User talk:Jcb

Not available from 17 July till 5 August

archive May 2005 - March 2011 - April 2011 - June 2011 - July 2011 - September 2011 - October 2011 - December 2012 - January 2013 - December 2013 - January 2014 - February 2014 - April 2014 - May 2014 - October 2015 - November 2015 - April 2016 - May 2016 - June 2016 - July 2016 - September 2016 - October 2016 - November 2016 - December 2016 - January 2017 - February 2017 - March 2017 - April 2017
For any questions about OTRS permissions, please visit the OTRS/Noticeboard

---

OTRS for FSPS photos

Hi Jcb,

You recently deleted these files: File:FSPS Alma Street, Nos 21 & 19, 12-2-A, 1979.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 37, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 35, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 33, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 29, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 27, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 25, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 23, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 21, 12-6-E, 1978.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 21, 12-2-A, 1979.png File:FSPS Alma Street, No 15, 12-2-A, 1979.png but they all had OTRS permission, otrs:2012011210014367. I think the problem was that the ticket can't be entered directly, but has to be put in as pending; it is however valid. Can you please undelete them? Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 06:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In principle, if you upload new pictures belonging to an old ticket, you should reply to the ticket to notify an OTRS agent. Adding a 'pending' template will not activate an OTRS agent. Also this ticket seems problematic. Some organization claims to be the copyright holder of an unknown amount of pictures, without providing any explanation how the photographers transfered the copyright to that organization. This ticket should never have been accepted in 2012. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you that the Fremantle Society does hold copyright over those photos, and definitely did release them under cc-by-sa-2.5-au (in order that they be uploaded to Commons). There are another few hundred of these photos still to be scanned and uploaded, so it'd be good to sort out any OTRS problems now before we go any further. For the first sets of uploads, I was using {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012011210014367}} but then was told to switch to {{OTRS pending|id=2012011210014367}}, which I did. If you're saying that there's a problem with the original permission, could you please bring that topic up in the appropriate place before starting to delete anything more? Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 00:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing project for a number years, the whole collection was released at time why are any files being deleted. Gnangarra 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Files tagged with {OTRS pending} are deleted after some time by procedure if no OTRS agent verifies the files. This has been the standard procedure for about the last decade. Non OTRS-agents are indeed not allowed to use the {PermissionOTRS} tag. In this case the former OTRS agent who accepted this ticket in 2012 is blatantly at fault, this ticket should not have been accepted. Unfortunately this former OTRS agent has made many of these errors with tickets. @Samwilson: I will try to find some time later today to respond to the OTRS ticket by email to see if we can resolve this. Jcb (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the mechanics of the Otrs then or now or who might be at fault or not, all the photographs need to be re-instated as soon as possible, as the viability and status of the project that they relate to becomes close to farcical in the face of such removal. Please, if possible anything to re-instate and recover the components would be much appreciated. JarrahTree (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have sent them a follow up message from OTRS to see if we can document a valid permission. If this succeeds, we then restore the files. If this fails, we have a problem for the other files as well unfortunately. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the ticket, I would have to agree with Jcb that the original ticket was, unfortunately, insufficient. Hopefully the matter can be resolved. - Revent^talk 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In what way was it insufficient? The then-president of the Society agreed (after consulting the rest of the committee) that the photos be released under an open license. Is that not recorded in OTRS? An official of the organisation agreed on a license for a very specific and well-documented set of photographs. "Without providing any explanation how the photographers transfered the copyright"? The explanation is on Fremantle Society Photographic Survey: the photographers were doing this for the Fremantle Society, and knew that the photos would belong to the Society. Do you want to see individual releases for all the photographers? There is no record of who they all were; keep in mind that this was all done 40 years ago, and done for the common good.

Also, these are currently the only copies of these scans. Before deleting any more, please do let me know so that I can arrange to download everything that's here so far.

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: The question being asked is one that should have been asked when the ticket was originally processed....when a statement of permission is obtained from a party that is not the author, who alleges to own the copyright in the works, it is necessary to determine how they came to own that copyright.

To be very clear, please read, carefully, Section 35 of the 1968 Copyright Act. Even if the photographers were employees, and paid, the Society does not own the right to use the images for any purpose other than the ones that were, expressly or implicitly, stated at the time the work was made. We need, at the least, a clear explanation of how the various photographers assigned their copyrights to the Society. - Revent^talk 09:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

the photographs were taken as a historical record of how the streets/buildings looked in 1978 they a being used for that purpose. Gnangarra 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A CC license means that they files are available for any purpose. Jcb (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have escalated it to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fremantle_Society_Photographic_Survey because if a permission can be rejected 5 years after it was approved then every permission recieved from OTRS is at risk of being invalidated. Gnangarra 05:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the status of this issue? Can these be undeleted yet? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 11:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately we did not yet receive anything. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What will you do if you receive no reply? I can probably get another written statement from the Society, if it comes to it. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 06:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I sent them a message 2 May, to which they did not yet answer. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• response received by Wikimedia Australia on 17 May 2017 and forwarded to OTRS with the statement by the then President of Fremantle Society The Fremantle Society is the SOLE OWNER of the exclusive copyright of the hundreds of photos comprising the “Fremantle Society Photographic Survey Gnangarra 08:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it's still no more than a statement. No explanation and no evidence. I have sent them another message via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • As I forwarded that email to OTRS after receiving it as President of Wikimedia Australia why havent I received a response. Gnangarra 09:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• there is a full explanation in the email about the project, who owns copyright and the license under which the images have been released. Gnangarra 09:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The message I have seen, added to ticket:2012011210014367, was forwarded by Sam Wilson. He received a copy of my reply. @Samwilson: Is this the same message as Gnangarra received? What essentially is missing in the message is how the legal act of copyright transfer took place. Jcb (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's the same message that I forwarded to the original ticket. You ask for "an example of a contract with these photographers"; the closest that is extant is probably File:FSPS participant information.djvu, but what if we get a signed statutory declaration asserting that the FS is the owner? Would that suffice? In the meantime, can you undelete the photos you deleted so that I can download them? Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      • A statement from FSPS is worthless as long as they do not satisfactory explain how they became the copyright holder in the fist place. The information document doesn't say anything about copyright. I will temporarily restore the files. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

Hi, as i understand we have the possibility to post game screenshots under fair use, no? --Prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here at Wikimedia Commons we do not allow Fair Use, but some Wikipedia versions, including English Wikipedia, accept local uploads of Fair Use files. For more information, see: en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content - Jcb (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, forget that. The reason i uploaded that image you removed, it was published under a license, allowed. However, it was then identified as unreliable source. My related talk page notice in that regard is kinda misleading. Cheers --Prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Culture and life, 2011

Please restore the files from this category: File:Culture and life, 01-2011.pdf - File:Culture and life, 52-2011.pdf; and from Category:Culture and life, 2009. We have confirmed permission: Ticket:2017032110010546, but I don't have time to process it, there is a lot of material Category:Culture and life (newspaper), Category:Krymska svitlytsa. --sasha (krassotkin)

And File:Culture and life, 37-2014.pdf (maybe I missed it with template). --sasha (krassotkin)

 Done - please make sure next time to tag the files with PermissionOTRS - Jcb (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! But there is a little more :). Above I wrote the limits of the range. Here is a list I found manually. 2011: 02-04, 05-07, 08-09, 10-11, 12, 13, 14-16, 17-19, 20-22, 23-25, 26, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. 2009: 35-36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done - please be aware that we cannot trace deleted files from the category they used to be in - Jcb (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 07:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing permission for File:Vladimir Pimonov, Ph.D, author, literary critic (Denmark).jpg

Hi Jcb,

we received a permission for that file. Can you clarify me why it was deleted in the first place, so that I can handle the OTRS ticket correctly? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 13:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It had no EXIF and a very small resolution, unlikely to be own work. As a verification you could ask them to send the original file from their camera, with Meta-data. Jcb (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio for CC-0?

Hello, Jcb! I see that you have deleted File:Jeno Dsida.jpg, citing the reason "Copyright violation: http://www.europeana.eu/portal/hu/record/2022408/bjc_fei_pci_007_jpg.html?q=%22Dsida+Jen%C5%91%22". That page specifies that the photo is available under the CC-0 license. I guess you thought that the file is still under copyright since the photographer (Emil Isac) died in 1954. However, the photo was first published in Romania, and {{PD-RO-1956}} probably applies for this photo. Additionally, the library that has the physical photos specifies that the Emil Isac collection is in the public domain. Do you have any reason to doubt this information? I don't think a speedy deletion is appropriate in this case and a discussion was needed. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed the CC-0 at source, although I doubt whether the source site is correct. I have undeleted the file and converted to a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Klaevi spordiplats 1930 kaardil.png

Hi! You closed this DR with "no valid reason for deletion". The DR was about precautionary principle. How comes that this isn't a valid reason? 62.65.58.38 13:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It was explained in the previous DR why there is no copyright issue. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's an obvious misunderstanding about what "a work created in execution of duties of employment" means. There is no evident connection between premises and conclusion that Ruthven gives. We know the name of the printer and that printer also did editing and distribution, but this doesn't prove nor even imply in any way that it's a work created in execution of duties of employment (assuming that Ruthven means the same by saying "a work for hire") as per copyright act. 62.65.58.38 18:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You can nominate it again, but I give you little chance. Jcb (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please at least try to explain how should it make any sense what Ruthven said? This would be constructive, instead of bluntly refusing to even discuss. I've put an effort into trying to understand the reason why the file was kept (assuming it's what Ruthven said). I think it would be fair and respectful if you at least try to reply in the same manner. 62.65.58.38 07:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:104th Grey Cup in 2016, BMO Field.jpg

You didn't let me respond to this, why?? You deleted it 12 hours after the most recent message. Cmm3 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird, you couldn't respond in 12 hours, but after deletion you are here in 5 minutes? You have been told almost 3 weeks ago to contact OTRS. Typically they will ask you to send the original file. I don't understand why you uploaded a file from Facebook in the first place if you are the author and should have access to the original file. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Upload in a correct way?

Hi again user Jcb

This question refers to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Temp_cat_files_Tore_Danielsson

We have now deleted all the files that were uploaded in the wrong way. I still have correct permissions from copyright holders, written in Swedish and signed by the artists.

How do you suggest that I can start upload again? If I want to do it in a correct way? i.e let the OTRS agent check an add the permission on Commons.

Best Regards --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Do not reupload the files yourself under any circumstance. If an OTRS agent agrees there is a valid permission, the files can be undeleted by or on behalf of this OTRS agent. The agent who mishandled your ticket has chosen not to step in at this point. I don't read Swedish. Colleague Josve05a might be able to help you, he knows Swedish. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar): Hej! Jga har inte läst alla emails eller diskussioner, men förstår att allt det här är väldigt komplicerat och förrvirrande - jag tycker det verkar som det i alla fall just nu. Jag kommer kolla igenom all dokumentation som finns tillgänglig för mig idag, och sne läsa igenom alla mail som du skickat in, för att få bättre grepp på vad som hänt. Om du är villig, så kan vi samtala 'in person', antingen via telefon eller nånstans i Stockholm för se om vi kan lösa detta reletivt snabbt. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a good response, I do not want to upload files if there is something wrong in any way. Only those who are wanted and can be used in a good way. I also see that there are problems with many of the photographs. I also think it's better to use the English OTRS-template in the future. I first called and asked properly and explained CC BY SA before I sent a letter with the document for signature. The designers for the posters are often older and not so good at uploading the files themselves.

I will contact user Jonatan Svensson Glad in Swedish during the week and have a talk and see if there are something to do here.

Best regards --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

copyvio

Hi, you removed this copyvio-note. Why? The copyvio is obvious. --h-stt !? 11:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@H-stt: Do not wheelwar. I declined speedy deletion, because such files need a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I decided this formal DR. It is you who is wheel warring. There is no need to wait any longer and risk reusers to fall into a license trap. This is an obvious case and we need to protect both the project and any reusers. Please delete this file ASAP and restore my closure! --h-stt !? 13:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, such files need a regular DR, that's a well established fact. This is at least the third time within a short period of time that you have been wheelwarring. Don't do that again! The file is clearly marked as nominated for deletion, so the possible danger for reusers is a bogus argument. By speedy closing this DR you effectively wheelwarred, even if you try to be creative in defining your action. Just leave the DR in place and vote on it if you like. Closing after 5 or 6 days won't be a problem, but there is no justification for a speedy closure. Jcb (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We all know, that with the file viewer DR-tags are not visible anymore to the average user and reusers are not protected from making this mistake. In such a clear case of such a well known work of art we can not wait. Not even any unnecessary hour. Please act now in the interest of the project and our reusers! Or I will need to appeal your decision. --h-stt !? 14:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to focus on the source first if you are really so scared about possible reuse. For now, please just leave the case alone. You have been warned several times not to wheelwar. Your behaviour is not in favour of the project. It's a well established practice to use regular DRs when the picture itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object causes a copyright issue. I see no reason to deviate from our standard practice for this particular file. Jcb (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Photos

Hi Jcb, you removed the files and . You said that the files were in a queue, but I don't see the files haven't been undeleted yet. Only I say to you this to make sure if the files are going to be undeleted. Thanks. --Aidalova (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. Please be patient. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Astrid Fritz.jpg

Hi Jcb, you deleted the above file - could you please double check its history? The uploader seemed to be trying to revoke his license. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Museum photos - questions about photographer

Hello. Previously you were managing ticket:2016121410033994. I would appreciate your further attention to the notes there, as I just added some updates. I talked with the museum person by phone and discussed the situation. I tried to help them in a way that is evident by the ticket.

Since you had been managing the conversation there, I wanted to alert you to this in case they reply. I am at hand to assist this museum in understanding Wiki policies, but I think it would be best if someone else closed out their permission tickets if it comes to that. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what happens. Thanks for your efforts sofar. Jcb (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, on 19 May they replied. Personally, I am satisfied with their permission, but I would appreciate your second opinion and continued management of the ticket. I have the list of files which could be undeleted in an email from 11 May which begins, "Thanks for talking with me". There is more explanation in that email, but here is the list repeated on-wiki.

Are you comfortable with the explanation which they gave to this point? Is there anything more that you want from them? They seem willing to offer whatever is requested, and to the best of my understanding, they already have. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been away for the last few days. I will try to have a look within the next few days. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PSTR

Thanks for wasting my time, the page can stay bland from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke legeke (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Spirit of St. Louis Smithsonian.JPG

File history updated for Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Spirit_of_St._Louis_Smithsonian.JPG. The file was uploaded to English Wikipedia by the User:Jawed himself. I just uploaded it again to Commons with same license and description, when they were two separate sites. --Captmjc (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Responded in the DR. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you quick response. I suggest a redundant check in en.wikipeida.org using Wikipedia and File namespaces, as this may cover most similar cases.--Captmjc (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sotos2.jpg

Hi, this file was not deleted as stated. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the logs I did delete the file, but another admin undeleted it and a third admin redeleted it a few minutes after your message here. Jcb (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

File:FTP Stream How It Works.webm

Hi Jcb! Nice to meet you. I've noticed you've deleted the video I uploaded "FTP Stream How It Works". I work for Maytech and have all the permissions to use and upload Maytech files on Maytech behalf, even if they are Maytech copyright content. This video was shoot for Maytech by digital agency couple of years ago. We want to upload this video to Wikipedia page about Maytech. You can find this video uploaded to YouTube by Maytech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIzCt5wQXDc Could you please allow me to upload the video to Wikipedia? Thanks a lot and waiting for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasiia09 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the video, please contact OTRS. Regarding the article, please be aware that paid editting of Wikipedia articles is not allowed. Jcb (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jcb.What do you mean under paid editing? I created and edited article voluntary. I get paid for sales and not for creating pages for Wikipedia. Anastasia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasiia09 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The official policy is here: en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Please read that page, in order to keep yourself out of trouble. I have not checked whether your contributions may violate this policy, I just found it suitable to draw your attention to it, to avoid possible problems. Jcb (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete "File:Speckle Milho.gif"

Dear Jcb

you have listed "File:Speckle Milho.gif" to delete, however I have done the upload presenting myself as the owner and tagging it as public. Why have you done that? Please, revert the deletion. --Roberto Braga (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Authorship information was not provided on upload and 'own work' seems improbable. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Jcb, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hasty delations again

Dear Hedwig in Washington,

I do not understand why you have deleted the files as follows

• File:Widder Fédesanyja Widderné Nágel Nina.jpg ‎(No OTRS permission since 14 May 2017)
• File:Widder Fleányával, Magdával, fiával Gáborral (Don-kan yarban elhunyt) a műteremben.jpg ‎(No OTRS permission since 14 May 2017)
• File:Widder Fgyermekei, Magda és Gábor.jpg ‎(No OTRS permission since 14 May 2017)
• File:Widder Ffelesége, Kálmán Józsa.jpg ‎(No OTRS permission since 14 May 2017)

and I do not understand the motivation "No OTRS permission". An e-mail has been being processed in progress which has been sent by the copyright holder, Prof. Dr. Judit Vihar who has sent the permission in time, and the permission e-mail has already had to arrive at administrators it may concern. So the processing must still be in progress, so I think your decision was a little bit hasty and ain't prudent and it can be a little bit rude. I know the files can be restored easily, so I would like to ask you for restoring these files without delay. I know and you also know that the OTRS procedures are little bit slow because volunteers do the tasks but if you are aware of that fact why you do delate so fast and hastily. Be attentive and polite. Earlier Prof. Dr. Judit Vihar's photos also have been delated hastily in December by you but fortunately the files got be restored so I was right and the photos can have used legally by Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards.Borgatya (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

These files were uploaded 15 March, deletions was not 'fast' or 'hastily'. Files can be undeleted as soon as a valid permission is processed by an OTRS agent. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Jcb,

this comment "you abuse Commons to play your drama game." directed at Fae is a personal attack. Will you consider to retract it? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My comment is not about a person, but about their behaviour. This is by definition not a personal attack. Jcb (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is personal attack. What are your evidences that Fae is abusing Commons? Wikicology (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons: Deletion requests/RIANTatianin Day

Dear Jcb, The images requested for deletion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/RIANTatianinDay were uploaded as part of the “Eternal values” project. The project was terminated and is not going to be resumed as RIA Novosti (the copyright owner of the images) was liquidated in 2013. Please, find by the link the information about the project in Wikipedia https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82:%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%8B/Visualrian As copyright owner we may stop distribution of the images (according CC BY-SA 3.0 Section 7(b) – “Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time” )uploaded in Wikimedia Commons earlier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RIA_Novosti We requested the images for deletion to avoid further distribution through Wikimedia Commons. Please, ensure the fulfillment of our request for deletion from Wikimedia Commons.Thanks.

You are free to stop distribution, but Commons on its turn is free to continue distribution. There is no need for us to fulfill your request. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

pictures, permission

Hi Jcb,

I sended already some days ago an email with permissions for 2 of the pictures for free use as well for File:Gishalde-TG-Biotop-Motocross-May2017.jpg. What else needs to be done? --Prentenr (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. As soon as a valid permission is being processed by an OTRS agent, the files will be restored. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for information. I'll wait then for restorage.--Prentenr (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ewald Arenz Hut.jpg

Why did you delete the file just weeks after Daphne kept it according to a OTRS confirmation? Please check your edit. TIA --h-stt !? 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to keep-close a DR if there is also an ongoing OTRS procedure. Files should typically be in one process at a time. As you can see if you read more carefully, Daphne did not state that there was an OTRS confirmation, just that there was an ongoing OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So are you telling me, that no ORTS-mail was received? Or that the mail did not give a sufficient license? or what else are you telling me? --h-stt !? 14:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We did receive an email, but it didn't contain a valid permission. An OTRS agent sent a follow up message 29 April, to which they did not respond. If an OTRS ticket does not lead to confirmation within 30 days after our first response, we delete the file(s). Jcb (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

THX --h-stt !? 14:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Own work

Some are PD, but all? See User:Bcbudworth contribs. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have started a DR. Jcb (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

deleting file

This deletion was way wrong, I am so to see person like you holding admin rights on commons. I will request for undeletion very soon Mardetanha ^talk 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

massive deletion of anglo-norman files

You recently deleted all the files I was regularizing : change of notices and Commons OTRS permissions under review (see end of the page), with the help of your French admin Yann. Could you reinstate them and wait for the OTRS decision ? Thanks--Anglo-norman (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I will only do a temporary deletion on request of an OTRS agent who is willing to start working on it. See also: Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anglo-norman - Jcb (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

CSD File:Mass spectrum.png © Copyright by U.S. Secretary of Commerce

Please refer to

1. File:Mass spectrum.png the image file itself has the line "Copyright by U.S. Secretary of Commerce"
2. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/form-ser.html (...© 2016 by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved.Copyright for NIST Standard Reference Data is governed by the Standard Reference Data Act....)
3. en:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government#Exemptions (... 15 U.S.C. § 290e authorizes U.S. Secretary of Commerce to secure copyright for works produced by the Department of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act...)

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am new to this. --taweethaも (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Taweetham: You are wrong for two reasons: Works from the federal US government are PD by law and this simple graph is not eligible for copyright. @Sealle: FYI - Jcb (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. @Edgar181: FYI --taweethaも (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

FSPS pages

Are you going to delete the rest of the FSPS files and pages (inc. templates) as well? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not necessary. No sure if someone could use them. Jcb (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

woka LAMPS vienna

Hi Jcb. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly#woka LAMPS vienna and see if you can help Corso1111? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Mariamnath contreras

Dear Jcb, I'd like to know if you can consider this deletion request. The person who uploaded the files explained to me that those are her files but didnt find the originals, she is new to commons and this kind of encounters without a proper explanation are certainly counterproduce to beginners. Cheers --Oscar_. (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the uploader to contact OTRS. Some sort of verification will be needed. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Harry_Lewis_in_Harvard_Student_Meeting_2002_cropped.jpg

Sorry, but I'm confused about this deletion. Was this not identified as a crop of File:HarryLewis Harvard InMeeting 2002.jpg? Either way, please restore it so I can tag it properly.

Your edit summary was "No OTRS permission since 9 June 2017." Just for my own understanding, why did this happen in only eight days? Why didn't I receive a notification on my talk page? EEng (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You uploaded the file 10 April with the {{OTRS pending}} tag. After the backlog of OTRS (currently 60 days), the file is tagged automatically as 'no permission' and will be deleted after 7 days. The reason you didn't receive a notification was because you added the tag yourself. I think everything is fixed now. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There was some juggling of file names and I think I lost track of which files needed which tags. Please check that the licensing is OK now. EEng (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Photos_from_Magyar_Rendőr

Hi Jcb. I added a list to that DR of files by usage on sister projects, since some sister projects allow for Fair Use. I was starting by deleting those that are not used or are only used by projects that do not allow for fair use. I was going to ask the various other wikis tomorrow if they would like to copy those files locally. But you've started deleting those (e.g. File:Vásárhelyi Pál utca, autóbusz-állomás. Fortepan 66905.jpg, which was in use on huwiki, which has Fair Use). Would you mind deleting only those with no uses first? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Jcb (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You have deleted file with OTRS approved

This file had been approved File:2017 Australian GP security team.jpg <- OTRS permission processed (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)) Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that picture is the copyright infringement of the map in the background. Jcb (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

the OTRS for the one File:2017 Australian GP security team.jpg which was accepted was sent AFTER the OTRS for all these File:Felix_Leong_Rebirth_celebration_1.jpg File:Felix_Leong_Rebirth_celebration_2.jpg File:Terry_Lim_hall_of_fame.jpg File:Kali_seminar_1.jpg File:Terry_Lim_tournament.jpg File:Terry_lim_demonstration.jpg File:Kali_seminar_drills.jpg File:Kali_seminar_2.jpg File:Terry_Lim_anniversary_3.jpg File:Terry_Lim_anniversary_1.jpg File:Terry_Lim_anniversary_2.jpg Forgive me but this makes no sense to me at all whatsoever. These photos were of enough importance to be published in a national newspaper, this process seems to be wasting too many people's time.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC))

Upload got wrong

Hi, can you help me with this? I've just uploaded one opf my pics, and have chosed an already existing name (File:Kunstteich Wettelrode.jpg). I've got no warning, however. This is strange, but it happened. Could you please separate them or delete my pic? In case of the latter, i will upload it again under a different name. TIA, --Markscheider (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up, so that you can upload the file under a new name. Sometimes the system somehow fails to warn users, from time to time things like this happen. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! --Markscheider (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

日本語で疑問を呈します

こんにちは。あなたからいただいたメッセージを、変換ソフトで翻訳しましたら、次の様な内容を頂いたようです。

＞『こんにちは、あなたは、ファイルがもはや必要ではないと思う場合は、メニューから ' 削除を指名 ' を使用して、通常の削除要求を開始してください。これは、迅速に削除するための正当な理由ではありません。』

その内容に沿って疑問を呈しますので、宜しくお願いします。例えば（Ａ）さんが、私がアップした画像を利用されようと必要な画像を探していた時に、同時期に偶然ながらその画像の一部を私が不要と判断したとします。で、私は手続きをして削除を依頼しますが、もし『即日削除』で（Ａ）さんが利用される前に辛うじて削除されれば、（Ａ）さんの目に触れることもなく当然、採用される事もありません。 しかし、『通常削除』で依頼して失礼ながら時間又は日数がかかって削除されると、（Ａ）さんが選んで記事にアップしてしまった後で、時間差で削除されて結果的にはその記事に大穴が開いたり、画像が何かの出典ソース的な意味合いで、削除により記事内容の整合性が崩れて記事参加者間のトラブルになるような事も起こりかねません。 極論だと思われるでしょうが、私も過去に似たような事例で議論が過熱した事案も見ましたし、また別件で巻き込まれた苦い経験もしましたので、理由はどうあれ不要となった画像の速やかな削除は、少なくとも画像をアップした者の責務であると思います。 しかし絶対的な削除権を持つ管理者のあなたが認められないのであれば、私としては成すべくも無いわけです。

因みに削除理由の詳細は『既に同類的な画像がある。　撮影角度が悪く、専門的な価値が無い。　他人により同類的な画像がアップされて価値がなくなってしまった。』などですが、大変失礼ながらもし『それならば夫々の理由を述べるように』と言われるのでしたら、それは見解の相違であり最初の案内マニアルにも事細かくその旨を明記して頂きたいと思います。

なお私のノートの初期にも触れていますが、英語が分からず翻訳ソフトで訳しています関係で、トラブルを避けるためにも基本的には日本語のみでお願いしたく思いますので、以後は『日本語』でお願いします。Gazouya-japan (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yasu: @Miya: @Whym: Could one of you help this user? I tried to explain that they should use a regular DR instead of speedy, because there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I dropped a note on the user's talk page. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted City of London images

Hi Jcb, I've been trying to upload images from this Flickr photostream to Commons, but I'm finding that they are duplicates of files already uploaded and then deleted. Below is an example of the kind of message that comes up:

23:44, 18 March 2017 Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Beyond Tomorrow Statue Outside The Guildhall - City Of London. (33061294941).jpg (Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)

Is there any way you could restore these images to Commons? I'd like to use them on Wikidata. Thanks, Ham II (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This picture was probably listed for deletion by uploader because there were sufficient better pictures already online of the subject. Please use COM:UDR to request undeletion. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DFoidl

Hi! Thanks for dealing with that. I wondered, (a) did you decide that File:Maronesa cow 2.png was OK (I don't think it is) and (b) did you happen to look at his/her other uploads at all? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I only dealt with the nominated files. If you think other files should be deleted as well, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by साळुंके सुवर्णा

Hi, You closed this as deleted, but 3 files are still there. Did you intend to delete them as well? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Fixed. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kodak Black, arrest photo, May 2016.png, you had concerns about missing legal information on a photo. To deal with this concern, you have so far nominated the image for deletion, tagged the image for speedy deletion, and supported the work of a vandal who removed a valid link to the source of the image. At that discussion, I asked you why you did not tag the photo as having missing legal information, per Commons:Deletion policy#Missing legal information, which states "If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem." Your response was "the only reason I could imagine for which you would insist on a tagging instead of a regular DR is that you with like to sneak the nomination away without anybody noticing". Please assume good faith of other editors. I found your comment to be inappropriate and I will ask you to please strike it from that discussion. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I find your comments worrying. You repeatedly accused somebody of vandalism who did nothing wrong. You pottered around in the DR trying to provide information but obviously not giving sufficient attention, repeatedly wasting our time with inadequat source information. You repeatedly accused me of following the wrong procedure, although you are obviously mistaken. Please be aware that there may come a point where I will have a closer look at your uploads in general, because the main problem seems to be that on several different aspects you have no clue what you are doing. Jcb (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thank you for pursuing the undeletion. I have added a webarchive link to support the source. --Fæ (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, when you were re-admined I'm certain it was with the understanding you would not insult, hound or intimidate other experienced editors every time they found one of your actions to be sloppy. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my readminship, this is about your substandard actions. Jcb (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Warning, don't upload the copyrighted work

Wut? That's by the owner request.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarhanSyafiqF (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You may ask the author to contact OTRS, but don't reupload a file when it has been deleted for being a copyright violation. Jcb (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Hyvinkää Church Interior 2016-08-01 g.jpg

Hi! There is an open deletion request about File:Hyvinkää Church Interior 2016-08-01 g.jpg in case you want to participate it. BR, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the DR. This was not eligible for speedy deletion. {Copyvio} can only be used if the file itself has been stolen from somewhere. If a depicted object may cause a copyright issue, a regular DR is mandatory. Jcb (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, and personally I always create a DR in such cases. I just wanted to let you know about the DR since you had mentioned it in your edit comment. BR, ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Statues

Greetings! I would like to upload these ancient statues from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, but I'm not sure whether this is viable copyright-wise [1] [2] [3]. Which license if any would be most appropriate for this? Or do I instead need to shoot actual photographs myself of the statues at the museum? Please advise. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The pictures from the website are copyrighted, you can't upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. What if I were to visit the museum and shoot photographs of the statues myself? COM:DW seems to indicate that since the underlying work/statues themselves are in the public domain, the photographic derivative works would then be as well. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Whindersson.jpg

[4] Hi. I'm a user and eliminator from pt-wiki, and i've uploaded this file sometime ago to contribute with the article of Whindersson Nunes, the biggest youtuber in Brasil. With my experience as eliminator, there was no reasons for the exclusion of this file. The image is a print from a video on youtube, that is CC-FREE (you can see it on the description), witch it is allowed at commons. By the way, this same image was marked for elimination by another person, without sucess. I ask you to re-considerate the decision, and i believe that you can see the eliminated file, so there's all the copyrights informations that you need.

Sorry for my bad english, greetings --Jackgba (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to increase my argument, it already had a deletion request, which was even kept by you. The "global usage" reason has no sense, because the license of youtube is CC-FREE so no reason for the deletion. The own author allowed the global and free usage. I hope that was not just a auto action. Answering me. I would know why this happened. Jackgba (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There was a series of edits by other users causing a confusing situation. Everything should be fine now. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hélène Charlotte de Berquely-Richards (1908-2004).jpg

The work was still copyrighted in 1996 and so is not in the public domain in the United States because of the URAA. New uploads of such images are no longer accepted at Commons and new files of this type should be deleted. DrKay (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Files that have been deleted for this URAA argument, have been massively restored in 2014. Jcb (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's useful for me to know. Could you please direct me to the discussion? I'm not on commons much, and missed it. DrKay (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA - Jcb (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, remerciements

Good morning Jcb,

Thank you very much for your decision concerning the file Hélène Charlotte de Berquely-Richards. Best regards, LIONEL76 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Jcb,

Merci infiniment pour votre décision concernant le fichier Hélène Charlotte de Berquely-Richards. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

DUV-Logo

Moin, warum wurde das Logo gelöscht. Ich hab' doch die Korrespondenz mit dem DUV beigefügt. Und Ferrer schreibt doch selbst "... or which has been freely authorized by the owners of the copyright, ...". 56frosch (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a message in which DUV explicitly agrees with the license. Also such a message must be sent to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Daniel Cande

Hi, This is a very bad decision. Everyone, including the WMF, said that there is no reason to delete these files. How can you take such a decision against the opinion of everyone else? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparing BNF's Public Domain Mark with Flickr's PDM does not seem to me to be very appropriate : The Public Domain Mark here is properly used as a mean of certification by the institution who uploaded the file and negotiated the right to do so with the creator. It is not just the guess of anybody on the internet. Bear in mind the original intent of the PDM, as developed by Creative Commons, was to help cultural institutions (e.g. the British Library from enluminated manuscripts) to certify digital objects were in the public domain without adding a contractual layer such as CC0. There are cases where a library cannot license under CCO because they are not the creator of the original work, but they can still certify the fact a digital media is in the public domain. — Racconish^☎ 12:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have read the whole DR before closing it. It's not true that 'everyone else' had the opinion that the files should be kept. Several users expressed their doubts about the initial PD claim. In the whole DR it remain unclear whether BnF had the right to release the files into PD in the first case, so that we do not know whether this initial release would have been valid. I think deletion per COM:PCP was the only option here. Jcb (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason for deletion here (except for increasing you deleting count). Additionally at least 2 of the files were license reviewed. So I am going to restore your abusive deletion, unless you do it first. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't restore them without an UDR and proper discussion! Jcb (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

ESA

I hope you appreciate that considering your recent offensive remarks about me I am not inclined to interact with you on this page, however deleting File:Swirling cloud art in the Atlantic Ocean ESA221499.tiff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) appears to be in error and was based on automated visual matching. If you prefer me to avoid your user page, I'll take it to UNDEL instead. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there are two possibilities:

1. You come to this page if there is something to discuss, but to the point, without non-related rants with accusations about alleged issues from the past.
2. You stay away from this page.

About this case: I have taken a look. Deletion is correct, but the description is not. The correct deletion reason would be: "duplicate of File:Scia vorticosa di Karman, isole Canarie ESA322556.tiff" (you uploaded this file twice in the same batch) - Jcb (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hallo Johan,

manchmal fällt mir auf, dass du sehr, sehr schnell, manchmal mehr als zehn Dateien pro Minute aus der Category:Duplicate löscht, oftmals die vom Faebot gelisteten. Überprüfst Du dabei, ob das zu löschende Bild wirklich jünger ist (Non-EXIF SHA1 check confirms duplicate, other file is earlier)? Fæ oder sein Bot macht manchmal Fehler. Überprüfst Du auch die Kategorien? Manche haben keine oder sind nicht richtig kategorisiert. Und überprüfst Du auch die Dateinamen? Manche wie 772 EAS 131109-F-IG195-0067.jpg sind schlechter als U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Robert Ferbush, a C-130J Super Hercules aircraft loadmaster with the 772nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, prepares the cabin for an airdrop mission Nov. 9, 2013, at Kandahar Airfield 131109-F-IG195-067.jpg. Regards, Hystrix (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if you would like to make a complete study one all the individual files one by one while the bot tags several hundreds daily, be my guest. Spending 5 hours a day of admin capacity on this to detect maybe one or two mistagged files between them does not seem very pragmatic to me. If this would really be so problematic, we should rather stop the bot instead, because it would put an unreasonable claim on our admin capacity. Jcb (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

July 1

I'm not sure why you deleted July 1. It is part of the series of pages found here: {{Months and days of the year}}. Please restore it and let me see why it only had one images. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have undeleted the file. Please make sure to add at least one additional image to prevent redeletion. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have updated it. If you ever see problems with those pages, please let me know. Evrik (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no edit of the page? Jcb (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elotes ricos.jpg

Hi Jcb. Please delete File:Elotes ricos.jpg, part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elotes ricos.jpg. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! -  Done - Jcb (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion request for german stamps

Sorry for my poor englisch, i translated most with google. You do not understand the difference between the en:East Germany and the en:BRD (Germany). I will not fight against you. Do what you can not leave and profile yourself. But put the deleted pictures into the corresponding category: For example c:Category:Undelete in 2030 or so. Maybe we are both dead when these stamps are free, but then nobody knows more stamps and the scans are lost. Think about it. --Nightflyer (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I will add undeletion categories. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Deutsch:Bist du sicher, das du weisst, was du tust? Du willst also das Gedenken an die Opfer der Nazis auf Briefmarken auslöschen? Die Deutsche Demokratische Republik und die damalige Bundesrepublik Deutschland hatten unterschiedliche Rechtssysteme. Für Briefmarken aus der damaligen DDR gibt es kein Urteil irgendeines Gerichts. Bisher hat niemand Anträge zum Löschen für Briefmarken der DDR gestellt, warum auch? OK, du hast was gegen die Opfer der Nazis und willst, das die Briefmarken verschwinden. Weltweit sind diese Bilder aber als einzige Zeugen in den verschiedensten Wikipedias eingebunden. Mach was du willst, aber seh mich nicht als deinen Freund. Bitte diskutiere deine Aktion an den richtigen Stellen mit deinen Kollegen der Administratoren.

English:Are you sure you know what you're doing? So you want to erase the memory of the victims of the Nazis on stamps? The German Democratic Republic and the then Federal Republic of Germany had different legal systems. For stamps from the former GDR there is no judgment of any court. So far no one has asked for the cancellation of stamps of the GDR, why? OK, you have something against the victims of the Nazis and want the stamps to disappear. Worldwide, however, these pictures are the only witnesses in the various Wikipedias involved. Do what you want, but do not see me as your friend. Please discuss your action in the right places with your colleagues of the administrators.

--Nightflyer (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your accusation is totally inappropriate. Several of my family members were victims of the nazis. Half of the men in the village where I live were murdered by the nazis. Do not say such a thing again. Now about the copyright. Works are copyrighted, whether you like it or not, in any civilized jurisdiction. We have considered stamps from both former parts of Germany to be PD, based on an article from the current German law. In 2012 a German judge decided that this exception in the law cannot be applied to "Werke der bildenden Kunst". These stamps have been in a problem category since, waiting for somebody to come to sort them out. Some of the stamps are fine, others are not. Basic copyright rules have to be applied rather than emotional arguments about nazis. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Microsoft software logos

Hello

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Microsoft software logos you deleted File:Windows Store Logo.png but forgot to delete its equivalent File:Windows Store.svg.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

They are different. The deleted one has additional details. I think the deleted one is just above TOO and the kept one just below TOO, although both files may be borderline. Jcb (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

George Tscherny image deletion

On July 8, 2017, you deleted the image File:GeorgeTscherny006.jpg, citing lack of permissions, but the photographer and copyright holder of the image, Max Milder, emailed his permission on July 7, 2017. Was there something wrong with his email? I reuploaded the image, now found here: File:GeorgeAndSoniaTscherny.jpg, but realize that perhaps you were not satisfied with Mr. Milder's original email and that it wouldn't work this time as well. Let me know what I can do to remedy this. Laurariding (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are not allowed to reupload a deleted file. OTRS has a backlog. As soon as an OTRS agent processes the ticket, the file can be undeleted. Please be patient. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the update. Laurariding (talk)

Romanian 2005 coins

Hello,
About Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coins of Romania, 2005. I have all those coins and I can make a uniform set of photos. Will I have trouble replacing those deleted? --Turbojet (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if you make the pictures yourself everything will be fine. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of image File:Νεοκλασικό στο Χαλκί.jpg

The photo is mine. It even has my name on it (K.Yamourie). It is the owner of the hotel http://www.villaonar.com/gallery who has used it without asking.Not the other way around. Check it out here:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153744846424321&set=pb.524254320.-2207520000.1499789931.&type=3&theater --Kategiam (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Kategiam

Please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

haastig spoed is zelden goed

Hallo Johan, je nomineerde een afbeelding ter verwijdering omdat er geen bron en auteurs vermelding was. Nou, dat kwam omdat ik per ongeluk het woordje "source" verwijderde na het updaten ervan. Tja, haastig spoed is zelden goed. Ik verbaas me echter wel hoe snel je dit naar Deletion requests sleept. Evengoed was ik een vandaal geweest die "per ongeluk" een woordje uit de code verwijderd, makkelijke manier op van een afbeelding af te komen. Een blik in de geschiedenis werpen kost écht minder tijd dan zo'n deletion request. --Rode raaf (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Natuurlijk heb ik daar naar gekeken, ik ben niet achterlijk. Het lege 'source' veld bracht het bestand onder mijn aandacht, maar het probleem was al aanwezig bij de oorspronkelijke upload. Als iemand n.a.v. de officiele beschrijving een wapen tekent, dan is die persoon degene met het auteursrecht. Als niet bekend is wie dit is, dan heb je dus een probleem. Ik vermoed dat veel andere van je uploads ook dit probleem hebben. Ik ga daar niet op korte termijn doorheen spitten, maar ik kan me voorstellen dat het handig is als je daar zelf alvast eens een keer naar kijkt. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dus jij stelt nu dat IK dan auteur ben? Tien jaar geleden vulde ik altijd mijn gebruikersnaam in, toen begonnen anderen sommige bestanden ineens van oorspronkelijke auteurs te voorzien, dat heb ik op een gegeven moment maar overgenomen, omdat ik niet met andermans veren wil pronken. Ik meende daardoor dat de oorspronkelijk bedenker van zo'n wapen ingevuld hoort te worden. Volgens de gebruiksvoorwaarden, "you must credit the author(s) in a reasonable fashion". Daarom vult ik altijd "unknown" in, want het is lastig tot onmogelijk te achterhalen wie precies het ontwerp uittekende bij de Hoge Raad v Adel. Ik heb bijvoorbeeld een replica gemaakt van het complete wapenboek Beyeren. Bij auteur heb ik steeds ingevuld: Claes Heynenzoon before 23 june 1405, SVG Own work. Dat lijkt me wel zo correct, ondanks dat Heynenszoon nooit in z'n leven een computer gezien heeft, ere wie ere toekomt. Nu staat er altijd "unknown", SVG = Own work, nou dat is toch hetzelfde als wat jij bedoeld? Met "own work" geeft de uploader toch aan dat hij feitelijk de "auteur" is van het SVG bestand? -PS- Vorig jaar probeerde je met het zelfde argument een afbeelding van mij te laten verwijderen, waarom een herhaling van zetten? --Rode raaf (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"want het is lastig tot onmogelijk te achterhalen wie precies het ontwerp uittekende" - dat is exact het probleem, degene die het uittekende is namelijk wel degene met het auteursrecht. Als onbekend is wie dat is, dan valt ook de auteursrechtensituatie niet vast te stellen. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dat is onzin. Er zijn ontelbaar veel antieke afbeeldingen waarvan onbekend is wie auteur is. Op oud materiaal is geen copyright. --Rode raaf (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on deleted file

I'm interested in uploading a deleted file and would appreciate opinion on this - [5]. Thanks. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Orchid galleries

Hi Jcb, I've restored the gallery-pages Aa (Orchidaceae) and × Serapicamptis garbariorum, as they are relevant for the taxonomy of Orchid species and as the user, who requested undeletion, is a longterm, systematic contributor to this area of botany. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)