Deletion of "Letter from Ralph Munday to his sister" edit

Hi,

You recently deleted File:Letter from Ralph Munday to his sister, 17 November 1915, p1.png and File:Letter from Ralph Munday to his sister, 17 November 1915, p2.png, but I didn't get any notification. Normally in the past a message has been left on my talk page. If I'd been given some warning (although, I completely admit, I've been meaning to get around to adding OTRS for that and similar files for ages, so this is my own fault) I'd have fixed it up.

Anyway, I've lodged otrs:2017030110000979 to release these files and all others in the same collection.

Thanks for helping with all this! Sorry I'm disorganised and making more work for you. :(

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

An OTRS agent will process it and undelete the file if the permission is valid. (It's in a queue I don't have access to) Jcb (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Alaksiej Dzikawicki i Tomasz Bladyniec.jpg edit

Hello! You have deleted my photography I uploaded, stating that there is no source. Therefore I declare I was the author of the picture and it was never published anywhere earlier. I will write it in the file description, but please, put the picture back to Commons. Thank you. Bladyniec (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Lassy Mbouity with Dr Rand Paul in 2015.jpg edit

Hi, you deleted 3 images from Lassy Mbouity category because of the OTRS permission. Scott Wemhof sent you an email 4 weeks ago but you did not restore theses images yet. Can you restore theses images please? the permission has been sent long time ago.--The realreport (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The permission was not (yet) considered sufficient, as stated in our 18 December response to the ticket. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok Jcb, Yes before but not now because Scott sent the permission I mean the email with the signature. Are you going now to restore the image since we sent it to you?--The realreport (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing new in the ticket. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just for the record.... edit

...your decision to delete the Russian images was crap. They're clearly PD as well as historically important, and deleting them did nothing but diminish the value of Commons as a repository. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Epitomeofmykehurley.jpg edit

Did you check the related deletion discussion before deleting this one for missing permission? In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epitomeofmykehurley.jpg it was indicated that no evidence of permission might have been needed at all. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No. This is what you get if you have a double procedure on a file. Next time please convert to DR instead of adding a DR and leaving the 'no permission' tag in place. However, the 'permission' is obviously not specific enough, the regular DR would have been closed as 'delete' anyway. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Delete this file edit

Dear Jcb, can you delete File:Placeholder male superhero c.png and File:Placeholder female superhero c.png because these files have a copyright symbol, thus were copyrighted and not under a free licensed? 118.101.202.113 09:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you think there is a problem with those files, nominate the for deletion instead. Jcb (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
How to nominate it. 118.101.202.113 12:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is a 'nominate for deletion' link in the left menu. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. 118.101.202.113 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete Category:Martin (ship, 2017) ? edit

Hello. You have deleted Category:Martin (ship, 2017) and replaced it with another from year 2005, why? This ship arrived a few days ago, it is brand new. They had a celebration yesterday in Glyvrar, you can see the photos here. --EileenSanda (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have not replaced it, I just deleted it after a nomination by somebody else. The category was empty at that moment, which is a valid reason for deletion. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok, sorry, I thought you had replaced the category. I will look into it. Perhaps I have been mistaken, I thought the ship was a newly built ship, but perhaps it was just rebuilt and new to the company. Regards --EileenSanda (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

L'honorable and others edit

In the absence of any instruction at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block - how do you want to deal with unblock requests from L'honorable and other users (such as Reguyla, if/when it happens) where e-mail and talk page access has been disabled ? We don't have a UTRS type system or mailing list which can be used, so these blocks are now essentially permanent as they have no appeal mechanism. I'm not advocating unblocking either named party, but I do think we should have a process in place to allow an appeal to take place. Any thoughts ? I'm only asking in the event you've already thought about this and have an idea already. Nick (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we should have some process in place for such cases, but on the other hand I would not give it much priority. At this moment such users can contact an admin via a different project and if the admin thinks that an unblock should be considered, he/she can post it to the AN. In case of L'honorable, before he got blocked here, he was already blocked at other projects, including NL-wiki. Although I was not involved in his block at NL-wiki, he contacted me to request being unblocked there. I reached out to an admin at NL-wiki, who explained to me why L'honorable would not be unblocked at NL-wiki. Later he got blocked at Commons and later got his talk page access removed because of abuse. After that he has pinged me several times from a range of sister projects. It's still possible for him to ping one of us from a sister project. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

deletion of the category Media contributed by the Musée Saint-Raymond of Toulouse edit

I'm sorry I don't understand what's wrong with this category. I'm uploading images from the museum where I work and I think it's important to identify what is coming from GLAM partners. Maybe there is a better way but I don't know how to do. --Christelle Molinié (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

You created an empty gallery page instead of a category. A category has the Category: prefix, a gallery page has no prefix. Gallery pages have to contain at least two images, or they will be deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK I have changed it on my template. Thanks !--Christelle Molinié (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Bonjour Christian Ferrer, je voulais juste créer une catégorie afin d'avoir une visibilité sur ce que nous versions et pouvoir distinguer ces images de celles réalisées par les Wikimédiens. J'utilise le template:Artwork avec des champs pré-remplis. Il s'agissait donc purement d'une erreur de syntaxe de ma part. Mais merci pour l'idée et pour la proposition de créer un bandeau cela pourrait en effet être intéressant une fois que le projet sera un peu mieux défini. --Christelle Molinié (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
ok très bien, bonne continuation :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Could you please explain your closure, which is in contradiction with the license mentioned and COM:PRP. Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I already explained my decision on closure, I overwrote the standard text with an explanation. I will try to formulate more clearly. These images were constructed based on information from the external website, but using File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg as a starting point, to which they only added simple text in a circle. As long as we keep File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg, these DWs should be fine as well. So if you think there is a copyright issue, you should start with the source file. If in the future File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg would be deleted for copyright reasons, this would cause deletion of these DWs as well. Feel free to nominate File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg if you think my closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Colombia.svg was a mistake. Jcb (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
This (the source) is not mentioned in each of these files, but it should be. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
In one case it was indeed in the wrong field. I have fixed that. Jcb (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply


Delete request edit

Hi Jcb, Hope all is well,
Sorry to be a pain but could you quickly delete File:Bus1.webm‎, File:Bus 22.webm‎, File:Bus2.webm, File:Bus6.webm, File:Bus3.webm‎ please,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Jcb (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Brilliant thank you :), Have a great weekend. –Davey2010Talk 18:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sviraman edit

Hi Jcb. I don't see an indication that these files are not own work as stated. Could you please give a reason for deletion other than per nomination? --Leyo 16:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a more than marginal risk that these files have been copied from somewhere (although I admit I could not find them somewhere else with a reverse image search), so I deleted them per COM:PCP. The nomination reason was possible copyvio and this was also the reason of deletion. Jcb (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
TJH2018 did not even care to reply to the response by the uploader. Probably because this was pure speculation based on the fact that Sviraman has registered only a few weeks ago. --Leyo 21:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Leyo: Whoah, if I remember right, I did a google search of these images, and it returned a website. That's all I can say. And for you to say I didn't even care to respond to him, I never even knew that he left a comment there because he didn't ping me...TJH2018talk 21:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
(EC)@Leyo: Yes, and started editing 6 March, immediately doing edits like this in high speed, and immediately uploading dozens of files with all the right magic words, including category. I'm sorry, but this is almost certain a sockpuppet rather than a trustworthy new user. (I am looking beyond the length of my nose before pressing the deletion button.) Jcb (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@TJH2018: If I create a DR, it gets on my watchlist automatically. Didn't this DR appear in your watchlist? Jcb (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: I tend to be a bit disorganized when it comes to my watchlist, due to the number of deletion reqests/files I have on it. But, that's a good idea. TJH2018talk 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The person might have had another account before, but this does not really matter here. The relevant questions are (i) where these graphs created by the uploader as stated, (ii) if not, are they eligible for copyright? --Leyo 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
(i) I doubt it, (ii) yes - Jcb (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
(ii) IMHO borderline --Leyo 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
You guys seem to be doing just fine by yourselves deciding whether or not I made the stuff I made, but let me chime in maybe.
@TJH2018: I'm sorry, I didn't know how to "ping" someone until just now, or that I was supposed to do it. Will do better next time.
@Jcb: I'm sorry, I didn't know that properly categorising my stuff and promptly putting it where it could be useful is wrong. If you wanted to look beyond the length of your nose, you could have simply asked, "Sviraman, are you by any chance a thieving sockpuppet?", and I would have replied, "No, Jcb, I'm not a thieving sockpuppet, why would you think so?", and then I would have explained whatever it was that needed explaining.
@Leyo: Yes, those graphs was created by me. Do I need to prove it somehow? --Sviraman (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess that TJH2018 and Jcb would like to see proofs. --Leyo 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK then. TJH2018 and/or Jcb, what proofs of my authorship do I need to provide? --Sviraman (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@TJH2018 and Jcb: Please reply. --Leyo 23:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't know. As I wrote above, there are reasons to not trust this uploader. This is clearly a sockpuppet of somebody and the files look suspicious. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
This doesn't like very serious. You don't know of whom this account who be a sockpuppet, and you don't have any valid reason to delete these files... Yann (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: If you don't know you can ask me. I have offered to help clear things up, but no one seems to have any interest in that. This is a witch hunt and I am offended by your baseless accusations. Nice work discouraging a new user from contributing. --Sviraman (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Help me understand this better. I carefully read Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and these files clearly qualify for deletion. Where is my logic failing? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, just read the discussion on the matter. Sorry to bother you and thanks—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No problem. This is a controversial theme and several of our guidelines contradict eachother on this theme. It seems nobody feels like touching the guidelines on this theme. Jcb (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion edit

Hi Jcb, When you have a spare 5 minutes could you delete all of the images (but not the category) at Category:Davey2010/London2 please, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Jcb (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Jcb, As always much appreciated :), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

DRs by TBhagat on March 7 edit

Johan:

I was working through these when I went to have breakfast. I had found that about half of them were bogus -- that the subject was obviously in scope -- with an article at WP or at IMDB.

I see that you closed the rest as deleted. Unless you object, I'm going to go back through them and restore some of the images that were nominated incorrectly. For example, Maria Bodmann has an IMDB article, so she is obviously in scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. As far as I remember none of those DRs was for copyright reasons. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:DB Regio 442777 in February 2017.webm edit

Hi Jcb. I didn't quite know how to handle this strange file. It comes from https://pixabay.com/en/videos/germany-station-railway-train-db-7502/, which I reviewed and passed, but if you place 7502 in the Pixabay template, it directs to https://pixabay.com/en/puzzle-cube-wood-block-toys-7502/... Daphne Lantier 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. (tJosve05a (c) 00:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Josve05a - So if I understand this correctly - The issue was because "vid" wasn't added in "|2=" ?, Thanks for fixing it, –Davey2010Talk 00:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Josve05a: Thanks for the fix. I haven't seen many Pixabay videos, but it's good to know how to deal with them. Daphne Lantier 03:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Davey2010: Yes, that's how Speravir coded it. @Daphne Lantier: Sure thing :) (tJosve05a (c) 07:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Sorry, Jcb. I hope this is the last entry here.) @Daphne Lantier and Davey2010: If we want to call it an issue then that Pixabay decided to give the same IDs also for videos with the only distinction in address path – and I’ve documented this in {{Pixabay}} btw :-). There has once been a question regarding this topic at the village pump; hence I took a look on the template code and rewrote it in parts. — Speravir – 18:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Closure of elephantreaching image edit

I read your comment on the closure of the elephantreaching file— I had the exact same thought, and left a note regarding this on the closing admin's talk page asking for clarification. I am not used to second guessing admins, but like you, I thought the reasoning was mistaken, even if the outcome was the correct one. Glad I was not alone in this! Cheers! KDS4444 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Missing licence edit

Hi Jcb, i just wanted to tell you that i'm working with the Centro de Fotografía de Montevideo in the upload or their photographs. They are accidentally deleting the license marker in the process of adding the photograph template. I already explained them the correct process. Regards.--Zeroth (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. Feel free to remove the {no license} tag as soon as a license is there. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:A lélek mélyén.jpg edit

A képre engedélykérés folyamatban sablon volt kitéve. Nem láttad? Legyél szíves visszaállítani! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nee, als het gewoon rechtstreeks van een website gejat is, dan gooien we het linea recta weg. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Engedélyezés alatt áll! Jogos így feltölteni! Ne töröld! És ne írj nekem hollandul, MAGYAR vagyok, nem holland! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Niet meer uploaden, of je gaat op slot! Jcb (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Több mint száz alkalommal töltöttem már fel képet engedélykérés folyamatban sablonnal. Eddig sosem volt probléma. Ennél most igen. Jogos feltölteni engedélyezés alatt sablonnal képeket. Eddig ebbe senki sem kötött bele. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're an editor or problematic. Good reading! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of File:Brasão de Bananeiras.jpg edit

Dear Jcb, I want your help about this deletion. This work is in the public domain in Brazil acording the Federal Laws nº 9610/1998, art. 115 and nº 9610/1998, art. 8. So I want know how I could upload the file again and what coporight I have to use.

Thanks for the time,

Nelson R. de Lima Filho (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found it out: {{PD-BrazilGov}} is the correct license. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you so much for the help. I'm still learning how to contribute to the Commons. Nelson R. de Lima Filho (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Images and Categories edit

I am Olsen 24 but i am not logged in. The reason I am removing the cats from some of the images that I uploaded because they are duplicates that I accidentally put on the site. I ask of you that you dont block me over that in the future and that you find a way to have those images that are duplicates deleted so this disagreement can come to an end. Please post your response on the Olsen24 talk page which is where i am most likely to get your message.

Use the 'nominate for deletion' link from the left menu instead. Removing information from the file description pages does not cause the files to be deleted, but it causes unnecessary work for our maintenance people. Jcb (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of File:FOOD Kuro burger ad.jpg edit

Moin Jcb,
you deleted file File:FOOD Kuro burger ad.jpg per "The food menu contains copyrighted photos". Could you please tell me which photos you were referring to and in how far these violated rules here? I'm not criticizing you, I just want to understand what happened and avoid similar problems in the future.
Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The pictures of the burgers, covering a large part of your picture, are copyrighted. For more information on derivative work, see COM:DW. Jcb (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I didn't think of the original photographer. Thanks! Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

merci edit

Merci je vais essayer de réparer le problème. Azzoug lyes (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion Again edit

Hi Jcb, Sorry to yet again bother you but when you have a spare 5 minutes could you delete all of the images (but not the category) at Category:Davey2010/London2 please, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Jcb (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again, As always it's much appreciated :), Have a great weekend (well sunday now lol), –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

"No source provided"... it was provided edit

Hello,

You deleted File:Anita Ekberg1.jpg on the motive that no source was provided as of March 11th... The source was added by Adri08. --Catarella (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Restored - Jcb (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. --Catarella (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deleting duplicate files edit

Can you please delete the following files:

File:MTA Bus 3803 on 72 St.jpg File:MTA Bus 4122 on the M57.jpg File:MTA Bus 4859 on the B6.jpg File:MTA Bus 5721 on the M79.jpg File:MTA Bus 5721 on the westbound M79.jpg File:MTA Bus 5898 on the M79.jpg File:MTA Bus 5898 on the westbound M79.jpg File:MTA Bus 7591 on the B11.jpg File:MTA Bus 7591 on the Sunset Park bound B11.jpg File:MTA C40LF on E 180 St.jpg File:MTA Orion VII 3rd Generation on the S54.jpg File:MTA Orion VII Next Generation 3803 on the M57.jpg File:MTA Orion NG on the M5.jpg File:MTA Orion VII Third Generation on the S54.jpg

These files are all duplicate files that are not the last revision of the photo.

Go to the file, press the 'nominate for deletion' link and tell that they are duplicate. Include a link to the file they are a duplicate of. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Once an item is nominated for deletion, How long does it take before it is deleted?

Most of the time 7 days. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I nominated all the duplicate files for deletion with the reason being duplicate of file and then the name of the file it is a duplicate of. Unfortunately i was unable to create a link because i dont know how to. I hope that doesn't make this process take any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsen24 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

A non linked file name may not be a problem, but an incomplete file name (like here) is. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

how is the example you provided an incomplete file name? the file was called MTA Bus 6650 on the M106 and all of those words were required when saying it was a duplicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsen24 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It e.g. has no extension. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

what is an extention? can you leave an example in your response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsen24 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

if an extention is like .jpg, then all the duplicate files are jpg files. Sorry for not adding that in the reason for deletion nomination. I would have done so had I known that I needed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsen24 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, see en:Filename extension - Jcb (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you. How much longer until the nominated files are deleted? And, how do I sign my talk page edits?

Somebody will process the DRs, but I can't predict when. We are all volunteers. You can sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have an issue, some of the deletion nominations have been overturned despite it being the duplicate of another file. Why is this happening? I re-nominated these files for deletion but will that be accepted in the future? Olsen24 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Olsen 24Reply

In case of e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MTA Bus 4859 on the B6.jpg, you did not mention the file name of the duplicate file at all in the first nomination. That's why the admin could not delete it. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

"No OTRS provided"... it was provided and checked 3 months ago edit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Australianblackbelt#File_tagging_File:Georgette_Psarreas.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Australianblackbelt#File_tagging_File:Daniella_Seoane.jpg

These files were uploaded over 4 months ago not 30 days... the OTRS was checked and lied idle as with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Australianblackbelt#File_tagging_File:Mrs_globe_1.jpg which was later confirmed after questioning the photographer in Spain.... The journalist from The Latin Australian times who took these photos sent the OTRS herself. Kindly explain your reason for deletion so I may learn this rocket science we call Wikimedia commons please. Ticket#2016122610002138 (Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC))Reply

Files with a pending OTRS ticket are granted 30 days after our first response. In February we told in our response that the permission was not yet in order. We heard nothing of them since. The files can be undeleted as soon as the ticket is resolved. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Razin-Anichkin-GC.jpg edit

You've deleted File:Razin-Anichkin-GC.jpg as Missing permission, but this file was uploaded by author in Russian Wikipedia in 2007 and then trasferred to Commons in 2010 by bot. ru:Участник:Yury Chernavsky is author of this photo. Here is first upload - ru:Файл:Razin-Anichkin-GC.jpg and we can see in history that file is marked as {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} --Butko (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Yury Chernavsky is one of the depicted people so he is not the author. Dozens of files, uploaded by him, had been deleted on ruwiki for the same reason - possession of a copy claimed as authorship. --Яй (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of image: Vladimir Pimonov, Ph.D, author, literary critic edit

Hi, You have deleted the image, but a permission has been received from Wikimedia Commons:

[Ticket#2017031210012016] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Vladimir Pimonov, Ph [...])

I would appreciate it, if the file is restored.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivpetivpet (talk • contribs) 08:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent processes the ticket. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Honorary citizens museum34.jpg edit

Please, regenerate this file. --Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please generate a valid reason for undeletion and post it at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maag-logo.png edit

Hi. My wife and me are contacting María Ángeles Álvarez González, who designed the logo, to get a proper permission (OTRS). The person that uploaded the file -VAQUERO- had been verbally authorised to do so. Obviously they didn't take the correct steps. We would like to restore the file because we need the link to the file to be included in the OTRS. Thank you. B25es (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Send me an email with your email address and I will wetransfer it to you. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

advice edit

  advice
hi are you a wiki editor.can you help me write me an article? Isbat raihan (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
See en:Help:Getting started - Jcb (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Forms of government.svg edit

Hello Jcb. Knyaz-1988 changed this file but it has changed wrong. Turkey isn't governed by the semi-presidential system. It is currently based on the parliamentary system. With the referendum to be held on 16 April, the presidential system will be decided to come. If the referendum is accepted, the parliamentary system will continue until the next general election. Many pages have been modified with this information. But without the people's decision, this information is wrong. Correcting will be better in terms of keeping accurate information. Thanks. 85.106.108.205 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why do you ask me? Because I am from the Netherlands, where Erdogan agressively and mistakenly tries to execute some power? I'm sorry, but I am not going to be involved in this. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are the admin. How to edit the file? 85.106.108.205 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am an admin, but this is my personal user talk page, not the Administrators Noticeboard. I am not going to be involved. Period. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mass deletion of files devoted to the Olympic Games in Rio edit

Hi there! You deleted the files devoted to the Olympic Games in Rio in spite of the fact that each file has an adequate source. I ask to restore. --KSK (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

See COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Thimphu City FC Logo.png edit

Hi Jcb. You deleted File:Thimphu City FC Logo.png about a week ago for lacking permission. It appears to have been re-uploaded again by the same editor, but there is still no evidence provided that the file has been released under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license. It looks like fair use to me based upon en:File:Thimphu City FC 2016 Logo.png and this website. I guess it's possible that the uploader is a representative of the team or something, but I have no way of verifying that. What do you think should be done this time? Tag the file with {{Npd}} again, tag it with {{Logo}}, or bring it to COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Recreation of deleted content is a reason for speedy deletion. You may tag it with {{Speedy|Recreation of deleted content}}. Jcb (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking a look and the information about file recreation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

DR edit

Hi JCB, When you have 5 minutes could you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osterfeuer03.16 (26028223776).jpg please, Anyway hope all is well my friend, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I understand the nomination. I don't see how this is useful for a Wikipedia article. It's hard to see what's going on at the scene. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Meh I'm not overkeen on it however I only saved it because of the building, If I cropped it so it only showed the house could it then be considered useful ?, Not really keen on the angle either to be honest, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, if the building is somehow notable. Jcb (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Even cropping the image it still looks horrid, In that case could you close as delete, might as well get it over with now lol, Thanks for your help and apologies for the comment earlier, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Done - Jcb (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that and thanks for your help - Much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Licence edit

Dear Jcb, I was trying to find the licence mentioned here but with no success. Can you please point me to the existing licence you are referring to? Dan Koehl (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The 'no license since' tag is used when there is no license template at the image description page. Files with no stated license will be deleted after 7 days. In this case there is {{self|Cc-zero}}. The question is whether the license is valid for this file. The OTRS procedure is in place to establish that. Files tagged with 'OTRS received' will be deleted after 30 days if a valid copyright situation has not been established. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I see, thanks a lot, then I know. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of CentarZaHelenskeStudijeLogo.png edit

Hi, you recently deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CentarZaHelenskeStudijeLogo.png, the logo of the Center for Hellenic Studies (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28930669), although permission for using the logo has been sent from the official email address of the Center's director to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org allowing the logo to be used on Wikipedia. The email was sent on March 12th. Ticket#: 2017031210001162

OTRS has a backlog, it may take several weeks until the permission will be processed. An OTRS agent will take care of undeletion as soon as a valid permission has been processed. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:DevelopmentofShaivism.jpg edit

@Jcb: With this edit a few months back, you added that the image is ineligible for copyright. Why? This is Flood's view (Figure 6, page 152, Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press), the chart and views reflected therein are his creative work. This is not an old photograph, nor seems like a common property. There are other theories on how Saivism developed. Or is it, that simple drawings and charts in general, found in any book or journal article, fall under PD-ineligible? Would appreciate a clarification, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@VictoriaGrayson: FYI. I see you had tagged it, a tag I agree with. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Information on itself is not eligible for copyright. A representation may be, but in this case the representation, with a few arrows, is too simple to be copyrightable. And yes, it's true that this applies to many other graphs. Jcb (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

why did you delete my photos? edit

Hi! why did you delete my photos? this & this & this. All of them already had license and publish date. Benyamin-ln (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two had a bogus license, one had no license at all. You cannot just claim {PD-Iran} because one of the depicted people is from Iran. Jcb (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The first was taken in Iran at 1979. That picture's summary introduced the Source and date of picture. The second is under license of Template:Khamenei. Please restore the pictures. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The first one may be fine if you can show that it was published (not created) before 1987. The second one seems license laundering. It's apparently a press photo, taken in the United States, of which Khamenei is probably not the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you delete my file? edit

Hello! By mistake I uploaded the wrong file, can you remove it? Here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_with_biathlon_icon.png. Thanks. The222anonim (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - next time, please add {{Speedy|Uploader request}} to the image description page. This is a valid reason for speedy deletion within a week after upload. Jcb (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. ;-) The222anonim (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deleted file appeal edit

It appears you have deleted an OGV cideo file of a demonstration of United States Defence force testing of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) on the basis of Copy-Right violation. I believe your conclusion to this is incorrect. Yes, Youtube is not considered official however, the source material where the original video came from, was from the United States Government (specifically Defense Force) of which the original Youtube Uploader took from (which was a Public Domain), of which the Youtube Upload (he or she) does not own and is free to access by the public.

It is unknown who the photographer/filmer was as it is not stated however, it is obvious due to high-importance military hardware testing such as the video was demonstrating would not allow private photographers or news reporting services or personnel directly onto the test site at such close proximity to film or to photograph, due to a combination of safety and information reasons. Another point of note is placement and use of camera such as extremely close-up high-frame slow-motion demonstration shots of the weapons test, as common and professional commercial filming equipment placed in such close proximity will not survive the condition and thus is concluded to be government-issued equipment filming for testing purposes. Another note is the high-altitude photographic thermal camera for testing purpose present within the film real, usually not within common possession of commercial users and will also not be available for filming for private or commercial users, as the test remains a government project which is pending assessment. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the photographers and filmers were either United States Armed Forces personnel and/or US Government workers.

In conclusion, regardless that the OGV was converted from a Youtube Video, the user of that Youtube account whom posted it also took it originally from a US government source which is in the Public Domain and therefore, no Copy-Right has been violated. Please reconsider or edit the original licensing to what is more appropriate.

Original File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:THAAD_USDF.ogg NotLessOrEqual

There was not source information on the file, nor on the Youtube video, showing that this would indeed come from the US federal government. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree there is a lack of sources, but presence of use of high-speed camera and thermal imaging purely in the use of testing and evaluation purposes are enough evidence to warrant recording and use by United States Defense Force and personnel to evaluate the success, failure or effectiveness of the test, and thus extremely likely to be a work of the US Government and therefore public domain.

Based on context, recording by private or commercial recorders or photographers may be considered illegal for the time being as the project may have remained classified from the public due to its testing phase and a work-in-progress, and may have been recently de-classified and made legally available to the public for informative and news-reporting purposes.

Recommended course of action: If still unsure, get a second opinion from other moderator/editors, or else restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotLessOrEqual (talk • contribs)

This is my second opinion: Administrators are not investigators. Please see here for uploaders' responsibilities. The onus lies with you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. @NotLessOrEqual: please be aware that we put Wikimedia Commons at risk if we are not careful with possible copyright infringement. Jcb (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

AN/U edit

Hi, Please see this discussion concerning you on AN/U. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

At least it has become very clear now that you are the one of the two of us who is always looking for conflict. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
Gele ster. Rijndaal (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

About the picture I took edit

Hello. About https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kodamayuui.jpg that I shot and uploaded, You tagged as insufficient for permission of that but I added about it, How about it?道産子男子 (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. Jcb (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

jcb sir edit

Dear jcb sir, please tell me that , how to upload on commons using google drive or other cloud storage?--Ddst40 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know that's not possible. You have to upload them from your local device. Jcb (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Harunaluna20160224a2.jpg edit

Hi!

the file you deleted a while ago, but the uploader declared it to be released on CC-BY-SA 3.0.( https://twitter.com/CinCStraker/status/846376905586569216 ) I was talking with him at ja:User talk:Highskysingwind, Highskysingwind seems to be the same person as https://twitter.com/CinCStraker . He wants to undelete the file. will you undelete the file?--mirinano (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Jcb (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Thank you.! --mirinano (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gizem Saatçi edit

Hi. I didn't mean to remove any template. Why do you remove the cat? They are two different things, right? --E4024 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just revert your edit if your edit creates a mess. E.g. this edit does not make sense. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you're an admin, better follow the person who makes "fake" flags that do not exist. That is vandalism. Don't follow the one who tries to attract the attention to a vandal. --E4024 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
By creating a mess you are attracting attention to yourself, not to a vandal. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is the great mess? I must have moved the cursor a little more than necessary, on the mobile phone. I had no idea that I did something important. I'm a Wikignome. --E4024 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your edits caused the files to be tagged for manual review. You are causing unnecessary work. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Have you noticed how many uncategorized files I have categorized today? All manually. Thanks for your appreciation. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Picture Removal edit

Hello Jcb, My name is David Mattei, the author of Christopher Mattei's draft Wikipedia page. I made a mistake when uploading a picture of him and am now trying to remove the file from Wikimedia Commons, because it is not a very good picture of him (and is not being used on the current draft Wikipedia page).

Here is the image I would like to remove:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_M._Mattei.png#file

Can you help me with this? I thought you could since you previously allowed on me keeping the file.

Thank you for any guidance and assistance. Sincerely, Dave Mattei (David Mattei (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC))Reply

  Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christopher M. Mattei.png - I cannot promise what the result will be, normally we only delete on uploader request within a week after upload - Jcb (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jcb

Just come clarification. I am requesting that both files be deleted, as we are currently trying to get another picture. Sorry for the confusion. Again, many thanks for your help. It is much appreciated.

Sincerely, (David Mattei (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC))Reply

I can give you little hope then. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, then I would certainly seek to remove: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_M._Mattei.png#file Is this more feasible? I did not think that image files were permanent when the wikipedia entry was still in draft form. Again, thank you for continued efforts. (David Mattei (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC))Reply

File:KLLC.png edit

Hi Jcb. I believe this file did have a source on its description page, could you please restore it? Thanks, FASTILY 21:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have re-checked. You left the 'source' field empty, apparently you forgot to check this file after transfer. There was a website mentioned in the description field, but this image wasn't there. So it did indeed not have a source. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, you clearly have not. The logo is in the upper left corner of the website. -FASTILY 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
... is a quite different version of the logo. Please really check before you start accusing people. Jcb (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Jcb, that's ridiculous. I don't have a problem if you make mistakes, I only expect you to correct them when they are pointed out to you. -FASTILY 06:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jcb, please compare the archival copy of the logo from 2008 from the given website with the deleted logo. Just a white border was added. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Jcb, on what part of Fastily's comment is an accusation against you? Your responses here are not what I expect from an admin. You seem to have a problem with Fastily, do you? Poké95 07:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pokéfan95, please do not heat up this using unwarranted terms like “incompetent user”. We can resolve this without resorting to that. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict) I changed to a more civil term. Is it appropriate now? Thanks, Poké95 07:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if you noticed, but the first time Fastily mentioned this file was here instead of first asking me. And see above his reaction when I rechecked the file: "No, you clearly have not." - he accusing me of not rechecking the file where I clearly stated that I did - Jcb (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nonsense. I am not accusing you of anything, and I do not care to. Your initial response simply suggests that you did not bother to review the file. Please fix your mistake, and stop making this needlessly difficult. -FASTILY 08:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is rotation required? edit

 
View of the crater from space.
(Image captured by NASA satellite)
 
Satellite view of Lonar crater lake

Hi,
these are two images currently displayed on Lonar crater lake, among many others. I think one of these two images needs to be rotated. I am not sure. I am also not sure where the north direction in these images is. Let me know what you think, also, please dont forget to ping me. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Hi @Usernamekiran: I am sorry, but I am totally unfamiliar with the subject. I can't help you with this. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Photos by Geetanjali Dhar edit

Please restore File:Sykes's Lark 2.jpg, File:Desert Wheatear.jpg and File:White-naped Tit.jpg as they are her own works. Some users like Dyolf77 is tagging files with "no permission" based own their assumptions without even try to discuss with the uploader first. Another user showed a gentleness by opening a discussion on her talk and Shyamal, an experienced EN admin confirmed that he knew her personally. Still Dyolf77 opened another deletion attempt. Such users need to be warned as they are wasting our time and making the acting admin responsible for their carelessness. If we can't stop these users, admins should be very careful and double-check the validity of their arguments instead of blindly believing them. Jee 04:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Those three picture have indeed a watermark with the www.itnatureclub.in web address. Do we have a good explanation for that? Jcb (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes; see my comment in the DR. All those sites, blog and FB account owned by her. Watermark alone is a different issue and not a reason to delete. See MPF's comment that those files are very rare and valuable. Jee 05:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Done - Jcb (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Jee 05:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Dear Jkadavoor, very sorry for wasting your time. Dear Jcb, I found images of unknown user for me (not even an user page) and a watermark on this photographs pointing to an external website, so I applied the common procedure and tagged them as missing permission. The User didn't even answered on her talk page. After that I started a deletion request because no answer was given by the user herself. Anyway, my apologizes again if anyone feels uncomfortable with my contribution. Regards. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No worries, Dyolf77. These type of users are newbies and we can't expect a quick reply from them as they will not understand even what is meant by "no permission". There is no customized info on such boilerplate templates. Here the user contacted his friend off-wiki; that's why were able to help. On the other side, if you had checked that site, you may even able to find all her details. So please be careful, next time. Jee 11:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Dear Jkadavoor, I checked it! but you didn't get my point: how to be sure that Geetanjalidhar is the real Geetanjalidhar who owns the website, if there was any link to her User page in her website/social media page, I will understand but I didn't found any link till now, that's why I asked for a permission to use these great photographs.
Thanks Jcb for letting this conversation be on your discussion page. Regards. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's why another used asked (which is the right way than jump with a no permission tag which is very difficult to understand) and Shyamal confirmed. Shyamal is here even before OTRS exists. It is not very difficult to get an accout verification mail if requested. But I don't see a need now as Shyamal knew her personally. Jee 12:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Image removed? edit

Hi friend Why r u have remove Yogi Adityanath .jpg image from common wikimedia file. Jorjman (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The picture does not seem to be own work by the uploader. No evidence of permission by the photographer. Jcb (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

A small help needed edit

Hi, I am the one who made File:Athens Montage L.png, a collage for a city infobox, but progress has been hindered due to one of the randomly-picked pictures from Wikimedia Commons, turning out to being copyvio.

I am trying now to find another replacement photo for the collage, but I am having trouble understanding how to distinguish a copyvio picture from a non-copyvio one before it even gets reported. That could save me alot of valuable time. May I ask if the following photo is copyvio or can I safely use it for the collage? File:Olympic_flame_at_opening_ceremony.jpg --SilentResident (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This picture seems quite safe to me. It has a clear 'own work' statement from the uploader, full resolution and original metadata from the camera. Sometimes it's difficult to predict whether a file will have an issue, but I don't expect problems with this particular file. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes I agree it is difficult to predict. Thanks alot for your response, much appreciated. --SilentResident (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Photosystem I - ru.svg edit

Hi, you have deleted Photosystem I - ru.svg and PsI.png on which the first file was based. PsI.png was falsely claimed to be a textbook scan, but if you look closely at the image PsI.png then you can clearly see that it's not. It's merely a bad quality image. It has never being published in any sort of textbook and it was claimed to be only because of it's bad quality.--Эрг (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It does look like a scan from a book. Can you explain the actual origin of the image? Jcb (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

User Эрг shows a growing body of copyrighted deleted images (please compare his discussion site).

Now what about this case: He let translate (?) some images like file:NADH Dehydrogenase Mechanism (ru).png or file:C4 photosynthesis PEPCK (ru).svg and uploaded them but did not mention the original author and - also interesting - changed the license.

How should we fix that? --155.91.64.15 07:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tatai buszjáratok, térkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG edit

Én nem szkenneltem egy képet sem. {{FoP-Hungary}}) Kérem a törlés visszavonását. - - Globetrotter19 (talk 11:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This file as merely a reproduction/copy of a 2D work. FoP does not apply for such cases. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jcb! Globetrotter19 contacted me and said that the deleted file is a cropped version of File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG which shows an information table erected in a permanent manner (Hungary has FoP). Thus, I think FoP applies in this case and the file can be restored. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, Einstein2 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with this explanation. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Music.2C_literature_etc.. The depicted work is not covered by FoP. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion request edit

Hi Jcb,

You closed the following deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 11.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 02.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 03.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 04.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 05.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 06.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gifty Oware-Aboagye 07.jpg with the rationale ": I found the ticket, ticket:2017021410014727, but it's not yet sufficient. Closing this DR for now. We grant 30 days to complete the verification process.", they only reason to keep those images while processing the ticket is if the permission is coming from the original photographer who took those images and/or if the person emailing OTRS attached written permission from the copyright holder. If this is not the case, please, re-open these discussions. @Revent: , could you please, help to take a look? Regards, Wikicology (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The ticket seems to come directly from the photographer, but I have responded them with an additional question to be sure, because I am not yet convinced. If the verification in not yet in order after 30 days, the blue OTRS template will take care of deletion. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Wikicology: After looking at the ticket, Jcb is correct here. A permission statement has been received by OTRS, but it needs verification. - Reventtalk 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, @Jcb and Revent: Wikicology (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Image Deletion edit

Hi Johan Bos,

You recently deleted the following images:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaki_with_mi_makir.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaki_in_front_of_his_large_landscape_2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Four_Seasons_1208.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_David_Poster.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oasis_1001.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paysage_6001.jpg

that happen to be important works by the artist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehouda_Chaki, although permission for using the images has been sent from the official email address of the artist himself to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org allowing them to be used on Wikipedia. The email was sent on March 27th and a confirmation of receipt was received the same day with Ticket#: 2017032710018939. I had also added "OTRS pending" to each image to insure the files would not be deleted before the review by OTRS.

If you could restore the images or let me know if there is anything I can do, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much,

Liquidwords (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ticket number, I will have a look. Jcb (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for having restored the files. The photographer has been informed regarding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaki_in_front_of_his_large_landscape_2016.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaki_with_mi_makir.jpg and will be sending an email to OTRS. I have also added "OTRS pending" on both of those images. Liquidwords (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

{OTRS pending} is not needed when {OTRS received} is on the page. {OTRS received} can be seen as the next step in the process. Jcb (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Thanks for the help Liquidwords (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rijndaal edit

Dear Sir, I was recently blocked due to my strong feelings about an issue that regarded deletion of my material. I'm sorry and regret that I mady any legal threats, hoping that it would resolve the issue. Would you please consider me as a person, citizen that does make mistakes, I bid my apologies, but I do have very important information to share, would you consider that please with Mr. Ian Thompson. He has point and I am sorry for that last line. Will you please discuss the blocking of my account, for I am sorry to have done these OT writings, out of anger and frustration, that were not needed.

I Thank you in advance and I hope not to be excluded from your community, no matter what point of view, aggression is not even relevant, I do have very important information to share, so on merits of my apologies and that, please consider me

Best regards, Edwin Vening Rijndaal (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Answered at your user talk page. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir, JCB, I am excluded (on valid wikipedia ruling reasons, that I bid my apologies for) from changing, adding, discussing issues, would you please take a look at it again, my username is Rijndaal , my name is Edwin Vening. Rijndaal (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

do you need my login to see what is blocked? Dank je wel Rijndaal (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mag anders gewoon in het Nederlands hier. Excuses zijn aanvaard, ik heb je alleen niet geblokkeerd. Hier op Wikimedia Commons ben je niet geblokkeerd en ook nooit geblokkeerd geweest. Ik zie dat je wel geblokkeerd bent op de Engelstalige Wikipedia, door Ian.thomson. Dat moet dan gebaseerd zijn op dingen die daar gebeurd zijn, niet op wat je op Commons hebt geschreven. De blokkade op en.wikipedia kan ik niets aan doen, ik ben daar geen beheerder. Jcb (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Beste, In ieder geval bedankt voor het uitzoekwerk en opheldering, het is mij nu duidelijk, ik hoop dat ik op de .EN pagina's nog een kans krijg want excuses is gemeend en dat is mijn belangrijkste mededeling aan dhr. Ian.thomson dus bij deze: Bedankt Johan!

Groetsels,

Edwin Rijndaal (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hungarikusz Firkasz edit

Hello Jcb,

I'll be brief. I would like to kindly but firmly request you to avoid all contacts with Hungarikusz Firkasz in the near future. Please do not touch his uploads, please stay away from OTRS matters relating to him, please avoid the debates with him. If you spot any problems, please kindly request anyone else to handle it, if it doesn't happen naturally anyway.

The reason is that you seem to have a personal grudge which seem to block you from acting without emotions. What you are doing is improper, you try to force your personal guidelines on your fellow editor with absolute inflexibility. The purpose of verification is only to ensure that the images have proper legal permissions, not that everyone have to follow every letter of the cited pages or they will be rejected. Rejections should be the last resort and not the main choice of events. (One possible sign of your emotional attachment is to pick an OTRS issue from permissions-hu which should normally be outside your responsibility.)

I accept that you may disagree with me. Please consider it as a sign that you may be emotionally attached to the subject and try to avoid it. You are obviously free to invide external opinions, I would welcome that. But really ask you not to get involved with him for a little while.

Thanks for your help. --grin 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Grin: No, it's the other way round. Hungarikusz Firkasz seems to be the one with personal rancour. Although my actions were just based on policy, I wanted to avoid any appearance of non neutral admin actions. So instead of blocking him myself, I asked an uninvolved admin to have a look. This leaded to a new series of disruptive actions by Hungarikusz Firkasz and subsequent warnings, resulting in a 3 days block for Hungarikusz Firkasz, in which I was uninvolved. I am not actively following him (and I never did), but I will not actively avoid him either. Which admin will be the next to be asked to stay away from him? Instead of trying to create room for disruptive behaviour by Hungarikusz Firkasz, please try to educate him. Today at least two previously uninvolved admins have warned this user. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

deleted file Bye bye havana film poster.jpg was nominated for deletion by a user that does not exist edit

File:Bye bye havana film poster.jpg[edit] this is an original artwork by the filmmaker used with his permission and also in public domain according to its creator please undelete!

Please ask the copyright holder to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SmythReport.jpg edit

I have requested that the file be undeleted. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. Can we get someone to translate the English version of the w:Smyth Report article into Dutch? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Borrado de "Silo2_Villacañas_Sala.jpg", "Silo_Villacañas_Sala.jpg", "Silo_Villacañas_Exterior.jpg" edit

No entiendo la razón para el borrado de los tres archivos: "Silo2_Villacañas_Sala.jpg", "Silo_Villacañas_Sala.jpg", "Silo_Villacañas_Exterior.jpg" del artículo "Silos de Villacañas" de la Wikipedia Española. El autor envió confirmación de su autoría, facilitó todos los derechos necesarios mediante ela plantilla oficial, los archivos se subieron igualmente a Flickr, y se proveyó de un enlace a tales archivos ¿qué más hace falta??

¿Sabe usted el número del ticket de OTRS? Jcb (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

DRFA edit

Hi Jcb,

Perhaps you already noticed that I closed the debate at com:AN/U as proceed with a DRFA. Please don't take it personal but given the number off supporters a DRFA is unavoidable. I wrote a draft: User:Natuur12/Jcb. I want sure that you are able to defend yourself. How much time do you need too write a defence? If you have any questions please ask me. If there is no responce I will initiate the DRFA on Friday. But if you need more time for your reply I can always move the starting date. Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I had a brief look and will try to write something in the next few days. One thing I noticed for now is the unmellow link. Not sure what you mean there, I am quite convinced that this is a polite way to ask for a ticket number. Maybe it's just the wrong link? Jcb (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I corrected the mellow link. Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of File:Alain Bensoussan Avocat.jpg edit

Good morning,

You deleted the File:Alain Bensoussan Avocat.jpg I put on Wikicommons despite the email (with my written authorisation) I sent to OTRS (permissions-fr@wikimedia.org) the 28th of March 2017 at 10:23 in which I said:

Je vous confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de la photo publiée à l'adresse
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bensoussan_(avocat)>.
Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette photo sous la licence : Template:Ccby2.5).
Ce faisant, je reconnais que je permets à quiconque d'utiliser ma photographie même dans un produit commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.
Conscient de toujours jouir des droits extrapatrimoniaux sur ma photographie, je garde le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.
Conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.
Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.
28 mars 2017, Alain Bensoussan

I may inform you I received this answer:

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
Date: 2017-03-28 10:23 GMT+02:00
Subject: [Ticket#2017032810007467] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Déclaration de conse [...])
To: Alain Bensoussan <alain-bensoussan@alain-bensoussan.com>
Dear Alain Bensoussan,
Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the meantime, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.
If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017032810007467].
Yours sincerely,
The Volunteer Response Team

Is there anything I can do?

Thank you for your help

--Alain Bensoussan (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The ticket will be handled by somebody, but this may take several weeks, because OTRS has a backlog. Once a valid permission has been established, the OTRS agent will take care for undeletion. Jcb (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Suppression de fichiers edit

Bonjour, je viens de voir que vous aviez supprimé les 3/4 des fichiers que je venais de mettre dans wikimedia commons. Pourquoi avoir tout supprimé? Même des image que J'AI pris et qui ne viennent pas de Facebook comme vous l'avez dit. Vous n'avez même pas cherché à comprendre et vous avez tout supprimé. Je ne vous en remercie pas et je trouve que vous êtes de mauvaise fois bien que certains de mes fichiers auraient dû être supprimé. Je ne vous salut pas, Lethiernois

You uploaded files with traces showing that they were copied from Facebook. This is actually visible in the metadata. If you upload pictures you took, please upload the file as generated by your camera, instead of first uploading to Facebook, then downloading from Facebook and then uploading that downloaded file to our servers. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, en effet, j'utilise deux comptes Facebook pour transférer une image de mon galaxy S6 edge (appareil photo) à mon ordinateur où je les mettrai dans wikimédia common. Mais je me les envoi que par messages privés donc je ne vois pas où est le problème? Lethiernois 22:21, 7 Avril 2017

The problem is that many files get uploaded here that people found on Facebook and there is no way for us to verify that you are telling the truth. Why don't you upload them directly from your Galaxy to Wikimedia Commons? Jcb (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah oui je comprends tout-à-fait que vous n'avez pas de moyens de vérifier, si je ne transfère pas les fichiers directement de mon Galaxy c'est que je trouve que c'est plus pratique sur l'ordinateur. Est-ce qu'un fichier transféré depuis mon Galaxy sur mon ordinateur via un cable USB type B serait une solution? Lethiernois 10:46, 8 Avril 2017

Yes, I think that will work. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Use of automated tools like COM:VFC for batch deletions edit

See Special:Diff/239916782. I suggest to stop using any such tools and slow down your deletions file by file until we find a reasonable solution. Also, try to provide a custom human readable/understandable deletion log whenever possible. Jee 11:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, you must understand that 'no source/license/permission' deletions are not the result of a community process, but instead speedy deletions. You are responsible for having a specific justification for the deletion of each file, based on policy, when you delete it. When you simply nuke the categories with VFC, you are engaging in 'bot-like behavior' (see COM:BP), and the community has not endorsed that. You must stop. - Reventtalk 12:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Revent while I support this step to identify specific issues that are clear to define and stop, can we also follow through with the other parts: (a) to improve our policy/procedure to indicate what is not desirable behaviour (e.g. Mass deletion of a category that has not been discussed at DR, say) and (b) to fix our bots/tools/etc so that they make it harder/impossible to do this. Can the VFC tool be changed to disallow deletion of a category of files? Or at the very least, to prompt the user to confirm they have a clear community mandate to do this. If Commons is to improve, we need to fix it for all admins and users, not just Jcb. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's good to know that I use VFC after checking the files. You will be able to find many cases in my contributions where I un-tagged one or more files before flushing the category, e.g. here yesterday. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Revent: Please confirm that you have read this response. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Jcb, this not about whether you are right or wrong. Around 20 people expressed an opinion about you in an ANU discussion and nearly half of them have a disagreement. So you need to slow down your activities until an agreeable solution is achieved. Meanwhile, I just started a discussion to address the underlying issues. Jee 06:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Jcb, is this your response to the whole DRFA discussion? That, actually, you think you're doing it just fine, and folk just need to be informed that "honestly, I do take care, even if you can't see it". It isn't working out for you so far, so why do you think carrying on as before is going to be accepted by anyone? At the very least, I'd expect some timeline like Revents, where you indicate when you "checked the files", gave them your fullest consideration, and patched up the few that had been fixed or otherwise could be saved, etc. But event that, at this stage, isn't sufficient. Throughout all this, for months now, I have been asking for the admin community to work together (and that means with you too) to define improved procedures, policies and tools, that everyone is happy with. Whatever procedure you are internally following right now, no matter how justified you think it is, the community is not happy with it. You need to document it and be open to change it by agreeing to modifications with the others. I see Jee has started a discussion that is related, though he seems to have got a couple of "no problem here, move along folks" responses, which is disappointing.
We need suggestions about how we can not only do the right thing, but be seen to be doing the right thing, and how we can reduce the chance that mistakes are made. Some random examples:
  • Insisting there two pairs of eyes to review a file before it is deleted. This is a classic and obvious way to improve quality, and some have already suggested that tagging & deleting must be done by a different admin. Can we agree to that, and if so, for what sets of circumstances?
  • Images that are in-use on Wikipedia are by that fact valuable and also most likely to upset someone when they are deleted. Perhaps they should always go to DR and even have the DR highlight this fact so that admins take extra care over it.
  • It seems particularly galling if the file was deleted partly because of the incompetence of the person who transferred it from WP to COM, or because the "missing source" notification did not go to the original file-uploader, but to some mass-transfer user who doesn't give a damn. Can we fix this?
  • Some clarity is needed, I think, on what constitutes "missing source". If the source field is missing, but he source is given elsewhere, that's probably not an appropriate tag. The source field should be fixed, and if there is still doubt that the source is adequate, send to DR?
And so on. I'm not an admin, so don't know the procedures or typical scenarios. But this isn't rocket science. Revent, and others involved here, I think you all need to find a public forum and debate this stuff. Find a procedure that works for you all. But Jcb, if you don't engage with this process now, I'll be joining the support votes at a DRFA. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if you are aware, but I hardly use the {no source} tag myself since October. In most cases I start a regular DR instead. In the past weeks I have responded to several issues at several places, but the accusation of Revent as of I would just blindly flush the {no source}, {no permission} and {no license} categories, is totally new to the discussion. I don't understand why Revent does not AGF and at least asks me first before assuming that I would do so. About a year ago if I remember well, I was asked about the usage of VFC for these cats. I explaned how I handled them and that's were the discussion stopped. Using VFC instead of one by one deletion, after checking the files of course, saves at least 5 seconds per file. So if we calculate with about 150 involved files every day, this mechanisation saves over 12 minutes a day, without any difference in how good files are checked. Before I start VFC, I load the files one by one in a separate tab and check them. You will be able to find a lot of untaggings or conversions to regular DRs between my edits between 23:40 and 0:00. Yesterday I did these untaggings while checking the cats: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Jcb (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the slow response, I've been mostly offline, and was also pondering exactly how to respond.
When I detailed, in the discussion at BN, exactly how you had used VFC to speedily delete files on one particular night, there was immediate and strong disapproval of the use of the tool in such a manner expressed by a number of editors, including several suggestions that the functionality be completely removed from the tool. That being the case, and given the obvious fact that you have been systematically using the tool in such a manner for months, it seemed quite obvious to tell you to stop until and if the community decides that it is acceptable.
During the discussion at ANU (on March 28th), when I was discussing with you the case of a particular file that you had deleted as 'missing source', you gave a justification (which was not 'missing source', but that you believed the source was incorrect) for your refusal to undelete the file later, when asked. You also said that you were unsure why I was describing the deletion as 'speedy'. When I pointed out that such deletions are indeed, obviously speedies, you did not respond. You also offered no explanation, at that time, for your original speedy deletion of the file with an incorrect rationale...the reason for that, quite obviously, is that you speedily deleted it using VFC.
In the time between that conversation, and my post here, the apparent evidence is that you have made no substantial change to your process for speedily deleting such files. What is more, since the strong expression of disapproval of the use of the tool for such a purpose at BN, and my warning of you here, you have continued to do so (between 00:03, 2017 April 7 and 00:04, 2017 April 7, you deleted 141 files with the log entry "User:Revent (A/OS): Files have been manually reviewed one by one before starting VFC - Missing permission as of 30 March 2017 - Using VisualFileChange."). At this point it seems to clearly, IMO, be a refusal to listen. - Reventtalk 10:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Revent, do those files were tagged with "no permission" or "no source"? Do those deletions were after Jcb's comment at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#No_permission_and_no_source_tags. If true, I'm very disappointed. (The time-stamp you quoted seems earlier.) Anyway I ask Jcb not to touch any files tagged with those templates until a solution is arrived. Jee 11:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC) He is free to convert them to normal deletion requests. Jee 11:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jkadavoor: The deletions that mentioned me in the edit summary appear to have been of 'no permission' files, and were prior to Jcb's comment at VPP. I'm not even arguing that some (or even possibly, most) were not valid 'no permission' deletions, but they were after he was specifically asked to not use the tool for that purpose, and if he spent (as he said) 20 minutes or so looking at them first it works out to 8-9 seconds a file.... way too fast, IMO. - Reventtalk 11:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Revent, it looks to me like a frustrating action from his side to defend he was not wrong. There is no need for it. Me and Colin had asked him again to slow down (see our comments above). Those deletions seem prior to our second warning. Hope he will not repeat it; otherwise anyone is free to move to ANU and I'll not try to defend him. (This is the last chance.) Jee 11:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Revent: the reason I mentioned you in the deletion reason was the fact that you did not yet respond to my message here combined with your very inappropriate mention of the blocking policy here, jumping to conclusions before even bothering to ask me for an explanation. That's unbecoming for an admin. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I got a nice ping from an unexpected direction, see here another example about me not being 'bot-like'. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You thought the appropriate response was a one line reply, and to keep doing what you had been specifically asked to stop doing? You can argue about if you thought it was appropriate for me to warn you (and I have not seen any other complaints, despite it being mentioned at BN) but I think you should quite know that the expected response is not to simply keep doing it. It's not a matter of simply explaining it to me, and then moving on. Several members of the community immediately objected, strongly, to the use of VFC in such a manner, and multiple people suggested the functionality be disabled, prior to my message here. To quote Basvb, "It is not a problem to make mistakes, it is a problem when one does not fix the mistakes made. Working towards a solution when somebody raises questions about your actions is needed"

I'm perfectly willing to discuss this whole issue in detail with you and the community (and no, I do not think you are acting in bad faith, I simply think you are messing up), but a necessary preliminary for that discussion is that you stop using the tool in a manner that the community has clearly, and strongly, objected to. At this point, if you keep doing it, it becomes less a matter of what you are actually doing than a matter of failing to listen to community objections and persisting in the problematic behavior.

Given that you, based on your own statements, clearly understood my original message as a warning, and persisted, and have now received what Jkadavoor described as 'our second warning' from him and Colin (and given that I have seen no objections, other than your, to the initial warning), I feel completely justified in stating that if you continue to use VFC to process such speedy deletions en masse, until and unless the community endorses it, I will block you until you agree to stop. - Reventtalk 00:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can give allowance for Jcb being make shorter, one line responses considering his language difficulties. (I'm not blindly trusting the babel infohe provided on his user page.) But he must stop using those tools and stop speedying files having "no permission" or "no source" tags until the community allow him to use them again. He is free to convert them to normal deletion requests. This means I endorse the block warning by Revent. Jee 03:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jkadavoor: Well, tonight he didn't use VFC, at least, but still speedied 29 'no permission' files (over about 20 minutes) and 29 'no source' files (over about 5 minutes). I really, really, really don't want to block him over this, but it's hard to take this, at this point, as anything other than a deliberate refusal to listen to concerns, and 'gaming the system' regarding exactly what he was warned to stop doing. The main thing stopping me from actually blocking him right now is that I'm personally quite annoyed that he seems to think it's okay to simply disregard community concerns, as long as he does it 'manually'.
I would note, for the benefit of anyone else reading this, that Jcb has done this after his comments at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#No_permission_and_no_source_tags where he suggested simply stopping the usage of the 'no permission' and 'no source' tags. - Reventtalk 08:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Upon looking closer Jcb's deletions tonight were apparently shortly before my long comment at 00:22. - Reventtalk 08:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hope he will not repeat it. Jee 08:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Revent: @Jkadavoor: I wrote I would stop pasting those templates. Did you see me pasting even a single one after that comment? As of the 29 'no source' files, did you notice most of them were from the same uploader with the exact same situation? That's often the case with these cats: dozens of files may be from the same uploader with the exact same situation. Do you think any of these 'no source' deletions was erroneous? They were now just 29, so it should be an easy job to have a look yourself. Revent, last night I have tried to be really careful on handling those cats. I have not used VFC, although I don't understand why this would be problematic after checking the files one by one. Can you please tell me what is the exact problem with my deletions of last night, instead of just threatening me? Maybe some other active admins could help me finding the problem? Because at this moment it seems that the main accusation is just being 'productive'. Since when being 'productive' is a problem in itself? Pinging some active admins who may help finding out what the exact problem is with my actions: @Jameslwoodward: @Ellin Beltz: @Daphne Lantier: @Christian Ferrer: @Taivo: @Magog the Ogre: @Krd: @Jdx: At this point I really don't understand why Revent keeps threatening me. Jcb (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not a regular of the categories "no sources" and "no permissions". Most of the images I delete are speedy deleted by me and comes mainly from the uploads made by new users or from "media needing categories". I use VFC when there is several images to delete (exemple), but of I course opened and checked these files one by ones. It has even already happened once or twice that I deleted in this way more than 50 or 60 images at the same time, yes, yes this happen! But the main difference with Jcb is that the images deleted by me in this way were not tagged and don't come from a category but are the uploads of one user. I explain, if you open and check a file because it has a "no permission" tag or a "no source" tag, it is very easy and relatively fast to click on the small basket to delete the file as it is already opened. In my case, I mean in cases of images not yet tagged, it is not the same because I check and open all the files one by one, and I delete all the obvious coppyvio uploaded by one users. It will be a lost of time to check 50 copyvios uploaded by the same uploader, and then to tag them, and either to start a second VFC in order to delete the tagged images or to let another administrator to open and check again these 50 images. That's said I see no issue to delete with VLC images previously opened and checked, but if this is a concern for the other users here, Jcb you should maybe listen to them and delete the file one by one, and if you really open and check these files then it is not so much work for you, just 2 clicks for each files (one on the small bracket, and one to confirm the deletion). If it can satisfy them I encourage you to do that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • The problem is that this is exactly what I did last night, I did use the basket, deleting the files one by one. But after that I received a new threatening from Revent. Jcb (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict)Honestly, the main issue I see at this point is that after the community expressed doubts about how you were handling such deletions, and expressed doubts (that you apparently agreed with) about the process as a whole, you appear to have simply continued with them instead of stopping until the matter had been discussed, and a consensus reached. Admins are expected to only use the tools when there is a clear community consensus that the use is appropriate... you seem to have continued after it became clear that there was at least a local consensus to reconsider the process.
This is, in my opinion, far less a matter of if any particular deletion was correct, than a matter of if you are willing to stop using the tools while the community consensus is unclear. I think it is apparent, however, from activity at COM:UDR, that you have been wrong in a large number of such cases.
To make it explicit, 'no source/license/permission' deletions are speedy deletions (and you appear to have misunderstood this, per your comment at ANU). Admins are only allowed to speedily delete files when a 'broad consensus' (see COM:CSD) exists that such actions are appropriate. After the discussion at COM:BN, during I pointed out that you were using VFC for such deletions, and the community expressed disapproval, there was a discussion at COM:VPP, (in which you participated) that brought the existence of such a broad consensus into serious doubt. Despite this, you continued speedily deleting such files. You need to stop until the community reaches a consensus about the matter. If you do not, the only remaining recourse is to block you and start a de-adminship proceeding. I truly hope it does not come to that. - Reventtalk 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Revent: Could you please point out which no source / no permission deletion of last night may be controversial? Or, if you cannot, could you please stop threatening me? I will stop using VFC for these two tags for now, that should be satisfying. Jcb (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: If you don't persist in doing what the community objected to, after being asked to stop, then there is no reason to repeat such a warning. AFAIK, this is the first time that you've said you will stop using VFC for such deletions.
When I left the second, explicit warning (00:22, 9 April 2017) I had not yet noticed that you had speedied more files, that night, while not using VFC. Due to the time zone difference, I actually did not realize until I looked at the timestamp that it was after midnight UTC. Despite that, you still had not indicated, until now, that you would not go back to using VFC on nights when the categories were more populated. - Reventtalk 06:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Revent: Ok, I see. So if I understand well, there was in principle no problem with the way I handled the cats 9 April? For now also most nights I will not be able to be online past 0:00 UTC, due to the summer time. 0:00 UTC = 02:00 CEST. So most days I will just be able to look at the files that are left late in the afternoon. This practical circumstance may give some rest for now. Jcb (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: The specific thing I was warning you about was using VFC to wipe the categories nightly after the community objected to you doing so, and you were asked to stop. Other people have objected to you working on those categories at all, for now, but that's outside the scope of what I was specifically telling you to stop doing.
Outside of that, I think it's rather problematic that the categories be wiped, nightly, by one particular admin, in that you appear to be approaching it as something to be handled 'quickly', and as a matter of process. That kind of approach, in and of itself, leads to mistakes, and I think such mistakes (and, apparently, not understanding that such deletions are speedies and not the result of a community process) are what has led to much of the past drama at COM:UDR regarding your deletions.
As far as your deletions on the 9th, I have only specifically looked at a few, but File:ERMITA DE LA ALDEA.JPG stands out. I don't think it's appropriate to speedily delete a file that has been on Commons for a decade unless it's shown to be a clear copyvio. - Reventtalk 08:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
To be very clear, I'm not saying that file should have been kept. I'm saying it should have gone to DR instead of being speedily deleted. - Reventtalk 08:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's a valid point. In October I stopped pasting these tags to files uploaded over three years ago. Converting to regular DR for older uploads as a standard practice could be helpful. Jcb (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Jcb Very well, by accepting such small constraints on your way of working, you will show to your detractors and to the community your ability to make efforts and your willingness to work collaboratively. I guess the issue is just a question of date and timing. This discussion begans a few days ago and after this : Special:Diff/239916782, and you said above "last night", I guess they don't complain for the last night. Just says "ok guys, I will not use VLC anymore for deleting images coming from a maintenance category (no source, no permission, copyvios...", and just do it! I mean as you did last night, and I guess this discussion should be mainly relsolved. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Christian Ferrer: Per Commons:VPP#No_permission_and_no_source_tags (a discussion that Jcb is aware of), the community is questioning the process as a whole. Such deletions, as speedies, should stop until it is decided.... they can still proceed as DRs. - Reventtalk 12:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Revent: Yes and no, there is a proposal indeed but the templates are still in use and likely a lot of users continue right now to use it, and likely too that most the administrators are not aware and will continue too to delete the files tagged from more than 7 days. So while there is no definitive decision I will not shoot Jcb if he delete the files one by one and without VLC, and that was the topic of this discussion. We have to deactivate the templates first, if not, the process continue, and some (most?) images tagged with "no permission" are sometimes obvious copyvios and must be deleted without further delay. So no, an ongoing discussion is not a yet a community decision. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Christian Ferrer: I have no objection, at all, to obvious copyvios being speedied 'as' obvious copyvios, regardless of if they have been tagged with 'no license/source/permission' or not. I do object to them being deleted with some other rationale in the log, which seems to be the result of using VFC to process those categories. I also see no particular reason why those categories need to be processed, nightly, by a single admin on the stroke of midnight, especially when many of that admin's actions when doing so have been controversial in the past (such as deleting images as 'no source' when the source was simply in the description). - Reventtalk 06:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • @Revent: ok understood. @Jcb: since you pinged me I say my point of view, I think you should go in their direction, even if you live this a bit as an injustice. It's a bit like a visible effort. I for my part trust in you or in all cases I tend to AGF regarding potential mistakes in the past, however I'm not the issue here, and to try to regain confidence of the colleagues here, colleagues that I appreciate, you have to work collaboratively with them, and forgive them the possible injustices against you if so. Learning to work together can only be done if there is a clear will on all sides, and that's mean do not focus on the negative points or disagreements. Concretely, do what they requires. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Although it appears that the discussion may have gone past this issue, for the record, I would object strenuously to eliminating the ability to use VFC for deletions. When closing a DR with many files, it is much faster to go to VFC than to go through them one at a time, even using DelReqHandler. Since VFC shows a thumbnail of each image and the image data with mouseovers, it is possible to review the files without doing any pageloads. I also use VFC, carefully, when I run across a user, often a newbie, who has uploaded a number of apparent copyvios. VFC allows me to review them one by one and then do all the deletions at once, saving time and pageloads. Of course the key to this is to use it carefully, but doing away with a powerful tool because it has occasionally been used incorrectly would be a serious mistake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Note to all: This (do not use COM:VFC, do not use or process files tagged by the "no permission" or "no source" tags) is not a constraint to all; but exclusive to Jcb. You must aware that Jcb is facing a "de-sysop" request and I'm the one mainly oppose for the time-being until the fate of those templates are decided. Note that this request (to stop using them) is made by me in a friendly way; so Jcb need not to feel attacked. If Jcb still can't accept restriction, I'm no more opposing a "de-sysop" request. Jcb should consider how much effort I had taken to solve this dispute. Jee 14:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jkadavoor: Do I understand well that you do not have a problem with the manual one by one deletion, without VFC, as I did last night? Jcb (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I didn't check the details in depth. But as you too opposed the current use of "no permission" and "no source" templates; I think you should avoid deleting files tagged by them with a default log "no permission" or "no source". I think it is better you stay away from that queue for the time-being as we have other admins to take care of it until my proposal is closed. To be frank, any attempt to interfere in that section will create pressure on you and me too.   Jee 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

DJ Seip 3 - Deleted ??? edit

Hello Jcb, If proof is required i can validate that i am Niclas Riccardo Königsbüscher (alias DJ Seip) the owner of the photo that you just deleted. It is an older profile photo of MY Facebook page, twitter page, wikipedia page, etc. The file originates out of photoshop where it was enhanced and enlarger for print resolution as it has been printed on more than 100 campaigns all over the world.

If there is a way to prove that i am the owner of this photo then please inform me on how to do this. Best Regards, Niclas Königsbüscher (DJ Seip)

In principle, copyright belongs to the photographer rather than to the depicted person. Please ask the photographer to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Pinhas Noy.jpg edit

Hi! You've deleted the file providing a missing source as a reason. But I am pretty sure that I've added the source immediately after following nomination of the file for deletion. Unfortunately, I cannot see my deleted edits, but you should be able to see them and confirm that it was done. If the source was for some reason insufficient, let me know but there definitely was one. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The source is indeed there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Deinocheirus: Thanks for the notification. Yes, everything seems fine. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Smyth Report edit

"'reproduction in whole or in part is authorized and permitted' is not compatible with COM:L. So unless the work fell somehow into PD, we can't restore it."

What? This is compatible with COM:L. It meets all the required criteria. COM:L says that public domain is also permitted, but it is not required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, it doesn't. Explicit permission for commercial usage and derivative work most be present. Anyway, this file is PD after all and therefore restored. Jcb (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Poplawski edit

Hi, picture: File:Poplawski erby trzacka.gif - Old style Coast of arms - before 1900 no copyright - my complimations, I am author File:Herbar Rycerzstva 1584.gif - Old documents before 1900 - no copyright File:Trzaska dokument.gif - Old documents before 1900 - no copyright File:Poplawski erb.gif - Old coast of arms - I work new colours File:Poplawski erb1900.gif - Complimations old Coast of arms before 1900 - family weeding - I am author complimation File:Poplawski ostroya.gif - Old style Coast of arms - before 1900 no copyright File:Poplawski erb Jadwiga Ventskovska.gif - - Complimations old Coast of arms before 1900 - family weeding - I am author complimation Please open for wiki. Thank you.

Works from around 1900 may very well be copyrighted. These files were missing information, so that copyright situation cannot be determined. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I was wrong when he described recording. Sorry.

1. file: Poplawski erby trzacka.gif - Coast of Arms left picture is from 1296 and second from 1590! No copyright. I am the author of a composite image. OK? 2. File:Trzaska dokument.gif - historic book Herbar Polsky 1842! No copyright. OK? 3. File:Poplawski erb.gif - Old coast of arms, origin is free in internet. and picture have others colours This is presentation my family, OK? 4. File:Poplawski erb1900.gif - This is picture coast of arms weeding family, I AM AUTHOR, no exist the same picture, complimation historic info. OK? File:Poplawski ostroya.gif - Old style Coast of arms - free in internet. Long before 1900.. No copyright. File:Poplawski erb Jadwiga Ventskovska.gif - This is picture coast of arms weeding family, I AM AUTHOR, no exist the same picture, complimation historic info. OK? Thank you for your cooperation. --David Ludvig (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mates: Can you help this user to sort this out? CS seems to be his native language. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'll inform you if I get some information. --Mates (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@David Ludvig: Dobrý den, mluvíte-li česky, napište mi prosím na diskusní stránku, co jste chtěl napsat zde kolegovi; pokusím se Vám pomoci. --Mates (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jcb, I come with information I've got from the user as I promised. I am not really kind with licensing of heraldry so it would be better for me to discuss it with you before deciding. Here is the list of files with additional information:

I am not sure about the COM:Scope of some of these images. They have bad resolution and are in gif format although our originals there are in svg. --Mates (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • Thanks! For the CoA's the copyright situation remains unclear. The general design of a CoA could e.g. be from 1590, but if somebody drew a depiction of that CoA recently, that depiction is copyrighted. The only file that is clearly PD is the book cover, but I'm not sure whether this one is in scope. All of them seem out of scope anyway, we would better use the higher quality versions already available. I am not convinced that we should undelete any of them, but if you come to a different conclusion, feel free to act at your discretion. Jcb (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      I forgot one information, the user introduced himself as a member of Family Poplawski (but I did no effort yet to verify the information i.e with OTRS) and said about the first picture that he made the compilation of those CoA's. Anyway I am not undeleting anything until I know the source for those crowns; also I agree that images are low quality and I know we have some users that sometimes do draw new CoA's from files we already have (example).Perhaps we could wait or ask them if they wouldn't do it as David Ludvig did not seem to upload new versions. However maybe it would be easier for them if they could see what to draw, what do you mean? --Mates (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requesting undeletion of File:Pittsburgh-HD-Radio-Emergency-Alert-System-Test.ogv edit

This File is NOT a violation of someone else's copyright due to the original file being on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyOMqqNDAZk which is MY YouTube channel Bbabybear02. I wanted to share it here to show that some HD Radios have EAS options. Everything shown in the video is what I made. The license has been changed on Youtube to Creative Commons - Attribution meaning I have given Wikipedia permission to use my video. I am requesting an undeletion.Bbabybear02 (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Changing the license at Youtube was indeed the easiest way to get the file restored here. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of Suresh Manickavelu.jpg file edit

I am a user of Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons. I am just creating a draft and adding files to commons. Every user has the right to add pictures of their own work and create draft. I am not creating an article, it is just a draft. why did you delete the media file?

The files was deleted, because there was no evidence of permission from the photographer. Please ask the photographer to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of logo for Croatian Quality edit

Hi I saw that you recently deleted the logo for the above page. I understand the concerns but it seems a shame that an article about a quality label does not have an image of the logo for this label. I was wondering what would be needed to use an image of this logo and comply with the fair use of copyrighted material and the guidelines on use of logos. Thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair Use files can only be uploaded locally at the English Wikipedia, not at Wikimedia Commons. For more information, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content - Jcb (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Need help!!! edit

Hei someone has upload my father picture on common can you please delete this picture because my father is deied, and this picture is a personal picture help me please someone take the picture from my facebook and this is the picture that i want you to deleted. File:Abdulsatar Baloch.jpg Bukti.khan (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I see no reason why this picture should have been uploaded in the first place. Jcb (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is also my brothers i dont know what this picture do here please do something with this 2 picture also:) File:Brother of Baloch rukhshani.jpg File:Received 1548407625488904.jpg Bukti.khan (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A closer look that the uploader tells that all there uploads seem to be copyright violations or otherwise problematic. Many of them had already been deleted before. I have flushed the remaining files. Jcb (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Kilic Ali Pasha.jpg edit

Hi, how do you know is is old enough ? The dates indicated are the birth and death of the subject, not the author. Cheers, — Racconish ☎ 11:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Portraits are very unlikely to be created centuries after the depicted person lived. Jcb (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is a rather akward argument  . I have uploaded here a 16th century portrait. As you can see, it is rather different. You will also notice the image you declined to delete is signed at the bottom right, which is a modern practice. — Racconish ☎ 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please feel free to start a regular DR on this file, to see what others think. I will not close it. Jcb (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Will do. My apologies : for some reason I thought you were closing a DR. — Racconish ☎ 08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Ceccobelli Leda.jpg edit

Hi! You deleted File:Ceccobelli Leda.jpg as a copyright violation on 9 April. I can't see the exact link and reasons I gave for the speedy deletion, but I think my rationale read "apparently taken straight from Ceccobelli's website, where it is entitled "Venere", and the photographer attributed as Aurelio Amendola". What appears to be the same file is back, at File:Leda, travertine 2000.jpg. The same rationale seems to apply. Should I make a new deletion request, or can you deal with this without? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's indeed the same file. Thanks for the notification.   Nuked - Jcb (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi I have sent an email to permissions-commonsATwikimedia.org attaching the email by CEccobelli, by which he authorizes me to publish three files "Leda", "Artista re" and "Ceccobelli in San Fortunato". Is it enough to ask the undeletion of the files? Thanks!

If a valid permission is processed, the involved OTRS agent will take care for undeletion. Please be aware that permission has to come from the photographer, not from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Bethlen Margit 02.jpg edit

Please restore the image as the source explicitly says the author is unknown ("Szerző: azonosítatlan"). This info was changed by Hungarikusz Firkász, who did not provide a source to strengthen his claim that the photographer was Oszkár Kallós who died in 1955. I am waiting for his answer. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If it is not sure who the author is, then 1930 is not old enough. {{PD-old-assumed}} can be used for pictures from before 1897. Jcb (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, {{PD-Hungary/en}} is the relevant one here. Anyway, none of them are criterias for speedy deletion, so, please restore image and, at least, launch a deletion request. We can discuss it. The reliable source definitely states that the author is unknown. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Start an UDR if you wish, I am not undeleting the file. I am not convinced. The author being unknown is not just something like 'we at Commons are not sure'. Jcb (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The source says the author is unknown. Did you read my sentences above?! --Norden1990 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg edit

Hello, I'm Aida, I want to ask you why you removed the file File:Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg? The author send the autoritation 3 times, and I think that you should check it. Thank you so much. Cordially: --Aidalova (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you ask the author if he/she received a ticket number? With that number I can take a look. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Of course, she received that number: Ticket#2017040910008848 --Aidalova (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I found the ticket in the queue. It will probably be processed within a few weeks. The involved OTRS agent will take care for undeletion if the permission is valid. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you very much --Aidalova (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fw: Category:Copyright violations edit

Thanks for the ad. Done! --Brgesto (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

DR edit

Hi JCB, When you have a spare 5 minutes could you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FoP-Italy and close if necessary, I'm not sure about the whole FOP and Italy thing however it does seem like the nominator has cherrypicked images they want deleted, (I agree some images may fail COM:FOP#Italy however there's been a "de minimis" arguement with some so I believe these should be speedy kept and if wanted renominated by someone who understands it all),
If you'd rather not close it or simply agree with the nom than that's cool I mean personally I'm not fussed whether these are kept or deleted but figured I'd ask for closure so these could be renominated by someone more clueful if necessary,
Anyway Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at a part of them and those ones seem to be eligible for deletion. If I close such a DR, I look at the files one by one. If some of the files can be kept, I will keep these files. At this moment it is too early to close the DR, it was started 4 days ago. Jcb (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Logo Corona colombia.png edit

Hi, It would be good that you don't delete files which are in use and where there is no copyright issue. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Apparently I overlooked the usage. No problem with the restoration. Jcb (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is the only reason you deleted the images that are named "File:Maria Ford 2016-Model-Pro Dancer XX.jpg" due to the watermarks that are present? If so, then I think I can salvage two of them by dint of judicious cropping - File:Maria Ford 2016-Model-Pro Dancer 01.jpg and File:Maria Ford 2016-Model-Pro Dancer 02.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The watermarks are an indication that OTRS permission will be needed. Earlier uploads have been fixed with an OTRS ticket, so I would not be surprised if these files will be restored by an OTRS agent shortly. Jcb (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Question about OTRS edit

Hello. In reference to File:Richard Myers.jpg (and File:Richard Myers (cropped).jpg), would I be able to forward the message myself to OTRS? I was in contact via email with the Director of Photo Services at Kansas State University, which is in the Division of Communications and Marketing. He granted me permission to use it, as well as provided a larger version instead of the smaller version found here. If you need proof of who he is, I can provide the link. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The best would be if they contact us directly. Or you could reply to them with a CC to us, so that we can contact them directly if we have questions. I don't know the details of this case, but in many cases we have additional questions for the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alrighty, I will just go ahead and email them again and see if they'll send the form. Will I need to re-upload the files again will they be restored once they've sent the email and it's been verified? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks for your help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Luiz_Fernando_Carvalho_Credito_Melina_Dalboni.png edit

Hello, I´ve sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org about 20 days ago with a declaration of consent and release of rights to a file - Ticket#2017033010011591 File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luiz_Fernando_Carvalho_Credito_Melina_Dalboni.png Is it possible to review my request? How long does it take review, in general? Thank you for your help, Bia2017 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The ticket is in the queue, I found it. The OTRS backlog is currently about 50 days unfortunately. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Krzysztof Pastor, photo Łukasz Murgrabia.tif. edit

Hello. The file I have send was delated, but I have sent permission in polish language (to permissions-commons-pl@wikimedia.org) following the instructions on polish wikipedia sites. Should I upload file or send permission once again? And could you tell me please how long does it take to review the permission? --Bebronka (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

As you can read immediately above your question, the current backlog of OTRS is about 50 days. Jcb (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Bebronka and Jcb: indeed the permission arrived (#2017041910010496), I was about to process it. Could you please undelete it? Halibutt (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please stick to the appropriate request pages, COM:UDR in this case. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Byzantine empire themes 1025-ka.svg edit

Why did you delete this file? გიო ოქრო (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please recheck the file name, I cannot find a deleted file with this name. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have allready checked it. It is the name. გიო ოქრო (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I can't help you then. No file with this name has ever existed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
[2] see this. გიო ოქრო (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Next time please copy/paste the file name, to avoid small differences. If the file name is not exactly correct (2 missing capitals in this case), we won't be able to find it. The file was deleted after this DR. Jcb (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

DEMANDE DE SUPPRESSION PHOTO ALIX BENEZECH edit

Bonjour Jcb Demande de suppression de courtoisie. Je suis Samsara95 et j'ai posté une photo de l'actrice Alix Bénézech (photo prise lors du Festival de la fiction TV à La Rochelle en septembre 2016). Mon erreur a été de ne pas avoir demandé l'accord de l'actrice pour publier cette photo. L'actrice trouve que c'est une mauvaise photo, qui peut nuire à son image et à sa carrière.

Elle m'a demandé de retirer cette photo et veut porter plainte contre moi. Je veux moi aussi que cette photo soit supprimée pour éviter tous soucis et STOPPER les poursuites. J'en appelle à votre compréhension pour annuler cette photo et satisfaire les deux parties Une photo de l'actrice sera postée dans quelques jours par un photographe choisi par elle. Remerciements Samsara95

Hello Jcb Request for deletion of courtesy. I am Samsara95 and I posted a photo of the actress Alix Bénézech (photo taken at the Festival of fiction TV in La Rochelle in September 2016). My mistake was not to have asked the agreement of the actress to publish this picture. The actress finds it a bad photo, which can harm her image and her career.

She asked me to remove this picture and wants to file a complaint against me. I also want this photo to be removed to avoid any worries and STOP the prosecution. I appeal to your understanding to cancel this photo and satisfy both parties A photo of the actress will be posted in a few days by a photographer chosen by her. Thanks

mails de l'actrice: Bonjour Bernard, J'espère que vous allez bien. J'ai constaté que l'une des photos que vous avez prise de moi au Festival de la Rochelle est apparue en photo principale sur google et sur mon wikipedia sans mon autorisation et sans que j'en sois informée. La photo a été prise hors photocall et dans des conditions non professionnelle, il s'agit d'une photo de fan. Je me souviens très bien du moment car j'étais en route pour la projection de Nina et je me suis arrêtée pour que plusieurs fans puissent prendre des photos. Les photos dans ce cadre sont à usage privé.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alix_Bénézech La lumière de cette photo ne me rend pas justice et je ne suis vraiment pas à l'aise avec cette image qui selon mon agence As Talents me porte préjudice professionnellement. Je vous prie de bien vouloir la supprimer de wikipedia ainsi que de tous les sites où elle a été postée dans les plus brefs délais. Je joins copie de mon mail à mon agence As Talents et mon avocat Mathieu Davy chez Oriamedia. Bien cordialement,

Autre mail adressé à Charles Antonier (Permissions - Wikimédia Francophone <permissions-fr@wikimedia.org>) Bonjour Charles, au vu de votre réponse, je suis dans l'obligation de déposer plainte contre monsieur Babin pour utilisation abusive de mon image sans autorisation ayant entrainé un préjudice professionnel et moral. Cordialement, Alix Benezech

Merci d'avance. Cordialement

First, this is my personal user talk page. Not a request page for admin actions. Second, we will be unable to consider your request if you don't provide a file name. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello Jcb! This is regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alix_Bénézech_1.jpg. The user, who is the uploader, is contacting you to see if you could review the DR and delete the file (rational: request from the uploader). This is the procedure describe in the DR policy to appeal a result. --130.223.246.152 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
'request from the uploader' is only a valid reason within a week after upload. Also there is a clear consensus in the DR. As an admin I have to serve the community. Closing this DR as 'delete' would be outside my mandate. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Netherlands Nationaal Archief license edit

Seeing as this is your country's archive license template, I'd be especially happy of perhaps you could actually do something about the problem. What need to happen has been agreed but no one with editing rights has bothered to do anything even though this was previously discussed in a number of places more than a year ago. See COM:VPC#Netherlands Nationaal Archief. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ww2censor: I have temporarily unprotected the template, so that you can help yourself. (Apparently you know what has to happen and I will have to read a lot of discussion to know what to do). Please drop me a note when you are ready. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I know what should happen but I've never edited such a license template and am not confident I know how but I'll have a look. If not, can you do it or do you know someone who has the knowledge? Ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I sometimes ask Multichill to look at an issue with a template. He is probably even familiar with the Nationaal Archief, I am not. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll ask. Ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Buses of MTA Regional Bus Operations Category edit

I have realized that the MTA Bus Operations category has over 700 pictures in it and many of them do not belong. Do you know if you could permit me to remove some of the pictures from that category to reduce the clutter? If you cant grant me that permission, can you or another administrator (which i am assuming you are) reduce the clutter. I am not saying to delete the files but maybe to put them in a more appropriate category Olsen24 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Every user is allowed to edit the categories. Please make sure that every file still has at least one category after your changes. In some cases the best way is to create subcategories and to move most of the files from the main category into one of the subcategories. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Revision deletion edit

Hi Jcb, Could you delete all of the revisions (except the top one) at File:High Street, Strood (geograph 4944276) (Wikivoyage Banner).jpg please?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Jcb (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh wow thanks, much appreciated :), Have a great day, –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. The logo you deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:Agjencia_Kombëtare_e_Burimeve_Natyrore.svg was that of a government agency so it is well within the right to be posted here under Albania's Copyright Law of 2005. Kj1595 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Undeleted and converted to regular DR, not all the statements by uploader can be true in the same time. Jcb (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your edit on AN edit

Hi, Could you please explain why you remove this without providing any explanation? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It belongs to an archived discussion, where I moved it. Jcb (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. A summary would be useful. Yann (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Summaries are always useful.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of the photo of Joyce Meyer edit

Hi. I happen to be the person who both took the picture of Joyce Meyer, which you've deleted, and uploaded it here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you thought the image was dated later than its various internet sightings; I assume it got transferred to Commons or something, and the _Commons_ upload date was later than previous sightings, which were taken from here on Wikipedia (I googled myself over the years and saw quite a lot of results which were the use of this image with proper attribution to Wikipedia). Unfortunately, I'm not that active on Wiki to know how to put it back on Commons; I had uploaded it back when files were uploaded to individual Wikis. Here is the diff where I uploaded the file. Could you please revert the damage? Latreia (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The best thing to do is to contact OTRS. They will typically request to send the original file from your camera for verification. The version we deleted had a very small resolution and no metadata. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Huge thanks for adding work for me on something which I've already spent some efforts on, because you couldn't be bothered to look deeper (you didn't state "no metadata", you stated "lots of internet sightings from earlier dates" as reason for deletion, obviously without checking the original file upload date). I'm currently on a vacation, and it will be a couple of weeks before I return home... and then the digging through pics archives... Here are a couple of usage examples where the websites attributed it to Wikimedia (and my name and cc-by-sa license): 1, 2. My enwiki user page (not the talk page) contains the single "talk" instance of someone asking me to take a picture of her, a couple of months before I uploaded the pic (which is not proof per se, but it's circumstantial evidence; the request was in August 2007, and I took and uploaded the pic in October 2007). The low resolution was caused by the fact that my camera was not that high-grade, and the pic I chose was the least blurry of all I took, but it was still blurry enough for me to decide to reduce it; and back then, good internet manners included being mindful of others' bandwidth which is why I cleared the metadata off all images I uploaded to the web. Sigh... Could you please at least explain what I should do beside sending the original file (once I find it) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? (I seriously have much less time now on my hands than 10 years ago.) Latreia (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

How interesting, I see from the discussion above, with Jkadavoor and Revent, that you tend to batch-delete files using automated tools. And the list of deletions Revent cites in Special:Diff/239916782 happens to cite the date (March 29) that comes immediately after the date (March 28) when the Fileunlinkerbot deleted the filename (of my file) from the article in question. So it seems you are working in batches, and my file happened to be in the batch that was dealt with immediately before the one cited in Special:Diff/239916782. I respectfully ask you, Jcb, to undelete Joyce_meyer_at_hillsong_conference_kiev_2007_Oct04.jpg unless you can find sightings on the web from before October 08, 2007 (which you won't, because that's when I uploaded the picture that I had taken 4 days prior to that). What you have caused for me right now is an "open loop" (in GTD terms) of a 2-week to-do "remember, on returning from vacation, amid all the other stuff people returning from vacations have to deal with, to find the original file, contact who knows whom, who happen to have a 53-days-long wait list (cue in the 53-days-long open loop), upload something, etc.", for no reason at all. Latreia (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have told you what to do and that's it. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Listen, mister, you apparently like saving _your_ time by summarily—and automatically to boot—deleting things others have worked on, without really looking into it (I repeat: your justification of "Existent in many pages on the internet before original uploading date" is false and it is you who should have had to bear the burden of proof on this). I don't find it normal that you just vaguely point me in the general direction of something, dismissing me with 2-line comments. I'm not an experienced user, though I have taken pains to actually create content (and it's its overuse, because it was the only free file on the Internet, that has cause this situation; though it is more immediately caused by your inattentiveness to dates). Shouldn't there be some respect to the time that actual content creators spend; shouldn't you or someone else have a template answer for situations such as this, where someone spends 2 seconds to undo something that the content creator spent much more time on and now has to spend _more_ time on? E. g. explanations of the sequence of correct actions? Why should I be the one, who, having been _falsely_ accused of copyright violation, now have to spend _additional_ _time_ on unearthing, e. g., pages like "Undeletion requests"? What should I do first: write to OTRS or post on this in Undeletion requests? Shouldn't you have the courtesy to write more than two lines about this, oh you the busy guy? Latreia (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This picture is probably OK, although it would be good to know the real source of the image. There are bigger copies (but not older), and they are either sources to Wikipedia [3], or mention a free license [4]. Here the credited author matches Wikipedia upload. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty certain this picture is indeed fine.... the oldest copies found by TinEye date to 2011 (years after it's upload to enwiki) and the upload date on enwiki was less than a week after the image was apparently taken. The larger versions appear (by looking at the ELA) to be later-generation copies, that were simply scaled up for the particular publication. Latreia, since Jcb has declined to undelete this, I suggest you open a request at COM:UDR and reference this discussion. - Reventtalk 01:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

RE: Copyright status: File:Acq-134-bozzetto-1903-casa-Baccigaluppo.jpg edit

Grazie per la segnalazione--Albertomos (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Jcb/archive/15".