Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Jcb

OTRS ticket m.b.t. foto's van Gert Jan KosterEdit

N.a.v. jouw berichten op mijn overlegpagina: door ziekte van mijn leidinggevende was er vertraging gekomen in het versturen van de mail naar het OTRS-team. Afgelopen maandag heb ik zèlf een mail verstuurd naar het OTRS-team, maar nog geen ontvangstbevestiging o.i.d. ontvangen. Efidder (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dat kan ook nog wel even duren, de gemiddelde wachttijd bij OTRS is ongeveer een maand op het moment, helaas. Jcb (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete of FileversionsEdit

The first two versions of File:Twstft_de.svg might be above the threshold of this raster-graphic therefore I would like to be on the secure side and would like to delete those two old versions.

(For future) Where can I request Version-deletion, without deleting the whole file?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done - in such cases you can ask an admin (like you did in this case) or you can start a DR in which you clearly state that you only request version deletion. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Graph file deletionEdit

Hello Jcb. You have recently deleted a file that was uploaded by me (File:מסיימי בגרות 5 יחידות מתמטיקה.png). The file was created by a senior official in the Israeli Education Ministry, who also requested me to upload it the wiki commons. The upload wizard does not contain any option except "I am the creator of the file" of "I found it on the internet" - both are not true. How can we revert the deletion? --Wess (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the author to contact OTRS. Also a license should be added to any upload, see COM:L for more information. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker does not remove captions in infoboxes (if there was one)Edit

To Jcb,

I appreciate what you've done with the deletion of images for various reasons, but I've noticed that the user User:CommonsDelinker does not remove the existing caption in the infoboxes. Hence I have removed two captions of deleted photos as they do not show up on the pages.

CommonsDelinker, in my view, should also remove infobox captions as well as the deleted photos so that Wikipedia users won't manually delete them. The only way to do that is to carefully modify it but you may not be the bot operator.

Thanks, Iggy the Swan (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not the bot operator, User:Magnus Manske is. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I have put the discussion on their talk page. Iggy the Swan (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Thoracic vertebrae-ar.jpgEdit

Hello Jcb, wish you in good health. Can you please retrieve this file as it's derivative work from this file? (note that this file is included in Arwiki Graphics Lab) --Alaa :)..! 00:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If there's a problem on the license of this file, I'll fix it to be suitable like this one for example --Alaa :)..! 00:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done - I had a second look at the source site as mentioned in the copyvio-tagging and it turned out that they took it from here, not the other way round. Jcb (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jcb. If you found any problems with pictures that have Arabic title or/and content feel free to mention me --Alaa :)..! 20:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you retrieve this file also? It's derivative work from the file. If there's a problem on the license of this file, I'll fix it --Alaa :)..! 14:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done - Jcb (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again --Alaa :)..! 13:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

How can you be admin??Edit

Hello, can you please explain here why did you decided to delete recently file International recognition of Catalonia.png? There was 16 voices to keep the file against only 1 to delete, and you decided to delete the file?? You know this is exactly the case we call abuse of power, in my opinion a person like you should not have such powers and I will look how to dispose them from you. These decisions should not here be made how would you want to be, and using words like clownins also does not tell much about your objectivity. Whatever the case is, you should never behave like you did here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A DR is not a vote. Admins have to decide based on policy. In some cases it may happen that a file is kept or deleted while many users state the opposite opinion in the DR. In such cases closing admin should clearly explain their decision in the closure statement, which I did. Jcb (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Refer to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:International recognition of Catalonia.png which may help to establish a better consensus.   -- (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure which of two opposite things you meantEdit "this file has actually not a valid license…" I'm not sure whether "not" is a typo for "got" or this is missing a verb, and you meant something like "this file actually has no valid license…"; also, I'm not sure why "actually" here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The template got inexplicably kept, although incompatible with COM:L. Unfortunately it's sometimes undoable to prevent such poor closures. If you can't get rid of policy violations, the second best option is to warn possible reusers that they are viewing a file that actually is incompatible with our license requirements. Since this template is not a valid license, the involved files landed in the Files with no machine-readable license problem category. Now I cannot practically achieve that these files get deleted, they should not stay forever in the problem category either, because then they would keep consuming the time of anybody checking this category (which I do on a regular base). The addition to the template warns reusers and also takes the files out of the problem category. Jcb (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Jcb, what you are doing here makes no sense to me. You seem basically to be trying to destroy the template by putting your view that the template is worthless into the template itself, after (I'm guessing) losing an argument over whether to delete it. I personally don't think that's an appropriate way to resolve a disagreement.
If you can suggest a particular forum to discuss this, where there is a fair chance of involving a number of experienced participants in the project, I'm open. Otherwise, I'll take the discussion to the Village pump for lack of a more obvious forum. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not spending more time on this. There are too many bad closures. If I would follow up on all of them, it would suck away all my time. You may find a different sollution, but if the files fall back into Files with no machine-readable license they will be deleted for having no license. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Delta Lambda Crest DeletedEdit

Hello, I was wondering why you deleted my coat of arms for Delta Lambda Fraternity. This is un-copyrighted work.

Please specify file name if asking such a question. In general, a coat of arm is copyrighted, unless there is a good explanation for a valid PD reason. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Why did you delete File:Still In Play (2312717342).jpg, File:Clinton Statement (2548894009).jpg, File:Rudy. Fragranze per gli uomini. (1677233660).jpg when there were still actives discussion about these images and their licensing? They, and the other images you deleted, had only been nominated hours ago. I had initiated a discussion about them, and argued against the challenge towards their licensing. Why in the world would you do this without engaging in conversation first about these images? Why would you delete them, in spite of no consensus being reached to do so? SecretName101 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The files were nominated as copyvio. They appeared to be flickrwashed. Jcb (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
But I presented arguments as to why those particular files I named were not copyvio. Their deletion was premature, and I feel that it should be reverted. Their author Mike Licht was the one who uploaded them to Flickr using creative commons licensing. And the images that contained photographic elements used photographs that were pd-usgov. SecretName101 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If it is that clear, an UDR should work. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


all uploads by User:Yeon So Jeong seem like copyvios, I trust you can take care of this (I am on pubic comp travelling so can't right now) -- 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done. All uploads deleted. User notified. Guanaco (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Political divisions of Taiwan Province.svgEdit

It was clearly not a copyvio. Have you seen my respond on {{Copyvio}}.--QBear (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw it but I don't see how "I think this is not apparently a copyright violation" explains anything. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted File:SA logo png.pngEdit

Hello Jcb (talk) the official logo I uploaded was deleted based on copyright issues anyway you can help to avoid subsequent deletion or would you advise I upload a new official logo and reference the source to the official website of the company or what other alternative advise can you provide. Thank you. Shokoyokoto NG (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

At least don't use bogus authorship information. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Thank you!

Ouvrard (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It's cute! Jcb (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrigal Lagoon Hydrographic Survey.pdf DeletionEdit

This file is clearly free to use. Permission was posted yet ignored. See Below: --Trick on (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Two of the exceptions apply as specified at the disclaimer page: the non-free logo of the NSW is included and a non-free third party map is included. Both of them cause that the CC license cannot be applied. Jcb (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Arizona Rattlers vs Portland Thunder (2015).jpgEdit

I uploaded it from here using Flickr2Commons. Not sure why the licensing wouldn't pop up. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

At Flickr, the file is tagged as 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license. See also Template:Flickr-public_domain_mark. Please don't transfer files from Flickr to Commons if they have 'Public Domain Mark'. Jcb (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrongly deleted imagesEdit

Hi Jcb, I just noticed that you deleted two of my photos for copyright violation:

These are part of a series of 10 photos I uploaded in 2016. The other eight are:

All the above 10 photos were taken by me and originally published here on Wikimedia Commons. If they appear elsewhere (i.e. the blog cited in the copyvio report), it's because they were copied from Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. In fact, they appear in that blog at a much lower resolution than the Wikimedia Commons uploads, so there is no way they were stolen from the blog. Is it possible to restore the two deleted photos? Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the notification. I have restored the files. Jcb (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Citobun (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rejected speedyEdit

Hi. In this edit you removed a {{copyvio}} tag. On the basis that {{copyvio}} was invalid for the scenario, and perhaps {{delete}} should be used instead. While I am happy to open a "regular DR" thread instead, it is possibly worth noting that I added {{copyvio}} specifically on the basis of the hatnote in Category:Coins of Ireland. Which provides for {{copyvio}} for copyright violations of this type. Before I spend time on the DR (or some other tag), do you have any thoughts on the accuracy (or otherwise) of this hatnote? If this hatnote is not accurate in its scope/directions, then I may also need to change that. Lest other future attempts to address COPYVIO issues result in similar "churn". Guliolopez (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That part of the note conflicts with our procedures. I have removed it. Jcb (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot messEdit

ALoha! Thanks for mopping up the rest of the mess my bot made. I had to stop yesterday and just tried to finish, but you already did the rest. Thanks a big bunch! I owe you one. Or two.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! Jcb (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bandera Ancud no oficial 2.pngEdit


I made some changes to the file File:Bandera Ancud no oficial 2.png about the information source and the license. Nevertheless, I think this file shall change its name for "Bandera Chiloé" because actually is the unofficial flag from the entire archipelago. Ancud flag is similar, but has the city seal instead of the castle. Xarucoponce (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The added source information does not clarify the copyright issue. Where does the drawing of the tower come from? Jcb (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File: DWCL-new-logo-1.pngEdit

Hi! I would like to know on what grounds did you decide to delete File:DWCL-new-logo-1.png? I indicated in the description that the file in question was permitted by its creators to be released under free license in that this file was uploaded to a public domain and was not registered in any copyright claims. I even indicated the URL source of the image file. Kindly restore the file immediately, so that I can include an e-mail permission from the creators of the image file. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonrivers (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In principle, anything you find online is copyrighted, even if there is no copyright notice. Please ask the copyright holder to contact OTRS. If the OTRS agent concludes that the permission is valid, the file will be restored. Jcb (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Weather channel logo.gifEdit

Sorry but why undo my copyvio request? The website of TWC at is clear :

“TWC, The Weather Channel, and, and each of their logos are trademarks of The Weather Channel, LLC All rights reserved. All other trademarks appearing on the Services are the property of TWC or their respective owners.”

Pierre cb (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see COM:TOO. One cannot claim copyright on something that's too simple to be copyrightable. Jcb (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
So why TWC is claiming it copyrighted? Who decide that it is too simple? What court case is proving this? Pierre cb (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You didn't read COM:TOO, did you? Jcb (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes I read and technically, Commons should only accept the rule in a country with the lowest standard for originally, not the highest. This means UK not US. Otherwise, it is not acceptable in UK for instance. Pierre cb (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
According to our licensing policy, we demand that files are free in the US (where the master servers are) and in the country of origin (also the US for this image). If you want to question our official policies, be my guest. But as long as they are in place in the current form, administrators have to follow them. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. Pierre cb (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Eugene Grebenik by Basano.jpgEdit

The above file is covered by otrs:2017030110000979, can you please undelete it? Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restore the file. For future cases, please respond to a message from the ticket to tell about the newly uploaded file. Otherwise the ticket won't be reopened and the permission won't be processed. Jcb (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense! Sorry, I wasn't aware. Thanks for fixing it up. I'm not sure why I wasn't ever notified about its impending deletion. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This was because you placed the temporary OTRS tag yourself. The system will only notify you if someone else starts a deletion procedure. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, righto. So the thing to do is to not put the OTRS tag, and instead send an email? Will do so in future. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's correct. Please include a link to the new file(s) in the email. It may be a good idea to add a text like "see OTRS ticket 2017030110000979" to the file description on upload. Such a text message will not trigger deletion procedures, but it will be helpful if anybody has questions about the file before the right tag is added. Jcb (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


I've just found out that you deleted the photo from "Be Ordinary" template. How Entertainment that is the owner of the photo (황치열) allows people to use the photos when it's NOT used for the subject of their personal benefits or commercial purposes. Would you undo it please? Abouthessi (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not allow files with NonCommercial restrictions, see COM:L. Jcb (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Steve Jobs with Wendell Brown in January 1984, at the launch of Brown's Hippo-C software for Macintosh.jpgEdit

Hello, please undeleted this file: Steve Jobs with Wendell Brown in January 1984, at the launch of Brown's Hippo-C software for Macintosh.jpg

The reason given for the deletion was: Copyright violation:

However, that website doesn't hold the copyright on this image. They used it without showing proper copyright acknowledgement in 2016.

I hold the copyright on this image, and I first gave permission for it to be used in this article in 2014:

As you can see under the image in the 2014 article, I was properly given copyright acknowledgement. Since I have granted permission for it to be used, please undelete this file.

Thank you! Carol Rukomii Holladay (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

For files previously published elsewhere on the web, we need verification of ownership. Please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that information, I thought granting a license when I uploaded it was sufficient, and didn't know additional processes were needed. I have sent the appropriate information to OTRS. Carol Rukomii Holladay (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nasa imageEdit

Hello, sorry for failing to do that myself. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The most important is that the picture could be saved. I didn't find this link with a reverse image search. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Me neither, I found with keywords. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi! I have been better oriented, and I am aware that it is necessary that when granting the license, the supposed author of the image must present sources that prove authorship as his. Anyway, grateful for the warning. Greetings!--Leon saudanha (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Query about a handful of your deletionsEdit

Hi Jcb. Myself and another editor are a bit confused about a seven deletions you made a few days ago. Please see w:User talk:Flickerd#Commons deletions for the list of the files deleted and a bit of background about why we're confused. Could you please explain why these images were deleted? Either here or there is fine, but if you reply here please ping me. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Answered there. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

deletion of my file Commons:File:Wiki 6.pngEdit

Hello Jcb. The above photo was taken by me and originally published here on Wikimedia Commons. It is not stolen from anywhere as I took it from my camera. Is it possible to restore the deleted photo? Thanks, Shabbirznaik 13 November 2017

Please contact OTRS. They will typically ask you to send the original file from your camera for verification. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of imagesEdit

Hi jcb, we see a couple of images uploaded by me were deleted related to videopad screenshots. These are screenshots of our own program. Could you please undo the deletion or tell the reason why they got deleted, so I can rectify the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrymonger (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your request was declined at the official undeletion request page by a colleague, so I have no clue why you are repeating your request here. Jcb (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion reason unclearEdit

Hi jcb, the following three images, File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000224.jpg, File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb ANWQ00312000001.jpg and File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000264.jpg do have licence information and indication that the author is unknown and identication of when the work was created, so i do not understand the reason for nomination for deletion? Gould you please clarefy? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how you made sure the author never claimed authorship, as required by the Anonymous-EU license? Neither the image description page nor the source provides anything on this. Please be aware that unfortunaty a majority of the archives is very sloppy with assumptions that files would be PD. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Standard YouTube LicenseEdit

YouTube's official Non-copyrighted music channel contains videos licensed with Standard YouTube License. Are they allowed to upload to Wiki Commons? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Standard YouTube License is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Dear Jcb, You seem to be on a crusade against the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, or at least against old photographs by anonymous photographers. You nominated (a.o.) these photographs for deletion:

All photographs are in my view clearly in the Public Domain, both according to Dutch copyright law Art 38: 1 ("Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad.") {{Anonymous-EU}} and also by US copyright law: prior to 1923, so {{PD-1923}}. Could you please explain your point of view? Vysotsky (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. But apparently you even refuse to read what I wrote on several pages now. It's established among Commons administrators that 'unknown to us' does not qualify for 'anonymous' and that provisions for anonymous work can only be applied if there is evidence for anonymous publication, which cannot be provided in most cases. If such evidence is absent, we have {{PD-old-assumed}}, which can only be applied to works from at least 120 years ago, as established by the community by means of a vote. I have told you these things like ten times now. If you think that the Commons admin team is mistaken in their established practice, you may try to get our procedures changed. But please do not try to let us deviate from established practice by frustrating individual DRs. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jcb asked me to comment here. For an image to be classified as "anonymous", the uploader must be able to prove that it has been published without credit to the photographer. Strictly speaking, it must be proven that (a) it has been published at least once without credit to the photographer and (b) it has never been published with credit to the photographer, but we generally accept images that satisfy (a) but where (b) is unknown.

On the other hand, "unknown" simply means that we at Commons do not know who the photographer was. This is often the case for images taken from the web where the source site does not credit anyone. It can also happen with things like postcards, where the credit is on the back, but we have only an image of the front. It is obviously very easy for an editor to upload an image and say that the photographer is unknown.

Therefore, for most countries, in order to keep an image that is more than 70 years old, the uploader must prove that either the photographer is known and died more than 70 years ago or that the image was published without credit more than 70 years ago. Simple lack of knowledge is not enough. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean that many of these photographs from 1920 (and all other photographs from 1920 in Commons) should have a statement telling us either the photographer died 70 years ago or that the image was published without credit more than 70 years ago? Vysotsky (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, at least for countries where copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Some countries have different rules. We have e.g. {{PD-India}}, {{PD-Canada}}, {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Yes, Jcb is on a crusade. I closed these DRs, which opened without any valid reason. Yann (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You never learn from your mistake, do you? i.e. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-11#Agence_Rol. Yann (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yann is well known for being not representave in their closure of DRs and for their outbursts out of the blue from time to time. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted photoEdit

Hi! You have deleted a photo of the band The Soul Exchange Why? The photo was ordered by the band and paid by the band for the purpose of being used in any matter regarding the band. The photographer does not have copyright on this photo since the photo is owned by the band and thus set Free To Use - No Rights Reserved. All this is in the photo metadata. The person who suggested deletion had seen on the photographers website that the photographer has the text ”copyright” on his website as most photographers do and is not meant to a certain photo but to everything on his website. Wich is normally not needed on websites since everything created is cooyright protected unless the right is taken over by somebody else. As in the case with this photo. Please undo the deletion. / PytoniaPytonia (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Pytonia (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my closure note, this has to go via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File deletionEdit

Hello, you've deleted File:Хамовники округ 1, агитационная листовка.pdf, but the uploader has explicitly added the permission. In fact, we've worked with the copyright holder to make him officially release the work under CC-BY-SA, as stated on his website (the link was added to the file info). How come?

The warning template explicitly said that either the permission should be addressed by OTRS, or a relevant link should be added. The second option was chosen, but that had no effect. Jack who built the house (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The image was restored by other admin already. Thanks, Ymblanter. Jack who built the house (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted fileEdit

Hi. Please renew my File:Лебеді в Гостевії.webm. It's my own work and I put all the necessary information. --Visem (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Files without a license template get deleted after 7 days. I have restored the file. For future cases, this is how to add the license. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Visem (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:День полиции источник.jpgEdit

  1. ††† Кто тебе разрешал удалять фото без обсуждения проговори мысль?! ͡(̾●̮̮̃ ●) ͡

Listen to the telepath. You deleted the photo and discussed the teleportation frame. You do not seem to insult your personality. I, too, pretended to be my nose --Zelio007 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I really have no clue what you are trying to say. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
tomorrow you will have one without beer and without cooking. In a club with a fat you will speak for your removal. Buy it ... Okay do not bother ❤ --Zelio007 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Joseph Johnson Jesus Christian.jpgEdit

Hi there JCB,

I uploaded my own copyrighted image (I took the photo myself) and sent a permissions email to on November 9 2017 [generated using relgen] and yet my file has been deleted with the reason that "no permisison since 8 November". Could you please explain this? What do I need to do to fix this? Thank you.

Wikipeggar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeggar (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. Please wait until they respond to you. They are able to undelete a file. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Restore fileEdit

Hi Jcb, we've received permission for File:Antonino_Papania.jpg in CC-By-Sa 4.0, OTRS#2017111110008277. Can you restore it? Many thanks, --.avgas 11:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@.avgas: I have restored the file. Please apply the proper OTRS tag. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Jcb,

You deleted 7 pictures from the following deletion request:

Like I tried to explain in the discussion of that deletion request, I uploaded the picture on wikipedia, added them to wikimedia, and in the meantime, sent an email to OTRS with the authorization of the owner of the copyright of those image. I never had a reply from OTRS, neither positive or negative (sent the email more than two months ago). I don't really know what I should do about those.

Thanks for your help.

--Chantmagdalith (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you receive an autoreply with a ticket number? Jcb (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, thanks for the reply, no, I never received any answer. At first I could not upload the pictures because there was a doubt about me being the author, but after I sent the request to OTRS, the system allowed me to upload them. Thus, I thought it was sorted, and did not bother anymore, but then they got deleted, so I really don't know what to do with that. Should I just send back the same request to OTRS?

thanks --Chantmagdalith (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please resend it. The OTRS system is not technically connected to Wikimedia Commons, an OTRS ticket does not influence the technical ability to upload a file. But for new users, the first few days different filters apply, that's probably the cause that you could upload the file when you came back later. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded the pictures again on wikimédia and sent the request, this time I received a reception proof, with a ticket nb. I guess I should wait to receive confirmation before using the pictures on wikipédia. Will keep you informed, a big thanks for your help again.--Chantmagdalith (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You are not allowed to reupload them. An OTRS agent will undelete them if the permission is valid. Jcb (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

deleted file 1981 Vetter Streamliner.jpgEdit

Could you please confirm and quote for me the upload details including the Username and date on this, from the 'non-public' view I know you are able to access? I believed the original was correctly used on WP and was a Craig Vetter organisation library image with the correct licence. Other Vetter images can be seen at his upload list. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no verification via OTRS to link this account to the website. This would be mandatory. Jcb (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You are being officious and ridiculous, now deleting the remaining content. This is a world-famous man, not someone pretending to be him. I consider this is not Good Faith on your part. No thanks for not providing me with the dates, and for counter-productivirty for all the hard work you have undone. This is an example of why I do not want to continue with this community.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
These files are normally eligible for speedy deletion if a verification via OTRS is absent. I just did what is expected from an administrator. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting File:FAKE NEWS.pngEdit

Hi, you deleted File:FAKE NEWS.png file from Commons because it is a copyviol: if possibile, can you get me the external link of the image reported on description of file on Commons, please? I would like to verify more accurately the license which image is released. Thank a lot --FabiorWikiTIM (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You are lucky today. The source website now states a free license. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but it was a mistake, because the source websites released the photo with free license when it was uploaded on Commons. I'm sure, because I checked it when the user upload it :) --FabiorWikiTIM (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Then it must have been overlooked at some stage. Anyway, you are always welcome to contact me if such a thing happens. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Glasgow Gladiators Badge.pngEdit

Hi Jcb. I believe you've deleted this once before as File:GLA Gladiators Badge 300dpi.svg, but the same editor has reuploaded it again. FWIW, I had only tagged the file as npd, even though I thought it was most likely fair use. I'm not sure if the uploader understands that Commons does not accept fair use and for that matter about COM:L in general given their other uploads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As you can see by the red link, the file has already been deleted. So, there's not much more which needs to be done unless it's uploaded again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Jcb. File has been uploaded once again, this time as File:GGPFC 2017 Club Crest.svg, buy a different editor (User talk:KJMClark1966). I'm not sure if this is the same person as User:GlasgowGladiators, but it might be. Regardless, I'm not sure if this person/these persons have taken a look COM:L or COM:FU, and understand why the file has been previously deleted twice before. I'm piniging @Hedwig in Washington: who deleted the second upload of this file for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking on this Jcb. I noticed you also deleted some other files uploaded by KJMClark which I had tagged as copyvios. FWIW, I think this person probably means will and is also probably connected to en:Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC is some way, but they just are new and do not understand COM:L, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File TransferEdit

Hey, what a really nice move! it took me a lot of hours to transfer that files, you could've warn me first instead of blatantly deleting all of it, i could've fix it. I was already under pressure from the Indonesian Wikipedia Administrator to transfer all of my files so other Wikis can use my work. Now i can't even re-transfer the files you've deleted. Could you even give me some guidance or proper help to manage transfered files here at commons? because the Indonesian Wikipedia Administrator keep urging me to complete the file transfers immediately. I am hoping for your quick response, and once again i do not appreciate you deleting my files, to some extent i see it as an abuse of power you have. Thank you! Christian Advs Sltg (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And hey, you've even deleted several of my files that i did not even transfer (pictures of churches that i took in North Sumatra, for example this: File:GKPS Batu Onom (Kec. Siantar).jpg, File:HKBP Peniel Aruan, Res. Laguboti.jpg and several others). Would you care to explain what is wrong in those files? Christian Advs Sltg (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Answered at the users talk page, where the conversation began. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Андрей СамойловEdit

Hi, I see you blocked Андрей Самойлов and deleted all their contributions. This is actually my fault, as an OTRS agent. I undeleted their images and applied the {{cc-by-sa-4.0-Feizerg}} license review tag because we received permission for Clearly, that didn't work because the website doesn't have these images. Do you mind if I unblock them and clean up my mess? Guanaco (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Sadecki Krzysztof - Poznaj siebie (front cover).jpgEdit

Hi! I've just send you a permission to using a file File:Sadecki Krzysztof - Poznaj siebie (front cover).jpg. Can you restore it to mainspace? Grzegorz Browarski (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. An OTRS agent will be able to restore the file when processing a permission. Jcb (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Judensau magdeburg magdeburger dom ernstkapelle.jpgEdit

I've sent a first permission of the picture's author to and they sent me an mail that they need a permission with the name of the file, the number of the ticket and the license etc. I've told the picture's author about it and i am waiting for a response. Not even two days have passed since the Wikimedia mail and only one since i sent it to the author and now you've deleted it. The picture's description in English and German alone took me over half an hour. That's incredibly frustrating. --KaterBegemot (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

An OTRS agent can undelete a file if the permission is in order. Jcb (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Images of article "Les americains au Mexique"Edit

I have just noticed that on 29 April 2016 all 5 photos of the article "Les Americains au Mexique", which was published by L'Illustration in june 1914, were removed from Commons. "Artículo_"Los_estadounidenses_en_Veracruz"_01.jpg", "Artículo_"Los_estadounidenses_en_Veracruz"_02.jpg", "Artículo_"Los_estadounidenses_en_Veracruz"_03.jpg", "Artículo_"Los_estadounidenses_en_Veracruz"_04.jpg", "Artículo_"Los_estadounidenses_en_Veracruz"_05.jpg",

I own the magazine issue. I took the photos. I translated the article from English to Spanish (after a friend helped me translate from the original French to English). One such photo (_03.jpg) shows a unique map (plan) with important annotations, that do not appear anywhere in the text, on how the military operations were executed. That map is a most valuable historical document. I believe it should be restored. Regards,--Wkboonec (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, OK. But I cannot imagine that photos of a 100-year-old document would require special copyright validation. I have just uploaded a new version of one of those key images. Then, I discuss the plan/diagram in great detail within the article. Without the image, the explanation will not make sense. Please see:ónica_francesa Cheers, --Wkboonec (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't reupload deleted content. Also making a scan or a picture from an old work does not make it own work, see DW. In most countries, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so that a 1914 work has to be considered to be still under copyright if no information on the death date of the author is provided. Jcb (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jcb, I am sorry; I assumed it had been a careless mistake to have deleted my previous upload. The "French plan" was originally published in 1914, over 103 years ago. The copyright belonged to "L'Illustration", not to the writer of the article, Louis Botte. As I mentioned previously, I own both issues ("L'Illustration" of 1914 and "Revista Jarocha" of 1966), that I bought years ago at some expense. I wish to share this extraordinary document with fellow historians, thru Wikipedia. The photo that I uploaded yesterday is one that I already had from "Revista Jarocha" (an enterprise that has also been defunct for several years). As you may have seen, I worked on the photo for a couple of hous with "Paint", to highlight the advance of troops. Would it be alright if I repeat the process (photo and color highlight) over a new photograph taken by me, of the 103-year-old "L'Illustration" issue? Alternatively, I guess I could just send the photo as email attachment to my colleagues, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Regards from Coyoacán, México, --Wkboonec (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Taking a picture of an old document does not make you the copyright holder. You can't upload such things as 'own work'. It's very uncommon that the copyright would belong to e.g. L'Illustration rather than to the author. Such a transfer needs to be documented. Jcb (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I was careless and improperly filled-in the required fields. I trust you never thought I would be claiming that the whole plan and diagram were my "own work", as I stated clearly in the description fields. Anyway, no problem. I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your patience, help and understanding, Cheers,--Wkboonec (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Guess what, Jcb?

I wish to donate the images of the entire issue of L'Illustration to Project Gutenberg. They have several of these magazine issues:

As I was preparing my email to offer my donation I came across the page with the map that I uploaded 3 years ago:

It seems to me like there's no copyright problem, after all.

Would you please help me reinstate the deleted image (the one of the plan with my colored-lines? Would you do that for me? Thanks, --Wkboonec (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, I can do it myself. See my communication in Wikisource France
Will that be OK by you?. Thanks. --Wkboonec (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wkboonec: If you think the file should be undeleted, please request undeletion at COM:UDR. Reuploading it yourself is not permitted. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Great; that will be much easier. Thanks. --Wkboonec (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi! You deleted my file after just a week! Please bring back the file. I uploaded them and they should be CC3.0 Share a like. Thanks! I will then put the licence within a month. --Saippuakauppias (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Who is the author of the depicted artwork? By the way, our deletion processes last a week, not a month. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Roger Ver photoEdit

You deleted a photo claiming copyright violation and linking here. That pages doesn't contain the image you deleted. Could you please fix this mistake? The photo was given to me by Ver after that article was published. Please be more careful. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The image is present at the linked page. Also if your statement here would be true, then OTRS permission will have to come from the photographer. The depicted person is not the copyright holder. And do I understand that Krapulat is another account of you? Jcb (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is only one photo of Ver on that page and its not the same one you deleted. Permission is not required. It may be requested. How do you know the person depicted is not the owner? Not me, I have one account only. Why would you ask that? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I asked that, because Krapulat is the uploader of the file you want me to restore. They uploaded it with an own work claim and yes, the deleted file is indeed this picture. Jcb (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
So it seems most likely that Krapulat has spuriously uploaded a copyright image to have the original one removed. What happens in this sort of situation? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Whatever 'original one' you may be referring to, it must have a different file name. The file as uploaded by Krapulat was the only file that has ever been uploaded with this name to Commons. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Original still exists. Game players attacking advocate. Thanks for your assistance. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


Jcb, you deleted an image, Halfway_to_Invisible_matrix._Eve_Andree_Laramee.jpg, but permission was granted for its use long ago. Why is this an issue. Please restore it. Netherzone (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcb I just sent (re-sent) a permissions statement to: - is that the correct address/procedure to have the image restored? Thanks. BTW, who tagged the image for deletion on Nov. 23, and why was a notification not sent? Netherzone (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That address is correct. Please be aware that OTRS has a backlog. As for the tagging, the uploader was properly notified: User_talk:Hexatekin#File_tagging_File:Halfway_to_Invisible_matrix._Eve_Andree_Laramee.jpg. Jcb (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcb Thank you for sending that link, it was helpful. There is indeed an error with the file, it shows that the author is "Eve Andree Laramee and Aviva Rahmani". This is not correct. It is solely the work of Eve Andree Laramee. I will try contacting User:Hexatekin to see if they can make that correction and re-upload the file, and/or contact permissions as well confirming this. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted files should never be reuploaded. Instead, they can be undeleted by an administrator. In this case, an OTRS agent just undeleted the file to support an ongoing OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi Jcb, You recently deleted File:Dietrich Noventis n°1052 - Stac (Éléphants, Chambéry).jpg as a copyvio - Was a source provided ? if not would it be possible to tell me who requested deletion so I can find out more as I don't think this was a copyvio but would rather ask first incase i'm missing something, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion by Lev. Anthony. On upload, uploader stated: source=Photothèque du Stac. Without any evidence to the contrary, such statements are considered to be admitting that they are uploading copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, We've just edit conflicted but that was my exact message inregards to the source, Well I'll send an email and ask them as it may be an error on their part (All of their images are taken the same way which is why I don't entirely believe it's a copyvio but as you say the source does state different so obviously you did right no doubt about it, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Davey2010: and @Jcb:,
First, sorry to didn’t answer early, i had some problems with Internet these last days.
Le Transbordeur is my second account (it’s why the profile page of this account redirect to the account Lev. Anthony), i use it only to upload photos that aren’t mine, but i didn’t notice i was connected under my principal account when i asked the SD. These photos were provided to me, with this one, by a people who work for the Stac but, for a reason that i don’t know, he didn’t mentionned the other photos in the mail to the OTRS (ticket 2017030210011992) and never resent it for the other photos, despite few relaunchs. So i’ve decided to ask there deletions to avoid problems and i try to find a way to replace them (talks are in progress with others photographs).
Have a nice evening. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I agree that deletion is the safest option then. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Producción artesanalEdit

Hi. The other day I was trying to save a file that was DR'ed by a user with a Spanish-language user name, if I'm not wrong Castillo Blanco. The file was about an old man producing biscuits in a traditional way. Quite rarely though, especially after they saw me off from ES:WP, I wrote my argument in Spanish. (I guess I was trying to show the DR opener that I could speak some Spanish. :) You misunderstood the text. (Never take Google Translate seriously.) I used the words "producción artesanal" and you thought I was claiming an "artistic" value to the activity depicted. No, "artesanal" in Spanish means hand-made, made by an artisan (not artist), produced with the traditional methods, handicraft etc. If the file were that important for me, I would have opened an undelete request. It weren't. I only wanted to ask you, of course while you guys are deleting around a thousand files a day, to please spare a minute to "ask" me what I meant when I write something that looks awkward to you. In the end we are people from different backgrounds, and I sometimes notice that something I want to write in English I translate it from Turkish to Spanish in my mind, and then formulate it in English! (I sometimes read my old discussions and try to detect what I wrote why and which language I confused with which other... :) Have a good week-end, admin. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Link to the involved DR. Please be aware that the usage of Spanish may differ a little from country to country. In the Dominican Republic, where I often go for human aid, the term producción artesanal would normally be associated with the process of painting souvenir paintings for the tourists. Anyway, the main reason for the decission to delete was that it's hardly visible what the man is doing, so that the picture can hardly be used for any educational purpose. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violationEdit

Hi, there is this user who upload pictures of actor Vijay. It's obvious copyright violation that the editor claims his "own work" but none of them contains metadata. Also adds OTRS permission by himself on some of his pictures. Please check it. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems our support team have received permission for some of these photos. Primefac confirmed the receipt of some of them. Regards Wikicology (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's indeed not allowed for non OTRS agents to apply this tag. I will see if there are files left that are not yet confirmed by an OTRS agent. Jcb (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently all involved files have been confirmed by Primefac. I have left the uploader a note that only OTRS agents can apply OTRS tags. Jcb (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OTRS TicketEdit

Hi Jcb,

I hope you are doing fine. My community is currently working on a project in partnership with a cultural organization that will release thousands of images for upload. Is there a possibility for one OTRS ticket to cover these photos? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, but please make sure that for every image it's clear who the author is (a person) and get the permission from each individual author documented. Jcb (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thank you.Wikicology (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to follow that up. Along with Jcb I think names of photographers and painters are of crucial importance. (I have personally added names of photographers to a few thousand Dutch Anefo photographs in Commons (and counting)). But Jcb is wrong in stating that one needs "permission from each individual" photographer involved. That might sometimes be the case, but is mainly dependent on two other factors: 1) the copyright act of the country involved, and 2) the contracts of the organization involved. In the (not unlikely) case that they employed the photographers, or that copyright was transferred by contract, such a permission is not needed. Examples of two Dutch cultural organizations donating photographs to Commons, covered by the copyright act of the Netherlands, article 7 - see for instance the set of 17,241 Anefo photographs now available in Commons (used well over 90,000 times in most Wikipedia language versions), or the 486,000 photographs donated by the Dutch Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Vysotsky (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
In cases where the organization is the copyright holder instead of the author, the ticket must contain documentation to support that. Such documentation could e.g. be an invoice in which a photographer states that a transfer of copyright is included. In some cases we received a message from the photographer, in which they confirmed that they took the pictures as an employee in the course of their employment. But going blind on just a statement of the organization is a no go. Jcb (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't suggest "going blind". I referred to "photographers being employed", and to the Copyright Act. In other, more rare, contractual cases of transfer of copyright, it's only logical that proof is asked. Vysotsky (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I have handled several tickets of Dutch organizations where the photographer was an employee. In my experience, these cases are often easy to resolve. Most of these tickets contain a simple messages from the photographer, in which they state that they were an employee and that it was part of their official duties to takes those pictures. Such a message is often the most simple solution. Contractual cases of transfer are often more difficult, because many organizations are unwilling to disclose such a contract. And then, if they finally send us a copy, it's easy to understand why they hesitated in the first place: those contracts often don't transfer the copyright, but grant a usage right for a limited period of time to their customer. Jcb (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

National Archives of Australia Creative CommonsEdit

Hi, could you please provide a rationale for your decision at File:Paul Keating 1992.jpg and similar? Your deletions seem to imply that content from Australian government websites using Creative Commons licenses isn't suitable for upload here. If that's the case then there are potentially hundreds of images that are affected – for instance, DFAT uses an identical statement on its website and there are over 700 images that have been uploaded under those terms. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Note also File:Neville Bonner 1979.jpg, File:Kenneth Le Couteur.jpg, File:Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser at The Lodge.jpg, and possible more, which were also uploaded under the same licence as those you deleted. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly explained in the DRs why these files are problematic. If you come accross comparable files, please feel free to nominate them for deletion refering to these DRs. Jcb (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I provided detailed explanations as to why the nominator was incorrect. Could you please explain how I have erred in my interpretation? This is the Creative Commons release statement in question; all of the images you deleted were uploaded from the NAA's website. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that the DRs you're referring to stated that the images were (a) claimed to be public domain and (b) part of the NAA's collection, which are both demonstrably false. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
What part of "For permission to reproduce images and records from the collection, submit a copyright request." didn't you understand? Jcb (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoring File:Sistodiolynne.pngEdit

You deleted File:Sistodiolynne.png. Do you think it is copyrightable? To me it appears a simple chemical notation - can it be restored as {{PD-ineligible}} or its variation? whym (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it with {{PD-chem}} if you think it's useful. Jcb (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, done! (I'm assuming it's useful because it was in use at d:Q43562351). whym (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoring File:European Single Market with EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svgEdit

Hi, I would like to ask about Commons:Deletion requests/File:European Single Market with EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg? How is the file violating any CC licence?--Concus Cretus (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As I explained in the nomination, the file was not based on what the nominator claimed to be the "original map". It is my own work based on File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg just as File:EU DCFTA EFTA.svg is my own work (under my previous username "Der Golem"). Actually, what the nominator claimed to be the original (their map: File:EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg uplodaded 21 March 2016) is itself based on the map that I made before that (File:EU DCFTA EFTA.svg uploaded on 29 November 2015). The evidence is that the nominator's map actually uses the exact same color code      #48cc3f for the green of the DCFTA states, not used in any other maps except my contributions and his/hers. This color code was for the first time chosen by me for the DCFTA states from 7 July 2015 in File:Further European Union Enlargement.svg. So clearly the nominator's claimed "original file" is actually made by changing colors of a file made by me before that (File:EU DCFTA EFTA.svg) without any attribution.

And besides that, clearly, dozens of maps like File:European Union Turkey Locator.svg (by user S. Solberg J. as "Own work") are created by editing colors of File:Blank map of Europe (without disputed regions).svg and they are not being deleted. So may I ask what is the rationale and the logic behind this random decision to delete, while other files made in the same way are not being deleted? Under the same criteria of this file's deletion, the nomnator's map File:EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg should be deleted too. Otherwise File:European Single Market with EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg should be restored, or am I wrong? Yes, I can add to the description "own work based on File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg", but lack of this clearly is not a reason to delete, since many existing files lack this, and have no problems with it. I wish you a nice day. --Concus Cretus (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Once you have reused a CC work without attribution, you lose the right to reuse that work. This right can only be regained if the original author(s) explicitly grant you permission for that. Jcb (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Can I see where is that written? Can I have the exact quote and link? In Commons:Licensing I only find information about reusing CC files outside WP. I would like to follow the procedure so I can get the map on Commons again correctly of course. Or rather, will you restore the file, since I have explained that the deletion nomination criteria was false? If not, it means the nominator's file should be deleted too, since he did not give any attribution to the file that he used to make it? And all the files without attribution in w:en:Future enlargement of the European Union should be deleted too? I would like to follow the principle.--Concus Cretus (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You can read the license here. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the link. I have read the link. So it means I can upload the file with the correct attribution now? Also, what about File:EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg - without attribution to File:EU DCFTA EFTA.svg? The editor violated the file's licence.--Concus Cretus (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I made another file out of different source file and attributed it as required, but uploaded it under a same name. Shall the File:EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg file be nominated for deletion for not having an attribution of its source file?--Concus Cretus (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Here you are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EU EFTA DCFTA EUCU.svg. Jcb (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I have a clear understanding of the attribution policy now.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

About deleting of File:Kadri Yıldırım.jpgEdit

Hello you deleted whic I upload file. It is not coprigted it is commons. I get the photo in the site of Turkey parlament official site. It is nt coprigted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighteagle2000 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In principle everything you find on the web is copyrighted, unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary. Jcb (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Restore file: BP_HEADSHOT6.jpgEdit

Hi Jcb,

You deleted the file BP_HEADSHOT6.jpg ( This was uploaded with permission from the photographer Josh Klein (please see ticket # 2017101110014913). Both the photographer and subject in the photograph have requested the photo be restored as permission was given on Wed Oct 11, 2017. I am unsure as to why this has been deleted when appropriate permissions were filed.

Thank you very much.

Amandadoyle543 (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the file. It wasn't restored earlier, because the ticket didn't contain a file name. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy LebègueEdit

Bonjour, le 23 août vous avez supprimé cet article car la photo n'était pas valide, voir votre discussion archivée :
Hi, could you perhaps have a look at File:Guy lebegue.jpg? I almost missed it, but it looks like the only use of this file is on Commons itself: Guy Lebègue. If it weren't for the latter article/gallery, I would have tagged this for deletion as out of scope, but now don't really know how to handle this (or if handling even is needed). There is also a Category:Guy Lebègue, which contains the above-mentioned file and only one other: File:Guy lebegue 2011.JPG (only used on a usersubpage on ruWP). Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

DR started. OTRS permission is invalid. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Or depuis hier la photo File:Guy.lebegue 1986.jpg a été validée. Pouvez-vous revenir sur l'opportunité de recréer un article COMMONS sur ce photographe ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Non, Wikipedia est pour articles, Wikimedia Commons est pour photographes. Jcb (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Jean-Paul Belmondo — L'As des as (1982).jpgEdit

Why did you delete that photo ? I replied that this photo was created by Mondadori, an italian agency so it was under "PD-Italy" ! Nobody pay attention to my messages, here ! - Groupir ! (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If Italian copyright would apply, I don't think this file qualifies as a 'simple photograph'. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why ? - Groupir ! (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Because of the creativity in the posing. Jcb (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of image of Eugenio Gentili TedeschiEdit

For the Wiki entry on Eugenio Gentili Tedeschi (, Massimo Tedeschi, his son, granted permission in writing to use numerous family pictures uploaded to Wikicommons. Massimo Tedeschi's permissions letter, dated Oct. 3, 2017, made specific mementions of this image, EGT-close-up. Emanuela Fratini Magnusson and I sent Massimo's permissions letter to on Oct. 3. This matter was resolved in "Ticket#2017092510018842, re Wikipedia entry for Eugenio Gentili Tedeschi." Unless I'm overlooking something, there is no reason to question the permission status. The image is here Please restore it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Perkins (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For this file, the permission was not (yet) accepted. Do not reupload deleted files. If a permission is accepted, the OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please restore deleted COAEdit

Hi, the following COA was wrongly deleted: File:Kiryat Ekron COA.png i reworked this image out of a municipal sign permanently displayed in town (which fits the FOP IL template). The original image was taken by a fellow (HE) Wikipedian and uploaded here. Regards --kippi70 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for ignoring my request and my expalantion! Eventhough my contribution is a clear FOP case, you chose to delete it. IF FOP is not respected in Commons, i have nothing more to do here. With this attitude, you'll have one less contributor to deal with. --kippi70 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kippi70: I have somehow completely missed your message. I normally try to respond to every message at this talk page. Sometimes I get a bit flooded with messages and tags. Looking at the file, to be honest I don't think that {{FoP-Israel}} applies, because the image doesn't fall in one of the categories described in that template. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with you. Maybe my opinion does not matter, but i get a great deal of comfort out of the fact that Dror Avi (Israeli lawyer on copyright issues, among others) sees this type of image as a valid FOP. I'm glad that some kind admin. takes care of moving all the COAs to the Hebrew Wiki. They should be kept there and i will restrict myself to there, as well. --kippi70 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Account blocked!!!Edit

Dear Jcb,
I think you unjustly blocked my Mr.Nostalgic account and removed all of the uploads of the 4th of december.
Did you do some factfinding first? If you follow any of the links in the photo's i uploaded you can easely see that the owner of all the pictures is the National Archive. If you look right of the picture you can see that all the photo's that i upload have a CC zero licence and are in the Public Domain! If you want to download one of those pictures from the National Archive, you will get an extra warning that they are in the Public Domain and if you click one of the links you get an explainatory sheet stating that you cando with them what you like.
If you have done all this, i trust that you will not block my account in future for the same kind of reason again.
Would you also be so kind as to restore the hundreds of photo's i uploaded the 4th of december! Regards,
Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC) alias of Alf van Beem.

Hi, you uploaded a batch of pictures mainly from 1947, 1948 and 1949. Whatever Nationaal Archief may claim, it's impossible that copyright has expired for pictures from those years. It's also impossible that the NA claim is based on a public domain donation by the (heirs of the) photographer because, if that were the case, the NA would have known the name of the photographer. This can lead to no other conclusion than that the PD claim from the NA is erroneous and that the files are still copyrighted. So what we do know for sure now: PD claims from the NA are not reliable. For PMA+70 countries, like the Netherlands, you can upload anything from authors who died before 1947 with {{PD-old}}. If you don't know when the author died, you can upload anything from before 1897 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Anything newer, just don't upload it and everything will be fine. The short block was needed, because you continued to upload after my request to stop. You can prevent this kind of blocks by monitoring your user talk page when you are uploading. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jbc,

I am realy baffled by your conclusions.
There are so many more reasons why it could be in the public domain. If you start doubting official owners of the photographes, who clain to own the copyright and are also official instances of the Duch goverment, than we cannot trust anything anymore. who says that i am who i am when i uplaod my pictures under CC-zero. We can continue on. Anyway, i want to officialy file a complaint against you (with respect) and the method of immediately delting pictures without even marking them for deletion. Where can i do that?
Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC) alias Alf van Beem

Dear Jcb
The Dutch Nationaal Archief holds a large photocollection about 1.1 milion images. For about 40% of these images the Nationaal Archief actual holds the rights, including copyright. These rights including copyright were transferred (and documented) to the Nationaal Archief. Since 2012,in the context of open data, the Nationaal Archief is adding open data licenses and waivers with its metadata and content. Because the Nationaal Archief owns the copyright, it is authorized to renounce it by adding - in this specific case - a CC0 waiver on its own images. Precisely like Vysotsky describes below. And how Mr.Nostalgic correctly uploaded and reused these images. The CC0 addition from the Nationaal Archiefon these images are therefore correct and reliable. And are for the transfer from photographic (press) services to the Nationaal Archief depots and finally to its website thoroughly investigated and documented.
Regards --Timmietovenaar (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The Nationaal Archief cannot own the copyright of pictures of which they do not even know the author, that's not possible. And I have had a lot of contact with several Dutch archives over the years, so I have an impression of how these archives work. If they receive a box of pictures that somebody found on an attic, they immediately somehow assume that the copyright is in the box with the pictures. In the Netherlands, the author is the copyright holder, unless there is either a transfer of copyright by means of a written document or the photographer was employed as a photographer (not freelance). In both cases the photographer cannot be unknown. There is no provision in Dutch law to transfer the copyright to one or another archive if we somehow cannot find out who the author was. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jcb, (1) You clearly and repeatedly misinterpret the Dutch Copyright Act re "unknown photographer" and copyright by an institution (Art. 7 & 8).
(2) You underestimate the knowledge about copyright at most archives and libraries, and just blame them by association (this paragraph).
(3) By stating (in this paragraph) "PD claims from the NA [Dutch National Archives] are not reliable", you spit into the source that has enriched Wikimedia Commons with >1 million useful images: Dutch archives and libraries (RCE 0,5M images, Naturalis 277k images, Tropenmuseum 50k, National Archives 20k, Rijksmuseum 15k, Beeld & Geluid 5k et al.)
(4) Returning to this case: you deleted >500 images labeled CC-0 by Dutch National Archives, without notice (no formal DRs) and without paying attention to the copyright notices in this specific archive. In many cases you simply act too quickly, based on wrong assumptions.
(5) As you are a powerful administrator on Wikimedia Commons, and I am just a simple user who hates wasting time on disputes about clear-cut cases, I will reconsider my activities in Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On a crusade again?Edit

Dear Jcb, Can you show what's wrong with the license of this photograph that you deleted from Commons? And the same for a lot of other photographs uploaded by the same user? They all seem to originate from the same source, the Dutch National Archives, and have a clear CC-O license. See also this information about one of the collections of the Dutch National Archives in Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please only contact me if you can refrain from accusing language like 'crusade'. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
These are my arguments: the photograph was taken in 1947, by an unknown photographer in service of the "Dienst Legercontacten Indonesië", which was part of the Dutch Ministry of Defence. The collection was consequently donated to the Dutch National Archives (Nationaal Archief), without any limitations on copyright. If you would have taken two minutes to dive into the archival description of this particular archive, you would have seen that all files are in the Public Domain. In Dutch: "Er zijn geen beperkingen krachtens het auteursrecht." (My translation: "No limitations re copyright".) The same goes for the other >500 photographs from this collection deleted by you without further notice. Vysotsky (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
All in line with the Copyright Act NL (Nederlandse auteurswet): articles 7 & 8 of the Dutch Copyright Act. Vysotsky (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


See here. You leave me no choise when you start staking our relationship with the National Archive and any potential GLAM-partner who wishes to donate material. Natuur12 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Not cool. Not. Cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonDance (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:R.E.M. - Green promo.jpgEdit

Why did you delete this? There is no original work to this--it's just black block letters on a red background. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with nominator that this is not simple enough for PD-textlogo. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to it--it couldn't possibly be any simpler. There is nothing creative about this work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The background is too complex for PD-ineligible. This is rather a picture of a 3D structure. Jcb (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not--it's a piece of cloth. There is no "design" or originality here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's the established consensus here that taking a picture of a 3D object, including relief surfaces, generates copyright protection. Jcb (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Citation, please. That is a completely backwards policy--if I screen print the Mona Lisa onto a piece of driftwood, I don't have a new and copyright-able work because wood has texture. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, but as soon as somebody takes a picture of your piece of wood, the photographer will hold copyright on that picture. See Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
But taking a picture of a work that is in the public domain is also in the public domain (unless there is something actually new or transformative about it). This is well-trodden territory for photographs of paintings in museums. This image is not copyrightable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This applies to 2D reproductions of 2D works only. Not to a picture of a 3D relief like in this case. Jcb (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a 2-D work. Even paint has texture--literally everything does. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Two experienced administrators (Magog the Ogre and myself) disagree with you for this file. I am sorry, but there is nothing more I can do for you regarding this particular file. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing you can do is provide me the requested citation. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I already did that above. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why can´t I donate my own drawing on Wikimedia?Edit

My drawing "Yves Saint Laurent" is my own work and not a copyright violation as I drew this drawing some weeks ago! My name is Pascal Kirchmair and I am the artist and owner of the work and I have decided to upload it for free use for every user on wikimedia. Could you please tell me what the problem is because I really do not understand it... Jacquelinekato (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are the author, please contact OTRS for verification. They can restore the file. Don't reupload it yourself. Jcb (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcb, what is the reason for your doubt? The user already declared on their user page that they are indeed Pascal Kirchmair. You can't conclude that they are not Pascal Kirchmair because that is not their username. Wikicology (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I am puzzled why you ask this. Would you propose to shut down OTRS entirely, because we can somehow blindly trust any claim a user posts on their user page? In case of the involved image, it has been published previously here, without a free license. We will need to verify the identity of the uploader via OTRS, or, as an alternative, they could put a free license on their own website. Jcb (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What is your position, assuming the images were uploaded under the account "User:Pascal Kirchmair"? Wikicology (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That won't make any difference in my opinion. We have always demanded a one time identity verification via OTRS in such cases. Everybody could create a user account with such a name. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What documents do you request for such verification? Do you require legal documents for such verification? Wikicology (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If we would e.g. receive an email message for the address listed here, that would be fine. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I mean in general, not referring to this particular case. Wikicology (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
In general, they need to convince the OTRS agent. In most of the cases this is done by sending an email from an address that we can connect to the person. Sometimes the person leaves a note at their website with a link to their Wikipedia account. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not a member of OTRS, so I wanted to know how it works. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention Wikicology. I am not familiar with Wikicommons and use it only to upload my work. How can I prevent in the future and prove that I really am the artist who drew or photographed my uploaded pictures? It is quite frustrating if persons delete my works because it adds supplementary steps for me to try to restore the pictures on a platform I do not know very well. And it is true that I upload my pictures on toonpool but that does not mean that I released my copyrights to them. Jacquelinekato (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to contact OTRS to get your identity verified. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Pascal Kirchmair (aka User:Jacquelinekato) proudly mentions the presence of one of his own drawings in Wikipedia on his own website. Kirchmair uploaded 50 of his drawings to Commons since January 2012. A recent one was removed. Might it be that other Admins thought his uploads trustworthy? After all, he complained three times now (What can I do to keep my illustration on Wikicommons?), and made clear he didn't understand why attempts were made to remove them. The answer he got (9 Dec, by User:Jcb): "Do not upload copyright violations". That can't exactly be called an encouragement, and it makes clear which position this admin chooses to take. No wonder then, that another user encouraged him to find a different venue for his drawings. ("Findest du nicht, dass deine Zeichnungen besser auf Portalen wie Behance oder DeviantArt aufgehoben wären?"). Vysotsky (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Vysotsky, you hit the nail on the head! Jacquelinekato (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vanesse Hudgens 2014 (2).pngEdit

Hi Mhossein have admitted the the file is free. Could you close the request ? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Jcb (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, also for Emmerson, there are consensus and the file is clearly ynder free licence. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
We have about 8000 files in ongoing DRs. Don't worry if a DR takes some time to be closed. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons PD fileEdit

Greetings! Could you please confirm the licensing on this file? It was released under a Creative Commons - Public Domain Mark 1.0 license [1]. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't transfer files with a Public Domain Mark from Flickr, this is not a compatible license. See also Template:Flickr-public_domain_mark. Jcb (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Harmonize a template : Template:PD-USGov-VOA/frEdit

Hi Like to the english version, could you remove the phrase "À noter que VOA republie des rapports d'Associated Press, de l'Agence France-Presse et d'autres. Ces contenus ne sont pas dans le domaine public. Vérifiez le crédit pour chaque image ou photographie. Notez également que VOA était un organisme fédéral jusqu'en 1998 et est devenu indépendant. Entre 1998 et juin 2013, VOA a versé tout son matériel dans le domaine public. Après cette date, l'usage est seulement non commercial. Par conséquent, ce modèle n'est valide uniquement pour le matériel publié avant juin 2013. Voir Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Notez enfin qu'il existe des déclarations contradictoires sur plusieurs versions linguistiques des sites internet de VOA, mais que les conditions d'utilisation sur le site parent,, indiquent très clairement que la politique du non commercial s'étend à tous les sites de VOA.". The french phrase is the equivalent of "Note also that VOA was a Federal agency until 1998 and then became independent. Between 1998 and June 2013, the VOA put all its material in the public domain. After that, it became Non-Commercial use only. Therefore, this template is valid only for material published before June 2013. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Note also that there are conflicting statements on several of the language web sites, but that the Terms of Use on the parent site,, very clearly state that the NC policy extends to all of the VOA sites." which was removed.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I have some basic knowledge of French, I would prefer that a native speaker deals with this. E.g. @Christian Ferrer: @Ruthven: could you help Panam2014 with this? Jcb (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In fact, the french text may be relevant, the french version was created after the DR closure and is in fact including a kind of translation/variation of the post closing comment made by Jim. This is indeed not the same version of the english version {{PD-USGov-VOA}}, but that don't mean the text is not relevant. I don't know, but as I understand it this may be ok to keep the french version as it is. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Christian Ferrer: But why among all languages, only the French version says that the material is not free from 2013? The banner in French is misleading when the user WP account is set in French. And there is no VOA news in French.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This was the subject of a long and acrimonious debate several years ago. Basically, the main VOA site says that all VOA images after the 2013 date are NC, including those for the various branches in various languages and countries. On the other hand, several local non-English VOA sites say that their images are PD. On the principle that if the parent and the child organization conflict, that the parent is the one we must obey, I believe that no VOA material after the 2013 date is available to Commons. However, some of our colleagues have chosen to ignore this..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, Christian Ferrer, Ruthven: But we can not continue with the current aberration. We must display the same text everywhere. Either we leave the paragraph on 2013 everywhere or we leave it nowhere. There, it misleads the contributors.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading users. The English version has a similar, but shorter, note. --Ruthven (msg) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: but why can we make such a short note for this version too? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am puzzled by your comment. In 2016, we restored all these files, an action that you supported, see here. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Johan. Your memory and ability to dig out old decisions puts me to shame. The French version is not correct -- all VoA material is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:The French version is not more incorrect than the others. Harmonize on one side or the other but we could not continue like that. A discussion of all the models in all languages, including English and French, must take place if we want to reverse the situation. But for the moment, harmonization is coherent. Thanks to Christian, it's settled.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You are correct -- my comment above was out of date because two hours earlier Christian had corrected the French version. All is good now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment   Done I did it. While the text was accurate or not, Panam2014 is right : all versions have to be identical, in a way or in another. If the French version is restored then the English version, as well as the other translations, should be amended too. All or none. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Files in Category:The Great Movie Ride Deletion RequestEdit

I meant to go over the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Great Movie Ride but forgot to. There are some files that were deleted are also featuring an actor, not an animatronic (File:GMR (23504048133).jpg, File:GMR (23502636104).jpg, File:GMR (23762926059).jpg, and File:GMR (23835181420).jpg). For evidence, watch any of these videos: far away, close up video, and medium shot. Also, File:GMR (23839268370).jpg features the outside of the building, not a set. None of those images should have been deleted. The rest all should have been. Elisfkc (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Restored - Jcb (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hy JCBEdit

I sent an email to and I receive this no - [Ticket#: 2017121210004964].

Tell me pls what elese to do in order to convince you that this picture is made by me.

Thank you

Eduard (Eduard Dumitrașcu (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC))

Taking a picture of a copyrighted work does not make you the copyright holder, see COM:DW. If you are really the author and the OTRS agent agrees, they will undelete the files. Jcb (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Erweiterte Institutsleitung.jpgEdit

Dear Admin Jcb,

This is an image by a new contributor. I don't want to scare a newbie away but if the image is not free, then a DR might be in order. Unfortunately, I can't read German to tell if it is free but it doesn't appear so. But maybe you can read the copyright text better--if there is any. I am signing off now. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I will take care of it. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank You Admin Jcb. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "File:131119 b produkte mit label 2 20070723 1421165935 02.jpg"Edit

Dear JcB,

the information about source and author of this file are not correct. The file is protected by copyright and may not be used! What do you mean by "regular DR", as mentioned in your note in the version history?

Best regards,

Stephan Hangleiter, Metronom GmbH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metronom Leipzig (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We received a valid permission via OTRS. Once a file is released into a CC license, this cannot be revoked. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We originally uploaded the file and must revoke this permission now. Unfortunately, it turns out that the information about source and author are not correct. We have learned that the file is copyrighted and should not be used. Therefore, the file should be deleted as soon as possible. Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metronom Leipzig (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion central in the DR, thanks in advance. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletions with still linked pages and wikidataEdit

Hoj Jcb, on request of User:Ies you have some categories deleted, that still linked to wikidata und German pages. The problem is, that User:Ies created new categories instead of moving them. In this case the linked pages and wikidatas have to be changed manually. Unfortunately you have deleted the categories unless this work has been done. It would be very pleasant to keep the needless procedure of User:Ies in mind. Groets --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

An empty category is eligible for speedy deletion. Normally, links at Wikidata should be removed automatically on deletion. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Idaho Falls, Idaho.jpgEdit

Hi Jcb. You deleted a file with this name back in September for not having a proper source. I am wondering if this is the same file. Moreover, this looks like a user-created montage of multiple images of unclear copyright status. So, unless the uploader is claiming authorship/ownership of all of these files, I'm not sure thay can license them all as "own work" even if they did create the montage. The EXIF data says "Layout from Instagram", but I don't believe Instagram photos are automatically released under a free license suitable for Commons. So, I'd figured I'd ask you about it before tagging it or nominating it for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jcb".