User talk:Ronhjones

Hi there! To keep the flow of conversations, I like to keep threads on one page where possible. So, if you post a message here, I'll probably respond to it here - I do have e-mail alerts for this page. Conversely, if I post a message on your talk page, you can respond there if you wish; since I've edited your talk page I'll have it on my watchlist. Thanks!

If you wish to contact me privately you can email me



I refer to you a question of a user who contacted me about five of his uploads that were deleted yesterday, apparently in connection with this deletion request. The reason the user contacted me is because I had previously replied to a question about this topic on the French-language help desk and on his talk page. In 2014, on the basis of the situation as it was at that time, I had told him that post-2013 material of Voice of America was not uploaded to Commons. In 2016, following the change in the situation, the clarification by VoA, the decision in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-08#Original materials of VOA and consequently the removal of the post-2013 restriction in the VoA template, I notified the user on his talk page about this change and that the material can now be uploaded to Commons. Following the deletion yesterday, the user is understandably puzzled.

I looked at the deletion request and the rationale for the nomination seems strange:

  • The nomination rationale for deletion is essentially that the nominator couldn't access to the old terms of use page of VoA. Another user in the discussion judiciously pointed out that this was not a reason for deletion. Even if the old ToU page had simply been removed, the situation had already been documented and reviewed by many Commons administrators. Besides, the present ToU pages state that the VoA material is in the public domain [1]. The nomination's argument that the old page was removed and replaced is not a reason for deletion, it is the opposite.
  • Of the five deletions, four are re-deletions of files that had been undeleted last month (see list). The other file was a new upload after the clarification.
  • The nomination did not explain if and why the nominator thinks that the situation of those five files is different from the hundred of files that were undeleted or recently uploaded.
  • Although the uploader did not mention it in his question, I note that he was not notified of the deletion request. If he had been notified, he could have asked for explanations directly in the deletion discussion.

Could you please reply directly to the uploader on his talk page in the section User talk:Tan Khaerr#Mise à jour au sujet de VOA to tell him more details about why the files were deleted? Thanks in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: My French is way too rusty to join in there. Deletions are done by a consensus of editors. I examined the statements there, and the overall view was that Pre-June 2013 were OK, and post was not. I checked the supplied link to VOA ToC (, and as stated there were none shown. Also Jim stated that "The last time I was able to look at the VOA Terms of Use, they did not allow free use". With no opposition to keep, the files were deleted. I would suggest the author go for a deletion review. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
For your information: in the mean time the situation has been resolved with VoA and all deleted post June 2013 materials have been undeleted since. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-08#Original_materials_of_VOA. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jcb Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Blakey mapsEdit

Hello! In 2015 you started a DR concerning several maps by Blakey. Do you remember why the rest of the files in Category:Maps by Ron Blakey weren't part of that DR? Most of them are DWs of deleted files. I ask because someone gave me a link to new files by Blakey and it would be better to know why some files were kept and some not before starting a new DR. Regards, NNW 15:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it only relates to a list of images on one OTRS ticket (I didn't do the original permission), where our standard permission template was not used. Later they wrote in complaining about the re-use, when it was properly fully explained that our license allows commercial, he refused to agree to the license, so I had to go for deletion. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Of the files in the category (Category:Maps by Ron Blakey) - File:Eastern North American Paleogeograpy Middle Devonian.png has a valid ticket, where the proper template has been used, showing commercial use allowed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this file and file:Azhdarchid map.png are the only ones that can be kept. Thanks for the explanation. NNW 08:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Juniperus occidentalis australis Tahoe1.jpgEdit

Hi Ron - thanks for the email query; Juniperus grandis is a synonym of Juniperus occidentalis subsp. australis. There is a useful summary of the argumemnts over which name is more appropriate here, supporting use of Juniperus occidentalis subsp. australis, with which I fully agree. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get back to the original poster with the info. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ronhjones".