact, I would have deleted the image for sure. Now it resulted in a weak keep. I don't worry if another admin decides different after a renomination, this is borderline I think. (I'm happy that you found my talk page again, it's always better to communicate with each other instead of communicating about each other. Jcb (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is nice when you "could imagine use for educative purposes". But the situation was that all users in this discussion had a different opinion on this. The correct way would be to state your thoughts with a  Keep-statement instead of decide over the consensus at that time. Didn't you think of that? --High Contrast (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't think that. In the closure I came with a fact probably none of the voters was aware of. This is nothing irregular, I see it often happen that a closing admin finds information that totally changes the overall view of the nomination and therefore closes different than the mayority of votes would suggest. Please remember this 'vote' is actually not a real vote at all, they are the arguments the closing admin has to read and to weigh. Jcb (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is no vote, so keep this fact in mind. But can't you understand that it is indeed strange to close such a discussion in your way? And please remember that you mustn't close DR's after one week - you are free to state opinions as well. And this special issue shows that you misunderstood the actual DR-reason by the nominator. Especially such "soft" DR-issues that treat such opinion-based things like "out of scope"-topics must be handeled carefully. --High Contrast (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I almost never close a DR after a week. The DR we are talking about had an age of over four months. Jcb (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehe a good reason not to drink coffee :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not included file in request

Hello. Two files was not included in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polish White Eagle of Przemysł II.PNG. Those are File:PB Piast2 CoA.png, File:PB Piast CoA.png, File:PB Duchy of Kraków CoA.png, which are derivative works of deleted file. An author the same like File:PB PLC CoA.png. Speedy is waiting and waiting, but You know the case. Thank You. JDavid (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The first two are heavily in use. Do you know if we have an alternative image for those articles? Jcb (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Only ugly File:POL Przemysł II 1295 COA.svg. But it's vector file, so a Bot probably do not change from raster file. Before a file was use for a stub image, but I've change it. JDavid (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From the substantive point of view, the file is not the emblem of the whole dynasty, so you have nothing to worry so much. It's just an icon for Polish history representation. JDavid (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on in. I will be offline for a few hours. In the meantime you could also work on the replacement of the usage. Jcb (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

your KEEP decisions of yesterday in my DRs

Hi, please click on the link in my DRs, which will bring you to earlier decisions regarding the same architect, then you will see the full explanation why the images must not stay. There is no FOP in Russia and nobody can grant a license for commerical use 70 years pma. I don't see what information could be "insufficient" about it. Just follow the link. --Fernrohr (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't tell the relation between the file and the linked DR. Also I don't read a clear consensus in the linked DR. The fact that Kameraad Pjotr deleted these files is not a reason from itself for other admins to delete other files. If you argue like that, I would have the same right to argue the other way round, that is, arguing that Kameraad Pjotr would have to keep files, because I kept other files. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not understood.... if files A, B, and C are deleted because they display a work of architect X, who died less than 70 years ago, then file D should also be deleted if it displays a work of that same architect. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for deletions by another admin. Jcb (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't say this. I just say that you should read the reasoning quoted with the links. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "File:Wilhelm Rotkiewicz (1906-1983).jpg"

Hi there, as I've already mentioned when I uploaded the above picture that you deleted, it comes from the private family archive of the depicted, of whom I am a relative, and I inherited all of his (copy)rights. So I also am the legal owner of the rights of this picture, as I wrote in January when the deletion request emerged. Hence I would like to insist on undoing the deletion, and if this statement is not enough for that, I could also send you the respective permission form. Would this be ok? And who would actually undo the deletion, you, or somebody else? With regards --Qniemiec (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What you may do is forward some evidence about the copyright situation to permissions-commonswikimedia.org (see COM:OTRS). If they say it's OK, they will also undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try the permissions way then. --Qniemiec (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sound file Latin Dutch Wikipedia

Could you please check your message at the Dutch Wikipedia? I really beg for the deletion, I promise I won't further post files that I want deleted.

I answered at my NL-wiki talkpage. I always check both talk pages when I come online, so it doesn't matter if you contact me at NL or at Commons. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unredaction of license plates

I just raised the question of File:Loughner family home.JPG over on the Village Pump. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your action. If you disagree with the admin decision, you'll have to start a new DR. I cannot just ignore the dispute to only follow the wishes of the nominator. Jcb (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please

Do not wheel war - it is unnecessary and unhelpful. There is a real question about the DR which needs addressing not arguing over. This posting it to both parties. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also see here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Herby asked me to take a look at this. Although I certainly respect his views, I think he's wrong on this, as his view is from the other side of the Atlantic. Although we may not like it, there is no privacy in the USA for families of people accused of mass murder and assassination. The image was, apparently, taken from a public street. Leaving the license plate numbers is not a problem, as everything about the family is on the public record somewhere, or will be soon. Therefore, I agree with Jcb that the image with the numbers is the correct one to keep.

However, here is a slap on the wrist for each of you:

• Sarek for getting involved in wheel warring -- the correct course would be to reopen the DR with, perhaps, a note on the Village Pump and the Administrator's Noticeboard. Although sometimes I wish it were so, no decision on Commons is final, but simply ignoring the decision will get you blocked.

• Jcb for using administrative tools in a wheel war in which you were involved -- although the outcome is correct, it would have been much better if you had asked another Admin to protect the file.

I have left this message on both talk pages and at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Some_input_please.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

COM:AN#New FOP policy?

Hi, this thread concerns your closing of a couple of DRs, so I thought you might want to comment on it. –Tryphon^☂ 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bella Thorne 2010.jpg

Please check the permission for image File:Bella Thorne 2010.jpg at OTRS. Has it been received?--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We received two email messages, but we have quite a backlog at the moment, so it will take some time before it gets processed. In future cases please use Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for this. Jcb (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent DR closure on Eurovision logos

You recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg as keep, referencing what I believe to be File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg in the decision. However, you didn't seem to notice that more related logos were added to the discussion and they have still now got the DR tag on them. These other logos, with the exception of one, were much more complicated and consensus appeared to be in favour of deletion, with an admin already having speedy deleted one of them. Please deal with these other logos as well. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, it's true I overlooked that. I agree with the deletion by EugeneZelenko and deleted one file, for which the situation was quite similar to that of the already deleted file. As far as I can see all files are dealt with now. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are. Thanks for the quick response. CT Cooper · talk 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright clarity regarding the Urantia Book

I thought I had read everything about this already, but your comments inspired a new search, and I found a new article. It appears to be a letter from a lawyer who was retained by the webmaster of freeurantia.org to analyze various court proceedings to produce a legal opinion on the copyright status of the Urantia Book. The second paragraph on page 4 states:

In 1950, Sadler and the Commission executed an instrument of trust creating the Urantia Foundation ("the Foundation"), the primary estate of which was a set of printing plates for the Work. The Foundation, with which Sadler was intimately involved, published the Work in 1955 with proper notice of copyright, and obtained a statutory copyright in January 1956, identifying the Foundation as "Author" on the registration certificate. This published edition of the Work contains certain minimal prefatory material authored by Sadler's son, and a detailed table of contents which Sadler's son compiled. Sadler's son was not paid for his services. The copyright in the published edition of the Work was renewed in January 1983, with the Foundation claiming renewal as the "proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire."

In the conclusion of the letter, the lawyer(s) only mention "the text of the Work," which could be interpreted to exclude the table of contents. For further research, I'd like to look at the ToC of a copy of the Urantia Book published by anybody other than the Urantia Foundation, but I'm unable to do that at this time. Please let me know if this makes this issue more or less clear. Obviously, my position is to keep the original file, and in the context of uploading the 1st edition it just seems a shame that we can't host the 13th through 66th pages. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult case. The court should have said something about this. If you can find any evidence that the copyright claim about the table of contents is incorrect, you may request undeletion here. If you find another version of the table of contents which is free, you're welcome to upload it. Jcb (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I believe it should be the 1st edition or nothing. As for evidence refuting the copyright claim, I doubt any exists. Oh well, I guess the other 2108 pages will have to suffice. ;) Xaxafrad (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket #2010122410005499

Hi jcb,

It would be nice if you could speed this up!. I also think that deletion was actually not necessary as the username was identical to the source. Cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the notification yesterday (I didn't get a notification of your email, I think something went wrong in the system). I will try to process this today. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Closure of deletion requests

Hi Jcb. Sorry if I'm the hundredth complaint about DR closures, but I noticed that you closed this as deleted even though that was against consensus. I noted some others too. While I don't disagree with the conclusions, you should vote on the nomination instead whenever you disagree with the comments of a DR. You should also provide a summary as to why you disagreed with the comments. Please consider this whenever you close any type of consensual discussions, and may reduce the amount of complaints ;). Thanks, --ZooFari 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep this in mind. In case of this series I thought the law quotation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parliament Ulan Bator 3103517130 133284de8b b.jpg was that clear addressing the keep reasons that I didn't have anything to add. However I could have refered to it in my decisions. (Don't worry to leave any comment here, that's the purpose of this talk page :-) ) - Jcb (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Closeup.JPG

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Closeup.JPG, you might want to also close:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Shopping Arcade 2010.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Blick von unten.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse from below - 20050806.jpg
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse.jpg
5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Office Lobby 2010.jpg

You should also undelete all of these:

1. File:Wieża montparnasse.JPG
2. File:TourMontparnasse2007.jpg
3. File:TourMontparnasse2007 2.jpg
4. File:Tour montparnasse2.jpg
5. File:Tour montparnasse.jpg
6. File:Paris.montparnasse.500pix.jpg
7. File:Tour Montparnasse, Paris.jpg
8. File:Montparnasse tael.jpg
9. File:Tour Montparnasse.jpg (several versions)
10. File:Montparnasse (2).jpg

And revisit all these: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of skyscrapers in France. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the other 22 January nominations: I will probably close them today. I normally process the 31-days-ago nominations. Regarding the proposed undeletions: please request them here. Jcb (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done: COM:UNDEL#Photos of Tour Montparnasse. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 18:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I added my point of view to the request. Let's see what happens. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File_talk:Takasakiseikyoukai3.JPG

File_talk:Takasakiseikyoukai3.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file talk, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kinno Angel (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is such a good idea to request the deletion of a kept image for the same reason as before. However, I would also like to ask you to reconsider your decision for the following reasons:

• The file name Takasakiseikyoukai clearly indicates the church where the picture was taken. Given this information, it appears that the priest is easily identifiable even if his face is partly obscured by the cross.
• I tend to think that a church is a private place and this image is against Commons:Photographs of identifiable people I am not too sure of the legal argumments, but I do believe that religious rituals like this should be protected against peeping by non-belivers.

Many thanks in advance.--Dwy (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Above mentioned nomination has been reverted, because user nominated the talk page instead of the image. Also a church service is definitely not a private place. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After reading your comment and some Internet research on the issue, I now feel more comfortable with the idea that a church service is a public place. Thanks.--Dwy (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Objection.

>Also a church service is definitely not a private place.

In Japan, Chritsians are not so many(1% among the state). Some do not want to reveal their belief. Church service is not public place in Japan, and it is easy to recognize individual person as his belief in Japan. Tsubasabbs did not gain their permission. Grave legal problem.--Kinno Angel (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Matzos.jpg

Did you just overlook my message To the cosing admin: Should this be closed as delete you will find a version with the photo on the carton removed in the file history. Please revert to that version and do not just delete the file completely. Thanks!? --Dschwen (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I overlooked that. Thanks for fixing. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cédulas do Real brasileiro

Olá editor! Porquê tantas imagens de cédulas do dinheiro brasileiro foram apagadas do commons? Aqueles arquivos, especificamente, eram infrações de direitos autorais ou nenhuma cédula de Real pode ser enviada? --MisterSanderson (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Money is copyrighted till 70 years after the death of the designer of the individual banknote / coin. Jcb (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Currency deletions

Hi Jcb. Why did you delete the images of Ukrainian currency? It is in public domain as Ukrainian currency is mentioned in {{PD-UA-exempt}} in "(e) bank notes". Same for Turkmenia (in {{PD-TK-exempt}} banknotes are listed under b) state symbols and signs), Azerbaijan ({{PD-AZ-exempt}} (b) State emblems and official signs mentions "monetary signs"), Somalia (no copyright, see {{PD-Somalia}}), Zimbabwe ({{PD-ZW-currency}} is a special local low for currency), Georgia ({{PD-GE-exempt}} in b) official symbols of state mentions "monetary symbols"), Albania ({{PD-Albania-exempt}} has "Means of payment"), Turkey ({{PD-TR-currency}}). Indonesia is questionable ({{PD-IDGov}} mentions "published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia", I don't know if currency of Indonesia is distributed by the government) as well as Brazil ({{PD-BrazilGov}} does not specify "official symbols"). I am not sure I have mentioned all countries as you have deleted an enormous amount of currency images, and I probably did not find some countries on the list of deleted files anf I could not find all relevant laws but at least for these countries the images have to be undeleted including revertion of Delinker. Please read Commons:Currency next time in order not to delete public domain currency images. Thanks — NickK (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It was this DR. Nobody mentioned exceptions for more than five months. The DR was about some 800 files, all of them were at least wrong licensed. (GFDL + own work) and uploader didn't stop his uploads and his licensing this way, although he was requested at his talk page. That's te moment we're not gonna spend more time than necessary on it and we just delete the uploads. Feel free to start an undelete request for some of the files. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that other users did not notice this DR. Perhaps the reason is that only one single file was tagged and not all 800 files? But anyway that is a bad excuse. When an admin closes a DR and deletes files it is the resposibility of that admin that files should really be deleted. You closed the DR so I think you should clean up any mess instead of just asking other users to start an undeletion request. User:NickK is not an admin so how do you suggest that the user checkes the files? If the license is wrong just fix it. --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the DR was named Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg, and not something like Commons:Deletion requests/Images of money of Zambia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Albania, Georgia etc. Personally I am not interested in DR about Zambian money as I have no information why they can be in PD, so I didn't pay any attention to the DR with this name, I think the others knew nothing on Zambian copyright as well. Anyway, it was strange for me to find out that you've deleted images of Ukrainian, Turkmenian or other money because Zambian money are not in PD. I can judge only from the name of the files, and some of them are not describing the country of origin clear enough, so I can't review all the files — NickK (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the user talk page, I'm convinced that sufficient users noticed what was going on in September, but nobody took action to stop it. Most of the files were uploaded after experienced users already knew what was going on. As far as I have seen the deleted files were hardly in use. I will mail you a list of deleted files, so that you are able to make an undelete request for a selection of files. Jcb (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that they were hard in use, it was because of delinker that I noticed mass deletions of currency images. As for now I request undeletion at least of these ones:

* (show/hide) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 1000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 1000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 1000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 1000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 500 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 500 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 500 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 500 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 100 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 100 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 100 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 100 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 50n b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 50 new back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 50n f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 50 new face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 50 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 50 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 50 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 50 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 20 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 20 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:54, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 20 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 20 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:54, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 10 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 10 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SOMALIA 10 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=SOMALIA 10 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 16:55, 19 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:UKRAINA 10n f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=UKRAINA 10n }} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:UKRAINA 10n b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=UKRAINA 10n face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n500 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n500 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n500 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n500 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:46, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n100 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n100 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:46, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n100 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n100 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:46, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n50 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n50 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n50 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n50 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n20 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n20 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n20 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n20 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n10 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n10 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n10 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n10 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:34, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n5 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n5 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:34, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n5 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n5 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n1 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n1 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE n1 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE n1 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100 000 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100 000 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100 000 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100 000 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:22, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:22, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:22, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:04, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:04, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:49, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 5 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 5 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:49, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 5 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 5 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:48, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 1 000 000 000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 1 000 000 000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:48, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 1 000 000 000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 1 000 000 000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 500000000 ff..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 500000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 500000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 500000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 200000000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 200000000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:33, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 200000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 200000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:33, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100000000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100000000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50000000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50000000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10000000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10000000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 1000000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 1000000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 1000000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 1000000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:31, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 500000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 500000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:31, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 500000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 500000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 100000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 100000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 50000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 50000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 20000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 20000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:05, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 06:04, 8 September 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ZIMBABWE 10000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ZIMBABWE 10000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:GOLODOMOR..jpg ({{Information |Description={{ru|1=Монета Украины 20 гривен, памяти голодомора 1932-1933 годов.}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 5000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 5000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 5000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 5000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:46, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 2000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 2000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:46, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 2000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 2000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 1000 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 1000 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 1000 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 1000 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 500 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 500 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 500 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 500 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 200 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 200 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 200 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 200 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 100 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 100 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ALBANIA 100 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=ALBANIA 100 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 19:49, 29 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:КАЗАХСТАН..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=500 Тенге 2009}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:100000 dram 01 Armen..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=100000 dram Armenia 2009}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:500 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=500 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:500 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=500 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:58, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:1-manat..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=1 manat back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:57, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:1-manat front...jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=1 manat front}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:20-manat..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=20 manat back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:10-manat..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=10 manat back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:50, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:5-manat..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=5 manat back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:20-manat front...jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=20 manat front}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:10-manat front...jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=10 manat front}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:37, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:5-manat front...jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=5 manat front}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:52, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:100 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=100 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:50, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:50 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=50 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:20 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=20 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:45, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:10 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=10 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:5 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=5 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:33, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:1 manat 2009 b..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=1 manat 2009 back}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:32, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:100 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=100 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:50 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=50 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:22, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:20 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=20 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:19, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:10 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=10 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:5 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=5 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:1 manat 2009 f..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=1 manat 2009 face}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:GEORGIA cupons.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=GEORGIAN cupons}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 23:33, 26 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:TURKEY 10.000.000 and 20.000.000.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=Turkey 10.000.000 & 20.000.000 Lira}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ГРУЗИЯ купоны.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=CUPONS of GEORGIA }} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 13:20, 25 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ЧЕРВОНЕЦ.1980.PROOF..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=GOLD COIN 10 rub.}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }})

Not clear for: * (show/hide) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:SLAVINSKY Ivan.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=Ivan Slavinsky}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 21:33, 11 July 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:BARNETT.jpg ({{Information |Description={{ru|1=Барнетт Ньюман}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 10:35, 20 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:МОНЕТА-РЕВЕРС.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=Reverse of Coin}} |Source={{own}} |Author=Золотов |Date=2010-06-20 |Permission= |other_versions= }}) * (show/hide) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:ПАЛЛАДИЙ.2..jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=PALLADIUM_COIN}} |Source={{PALLADIUM_COIN}} |Author=Золотов |Date=15.06.2010 |Permission= |other_versions= }}) as no information on the countries that issued these coins is available.

Please don't forget to revert delinker while undeleting images. Thanks — NickK (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Undelete requests may be placed here. Jcb (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was you who made a mistake. Commons:Undeletion requests states: If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page. I do want have already contacted you directly, I don't see any need for more people to participate (although MGA73 already participated), so I should understand that you have decline undeletion. May I please know why you have declined this request? — NickK (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake. All files were licensed incorrectly. Nobody came with keep-reasons in the DR. The people that did make a mistake are the people who noticed what was going on in September and didn't act, thus letting the uploader upload another 500 files with the same problem. I already spent about 3 hours on this DR, which wouldn't have been necessary if people had acted in September. I'm not going to spend hours again on this DR. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Created Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Currency_images_from_Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ZAMBIA_50000_b..jpg — NickK (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Don't worry about the format. A processing admin will have access to the original list of deleted user contributions, which contains links, and process it from there. Jcb (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect penis with tickler.jpg

Ehem.... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect penis with tickler.jpg Thanks and cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See here, I didn't delete it. I just closed the DR, because the file was already gone. Jcb (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. "Deleted Jcb" at the end of the DR could be a bit clearer in this case. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FDR Portrait.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FDR Portrait.jpg Didn't you read my qustion at the end of the deletion request page before deleting? Britannic (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I did, but I just process deletion requests as is. I'm not going to browse around to see what else could be deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please specify...

...hot to use an image as this and how to concider it to be of educational value. Thank you, abf «Cabale!» 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It could e.g. illustrate an article about flying at night. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree, because in this kind of night-shot of an airplane, you can nearly see nothing, but I accept you oppinnion. But please tell me your ideas about this image? abf «Cabale!» 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It could e.g. be used to illustrate the pushing back of a plane with special equipment. Please remember that Wikimedia Commons gives choice instead of just a selection as narrow as possible. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion both of those fail COM:SCOPE. If you tried to use either of these in a serious project you would be reverted before you had time to refresh the page. I understand that the line between in and out of scope is as blurry as these photos. But jcb, that is all the more reason that you shouldn't close DR's against the majority opinion unless you're very sure you're right. Simply adding your keep vote and reason would be a better way of contributing to the discussion. --99of9 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of the DRs didn't have delete-votes at all. Also I don't need to count votes if they are present. I just have to take into account the arguments. Jcb (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I have to agree with 99of9. Those images could never be used, and they do definetely have not any educational value. Jcb, I highly value your good contributions for our project, but in this case, I think you are wrong. abf «Cabale!» 11:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't see a valid reason for deletion. As long as one can imagine educational value (inside or outside Wikipedia), the images are not out of scope. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be realistic, not just an imagination. Quote from SCOPE: an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X” If you think your examples are realistic, try using these images on a project (any project).99of9 (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the nominator counts as a delete vote. You can't claim he is neutral. Regarding your admin-superpower of taking into account the arguments instead of the votes, you may want to consider that the nominator also has that superpower, so surely your evaluation of the arguments is only as strong as his. Therefore you should express your opinion and wait for others to contribute. --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So according to you I wouldn't be allowed to keep-close any nomination to which nobody responds for a month? That's patent nonsense. Jcb (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be courteous to do so. If nobody else had argued with the deletion rationale for a month, it's better to do so yourself so that the requester gets a chance to respond (even if you are right). --99of9 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion would completely obstruct the procedures at this project. I'm sorry, but I really can't take this serious. Jcb (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

in this after-closure DR:  Keep - how else would you illustrate a airport field in the night? What about this: File:G-OZBT@AGP-2.jpg? ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would illustrate it like this for example. :P abf «Cabale!» 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got me. ;) Sure, the quality is more bad than "not good" .. but .. better than nothing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope ???

Is that supposed to be a valid reason of deletion for that file ? Clearly not ! Please restore or give a valid reason. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked again at the image and it clearly doesn't have educational value. That's why 'out of scope' is a valid deletion reason in this case. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly? Well, I am sure that you can tell us then what it is which "clearly" differentiates it from these sheep near a road? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This picture is completely unrelated to the sheep-picture and I'm also unrelated to that sheep-picture as far as I can see. And that's it for now for this case, I need to give priority to other things at the moment. Jcb (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply - it perfectly shows the clearness. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit ironic that you can see educational value in the most obscure (literally) pictures, but not in this one. I don't know of any articles about planes in the dark, but there are articles about masturbation. So again, why was this image so obviously out of scope? To quote you from the thread above, "please remember that Wikimedia Commons gives choice instead of just a selection as narrow as possible". –Tryphon^☂ 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As you intend not to answer - could you please undelete the file then? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As I already mentioned above, the file is out of scope, which is a valid deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You fail to give a reason why it is out of scope. Please answer my question regarding the sheeps. How do you determine "out of scope" for this picture? What makes it out of scope? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If it shows a real educational value, file an un-deletion request......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting admins are to be asked first. Maybe they want to correct their errors. <edited> Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC) --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More 5 minutes wasted time... good job! Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Christina_B_finger_masturbation.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 14:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

no permission

Is this now still missing permission or not? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMinnesotaNationalGuard_v3.gif&action=historysubmit&diff=48573151&oldid=44364865 -- Cecil (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't, I forgot to remove the template. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

please pay attention

Here--FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And here: you call me a liar and I'm not going to stand it. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's too much doubt about the validity of the license we must delete. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:SecretMagazine 1996.jpg - that is a better place for it so we do not spam Jcb's talk page. --Saibo (Δ) 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome Estonia to Euro 2011.JPG

Hi Jcb,

sorry to bother you, but could you explain to me why the reasons for keeping the above-mentioned picture, which I quoted from the Belgian copyright law, are invalid, and thus would justify its deletion?

I know perfectly well that there is no FOP in Belgium, but the Law foresees small exceptions (which I quoted), and which imho do apply to the picture I uploaded. In a nutshell: Reproduction [of buildings et.al] is authorised if linked to the reporting of a specific event in time and the otherwise copyrighted object is shown only fragmentarily. I still think that both critera were fulfilled. What did I miss?

Best wishes, --Zinneke (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case I don't agree with the second part, this is not de minimis. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

dr closure

Hi,

Closing the DR (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vida_maia_-_Facendo_arepas_-_Quintana_Roo_-_M%C3%A9xico.jpg) and keeping the image in the face of clear violation of policy of identifiable people makes no sense. Why the policy then? Image was obviously taken in a private place, and the author made no attempt to show that he got permission from person in the photograph. This image can now, as it stands, be used for commercial purposes without the model´s permission. This reminds me of an old bad joke, about the difference between photographs of a naked black woman and a naked white woman. A naked black woman appears in National Geographic and a white one in Playboy. The policy is very clear, in particuar the following: "Photographs taken in a private place" Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the version with the identifiable face. Even the uploader knew it was a problem as the upload log confirms. The blurred file can stay. 99of9 (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zugvögel in Mitteleuropa.jpg

@Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zugvögel in Mitteleuropa.jpg: Hi Jcb, thanks for making a statement about the threshold of originality. But this was not needed anymore: please see my comment of 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC). I am not quite sure how well you can read German - but it would be definitely useful in this DR. :-) So please undelete the original file version which was deleted on a request by me (I thought the uploader is not the same person as the website owner/graphic artist). I will upload my derivative version under a new file name. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm able to read German, but I only read a part of the comments. I took a look at the deleted version, but I do expect copyright problems with that version. Can you tell me why that original version is free? PD-ineligible cannot be applied to that version. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not act before you have understood. ;) @GFDL removal by you. As mentioned in the DR disc. the author himself released the file under GFDL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Zugv%C3%B6gel_in_Mitteleuropa.jpg&oldid=12808149 Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One cannot "release" something under GFDL if it's already PD. About the original image, what proof do we have that the uploader is in fact the copyright holder? Jcb (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment regarding GFDL only was about the original version. We do not have really a proof. But it would really surprise me if not (habit and comments in the DR). Well, if you doubt that the uploader really is the copyright holder than it would be okay for me. Then leave it as is currently. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I doubt about the copyright situation is this. I think this requires OTRS permission. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, use is restricted on the home page - I know. One time donation under GFDL to Wikipedia. ;) Okay - let's leave this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jcb

I saw you declining some deletion requests of User:Ceha maps. Unsourced is in my opinion a good reason for a deletion of ethnical maps which sourced each other viceversa. Not a single of his maps has a source which can be found. I also requested a deletion on AN. All of those maps are users POV. The relevant source is listed on AN. Declining of those deletion requests is just a kind of support of his actions wihthout any clear reason. On one deletion request I maded for his map, he even supported me for my reasons :D. --WizardOfOz (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced is in my opinion a good reason for a deletion" - Wikimedia Commons didn't adopt that opinion in its guidelines. We don't deal with the POV question. Jcb (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As it looks, commons does have a guidelines about unsourced medias, or whatfore is this category and the template {{No source since}}? About the POV, I don´t want to explain another sysop what this mean and that it´s a second pillar of Wikipedia which have global validity for all projects of the WMF, as I´m sure that you know it, but it will be nice if a commons sysop will take more care declining well reasoned deletion requests and that is all i asked you for. Thanks for your answer. --WizardOfOz (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"it´s a second pillar of Wikipedia" - Commons is not Wikipedia. About the source: there is source information present here. Jcb (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But it is a part of WMF projects. BTW have you try to follow any of those links he admit as source and have tryed to compare them? That is why I talk about POV. Those links are not sources but links to not relevant privat pages which are also without any source and now offline. Only source which can be taken for such maps is the statistical agency of BiH.

That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics

I am not here to discuss about clear things (unsourced files) but just wanted to ask why those reasonable requests have been declined? --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Npd}}

Hi Jcb,
why didn't you remove the {{Npd}} here? It would be kind if you could review on if or if not to delete the file. Thank you, abf «Cabale!» 13:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I must have overlooked it, because it should always be removed if we receive a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DR close

Hi. I'm not sure I understand your DR closure comment. Did you address the copyright status of any of the images in the category? Wknight94 ^talk 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't, because the images were not nominated (not listed one by one in the DR, not tagged). Jcb (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. Then just leave it open, okay? Everyone else seemed to understand fine what was going on. Wknight94 ^talk 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with a closure, please start a new nomination, but in a correct way. You still failed to nominate individual files. Also please don't delete my decision. And finally I don't expect vandalism from collegue admins. Make sure you never do such edits again. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh how silly. Fine, if you want copyright violations hanging about because of procedural issues that only you see, that's on your record. I've unwatchlisted. Wknight94 ^talk 12:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was not just a procedural issue, you didn't even start a procedure for those images. That's your responsibility, not mine. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't find it curious that everyone else there knew exactly what the intention was? Wknight94 ^talk 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think this DR had not been closed for 7 months? Jcb (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, good point - why would it take 7 months to determine that the category still had images in it?! Obviously it took 7 months because it was a complex DR with many different copyright issues to consider. But you didn't consider them at all apparently. Wknight94 ^talk 21:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. It didn't get closed because the DR itself was bad. (and still is, why don't you finally make a good DR instead of spilling your and my time with this talk?) Jcb (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Me and 5 other people have commented with obvious understanding of what was going on, so it couldn't have been that bad. Very lazy. Just let complex DRs go to someone else in the future please. Wknight94 ^talk 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just let complex DRs go to someone else in the future please." - the DR we're talking about clearly shows that out of the two of us I'm not the one who lacks understanding about DRs. It's also quite strange to keep saying that someone else should deal with it, while obviously nobody did. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand DRs fine. All you're accusing me of is being too lazy to tag each image individually. And that's true - I figured any admin would overlook such a frivolous technicality. But I guess there is no limit to how frivolous some can get. But that has nothing to do with how long it took to close. You haven't found a single person to agree that the lack of individual image tagging was such a vital misstep that the DR couldn't be closed for 7 months. And I doubt you ever would. Wknight94 ^talk 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MAD program output PD reason

I've posted a question at File talk:MAD-alfie-1960.jpg#Copyright/PD chain, because I can't figure which level of work is PD-ineligible as opposed to PD-old or PD-self. Since you were involved in the tagging, and have OTRS access, I'm hoping you (or someone) can explain what is going on there, and which tags apply to which level of that work. --Closeapple (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PD = PD. The 'ineligible' part is just a reason why it is PD. If separate valid reasons are available, it may be a good idea to list them all, because if one reason later is determined to be invalid, we have another reason to still keep it as PD. Jcb (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Ipos spammed thanks to your great closures

User_talk:Ipos --Saibo (Δ) 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems you confuse 'subject' with 'author' in all those cases. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. No information is given to believe that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."

Why don't you just drop me a note if anything is (apparently) not clear to you in multiple DRs I have started instead of mass closing them which requires mass reopening them? Unnecessary work (for you and me), isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think the 'author: unknown' statement may be wrong, you must explain why, otherwise there is insufficient reason for deletion. 100 % proof of an unknown author is impossible, but the source documents didn't credit an author (except for the one I delete-closed), which is strange for a newspaper if they have the name of the author in their archives (I also mentioned this in one of the closures). Jcb (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing on the file's description which refers to the template's requirement. And e.g. for File:Zvonko Runko.jpg: it is not a newspaper?! It is a document written by one person for whatever reason (I cannot read Bosnian). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg

Hello, It is your deletion which is an abuse of right. There was not a proper procedure for deletion, so requesting that I use a proper procedure for restoration is completely unacceptable. If you do not agree with this image, open a deletion request. Yann (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, could You please say, what was actually “claimed” in discussion of file (as it was argument for deletion in this curious deletion request)? marv1N (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The following was claimed: 'Fotograf ist Viktor Meisner (1883-1950) (auch: Viktor Meisner II.)' - Jcb (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tahnks, maybe this info could be attached to deletion request, because for now is the request with only argument “somehow sometime something claimed” more or less worthless, isn't it? --marv1N (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Apollo and Hyacinth - wiki.ogg

Hi, this file links to the DR which you closed as delete (two files). However, nominator had forgotten to list this third file there. But it should also be deleted, for the same reasons. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrariness

Why are my files deleted from the Commons? You do not have the right to delete them without debate and without informing me personally so I can transfer them to the Russian Vikipediа.I can agree that the coins of Tanzania or Botswana copyrighted. But the coin of Germany are not copyrighted and the results of the discussion(:: Keep Official Coins are public domain (see also , see also de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2010/09#Gedenkmünzen in Euro. I think, {{PD-GermanGov}} {{Currency}} will be correct. So no worry, I think we can keep it. --Quedel (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)), they were must left on the Commons. Your actions are arbitrariness. Numizmat 675

"Official Coins are public domain" - this is nonsense. Also the two mentioned templates are not applicable in this case. Also you have been informed about DRs. Jcb (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know where this citation of me comes from - anyway, official coins, that are legally published by a state to pay with it, are PD in Germany. I cannot say more without knowing the specific discussion subject here. --Quedel (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Numizmat 675 uploaded an enormous amount of copyrighted currency to Commons, which I deleted per this DR. However for some of the files another user found out afterward that they are permitted. The undeletion is ongoing, see here. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete this files from the Commons. They are protected by copyright

File:Nederland_1_cent.JPG File:Nederland_1_cent-2.JPG File:Nederland_5_cents_1978.JPG File:Nederland_5_cents_1978-2.JPG File:Nederland_5_cents_1991.JPG File:Nederland_5_cents_1991-2.JPG File:Nederland_10_cents.JPG File:Nederland_10_cents-2.JPG File:Nederland_25_cents_1980.JPG File:Nederland_25_cents_1980-2.JPG File:Nederland_25_cents_1988.JPG File:Nederland_25_cents_1988-2.JPG File:Nederland_1_Gulden_1971.JPG File:Nederland_1_Gulden_1971-2.JPG File:Nederland_1_Gulden_1995.JPG File:Nederland_1_Gulden_1995-2.JPG File:Nederland 2 gulden 1985.JPG File:2 gulden 1985.JPG

File:Portugal_1_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_1_escudo_2.JPG File:Portugal_5_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_5_escudo_2.JPG File:Portugal_10_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_10_escudo_2.jpg File:Portugal_20_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_20_escudo_2.JPG File:Portugal_25_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_25_escudo_2.JPG File:Portugal_50_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_50_escudo_2.JPG File:Portugal_100_escudo.JPG File:Portugal_100_escudo_2.JPG

File:Gambia_1_butut.JPG File:Gambia_1_butut-2.JPG File:Gambia_5_bututs.JPG File:Gambia_5_bututs-2.JPG File:Gambia_10_bututs.JPG File:Gambia_10_bututs-2.JPG File:Gambia_25_bututs.JPG File:Gambia_25_bututs-2.JPG File:Gambia_50_bututs.JPG File:Gambia_50_bututs-2.JPG File:Gambia_1_dalasi.JPG File:Gambia_1_dalasi-2.JPG

File:Zimbabwe_1_cent.JPG File:Zimbabwe_1_cent-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_5_cents.JPG File:Zimbabwe_5_cents-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_10_cents.JPG File:Zimbabwe_10_cents-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_20_cents.JPG File:Zimbabwe_20_cents-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_50_cents.JPG File:Zimbabwe_50_cents-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_1_dollar.JPG File:Zimbabwe_1_dollar-2.JPG File:Zimbabwe_5_dollars.JPG File:Zimbabwe_5_dollars-2.JPG

File:Coin 1 Afgani.JPG File:Coin 1 afgani reverse.JPG File:Coin 2 afgani.JPG File:Coin 2 afgani reverse.JPG File:Botswana 2 pula 2004.JPG File:Botswana 2 Pula 2004 s.JPG File:Tanzania 100 shillings-2.JPG File:Tanzania 200 shillings-2.JPG File:Deutchland 2 mark 1992.JPG File:Deutchland 2 mark 1992-2.JPG

Coins of France copyrighted?

Numizmat 675

My user talk page is not a valid place for a deletion request. Jcb (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

cograts

to this ;) - Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cograts indeed! Another small leftover from all your work on the deletion backlog: Trycatch had added File:RodolfoHC.jpg to Commons:Deletion requests/File:RodolfoH.jpg; should also be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

+1; best wishes for your new duties and responsibilities! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So this is the reason Dutch OTRS recently got a backlog ;). Great to see you are doing well. Cheers, Taketa (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

revert reason is missing

Hi Jcb, obviously you forgot to provide a valid reason for your revert at Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of that Christina B.: here. The edit you have reverted is not vandalism (as the empty version comment means). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment was already reverted several times, reason was sufficiently specified by others. Jcb (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:FKK-Strand.jpg

Hi!

This above mentioned deletion request was placed absolutely incorrect. Can you please handle this? Can you please tell User:Pieter Kuiper that this wrong to create new deletion debates on talk pages of deletion requests. Cheers , Mikele 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no new DR. Jcb (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Chernobyl victim monument in Kharkiv.jpg

File:Chernobyl victim monument in Kharkiv.jpg was closed as Kept. What was the closure reason? Should we change Commons:FOP#Ukraine? -84user (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of nominations of the nominating troll were simply reverted last week and the troll got blocked on several IPs, but has a dynamic IP. This DR had only keep-votes, so could be closed by consensus. Jcb (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were only 2 keep votes and one of those was one of those unsubstantial "yes, user:xy is right"-votes. --High Contrast (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@High Contrast, you are especially one of the users who would have complained either if I would have deleted it with only keep votes in the DR. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot conclude what you want to say with your phantasies. I hope it was not intended to be a personal attack. Unfortunately, this case is similiar to other DRs that were closed by you. Other users want to get your deletion rational. I am just trying to help in this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My 'phantasies'? I based my comment on a hard fact. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something. Anyway, it seems not to be the case that you are interested in helping User:84user that asked you for help. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg

File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

MaanMeis (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:ISSS logo.jpg

Are you sure that it is {{PD-textlogo}}? On the left there is a sign (S in a circle) and "S" there looks like a work of art. If I am wrong could you, please, explain why? Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple geometric shapes are not copyrightable. This page may be interesting: Threshold of originality - Jcb (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:LakeevVI.jpg

Why did you delete my file LakeevVI.jpg ?! There is absolutely no reason to do it: I am the copyright owner of this photo. Nut1917 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please send some evidence to OTRS. If they think it's OK, they will undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coital_Play.png

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coital_Play.png I do not need words, do I? That is no reason for deletion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If an image is high risk to be illegal and we have no way to verify, that's a valid reason for deletion. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To which laws are you referring to? --Saibo (Δ) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Laws about personallity, maybe nude exposure of minors. We don't know if the subjects gave their permission and we don't know anything about their age. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

With this reason you can delete every and all pictures showing humans. We do not have a consent verification system (like OTRS) so this cannot be a valid reason as - as I said - this would mean Commons can (as it is) be censored. I guess I have to go once more to undel reqs, don't I? I am sick of this. I personally invested time in this picture, we only have very few (if any - I do not know the current status) pictures of sexual intercourse. This picture was even quite aesthetic and good quality. :( Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"I guess I have to go once more to undel reqs, don't I?" - you don't have to, but you are free to do that - Jcb (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I did not know this. For some reason I did it (I invite you to comment - and undelete ;-) ). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)