User talk:Jcb/archive/3

File deleted

Dear JCB

How can I be very well informed about how can I upload an image, an image I have made with photographies taken by myself in Nice. I fully agree with you as you have deleted my file Niçardo, considering I haven't followed the rules to upload files, may be bacause I didn't read or understand them. Which were the mistakes I have made, how can I correct them? Some problem about licensis? Or quality? Or both?

At wikipedi-pt I am user "Carrion" and I have created the page Niçardo and some 500 pages more

The file was "Niçardo.jpg";

Thanks a lot, sorry for my bad work.

Niçardo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No license was specified. Files without a license will be deleted after a week. If the photograph is your own work, you can choose a license. The most used license at Wikimedia Commons is CC-BY-SA 3.0. You can add this license by adding {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}} to the image description page. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

trentkowalik_2011

I did not double tag the file, the tag was removed. Unless there is no need to tag the file for speedy deletion with the other tag that is on the page which served as a warning/notice. Because the initial notice tag does not list the file as a candidate for deletion, only the speedy deletion tag that you removed now twice does so. Just asking for some clarification. Booth088 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The {{No permission}} tag places the file in Category:Media missing permission as of 24 June 2011. This is a subcat of Category:Media missing permission, in which you can see that the taggings of 22 and 23 June still have to be processed. This cat is a subcat of Category:Unknown, which is a subcat of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Files in Category:Media missing permission as of 24 June 2011 will be processed after the older taggings. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, Thanks for the clarification! Much appreciated. Booth088 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Me explicas...

¿Por qué estás revirtiendo? BetoCG – ¿decías? 06:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

La imagen consiste sólo en texto. Esto no alcanza el umbral de originalidad necesario para que esté protegido por derechos de autor, por lo tanto, está en dominio público. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ill Met by Moonlight first edition cover

the rights to the book are held by the late author's daughter and was uploaded by her family with her agreement - so we don't understand how there can be a problem. This same point applies to a number of related family photos Huguº (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is sending an email with the permission to OTRS. Please provide this link in that message: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ill_Met_by_Moonlight_-_first_edition_cover.jpg. If they think the permission is OK, they will undelete the file. If they are not yet convinced, they will ask additional questions to you. Jcb (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A brief question

Can I ask a brief question about the de-adminship of Abigor/Huib (or what name he calls himself)? I agree he should have been desysopped after his actions. My question is just this: when someone asks to be an Admin, anyone (Admins and non-Admins) can vote for against him/her. But in a de-Admin case, is it only Admins who can vote--or make a comment? Are non-Admins excluded? That's all. I haven't had contact with him but I was just curious about Commons policies here. There might be other cases in future...but I hope not. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the policies, for de-adminship the procedure is similar to the normal request for adminship. Non-admins can vote and comment, which several of them did. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK then. Thank you for making clear the rules. I almost lost track of Abigor's many names. Once it was Sterkebak, then Huib, finally Abigor. When a user once said to him on his Abigor talk page: 'hello Sterke...you know who,' Abigor replied "don't you ever say that name again!" His angry reply really puzzled me. I thought the user was just joking. Frankly, I never understood why he changed his username 3 times. But he was a hard worker at marking flickr images when the flickr bot broke down: I remember he would mark 100-180 flickr images in 2-3 hours. That was why I respected him. But I didn't encounter him on WikiCommons in recent years. Oh well. With Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Portada-150.jpg

Can you perhaps have a look at this one? CC doesn't seem correct and it isn't a logo, so I'm unsure what to do. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We have {{PD-ineligible}} for this. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Abigor?

Is Abigor an Admin again as this implies? Just noticed it. I wouldn't mind if he can mark images but didn't know he was restored to Admin status. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he isn't. I removed the admin box. Jcb (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Block

I see nothing wrong with Abigor declaring that he "used to be an admin" at all. Why is that misleading? Please unblock or I will request other input on the admin pages. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Abigor placing the admin box at his user page, since it categorizes him under the Commons admins, which is indeed misleading. However, I believe that he should be able to edit his talk page and use email. This is something that can probably be negotiated with him, he may write in his userpage that he is a former, admin of course, but must not use the user box itself.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To indicate he "used to be an admin " is not wrong. To block without any warning/discussion in this case is very wrong. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"To block without any warning/discussion in this case is very wrong." - this claim doesn't correspond to the edit history of the page. Jcb (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for showing your true face, starting a wheelwar if intimidation doesn't work. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jcb, your wording against Herby is unjustified and highly inappropriate. FYI: Wheel-warring is not when admin B (for the first time) reverts the action of admin A, but when admin A reinstates his initial action after it had been reverted by admin B. --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's call it a disruptive revert of the block instead. Jcb (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See here. The community should discuss this and an uninvolved admin take any necessary action. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Heck Jimbo Wales is allowed to state on his WP userpage that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: I apologise if I caused any further conflict over Abigor. This was not my intent. I just saw the Admin box on Abigor's userpage and became puzzled and confused...because it seemed to say that he was still an Admin on WikiCommons. But I remember there was a heated discussion over whether or not to de-Admin Abigor late in June 2011. So, I did not know what to think? I have nothing against Abigor at all. I just wanted to clear up any confusion that the Admin box on Abigor's page might bring up, nothing more. I remember that Jcb filed the original de-adminship so I decided to ask him here for further clarification. I pray there is no further conflict on my account. Thank You all for your time from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For your information

Hello,

For your information I started a discussion about your recent adminactions. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat II Boxart

I understand if the image is under fairuse, then it's allowed, i'm not sure what the conditions were with the image in question but if it wasn't under fair use then you could've contacted WP:VG. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons, but at some local Wikipedia versions (including EN.wikipedia) it's allowed. Please provide a link to the image you're talking about, otherwise I have no way to see what happened. Jcb (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Geluidsfragmenten keukengerei

Hallo Johan,

Bij deze willen wij, Bert, Irene, Lotte en Kevin, je hartelijk bedanken voor je geluidsfragmenten bij de verschillende soorten keukengerei. Het heeft enorm geholpen om te bevatten waar deze objecten voor gebruikt kunnen worden. We zijn voornamelijk tevreden over de bijzonder enthousiaste intonatie die je gebruikt.

Ga zo door, hopelijk kies je er voor om ook huiskamermeubilair van geluidsfragmenten te voorzien.

Tevens zijn we benieuwd of wij ook geluidsfragmenten kunnen maken om Wikipedia nóg beter te maken!

Groeten, Bert, Irene, Lotte en Kevin

Hoi, welkom op Wikipedia. Zelf geluidsopnamen maken is mogelijk, voor meer informatie daarover kun je hier terecht: nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Gesproken Wikipedia - Jcb (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

IP block

I am puzzled by a 12 month block on an ip (91.210.131.219)? I see blocks on other wikis but they are far shorter (7 days) - are you certain that the IP is not dynamic or is an open proxy? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I first blocked for a month (which is really the bottom I think), but then he continued his harassment at his (now deleted) talk page. Are there any standards for block lenght written somewhere? For I also see infinite blocks. Note that this is only a soft-block, logged in users will be able to use this IP. Jcb (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks of IPs are just ludicrous and show no understanding of the internet - IPs are reallocated from time to time. I guess we have to agree our views vary. I would never block an IP for the first time for more than a day or two - the presence of one week blocks on other wikis suggests trouble but I personally would never block for a month never mind a year unless it was an open proxy. Protecting the talk page as part of the block would have prevented it continuing there.

It is quite likely a dynamic IP - that length of block may prevent positive contributions. In general Commons admins tend to place short blocks first and then escalate according to the block log. I guess we all make our own judgements - I don't agree with yours I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, although I cannot agree with a block for just one day. The ip, 91.210.131.219, doesn't seem to be a regular ip for a consument internet connection. At least two Polish websites are hosted on this IP. It seems somebody accesses the internet via de control panel of a remote web server, which is suspicious. I know this construction is possible, because I tested this myself in the past. I'm willing to take into account your arguments as well and I changed the block from 1 year to 1 month. Most of my blocks are somewhere between 1 day and 1 week anyway. Jcb (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you will realise I do not agree with you on this matter. It is possible that this is some form of abused IP however all the admins I've looked at and respected on Commons place a short block first - they can always be reblocked.

In general it is completely wrong to block anything other than a proven static IP for more than 24 hours and pointless too. It will merely affect the next person who is allocated that IP and may work to the detriment of a project which I understand encourages everyone to be able to edit. Harsh long blocks seem quite contrary to that approach. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think the IP of a webserver of a web hosting service could change that easy? The clients would run away from that hosting service soon, for it typically takes 24-48 hours before all DNSs know the new location and your website is back online for all the public. Jcb (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read carefully what I posted you will see my answer is in two part - the first is about the IP you blocked when I said It is possible that this is some form of abused IP . That said if other wikis think a week is appropriate I would have thought that an adequate block.

The rest of my posting refers to the general point on blocking IPs. Many IP are dynamic and so will change their broadband/dialup customer daily if not more often. Hence I said it is completely wrong to block anything other than a proven static IP for more than 24 hours and pointless too as this will merely affect the next person allocated the IP. Hopefully you will now understand my point however it based on my experience to date it seems unlikely that it will change your approach sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jcb and Herbythyme, if I am allowed to add my two cents here: 91.210.131.219 does not seem to be a dynamically used IP address to me but a statically assigned IP out of a range (91.210.128.0/22) which is used for commercial hosting of biznes-host.pl, running Debian Linux (lenny) with Apache. They provide virtual and dedicated servers. 91.210.131.219 is probably an IP that is statically shared by multiple virtual servers, some of its neighbors seem to be dedicated servers (like 91.210.131.221, for example). I agree with Herby that we should always start with short time blocks (i.e. one day) but I could also imagine that this particular IP could warrant extended periods if the harassments continue. We could also send an email to the corresponding abuse address of the hoster. Greetings, --AFBorchert (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitivamente borradas

Español: Para su información. Las 11 imágenes copyvio has sido definitivamente borradas después de 29 días. Un saludo.

--. HombreDHojalata.^talk 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Palmeiras logo.gif

Hello Jcb, can you please tell me your reasoning for deleting this file? I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand how textlogo works. In the case of this logo, I don't know where you have seen the creativity there, though I presume it could have been in the shield. that shield, however, is nothing more than a 1916 design included there to provide continuity with the old emblem. You can see the time line of that emblem here. Regards, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I found it already borderline, but with this information we can keep it, being a combination of PD-old and PD-textlogo. Jcb (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My file deleted

Hi.

you have deleted my file called "Sharad Kapoor1.jpg". I would like to tell you that I have personally taken the photograph from Mr. Sharad Kapoor himself and the photographer of the image gave him the photograph to upload you wikipedia. Can you please re-upload it and not delete it this time.

Regards, Nimesh Jain

Hi, I deleted the file because no license was specified (which is automatically causing deletion after 7 days), but if we see "Author = A photo grapher( i m not aware of)" we will normally delete it anyway, because the copyright situation is likely not OK. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Help

The below mentioned files are under "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons". The wikimedia system is not permitting me to upload the files again, please help.

1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/allamamashriqi/5932243616

File:Lt. General Arif Hasan (Retd) with scholar & historian Nasim Yousaf (right) and his book..jpg

Lt. General Arif Hasan (Retd) with scholar & historian Nasim Yousaf (right) and his book

2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/allamamashriqi/5932239964

File:Ex- Foreign Minister of India, Jaswant Singh, and Scholar Nasim Yousaf.jpg

Jaswant Singh, ex Defense and Foreign Minister of India, with scholar & historian Nasim Yousaf and his book (“Allama Mashriqi & Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan: Two Legends of Pakistan”). Photo was taken in the USA.

I was able to upload the images. Please let me know if I made any mistake.If I have not violated any rules, please remove the warnings. Thanks for your time.

I fixed the licenses. The warnings at your user talk page are just notifications, feel free to remove them. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. All the best.

Image deleted

Hi, a few days ago I uploaded an image called Analisadores e sensores de TOC.JPG. This image is also in the website of the company where I work (spectraonline.com.br), but it belongs to me. I created the image and I have no problems with making it public. What can I do to have it available again to use it in the page I'm editing? Thanks, Felipe Mulè

The best thing you can do is send an email to OTRS from a ...@spectraonline.com.br address. The OTRS volunteers will be able to undelete the file if the permission is OK. Jcb (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it!

Resolved - File:Analisadores e sensores de TOC.JPG - Jcb (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PVV logo

Hallo Jcb, ik wilde graag het logo van de PVV uploaden - ik heb een ticket nummer maar er staat vermeld dat een logo als deze al is deleated. Kan jij die weer vrijgeven. Het ticket nummer = Ticket#2011070610013807. m.vr.gr. Henk Obee 22:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Beste Henk, ik heb het ticket bekeken en zo te zien is een en ander nog niet rond. Zodra de OTRS vrijwilliger vindt dat de zaak rond is, zal die de afbeelding normaal kunnen (laten) terugzetten. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2011071410008227

Hi. See my answer on my talk page. Xic 667 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

VoiceUnit22

VoiceUnit22 continues... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I left him a message. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Wikipedia is filled by images of different CD covers, why I can't upload one? Or what I must note in license? --VoiceUnit22

Answered at your user talk page. Jcb (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate

In regards to these photos. You are saying: "Deleted: We have no information on the background of this images, making them high-risk" No background information? Like what, when the picture was taken, where it was taken? A person taking a photo of himself and uploading it under his own work is pretty self-explanatory, so what more kind of information do you believe needs to be added to make it not "high-risk"?AerobicFox (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume safely that subject is aware of this pictures being online and agrees with it. Picture like this can cause severe damage to someones personal life. We have the responsability to be careful with this. Jcb (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I completely agree with Jcb. Explicit images really should have explicit permission. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ArrCharleroiLocatie.PNG

Hi! Thanks for closing the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArrCharleroiLocatie.PNG. However, now that the file is no longer in use I've reopened the discussion. Hope that's okay! Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

foutief verwijderd

Dag Jcb,

Zou je misschien deze verwijderactie ongedaan willen maken? De discussie op de door jouw gelinkte pagina ging over het feit of architectuur een vorm van "applied arts" was. In dat geval zou het copyright niet 50 jaar maar al 25 jaar na de dood van de rechthebbend verstreken zijn. De uitkomst (in ieder geval volgens User Captainofhope), was dat architectuur geen "applied arts" was. Hoewel mij dit enigzins disctubel lijkt, maakt het in dit specifieke geval helemaal niet uit, omdat de betreffende Filipijns architect Juan Arellano 51 jaar geleden overleed (in 1960). Dit is dus langer geleden dan 50 jaar (de termijn dat het copyright verstrijkt, zie ook sectie 213.1 in Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines). Zou je de betreffende foto weer kunnen terugzetten? Het kost me al moeite genoeg om rechtenvrije foto's te vinden, alvast bedankt, groeten Magalhães (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Beste Magalhães, los van de vraag waarom je me hier informatie aanreikt die je niet in de DR hebt aangedragen, hebben we hier COM:UNDEL voor. Met je verzoek stel je in feite voor dat een admin de policies even negeert. Als je nieuwe argumenten hebt die tot terugplaatsen zouden kunnen leiden, dan kun je dit op de desbetreffende verzoekpagina aanvragen. Jcb (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Beste Jcb, Hoe bedoel je "dat ik de policies zou negeren". Jij bent degene die hier een grote fout begaat en tot verwijdering overgaat zonder de discussie goed te lezen. Ik zou het fijn vinden als je gewoon je fout hersteld. Ik vind dit echt ongelofelijk. Je hebt een file verwijderd, terwijl het copyright al 1 jaar verlopen is en zonder de discussie dus goed te lezen. Als ik als moderator op nl.wikipedia een dergelijke fout zou maken, zou ik dit direct herstellen en niet star naar de algemene verzoekpagina verwijzen. Bovendien zou ik mij direct verontschuldigen voor de fout, ook al was een en ander ongetwijfeld met de beste bedoelingen. Magalhães (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jij komt hier met informatie die je niet in de DR hebt vermeld en waar ik dus niet mee hoefde te rekenen, beweert dat dat mijn fout is en gaat me nu een beetje lopen intimideren, kom nou zeg. Je volgt maar gewoon de procedure, zoals ieder ander. Wees blij dat ik je nog uitleg hoe die procedure werkt. Jcb (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ik heb dit niet in de DR vermeld, omdat het er al lang en breed vermeld stond! Het staat allemaal wel degelijk in de twee discussies en daar moest je dus zeker wel mee rekenen. Er staat dat copyright 50 jaar na de dood van een kunstenaar verloopt in de Filipijnen en dat dat hier het geval is (citaat: "Arellano died over 50 years ago. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)". (staat in de eerste discussie). Verder hebben ze nog een algemene discussie (waar je naar verwijst bij de verwijdering) over het feit of architectuur "applied art" is. Deze hele discussie is niet relevant, omdat de beste man al 51 jaar geleden overleden is, zoals gewoon in de eerste discussie al door Sky Harbor is vermeld en in de 1e regel van het artikel over de man. Verder heb ik je hier op geen enkele manier geintimideerd. Ik verbaas en irriteer me slechts enorm over het feit dat je niet snel je fout hersteld. Magalhães (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toronto2015.png

Hello. Could you please elaborate a little bit more than just "kept" over at this request and its sister discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015parapanlogo.jpg. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion (I'm on the wall), but you should at least address the point raised (CCH v. LSUC) in the linked discussion (the tag was not the problem). Thanks, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that a typeface is never eligible for copyright, I agree with the tag. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but could you please indicate that you are satisfied that it's a typeface in both deletion discussions, so that it's clear on the record that you considered the points raised. The way we are unlikely to have another nomination on the more substantive issue. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time left to have a look at it, will be quite offline from now on for a few weeks. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Have a good holiday. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the files have been deleted in the meantime after a new DR. No action from my side seems to be needed anymore. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011 Iranian protests.jpg

Hello, about Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011 Iranian protests.jpg: I see what you mean with your closing argument, but I'm afraid it is factually mistaken. One should indeed expect that VoA would normally add credit notices to images taken from its commercial partner agencies, but I have investigated dozens of these uploads (usually made by Amir.hossein socks) from exactly these regular image galleries on the Iranian VoA site, and there were many, many instances where I saw images presented in just the same way as here, with no copyright mark, but I later also found them on other websites where they were credited to Reuters etc. I don't know why, but apparently VoA doesn't bother to live up its usual standards on its Iranian-language site. Somebody (I think it was an admin from fa-wiki, but I forget where and who) also once said they knew VoA simply had no journalists of their own accredited in Iran (presumably because of the strained bilateral relations and because of its status as a state agency); if that is true then the image couldn't possibly be VoA's own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that would need a wider discussion, not just about this individual image. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I don't know why I didn't find this earlier, but now Tineye has got something on this one. It's credited to European Pressphoto Agency (EPA) here [1], to "European Community" here [2], and to Deutsche Presseagentur (dpa) here [3] and [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time left to have a look at it, will be quite offline from now on for a few weeks. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Has been resolved by High Contrast in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Problemas con fotos

Perdoname JCB por escrbirte en español, pero mi nivel de inglés no es muy bueno, y no entiendo muy bien lo que se escribe.

Quería que me explicaras cual es el motivo por el que has / habeis borrado todas las fotos que yo he puesto en el articulo citroen xsara de wikipedia en español, que tanto trabajo me ha costado hacer y poner las fotos. Espero que sea por falta de información o algo similar. Te ruego me respondas lo antes posible para poder devolver el artículo a su estado original, puesto que habeis borrado fotos que llevaban casi un año puestas... si se precisan explicaciones, yo las daré sin ningún problema.

Salu2

No hay ningún problema que me escribes en español. Borré los archivos por este ruego: Commons:Deletion requests/File:LLanttaVesuve.JPG. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Major Shortcoming on Commons: COM:FOP

Dear Admin Jcb,

If I may take your mind of the 'Abigor' problem for a second, I would like to say that I respect your judgment as one of the better Admins here. So, it is troubling for me to mention a major shortcoming on Commons. Its an issue on the lack of FOP tules for some of the largest and/or most populous states in the world: Indonesia, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly 'Zaire'). COM:FOP has absolutely nothing on them and this situation has remained unchanged for years. What are the rules for sculptures or 3D art from these countries? No one knows; its a black hole since no one has done any research thus far. If you know someone who is knowledgeable about the situation of FOP in these 3 large countries, please feel free to forward my message to them. Right now, it feels as if there are 3 massive holes in Common's FOP rules here. These are not small countries at all: Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim and relatively tolerant country at 230+ million people while Ethiopia has 80+ million people and is the second most populous country of Africa. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Update: Someone gave the info on FOP for Indonesia here This helps though sadly, there's no FOP there. Oh well, that just leaves 2 countries left though Ethiopia will be difficult since few people here likely speak Amharic. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about the situation in these countries either. Mayby you could raise this at local villages pumps of related language versions? Jcb (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeremias Walachei Kostistik.jpg

Thanks for informing me about that DR, I've had a look on the situation and posted a comment. Regards, odder (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Since a form of compromise has been agreed-upon on en:Talk:Serbia under German occupation, I would request that you please unblock File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43.png and File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1943-44.png. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RASECZENITRAM (talk · contribs)

Crosslink: User_talk:EugeneZelenko#I_need_help_categorizing_images

Needs help categorizing his image. Can you ask him in Spanish what in paricular is unintelligible on the message he got from the bot. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - Jcb (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Aardappelstamper in de mix

Aardappelstamper by niesl

:-P - Jcb (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

the voice of wikipedia nl

Hi JCB, goed werk op de wikipedia pagina's ! Ik vind het leuk om de pagina's uitgesproken te horen ipv alles te lezen Ik wou nog opmerken dat de gesproken tekst op de pim pam pet pagina niet meer overeenkomt met de geschreven tekst. Dit ter info.

no license

Hi Jcb, my answer: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Чикачёвы.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iupac-alkane-5.png

Dear Johan, are you sure you wanted to keep this [[5]] scientificly wrong and missleading information? I asked for deleation and an other member also suggested deleation. So for what reason should we want to keep it? Greetins--oliver s. (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I specified the reason: 'in use'. If a file is in use, we automatically don't take into account quality related issues. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

own work

cf. [6] Karnan (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the owner of the webpage from which the image was taken. I _restored_ from a decayed out old photograph, so it is _not_ the same as the old photograph of 1923 (which does not exist anywhere in undecayed original form). So I do own the copyright of the restored image (which is my own work, with date of creation 2006). Thus the photograph should be removed. Karnan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit a closed DR, it clearly states: "This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." - "restoring" a picture doesn't create a new copyright situation. It's totally unimportant if the file comes from your website or from whatever sourced, it's Public Domain anyway. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I edited only outside the discussion box. What is important is that I restored a non-existent image based on certain family photographs and the facial recollections of myself and others. The faces are not visible in any surviving versions of the original photograph and what is seen in this version is not the original. To make this statement, it is important to note that I am the creator. So, the photograph as published was created in 2006 and is under copyright. Karnan (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This tale didn't convince me and is also not stated below the picture at the source website. Jcb (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Kindly provide an email address where this issue may be raised. All rights have been reserved by a certain address at the web page, and the legal communication will follow from that address. Please also note that I wrote to info-en-cwikipedia.org repeatedly and did not receive the courtesy of a reply. Karnan (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also be polite enough to avoid terms like tale etc. in such situations. Karnan (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw your mails and I agree you should have received a reply. The ticket has been locked by somebody else, so I cannot send you a reply by email on that ticket. Anyway I don't think 'legal communication' would change anything in this case. Jcb (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in technical explanations about not receiving a reply, nor your forecasts. Either state an email address where a proper communication can be sent about this violation of copyright, which is done entirely without the creator's permission (and with rudeness added when the creator tries to inform about it), or be kind enough to resolve this by removing the file right away, given that you have no more to say or ask on the matter. Karnan (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this file is under copyright. I have no reason to doubt about the license. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I need not convince you (a wiki account) about this. I need to send a legal intimation to a proper email address representing wikimedia foundation and then see to the matter legally. This is my last communication on this subject through user account. Karnan (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You can send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org (I'm also not just a 'wiki account', I'm a trusted user, identified myself to the foundation and have access to the mail system. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jcb/archive. You have new messages at Artem Karimov's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Flickr user uploaded them here

Hi. You deleted File:Andrew Castle.jpg, File:Graham Norton.jpg, File:Jenny Falconer.jpg, File:Michael Underwood.jpg, File:Andrew Castle.jpg, File:Stephen Mulhern.jpg on the grounds that they were "copyright violations" as their "Flickr license is All rights reserved". But, the user who uploaded them here, is also the Flickr user, and thus is the copyright holder. He wanted to upload them himself and didn't want to change the Flickr license. Gran2 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If he sends an email to OTRS from the email address listed here, we will be able to restore the pictures. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He has now sent (or will soon have sent, his message came through 45 minutes ago) the email. Gran2 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, we received the message and I restored the files. (I'm a member of the OTRS team, so I could process this myself). Jcb (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Gran2 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:МаксютаЮИ.jpeg

Hello! You have removed file File:МаксютаЮИ.jpeg. This file belongs to me and is loaded by me. I agree to give to its people, I am its author. I ask you to restore a file. I have tried to correct the reference to the author (that is me) and the reference to my site www.toge.ru.

mr. Анатолий (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please contact OTRS about this. If they can verify the permission they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bogo.png

Hi Jcb! "follow normal procedure". What would be the "normal procedure"? DR? --Gunnex (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in the menu at the left side below there is a 'nominate for deletion' link. Just press that link at the image description page and enter a reason. A regular DR (deletion request) will be made automatic by the system. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Aviation museums in Alabama

Category:Aviation museums in California was also nominated for speedy on the same grounds, which I converted to a regular DR as I am disputing the request. You did delete this category, but the arguments for retaining I think would be the same. BrokenSphere (Talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Being empty is a valid reason for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik pictures

Re. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik_pictures

Sincere thanks for dealing with that.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will be the end of it; there's strong opinions that "these are clearly free pictures!" - mostly from new users; I anticipate they'll be re-uploaded in the future; however, SALT won't help given disparate file-names.

But - we've hopefully set a precedent from consensus, which helps.

It's somewhat unfortunate that our current policies and norms mean we host something like this for weeks following such a high-profile event (and millions look at the wiki pages that use the images) - but, that's current policy, and I accept it. I wonder how we could improve upon it for current events, but it isn't easy.

Sincere thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A re-upload of a deleted file can be speedy deleted. The only thing is that the nominator will have to remember the file name of the previous upload of that file. Jcb (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Borut_Pahor_v_parlamentu_leta_2010.jpg

You decided to keep based on a comment in the website. It would be nice if you could {{Licensereview}} it. I think you have to admit that a comment on the website is 1000 times more trustworthy than a gmail-address as a sender of an OTRS ticket. Also it would be great adding the concerning message from the website to the OTRS ticket (I don't know if this is possible somehow) to prevent further DRs based on the gmail concern. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 14:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with {{Licensereview}}, but I will try to use it. At least I can add a note to the OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done for both. And yes, I agree a permission from a gmail-account is not fine. I normally don't accept it, except when I can find the gmail-address published at the source website. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This will hopefully prevent confusion in future. -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:China Railway 25G 200908 4131.JPG and File:China Railway 25G 20090810 403.jpg

Hi Jcb, when I was about to speedy this image following the uploaders request (per Google translation: Author delete the request again, upload the error cause), I found that you had reverted him twice. IMO we could grant him deletion as he/she is the uploader and the image is unused. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be OK for recent uploads (e.g. one week after upload), but we cannot accept this years after upload. The license just doesn't give that right to uploaders. Imagine what would happen if everybody is going to delete the usage of his old uploads and after that, when they are unused, start revoking the release into a free license. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish

Hi, there are two comments in my talk page in Spanish (this and next one), I used Google translate to reply to them, however they might not understand English very well, would you please reply to them in Spanish. thank you.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:US 17-1.svg

You kept that graphic because it was in use, yet that didn't address the problem with the graphic in the first place. The US Highway System has had four different marker designs. The first was from 1926, the second from 1948, a third from 1961 and the current design from 1971. File:US 17-1.svg was drawn using the 1971 specifications for a highway that only existed from 1926 to 1933. This is the only example of a US Highway with a hyphenated number, and it's not even certain that it was signed. If it was, it would look more like File:US 16 Michigan 1926.svg except it would have either "North Carolina" or "Virginia" in place of "Michigan" and the "17-1" number in place of "16". The "-1" may or may not be reduced in size. (The 1926 markers with letter suffixes typically had the number remain centered with a letter on the right side that was reduced in height but vertically centered with respect to the number.) Until such time as we can find how this marker actually looked, we can't create a replacement. The image that was created though is incorrect on many, many levels and should have been deleted. It is no longer in use since I orphaned it completely. Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as a file is in use, it's just not relevant if the content is factual correct or not. As long as a file is in use, this isn't our tast to judge. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not in use though. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it was in use when I closed the nomination, that's for sure. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary)

I admit I am confused by this one. Can you explain why you deleted the page when no one, not even the nominator, wanted it deleted, and several people had rather strong objections about it being nominated there at all? I was told repeatedly that I was overreacting, and that the page was being brought to "deletion requests" only for a community discussion about how to present such galleries, not to request its deletion, and then you come along a few months later and simply delete it with a scant three words of explanation. It's a little disheartening. Dominic (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with nominator that within our current policy this was out of scope. Commons is not the place for articles and this is also a valid reason for even speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, this is not an article. It is archival descriptive metadata about a series of documents uploaded to Commons. Dominic (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems that similar to an article to treat it like an article. If you disagree, feel free to visit COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly not similar to an article. It is text crated by an archivist at the institution holding the record about the images, not an encyclopedic topic. It seems to me that you didn't actually read the discussion very closely, since this was discussed, and that we wasted all of our time even bothering to participate. As I mentioned, none of the people there, including other admin(s?), wanted to delete it, so my main question, which you didn't answer, is why you ignored the consensus expressed at the discussion and just deleted the page. Dominic (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please use COM:UDR like I already mentioned. I'm prepared to have a look again at a deletion, but if I again come to the same conclusion, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it again at this talk page. Jcb (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think deletion was appropriate. It's clearly not an article, but rather provides metadata about a set of images. You can see the description from the NARA catalog [7] and I think it's perfectly reasonable that we include the description on the gallery page. If anything, it might work better to move it as a subpage under Commons:National Archives and Records Administration? Would you be okay with that? Cheers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem with that. The Commons-namespace could be an appropriate place if embedded in some kind of project. Feel free to restore and move or to propose a location and I will restore and move. Jcb (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken care of this. Cheers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:X 17cb4a79.jpg‎

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done (thanks for the notification) - Jcb (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hôtel de ville, Villeurbanne.jpg

Sorry, I'm an idiot. You're right, thank you to be a good sysop. Sebleouf (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

copyright-free image again removed

Alexander_smit.jpg has been removed. Question is WHY? Different people have gone through a lot of work and digging, so it's quit frustrating to find it deleted without motivation.

Robert, zoletaw, editor of the picture

It was captured from a video. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It was captured from a COPYRIGHT-FREE video and modified afterwards.

Feel free to point that out at COM:UDR, including some evidence. Jcb (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File: Revista Luchemos.tiff - Deleted image

Hello JCB,

I was notified that you deleted this file by saying that the cover is from a non-free magazine. I think you made a mistake, because: - Luchemos por la Vida magazines are free (you can check it in their page: http://www.luchemos.org.ar/es/servicios/servicios/servicios) Luchemos por la Vida is a non profit organization that works to prevent road accidents and promote road safety.

- And the image was posted by them as a creative commons material with license CC BY-SA 2.0, which allows users to copy and distribute the work(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)

Could you review your decision? Thank you and regards,

Elementosnet (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Elementos elementosnetgmail.com

Hi, free as is gratis doesn't mean that their work is available under a free license. The linked website states: "Copyright © 2009 Luchemos por la Vida. Todos los derechos reservados." - Jcb (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but in their Flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/luchemosporlavida) the images are under CC BY-SA 2.0. If you need me to contact ask them for a written permission, just let me know. Thanks and regards, Elementosnet (talk)

We will need some evidence that the Flickr-account belongs to them. I think the best is if the contact OTRS, the OTRS team will be able to undelete the file if they can verify the license. Jcb (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You Broke My Bot!

Hello i Operate User:MSUBot You Are Not allowed To Deactivate Bots So You Can Delete my image Without My bot Uploading It again If you didnt think it was right you could just revert it to the concil version i just wanted to reflect the rebles wishes this is grounds for de-adminship--Rancalred (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you upload it again, you may get blocked. Jcb (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such bot on Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Knights ltd logo.png

Hello Jcb

That logo contains IE logo which is copyrighted (see on Wikipedia). I may be wrong but I think you will decide on this. best regards --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a deletion decision about that logo here at Wikimedia Commons? According to our standards we shouldn't need a fair use rationale for an 'E' an incomplete ellipse. Jcb (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

this, may be? I have ask Jim and he said it's not copyrighted--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that linked DR also shows deletion was a minory decision in that case. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please reverse erroneous deletion

Dear Jcb, recently you have deleted the file depicting a Russian postage stamp (after some deletion discussion), despite the fact that it was correctly marked with the appropriate PD-license and there are hundreds of similar images absolutely lawfully uploaded to Commons. Some people apparently not being Russian lawyers and not knowing Russian laws, mistakenly argued for its deletion, failing to comprehend that postage stamps in Russia as official signs of postage are not copyrightable pursuant to the Russian Copyright Law, and, of course, it does not matter whether such official signs and symbols are produced by state or private companies. For more detail please see here. Therefore I request that you remedy this misunderstanding and reverse the deletion. If you have any further questions regarding this postage stamp or any other postage stamps, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Leonid Dzhepko. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that nobody could provide evidence whether the Russion government has the right to public the image of the statue under PD. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it a joke? The Russian Government may enact any legislation it likes, a law is a law, everyone must abide by it once it is enacted without asking any questions whether the government has the right to do it or not. I am sure that the laws are also complied with in the Netherlands in the same way. It is the Russian Federal Law on Copyrights which clearly states that authors' copyrights are protected with several exceptions, one of them being that all Russian postage stamps are exempted from copyright and it means that the image of a postage stamp (as well as a banknote, btw) is not granted copyright protection in Russia, and therefore in the US. But note that the law deals here with the image of the whole stamp including the stamp's design and perforation, and not parts of it. If you cut the image of the statue and publish it separately, you cannot reliably prove that it is an uncopyrightable postage stamp and so you may be accused of violation of the sculptor's copyright. By the way, this issue has been discussed in the Commons several times already and is resolved. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Russian government does strange things with copyright, this may be applicable in Russia, but files must be also free in the USA to remain at Wikimedia Commons. For now my decision is final, I'm not going to revoke it. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to explain it in other way, maybe this misunderstanding comes from language-to-language translation problems. There is no copyright legislation common and effective for all countries: each country makes its own laws in this respect and follows them. To simplify the matter, some countries agreed to follow certain recommendations and signed certain Conventions, but what matters is only national legislation enacted in that particular country. UK has its own copyright laws, the Netherlands have their own copyright laws, and so Russia has its own copyright laws. You cannot simply project the Netherlands laws to Russian laws, you must forget about your expectations based on the Netherlands laws, and carefully read Russian laws. Maybe your question sounds reasonable with respect to the Netherlands laws, but it is irrelevant for Russia. If an individual (the sculptor, for example) refuses to comply with the Russian Federal Law on Copyrights and starts asking questions whether the Russian Government has any right to enact such law and deny copyright protection of everything depicted on postage stamps which are official signage of postage, he will be refused by Russian courts and may even be prosecuted for failing to comply with the current laws. And you know what, if such individual would go to the Netherlands courts, they would also refuse him, saying that they do not have any jurisdiction over Russia as a sovereign state. As for the US, as a lawyer I can assure you, that the principle of US copyright laws is that if a work is not granted copyright protection in the country of its origin, then it is also not protected in the US. If you do not want to act on this yourself, as an administrator please advise me where is the appropriate place to address my request for further consideration by experts. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbacion masculina.gif

Hi, I was wondering if you might add some rationale as to why you deleted this image - it was just as in scope as many of the other images, and frankly more accessible due to not being in the ogv format Commons insists on. It wasn't low quality, there was no worry about identifiability, and the nomination rationale was blank. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment of Warfieldian. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lagasse2011 001.jpg

I've done as you suggested and used a regular deletion request for "File:Lagasse2011 001.jpg", but can I ask why you don't consider this a straightforward case? The Belgian painter died in 1974 and it seems quite clear to me that 70 p.m.a. has not been satisfied here. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In FOP related cases I saw too often that people provided additional information that influenced the outcome. This part of copyright is just too complex and worldwide too various to use speedy deletion. As far as I can see now I would probably delete it after a week if I see the DR then. I think your deletion reason is valid, but I also think cases like this should be open for at least one week so that people may respond to the DR. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:FESP.jpg

About File:FESP.jpg. I considered that it might not belong here after finding the web site for it.

I have no problem with what I interpret as your decision that it is not a copyright violation -- but since you looked it over, and I like to think that you thought about it -- perhaps you can find a category for it which is not something any moron can find like Category:Logos or Category:Icons? -- Queeg (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just considered possible reasons for speedy deletion and found none. Jcb (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, speedy deletion. I used the template for copyright violations. I am not certain of the differences between the two. Perhaps you can explain these differences to me since you should know the differences.

Are you able to categorize it? I felt it should be deleted after looking into how to categorize it.

And soon, there will be more pixels used to write about the inconsequential and unused image than are used to draw it. -- Queeg (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is deletion that can be executed without any procedure. Copyvio is the most common reason for speedy deletion. Apart from 'speedy deletion' there is a regular 'deletion request'. This is easy to start. Go to the image page (File:FESP.jpg), press the 'nominate for deletion' link from the bottom of the menu, specify a reason and press 'proceed'. An admin will take care about it after one week. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(You interrupted my attempt to get rid of files starting with "F" in that overly filled category. Sorry for bothering you with this even if it was kind of a nice break for me)

;) -- Queeg (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BSicon uABZa.svg

Apologies.
I'm not sure why I confused your reversion with User:Yann's (possibly because he didn't notify me). And the only excuse I have for confusing Global Usage and What Links Here is working too late at night. I shall endeavour to not to that again. Useddenim (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining use is on User: pages, or do you want me to commit the faux pas of messing with others' Sandboxes? Useddenim (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Youpic logo.png

Hi! Thanks for your quick response to the speedy deletion request for File:Youpic logo.png. However, the logotype is protected by copyright and the uploader has stated that he is not the copyright holder of the logo. Furthermore, the site where he fetched the logo is clearly protected by copyright. So, it is very much a clear case of copyright infringement - unless you know something I do not know. Riggwelter (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The {{PD-textlogo}}-template you removed, could have helped you understanding why this isn't copyright violation. The template contains a link to Commons:Threshold of originality, where you can discover that things may be too simple to be eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Files deleted and User Filich Blocked

Dear Mr Bos,

Re: EUSP_DJ_Troitsky.jpg, EUSP_Theatre.jpg, EUSP_DiscoNight.jpg

Thank you very much for having timely removed your block on me, and responded to my email.

I would very much appreciate it that next time when you delete re-uploaded files you please a) check whether or not they have been reuploaded under a new license; and b) warn a person re-uploading before blocking - as it is done, for example, in the Russian Wiki - I hope you, as a Wiki administrator, know about a bona fide assumption that applies to contributions to the Wiki and its contributors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith), as blocking without a warning is just a blatant violation of that assumption and a generally grossly impolite demeanour towards Wiki contributors.

The aforementioned files that you deleted have been re-uploaded under the new license as their FAL license has been ascertained by the copyright holder.

Yours sincerely, Maxim Bouev (Filich)

por qué borraste la foto fuerza toros.jpg?

Hola La foto que borraste no tiene derechos de autor. Es de dominio público y cualquier persona puede usarla para difundir la campaña Fuerza Toros. Integro el grupo que hizo la campaña y el logo fue hecho por un colaborador quien lo donó para la campaña y para su difusión.

Por favor vuelve a poner la foto fuerza toros.jpg.

Muchas gracias.

Saludos.

Hello The picture you deleted no has copyright. It is public and anyone can use it to spread the campaign Fuerza Toros. I am part of group who made ​​the campaign and the logo was made by a contributor who donated to the campaign and for their dissemination.

Please put the photo back fuerza toros.jpg

Thank you very much.

Greetings.

No puedo encontrar la foto, cómo fue el nombre exactamente? / I can't find the picture, how was it named exactly? Jcb (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Condordia

Dag Jcb, ik kan me niet voorstellen dat deze afbeelding in het publiek domein thuis zou horen. Zoals op het PD-textlogo-sjabloon te lezen is moet het gaan om "simpele geometrische vormen en/of tekst". Dat van die tekst zie ik wel, maar ik zou de combinatie van de C en de G-sleutel niet willen omschrijven als simpele geometrische vormen. W.m.b. gaat dit via OTRS en als dat niets wordt dan moet de afbeelding maar weg. Silver Spoon (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

De C bestaat uit drie simple gekromde lijnen en gaat niet het copyright-probleem vormen. Een ander verhaal zou misschien de vioolsleutel kunnen zijn, ware het niet dat die ruimschoots oud genoeg is (meerdere eeuwen) om om die reden in het publiek domein te vallen. Het gebeurt vaak dat mensen die niet nauw betrokken zijn met de processen op Wikimedia Commons ervan overtuigd zijn dat bepaalde logo's auteursrechtenschending zijn, terwijl het voor de actieve admin juist een uitgemaakte zaak is dat dit niet het geval zou zijn. Van de top tien actieve admins op Commons (waar ik toe behoor) zal er niemand zijn die dit logo om copyright-redenen zou verwijderen. Een pagina die nuttig is om eens te lezen is de volgende: Commons:Threshold of originality. Jcb (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

löschen der category:Public art in Frankfurt am Main

hi jcb, kannst du mir bitte erklären, warum du diese category schnellgelöscht hast? dontworry (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Die Kategorie war leer. Sie können die Kategorie wiederum erstellen wann Sie Bilder in die Kategorie setzen. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

file:St. Andrew Kim Taegon 01.jpg

Hello. Thanks to visit my user talk page. I responded to your message about this file at my talk page. --더위먹은민츠(Mintz) / 토론 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Media without a license

Hi Jcb. I noticed you changed the counter of the backlog and took on the September 11 day, but me and a few other users decided to make it 8 days to ensure that all files get the full seven days. Can you change it back? Thanks, --ZooFari 16:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm willing to change it back, if I can link in the edit summary to the discussion where you took that decision. Could you provide that link for me? The online thing I could see was this change by a non-admin, without any link to whatever and without stating a reason. I actually reverted that (recent) change. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it wasn't like a community-wise discussion. See here and here. We just went bold and changed it since Fastily and I were active in the backlogs at the time. --ZooFari 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this is fine for me. I changed it back. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, --ZooFari 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:KIEJ Cover.png

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this file? It's certainly not correct to label it "own work". I'm not sure whether it can be used under PD-textlogo or something similar. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} is fine for this and I fixed the source. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

请求帮助刪除下列文件

我自己的作品上传到维基共享资源因重复需删除文件：

1. File:China Railway 25G 20090810 403.jpg：图片上传时因后期处理欠妥，细节损失较多，重新修正并重新命名的版本为File:China Railways 25G 20090810.jpg。
2. File:China Railway 25G 200908 4131.JPG：图片上传时因后期处理欠妥，细节损失较多，命名不夠周全，重新修正并重新命名的版本为File:China Railways 25G,Qin huang dao,20090810.jpg。
3. File:Rail transport in the China 25G 200908.JPG：图片上传时因后期欠妥，细节损失较多，命名不夠周全，重新修正并重新命名的版本为File:China Railways RW25G 553020 20090810.jpg。
4. File:Rail transport in the China YW25G 200908.JPG：图片上传时因后期欠妥，细节损失较多，命名不夠周全，重新修正并重新命名的版本为File:China Railways YW25G 674351 20090810.jpg。
5. File:Rail transport in the China CA25G 200908.JPG：图片上传时因后期欠妥，细节损失较多，命名不夠周全，重新修正并重新命名的版本为File:China Railways CA25G 892849 20090810.jpg。

恳请协助删除上列文件，感谢帮助。--颐园新居 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1. 1. 我自己的作品上传到维基共享资源上传时因后期欠妥并重复需要删除有什么不恰当的？这些申请删除版本与重新命名上传的版本内容是完全一样的！--颐园新居 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Use {{duplicate|new-file-name}} instead of passing procedures by requesting things at user talk pages. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• • 既然我已经上传了新的版本，为什么不能删除以前的版本呢？由于图片有不同的后期处理，为什么一定要使用{{duplicate|new-file-name}}而不能使用 {{speedy|请求删除原因}}呢？“因某种原因，想要删除你的图片？只要给它加上 {{speedy|请求删除原因}}标签就行了”。----颐园新居 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Generally the {duplicate}-nominations are dealt with by different people, with more experience on that field. Jcb (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sobre subida de Fotos

Hola Johan, soy un cubano, de la región de Baracoa, Cuba, mi usuario es kaldym1952, le escribo en español pues he visto Ud tiene nivel avanzado en mi idioma natal, por lo que veo estoy teniendo serios problemas con la subida de fotos a Wikimedia Commons, la cosa es que soy nuevo editando en Wikipedia y de las fotos que he subido todas las han borrado, ¿podria Ud explicarme que debo hacer?, incluso las fotos que yo mismo he tomado las han quitado, seria muy conveniente para mi Ud me dijera como debo hacer y que reglas debo cumplir para que esto no me suceda más. Me gustaría saber:

• Mis propias fotos (resolución permitida), (que licencia darle)
• Fotos ajenas (resolución permitida), (que licencia darle), (si la he bajado de internet cómo hacer para que sean validas), en fin a Ud me remito para que me ayude.

Gracias por atenderme --DanielF+M (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lo que pasa es que fotos bajado del internet normalmente están bajo copyright. Normalmente no puedes utilizar este tipo de fotos aquí en Wikimedia Commons. Puedes subir fotos tuyas, pero normalmente cuando vemos que alguien sube muchas fotos que no son su propiedad borramos todo para ser seguro que no quedan archivos problemáticos. El tamaño no importa aquí. Si desde ahora solamente subes tus propias fotos, no vas a tener este problema. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Gracias

Muchas gracias mi señor Johan, eso haré, subir solo mis propias fotos o de amigos mios que cedan el derecho a usarlas por cualquiera. --DanielF+M (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:April Erotic.JPG

Hi Jcb. I contest your conclusion by the reasoning I gave in the first DR. I would, however, not mind if the picture would be cropped. --Leyo 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a crop could bring it within scope? Jcb (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not my main point anyway. Did you read my reasoning? --Leyo 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see you didn't respond at all to this DR. I see there is already an UDR, let's await the outcome of that. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You think that I should have repeated my comment in order to become valid? But OK, let's wait for the outcome of the UDR. --Leyo 15:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:VLAG.jpg

Hi, those image abuse copyright of TRT. See Law on Intellectual and artistic works of the Republic of Turkey. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't raise this in the DR I closed. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Images from the Florida Photographic Collection

I see that you've closed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection. Could I please trouble you to look at the related Commons:Deletion requests/Images from the Florida Photographic Collection too. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I did deal with it, but apparently the closure by delreqhandler failed. I will close it by a manual edit. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

Do you think this exceeds? -- RE rillke questions? 12:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, see my closure of this: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German logos. I think PD-textlogo would be OK for this, but because I closed the DR of the template, I wish that somebody else takes a decision about the license of the two involved files. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg

reopened... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 00:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting this, you seem to have nothing better to do than disrupt the process. Jcb (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? Who is disrupting here? --Saibo (Δ) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reopened. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lew Hing Photograph.jpg

reopened... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lew Hing Photograph.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 02:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Patricia_Clarkson_2,_2010.jpg

Please re-consider closing the above as kept since the photo is clearly marked as Copyrighted by Rob Rich and Vivanista cannot release his copyrighted photo under Creative Commons without permission of the creator and copyright holder of the image. The no-permission tag was removed by the uploader and an e-mail was sent to the Flickr account holder and no reply was received to date. An OTRS permission would be required to document this permission. Thanks for your time and consideration! Warfieldian ^(talk) 04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The (c) doesn't strictly mean all rights reserved. In this case the image has been (also) released into a free license. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that (c) means all rights reserved. I said that (C) means that Rob Smith holds the copyright. The Flickr uploader is not Rob Smith. The Flickr uploader has not shown proof that Rob Smith agreed to release the image under Creative Commons. The person who uploaded it to Commons has a history of uploading images from Flickr that were deleted due to this very reason of the Flickr uploader not having permission for the image. Please re-consider this decision. Thanks. Warfieldian ^(talk) 12:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear Flickrwashing to me, so further action seems unnecessary. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Bonjour JCB, je voudrais effacer ou blanchir ma page de discussion, comment puis-je faire?--FALCOM (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You can copy its contents to e.g. User talk:Falcom/archive and then remove it from the talk page itself, where you can place a link to the archive, see the link in top of my talk page. Jcb (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--FALCOM (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Shane Haboucha.jpg

I don't think it's wise to assume that wikia implies cc-by-3.0; Anyway, I was able to dig up the real original source of this image (was not evident from google image actually), but it's sad that you where not able to deduce this logical fact by your self. _→AzaToth 15:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to, nominator is responsible for a correct nomination. You stated the image to be copyvio from a certain site, which stated CC-BY-SA at the bottom of the image description page. That's not my fault. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read [8] you will know that the "CC-BY-SA" is only relevant for the text and not for files. Anyway, your point of view are not suitable for an admin, as an admin should never blindly trust nominations (or we can reduce all admins to mere bots). _→AzaToth 16:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop those personal attacks, new offensive comments will be reverted. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get us nowhere. But when a file looks like a copyvio and it is not clear where it comes from it is wise to do a few checks. If nominater had not checked again we would have a copyvio with a "kept" from an admin. Often users say "Oh an admin said ok then it is probably ok". --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but if admins are not allowed to deal with the request as is but instead also have to try to invent other possible deletion reasons, the task gets unmanageable. It's the task of the nominator to provide a good DR and the task of the processing admin to deal with the DR as is. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carrer mercaders.jpg

You cite situations differing too much in your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carrer mercaders.jpg. But that is exactly the point... there is so little pattern to his uploads that they are all clearly just grabbed from random places. Maybe the ones that are evidently PD-old should be kept (and run in a separate DR if desired), but it seems the rest can be safely deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If in future cases you could include a list of the involved files in the DR, that is actually the official procedure. If they are really clearly just grabbed from the web, you will probably be able to provide links to the source of some of them. Also in the list you could indicate which files may be PD-old. Also one of the files is a coat of arms and many of them are free. In this the DR gets too diffuse for the processing admin. Jcb (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Oh man, you deserve a beer - online and offline - for what you do on Commons. From deleting "out of scope" "Crap" or making great jokes about penis shots. Thanks :) Hehehehe... Missvain (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) - Jcb (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

PD-text

Hi, I recognizing you since you regular delete or change the licenses of the files I tagged. It is right, that the file File:Avw.jpg‎ is PD-text (I forgot "this license"), but the File:Logo - Discover More.jpg is def. not a valid PD-text. Would you rethink your decision? mabdul 10:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I had a look at it again, but File:Logo - Discover More.jpg is a clear case of {{PD-textlogo}}. For more information, see Threshold of originality. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lill Lindfors 8 maj 1968.jpg

Hello!

Can you give a rationale why you decided to "keep" here, please? Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Löschorgie Schloß Schleinitz, Schieritz

Die Achtung vor der Arbeit eines Menschen gebietet es, vorher miteinander zu reden, um nicht mit einer Handbewegung die Arbeit anderer Menschen zu zerstören. Ich stelle fest, daß es keine erklärende Diskussion zur den von dir durchgeführten Löschungen gegeben hat! Ein klarer Fall von Mißbrauch der Admin-Rechte! Auch sollte sich ein Ausländer nicht in die deutschen Rechtsbelange hier einmischen, die übrigens an den betroffenen Bilder rein formalistisch eingehalten waren! Die Arroganz dieser Löschung ist beispielhaft für den Niedergang dieser guten Idee. Kein Wunder, warum hier alle abhauen, wenn solche "Stimmen der Wikipedia" sich selbstherrlich feiern und benehmen als sei es allein ihre Entscheidung, wie mit der Arbeit anderer zu verfahren sei. Auf alle Fälle waren das die letzten Bilder die ich je zu Commons hochgeladen habe! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bokassa 1939.jpg

With all due respect, the decision of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bokassa 1939.jpg and the corresponding reasoning is even peculiar by your standards. Aside from making arbitrary guesses about the rights owners of this image, your decision does not even tackle the "70 years from the year of first publication" problem. So I would like to ask the following questions:

• Do you have any evidence whatsoever when the image was published for the first time?
• If so, is there any, at least indicative evidence that the works were anonymous or at least that no author was attributed to the original image (which has later been put on the website)?
• In your judgement, does the decision imply that we are allowed to randomly declare copyright notices improper, i.e. claim that the owner of the photos did not have the right to insert the notice even though we do not have further knowledge of the individual situation? Also, do you suggest that we can consider all photographs anonymous works that appear someplace on the internet without attribution?

Thank you in advance, —Pill (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the copyright notice is from the original copyright holder? To me that seems that improbable that I didn't reckon with that. Scanning an old picture doesn't create new copyright, although lots op people think so. Jcb (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to be from the original copyright holder. Copyright notices regularly serve the purpose of claiming copyright in non-Berne states, but therefore they don't need to be from the author, they may also be added by owners of reproduction rights or the legal successor of an author (with huge differences among jurisdictions). I would also be curious about your answers to the other questions raised above, most importantly to the first and the last. —Pill (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For a lot of old images at Wikimedia Commons we don't have a proof of publishment. About your third question, I strongly disagree with your qualification: 'randomly'. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I find your more or less facile one-sentence responses to my questions rather disappointing, and they give me the impression that you don't really care about the issues raised here anyway, so I won't try for a third time to get a real answer. —Pill (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)