User talk:Jcb

archive May 2005 - March 2011
If you disagree with a DR closure, or you have questions about it, feel free to contact me at this very page. I will try to answer all questions as good as possible. In some cases I changed my decision after somebody dropped additional explanation here. I'm open to the possibility that I could have made a mistake. If you're still not satisfied, it could be an option to just nominate the file again, so that another administrator can have a look at it.

Deletion reques

Hi Jcb,

you have decided in this request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse.jpg not to delete the image. This request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse - Fassade.jpg (showing a detail of Tour Montparnasse) was deleted by an other admin. Can you please check this. Either boath images must be deleted because of the FOP-regulatory in France or both have to stay. Thank you, Grettings --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition: there are other images in Category:Tour Montparnasse showing the Tour Montparnasse. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a pending undeletion request about this case, see here. You may wish to add images to that request. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hachiko200505-2.jpg

Hi, if you look at it you'll see the above request covers all the files in Category:Statue of Hachiko in Shibuya, which are all tagged with the same request and listed with it. They need deleting too. --Simonxag (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png

Why was this deleted? According to cited case law and the State of New York itself once released this booking photograph is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement you linked to is about GIS-data. Jcb (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That was the California public records case that resulted in a general ruling that triggered the revival of Template:PD-CAGov...and I didn't mention it for this image taken by a New York state employee. The linked information for the Sid Vicious booking photograph deals very specifically with New York law. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gary Dourdan.jpg

California booking photographs are in the public domain (e.g. here and here), as I indicated in the discussion. Why was the image deleted? Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In this DR you also mentioned something that applies to GIS-data, which this picture isn't. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the cases that triggered the Commons revival of Template:PD-CAGov was specifically dealing with GIS data, however the court generalized their finding to all releasable California public records, as I quoted on the discussion page. See also here and here. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Édouard Guillaume.jpg

I disagree with that closure. The photographer of the original photo with 100% certainty not died before the 1950s. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in the DR didn't convince me of that statement. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion just throws in people of the same or similar names. The photographer is clear (Jacques Boyer), the photographer is identifiable in a database of Roger Viollet, and that person (not the random other boyers thrown into discussion without clear evidence that they are the same person) is described as active till 1950s. --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopened. --Martin H. (talk)

File:Uli_Metzner_fürs_Album.JPG deleted!

I don't understand that decision. And I heard no reason why IMSLP should have no pictures. It seems ridiculous and quite oldfashioned to me. it is the wrong way to show what is wrong or right. I've lost my interest in this department of wiki. Please play alone these strange actions. Yes, it is a sort of strange action . I would say it is a fundamental misunderstanding. Nothing to do with the aims of wiki. Did you check some articles of IMSLP ? I can+t believe it. Well, go ahead. That is a very strange form of communication! Thank you so much :-)) Is that your form of humanism ??

--Metzner (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See here for information on the deletion. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg

Please revert your closure here. Given you !voted keep early in the discussion, I do not feel it is appropriate for you to decide it is time to close the debate in your favour - this should be done by an uninvolved admin. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Saying something in the DR doesn't make a moderator less neutral. I keep closed it just because our guidelines leave no other choice. The fact I voted as well didn't influence my decision. A closure should be even not based at all on number of votes. Jcb (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This type of DR is clearly a judgement call from the closing admin; there's no clear policy or even cases of law that would make it obvious whether or not this image is above the threshold of originality. So the closing admin needs to make a decision based on the general consensus expressed in the discussion, and if they already expressed their opinion there, it looks like they might be biased. Notice that I said looks like, because the question is not whether or not you were biased, but how it may seem. In order to have a fair system, it's not enough to be unbiased, it has to be apparent to everyone that the circumstances cannot make you biased. –Tryphon^☂ 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The sole fact that I expressed the same standpoint a few weeks ago doesn't make me biased and doesn't make me seem biased. You seem not to understand the real meaning of the word 'biased'. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I do understand the meaning of the word biased, thank you. And yes, expressing you view beforehand does make you seem biased, as evidenced by mattbuck's comment above. What would you think of a judge who publicly expresses the opinion that a person is guilty, and then presides their trial and eventually condemns them? Maybe the judge's decision is correct, but it doesn't look like a fair trial, does it? –Tryphon^☂ 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps of Spain (lingüistical)

Hi, I have a consult for you: This map has been kept in Commons beacause it was in use. But, in the other hand, this other, which has the same problems than the previous one, but is unussed and is a modificatrion of an already in use correct map has also been kept with the "invalid deletion reason for Wikimedia Commons" justification. Are you sure this reason is good/bad? which should I do for having modified the map? I remind you that this last map is a modified version of an accurated map, which is in use. Thx--Coentor (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

When a file is in use, we are not allowed to delete it for quality reasons, but if it's not in use, we also don't judge if a map is completely correct or not. It's simply not our task. Of course we can delete blatant nonsense, but that's not the case for this file. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Polish OTRS ticket

Hi,
thank you for contacting me; I have added all the needed information to the image's description page and replied at the OTRS noticeboard. Regards, odder (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Фотография - комсомольская площадь

File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpgPublished by Евгений 07.11.2010: http://2.www.gorodsalavat.ru/photos.php?id=654 Art-top (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Qweasdqwe signs as Евгений in Russian wikipedia, and I'd give him the benefit of doubt on this one. He has a peculiar way of stitching together panoramics (File:Гафури.jpg, File:Горького.jpg, File:Квартал2.jpg), they should be reviewed as a package. NVO (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Панорамная фотография мною сделана из моих же отдельных фотографий см. ссылки отдельных фотографий http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/jane6666/view/353973/?page=0

Хотелось бы узнать причину стирания фотографии Комсомольская площадь - то ли от Вашего незнания Русского языка, то ли от желания вандализма? Я же дал ссылку на составляющие этой фотографии...

Может Вы не хотите читать, что я пишу - копивио со своей же фотографии, зачем тогда обсуждение устраивать. если лучше устраивать вандализм?

Please see my 'babel' here, I'm unable to read Russian. Could you try to formulate your message in one of the seven languages mentioned at my user page? Jcb (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The user says that the panoramic photo File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg was created from his own photos. He uploaded the source pictures to a photo-album at fotki.yandex.ru -- [1]. Trycatch (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I acted according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Qweasdqwe. The fact that most of his pictures were proven copyvio, made me decide to delete all of them. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that quite a bit of these picture were really created by Qweasdqwe -- at least pictures created using Nikon Coolpix L1. In at least several "proven copyvio" cases the pictures in fact were uploaded to the external sites by the user himself (jane6666 -- his photostream at fotki.yandex.ru, http://salavat.jimdo.com/ -- his personal site). I've asked the user about all these photos in ru-wiki -- w:ru:Обсуждение участника:Qweasdqwe#Уточнение. Trycatch (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can tell me which files are (probably) OK, I'm willing to undelete those files. Also regarding this specific DR feel free to undelete them yourself. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AE.jpg

FYI, I reopened this DR. I'm curious to know how you checked that the copyright hasn't been renewed, or that it wasn't published outside the U.S. first. –Tryphon^☂ 10:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopen it by starting a new nomination, not by reverting my decision. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lord, forgive me for reverting thy "decision". Now that order has been brought back into the Universe, would you mind answering the question above? How did you check that the copyright hasn't been renewed, or that it wasn't published outside the U.S. first? –Tryphon^☂ 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

COA of Ventspils

Please do not replace real arm () with "pin" version. Arm of city is without inscription. Thanks! -Kikos (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I clearly stated why I reverted the file. The image you uploaded over the other file was already present as File:LVA Ventspils COA.svg. Please use it from there. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But I clearly state that this bullshit is used in every wiki (except lv for now). May be better is to save this "pin" image as "Coat of Arms of Ventspils (pin).svg" and there keep reverted version (not to force every wiki for manual replacing of "standardized" name for "LVA...")? You should think really, not formally! --Kikos (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not the task of Wikimedia Commons to decide what image should be in Wikipedia articles. Jcb (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gulag.jpg

Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gulag.jpg. Deleted file reuploaded by new account of the same user. --Art-top (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kogaru1.jpg

I have to say, this was a spectacularly bad edit. Considering that on Commons its pretty hard to get a general consensus that an image is out of bounds, when this does happen its usually a pretty good indication that the image is pretty toxic. For you to ignore this and keep the image anyway shows quite poor judgment in my opinion. If you want to be an administrator, you should pay some mind to the overall good of the project, I should think. Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to follow the rules. People are free to post opinions in the DR which are incompatible with the rules, but I will have to follow the rules anyway. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No you don't. You're a human being, not as robot or a lemming. The good heath of the project takes precedence. If you are unable to see this you may lack the temperament to be well-suited for making these judgments. When you make a decision that goes against a clear majority of reasonable editors, you may wish to ask yourself "Is it possible that all these people are right and I am wrong, rather than the reverse?" I ask you to consider your decision and reverse it. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the status of the rules. Jcb (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand that status of the rules well enough. For instance, look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Seedfeeder. It appears that the images in question are in violation of the policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle given the Commons:Project scope#Evidence. Nothwithstanding that the images are in violation of policy, are you going to delete them? Of course you are not. You cannot point to consensus in the discussion, since in the case under discussion you have used the opposite reasoning (that is, that you must follow the rules and ignore consensus). But I expect you will find some other reason, and if you can't you will just ignore me. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Bolesław_Makochan_1975.jpg" " Jerzy_Długoszowski_MO_legitymacja.jpg" and "Jerzy_Długoszowski_90.jpg" on 3 April.

I must admit that I don't quite understand this decision. User "Jergen" had some suspicion about this images. I have answered to them and got no additional remarks about that pictures (at least got no notice, what's more interesting " Jerzy_Długoszowski_MO_legitymacja.jpg" the request for deletion was withdrawn - or at least I didn't even got any notice that it has been marked again), . Especially that I was apalled to read that they were "Scanned from a printed source". Not sure how has "Jergen" come to this conclusion, but to me, the photographs owner, they simply seemed ridiculous. What was I supposed to do? add a scan of this photographs on the background of today's newspaper? I understand the care for keeping the commons away from any copyright violation, but wouldn't it be better if You would at least give people chance to answer to any kind of logical arguments? Best regards and sorry if the above sounds rude, Kamil Szustak, Al_muell

Situation is clear. No permission from the copyrightholder and not old enough to be Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is clear? Should I request the families to write letters (hard to do, concerning that Długoszowski's heirs don't speak English)? Or maybe take a photograph of the photo and it's film cliche (which is present with Długoszowski's ID)?

Or maybe I should Start asking photographers in Łódź 'Hello, did You do an ID photograph of kpt. Bolesław Makochan in 1975?'

Your explaination sounds strange, concerning that "Jergen" said that the problem was "obviously a poor quality scan from a printed source" - which, if asked to, I could proove without problems. I have been however denied the right to prove it wrong. The photos were deleted, even tough I have presented a clarification and got no further notification about any other doubts.

I am afraid that You don't even care to ask, You just take everyon'e doubt as a 100% guarantee that it requires deletion.

Regards, Al_muell

You need permission by the copyright holder before you upload a file. If you can't get it, you can't upload. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did You care to read the clarification I posted after request by "Jergen"? All the photographs came from the heirs, and thus I have aquired also the right to use them. It's impossible to find Makochan's photographer, but I have said at the militia ID photo what was the situation: Who was the author, that he is dead and that the photograph and film cliche was aquired togeather with copywright from Długoszowski's heirs. I think it has even covinced "Jergen", as the last time I have checked that (march) the deletion request was removed.

Also, wouldn't it be better to just ask if I can provide a proof of what I have written before deleting? What about audiatur et altera pars? Where's in dubio pro re? I have been prepearing this project for quite some time, but I don't like having to proove that I am not a camel (if You forgive me this idiomatic mistake) and with such a policy, wikipedia turns oput to be no longer a good place for free knowledge share.

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg

You were the admin who closed this and now it's back. I'm wondering if that's through consensus or an editor who had not seen the IfD. gren (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Southern painted turtle plastron.jpg

You only deleted one file: File:Crop of source image.jpg needs to be deleted. —innotata 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jcb (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Mudin.jpg

Any chance you could provide some explanation regarding what evidence/statutes/case law you felt were relevant or irrelevant beyond just a "correctly licensed" statement regarding this image? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The arguments in the DR convinced me that the license is applicable to this image, so no further evidence/statutes/case law or whatever is needed. The license template says all. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reword my question then: Why does the license template apply, or rather; which arguments convinced you, and of what? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See for example the keep comment of Smallbones. Jcb (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So just to be clear, your agree with the anecdotal statements that all actions by a soldier on duty are part of his official duties (unless proven otherwise), even though taking the pictures was explicitly against orders, and a federally produced copyright FAQ states "Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty"? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to overlook the significant difference between the 'duty' of an e.g. town hall employee and the 'duty' of a soldier on mission. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of what I asked in the DR was that if anyone had any actual evidence that any such difference in duty translated into copyright law; no such evidence was provided, nor was I able to turn up any on my own. That said, your answer sounds like a "yes" to my most recent question, so thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

your decision

If you look at your decision here, [2] , you will notice that you said that this should be kept because there supposedly is a source. It is not enough for there to be a link however. There is no data on that site that says ethnic composition of any municipality in the country. Therefore there is no source for the production of such a map! The file is not used on any wikipedia project, and is therefore redundant. (LAz17 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

It's not necessary for a file to be in use at any project. Regaring FZS, they will produce such statistics. They may be not always on their website. The map may be source by a document no longer available at the website. Jcb (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been keeping a close on any population figures that talk about ethnic composition in Bosnia, especially according to municipalities. There have been absolutely none of the kind, and definitely not on that website. The site is the statistics office for only one half of the country. So they for sure won't be producing the data for the other half. Come on man, think about it for a moment - you made a big mistake and don't want to admit it. (LAz17 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).

Well?? Got nothing to say because you maybe made a mistake? Could it be speedily deleted? (LAz17 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)).

I see no convincing reason to change my decision. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that I may make fantasy maps with that source too? (LAz17 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)).

COM:POINT - Jcb (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I wouldn't disrupt it, but your action does set precedent for disruption. There clearly is no source. I want to list it for deletion again- but what am I supposed to do when you say "oh maybe there was data there in the past"... I mean come on man, nobody has even heard of municipality population figures by ethnic groups in Bosnia since the war. Nobody. They can't even get their act together to have a population census, let alone publish data on such things. They have some rough estimates of people in the municipalities, but they do not have any sort of data that can be used to make such a bold map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)).

COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Libya.png

This thread concerns you. –Tryphon^☂ 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, please, "always crying like a kid" is not an appropriate wording, and that is independant of the fact that Tryphon was an admin himself (he renounced voluntarily over the Jimbo/p*rn crisis). --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also not appropriate to make a personal war of every disagreement, like Tryphon has been doing for several months now. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but I'm not sure you should consider every question after closing a DR as a sort of war. As Tryphon has now added on COM:AN, closing DRs is a tough or nasty job and that includes that the own decision may be questioned by others. You can be assured that Tryphon doesn't do this per default. To be honest, I for myself did and do disagree quite clearly with some of your DR decisions, but hadn't the time (or the nerve) to go in a "fight". --Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MosMetro VDNKh 2011.jpg

I do not quite understand this decision, there is no FOP in Russia. The background to the question is the debate here. Best regards--Ankara (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment that there is nothing protectable in the picture. It's just a corridor. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your point of view. You mean: this is a simple corridor with simple lamps with simple arcs, and there is no special creative art or memorial. This is true from the common sense position. But the Civil Code of Russian Federation do not use common sense, it is a law with clear and crisp conditions. Please see the Code, article 1259. If there is a work of architect, it is protected regardless of merit and purpose. If an architect creates a primitive underground station of flat platform, metal doors and simple lights — it is fully protected, and a man cannot create free photo of such a station.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If an architect creates a concrete pedestal for some statue, this pedestal is protected separately from the statue. In case the sculptor gives me a right to make free photos of the statue, I still cannot make the free photo of the statue on its concrete pedestal. I obligatorily need to gain the permission from its architect. And even more: if such a memorial is a composite art (composed of statue and pedestal), I need to get two permission from both sculptor and architect even to shoot the part of statue.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you see the horrible face of "no FOP in Russia" now.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That article

Reading the article 1259 in full, we see the hell in details.

"Objects of copyright are works of science, literature and art, regardless of the merits of the product and destination, as well as the method of its expression:

• literary works;
• dramatic and musical-dramatic works, a scenario;
• choreographic works and pantomimes;
• musical works with or without text;
• audiovisual works;
• paintings, sculptures, graphics, design, graphic novels, comics and other works of fine art, decorative applied art and stage design;
• works of architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture, including in the form of projects, drawings, images, and layouts;
• photographic works and works obtained by processes analogous to photography;
• geographical, geological and other maps, plans, sketches and plastic works relative to geography, topography and other sciences; other works.

2. Objects of copyright are:

1) derivative works, ie, works representing the processing of other work;

3. Copyrights apply as promulgated, and on unpublished works expressed in any objective form, including written, oral form (as a public utterance, public performance or other similar form), in the form of images, in the form of sound or video, in three-dimensional form.

7. Copyrights apply to the part of the product, its name, the character of the work, when in nature they may be recognized as an independent result of the creative work of the author and meet the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of this article."

And the article 1276 states:

"Allowed without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without payment of remuneration to reproduce, to broadcast by radio or by cable — photographic works, architectural works or works of fine art permanently located in a place open to public access, except when an image works in this way is the main object of this play or broadcast, or if it is used for commercial purposes."

You may see that an underground station photo cannot be reproduced by free photo (allowing commercial purposes) without the consent of the author (architect).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FOP is not an issue where the Threshold of originality is not met. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Civil Code don't use any threshold of originality in those articles, all the architecture is protected. The Code denies the threshold of originality: "regardless of the merits of the product and destination, as well as the method of its expression". It states the protection regadless of originality.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop debating in stereo. Jcb (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please search for 'stereo' in you English dictionary. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your impeccable judgement

and timely close of Plutchik-Wheel.svg; the thought of it nagging at me for months was very bleak.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancient Mechanical Artillery. Pic 03.jpg

According "my" interpretation of german law, this deletion was a failure.--Avron (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I already read that in the DR. According to Pill, Jim and myself it isn't. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said. With this misinterpretation of law, we should delete for more images.--Avron (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to nominated them. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? A few minutes of search I found following imgages which could be deleted with the same argumentation:

• File:Eichstätt Diatryma gigantea.JPG
• File:Jungsteinzeitliches-Haus-Dachkonstruktion-Modell-Rhein-Landesmuseum-Bonn.JPG
• File:Jungsteinzeitliches-Haus-Modell-Rhein-Landesmuseum-Bonn.JPG
• File:ALM 01 Stuhl.jpg
• File:Modell Steingrab III Oldendorfer Totenstatt.jpg
• File:Egyptian boat model (ca. 1900BC).jpg

--Avron (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's appropriate to nominate them, feel free to do so. But please make sure that you are aware of COM:POINT. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to nominate them, but I give you examples that you made a bad precedent.--Avron (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kentucky state flag.png

One of the reasons for deletion of this file is the PNG, in the terms of the image size and design, does not match what is currently in Kentucky state law. Images like this, for the reason that I stated, have been deleted before. May you reconsider your decision? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The file is in use, so quality related arguments are irrelevant. Jcb (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That works, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Daag, Johann Bos

Om deze reden schrijf ik U dit bericht, met de hoop dat U ze gaat ontvangen.

I don’t understand why the change of my account Spiridon MANOLIU (pseudonyme) to Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (my real name; my mail :cepleanu@orange.fr), so easy resolved in the french and romanian Wikipedia, is impossible since mounths in Commons, where my real name account is, since you (and you, since Art-Top) considered as a „sockpuppet” of my old pseudonyme account? So, please see below:

Als beheerder van Commons ...

1) Mag ik U vriendelijk verzoeken om mij opnieuw toegang te verlenen tot Uw forum. Indien mijn leerlingen Aoleuvaidenoi en Mitica-Misha fouten hebben gemaakt bij het uploaden/downloaden van beeldmateriaal, is er m.i geen reden dat er mij persoonlijk toegang zou geweigerd worden. Zij en ik hebben trouwens de Russische deelnemer uitleg gegeven over ons werk ; het is hij die U toen gevraagd had ons toegang te weigeren.

2) De kaart van de GOELAG (die we aangevuld hebben o.a op basis van documenten van de "fondation Memorial"), en enkele andere kaarten, komen van verschillende bronnen ; de kaarten hebben we gescand en verwerkt met Photoshop. De bronnen van de documenten worden meegedeeld. De "fondation Memorial" is een NGO die weerstand biedt aan de Russische machthebbers, en het is de inhoud van de kaart, en de gevolgen hiervan, die een aantal Russische deelnemers storen. De foutieve manipulatie van mijn leerlingen bij het downloaden/uploaden zijn maar een drogreden om deze kaart, waarvan de inhoud storend is (alhoewel ze aanvaard wordt door alle geschiedkundigen, ook de marxisten onder hen) te verwijderen. U vindt ze hier in bijlage.

3) Spiridon Ion Cepleanu is mijn echte naam, mijn leerlingen heten Dumitru Grosu en Madalina Ciobanu. Ze komen uit Moldavie en gaan binnenkort terug naar hun land van herkomst. Ze hadden Mitica-Misha en Aoleuvaidenoi als pseudo gekozen, ik heette Spiridon Manoliu op de lijst. Sinds we samen gewerkt hebben aan een aantal artikels over de geschiedenis van het communisme, werden ze beschuldigd (enkel op Commons) mijn naam misbruikt te hebben ; dit is echter niet het geval.

4) Mag ik vriendelijk U verzoeken om mijn inschrijving op Commons met mijn pseudo Spiridon MANOLIU te veranderen in Spiridon Ion Cepleanu ? Dit heb ik succesvol kunnen doen op Wikipedia in het Frans, Engels, Duits en Roemeens ; maar het bleef onmogelijk op Commons ...

5) Indien U in het Nederlands aan iemand bevestiging wilt vragen dat ik echt besta, kunt U een vriendin van mij, Anne Portielje, aanspreken op telefoonnummer +32.2.466.62.67. Anders kunt U mij in het Frans persoonlijk contacteren op het nummer 00.33.689.747.715.

Met dank bij voorbaat en vriendelijke groet,

Spiridon Ion Cepleanu <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Spiridon_Ion_Cepleanu> alias --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scale model of a police car based on an FSO Warszawa M20-57 or 200 of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg

Hello!

With interest I have noticed the closing rational of this DR. This rational applies to different issues as well, like e.g. for this debate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. There, a model of a russian submarine was deleted to, well, read the admin's comment in the end yourself. Would you please undelete File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? Thank you. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It may have some change at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, but the situation seems quite different to me. The submarine is not just a scaled model, but somebody carefully decided where to leave out the outsite so that the visitor can see the inside design. The pictures on top could be an issue as well, but they may be cropped away. I'm not yet sure if I would undelete this one. Feel free to start an UDR and we will see. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had similiar thoughts about the submarine interior but this made according to published blueprints of this watercraft. These scaled-down-models-DR-issues seem to arise in last time. I think we should create some official guideline because of this. There are users that want to delete all scale models (of course only those that are "young" enough). Could you start an undeletion request about File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? As to the line of argument it is more consistent if you'd do this. Regards and thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should have a guideline for this, but maybe you could better raise this at the administrators noticesboard. Writing guidelines is not may specialty and we also need a broader discussion to come to accepted guidelines. I think the submarine image is not a suitable example for that discussion, because it could be a borderline case and thus confuse the discussion. Jcb (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So, could you start an undeletion request about File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG? --High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I will not start an UDR for a file of which I really doubt if it is OK. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Daag voor Spiridon Ion (Cepleanu = Manoliu)

Bent u ervan doordrongen dat als u het betwiste materiaal opnieuw plaatst of laat plaatsen dat u dan het risico loopt dat er opnieuw door een beheerder maatregelen kunnen worden genomen? Jcb (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Avez-vous bien realise que si vous remettez ou faites remettre le materiel conteste vous courrez le risque que l'un des manager prenne a nouveau des mesures ?

I understand, and I will transforme my Gulag map into two others, one in english, another in russian. I'm agree with the Wikipedia's rules, evidently, and I cannot understand why maps draw by me or my pupils (but since sources, not from our own dreams) and pictures maked by me (for example Ammonites and Belemnites, or Flag of Mapuches of Argentina) are contested ? If someone contest an image, it's this contestation automatiqually considered right, it's this image automatiqually deleted? I dont think so...

Have a nice day, Spiridon Ion Cepleanu <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Spiridon_Ion_Cepleanu> alias --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked you for now, but please be aware that you may easily get blocked again if you re-upload a map without a better explanation of the copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FredM Large.jpg

I would like to understand how {{PD-anon-1923}} applies when there is no proof of publication. Again, there is no evidence supplied that shows this image was pubished prior to 1923 or when the athor died, meaning it must be 120 year old not 88..--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Those days people were not yet taking pictures of everything with their mobile phones, A picture with this age and of this kind is very unlikely to not have been published promptly. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And where is your evidence for this file being published before 1923? --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For the case that the photo was taken at the end of 1922 and published at the beginning of 1923, {{PD-US-not renewed}} will apply. So it's PD anyway. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one could agree with {{PD-US-not renewed}} but {{PD-anon-1923}} is quite dubious. But what would you say if this photo was published in 1929? --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For a photo of this kind published in 1929 I would have used {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My thinking, too. As a result I can assume that this photograph of "Frederick M. Smith" was first published in the USA. So the time between 1923 till 1946 (year of death) is safe. For the time before 1923 we hope that the authorship is unknown. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Both {{PD-anon-1923}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} say "because it was published in the United States" I have seen nothing that says it was published in any way shape or form. Per COM:L#United_States "Photographic works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for 70 years after the death of the creator. Works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) or 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first." We have no idea how the "creator" was, if it was published, if it was a anonymous or pseudonymous works, or anything else simply because the uploader failed to supply the information. Therefore per {{PD-US-unpublished}} is the only legitimist tag to use and it says "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1891." I'm sorry but the Keep was clearly an error.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk

I addressed this in my 15:21, 25 April 2011 comment above and wil repeat it now: A picture with this age and of this kind is very unlikely to not have been published promptly. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Koerner Hall.jpg

Hello. Sorry to add to the list of posts on your talk page from people questioning a DR closure. I don't want to make your life more complicated. First, I am delighted that the older images were salvaged. Thanks for that. As for this DR, I am not sure how "AGF" applies in these circumstances. This is clearly a professional rendering, and I don't think anyone believes that the {{Own}} tag (or the {{Self}} copyright tag for that matter) were correctly applied in this instance (although, AGF certainly kicks in when we assume that none of these tags were used to mislead and that the uploader has the best intentions; given past experience, it also gives us license to keep the DR open for enough time to ensure the uploader has more than enough opportunity to get the necessary release). Unless the OTRS ticket for the older images is of a general nature and covers a range of images, I am not sure how it is that we would not require a new confirmation from the RCM freely licensing this image. Just because a copyright owner freely licenses other images does not mean that we assume subsequent images are also freely-licensed. Also, we have no idea what connection the uploader has with the RCM and under what circumstances the RCM decided to issue the previous OTRS email. I don't mean to be a nitpicky ass, but I must admit I am scratching my head as to how AGF helps us fully get to where we need to be on this one. Thanks for your time with this.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that the uploader also has an email address at rcmusic.ca. (You could not know that, but I have access to the ticket) - Jcb (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a rather suspicious image, I have to say. Looks like a composite of [3] (for the public) and [4] (for the stage). –Tryphon^☂ 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We have also File:Koerner Hall RENDERING.jpg of the same hall. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a rather high resolution image, which has specifically received permission through OTRS. I'm much less inclined to believe that a web-resolution image, with nearly identical duplicates available at the same resolution on the internet, is entirely the uploader's own work. –Tryphon^☂ 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As said above we know that uploader himself forms part of RCM. There is no need to verify that again. Jcb (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Conservatory of Music is a school, and most of the people with an rcmusic.ca email address are students. Even if the uploader is an employee, that doesn't mean (s)he has the authority to upload the school's intellectual property onto the Commons under a free license. Does the email indicate under what capacity the uploader granted the previous free licenses? Even if we assume that the uploader has the authority to freely license works, which is I guess where AGF kicks in (assuming the previous OTRS email wasn't more explicit), don't we still need to OTRS ticket from an rcmusic.ca email address authorizing this particular image, given that this is clearly not his/her own work? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The permission came from the marketing/communications department, with a CC to the uploader. Uploader will clearly be able to provide a permission from a rcmusic.ca address (his own address for example) so what is the point of spending more time of the contributer and of our OTRS volunteers by trying something we already know? Jcb (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But is that a new OTRS principle? Once an organization has consented to freely license some specific images, we assume that they would agree to license any future uploads? Unless you tell me otherwise, we still don't know if the uploader is a student, and employee or an alumnus. I know at my firm I could probably convince the powers-that-be to agree to freely license some intellectual property for upload here, but it would be a pretty big mistake for anyone to assume that all future uploads are also okay simply because of my email address. Are we not also assuming the license under which the RCM wants to release it? The only mitigating factor that I can see is that this image is very similar to one already freely licensed. But otherwise, in my opinion (which with you are obviously entitled to disagree), this is quite a stretch. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a brief note to the talk page, linking to this discussion. I doubt I will be the first one to see the rendering and question the {{Own}} and {{Self}} tags, and this discussion will explain how we got here. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just did an investigation (having access to the real name of the uploader himself) and I found out that he is an employee of RCM, also working at the marketing/communications department. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but we are still making the assumptions about intent and licenses. We have no confirmation from the RCM, other than presumption, that they intended to freely license this. But I've wasted enough of your time on this. As I said, I put a note on the page, and I hope this remains a unique instance. Again, thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fa. Kohlbecker

I was just about to do almost the same thing here -- but I would not have deleted the last one.

The OTRS ticket does mention Kohlb hist 66xx karl kohlbecker rolli.jpg The file you just deleted was a tif, but I'm prepared to assume that they're the same file -- the license would extend from one format to the other. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubted about that one and it ended in a very weak delete. I undeleted it. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Single Purpose Account"

Please assume good faith with my Deletion rationales [5]. I may be a "Single Purpose Account" in that I want to ensure the copyright of architects is respected, but I am not related to whoever you think I am, and have a moderate history on the English Wikipedia [6]. Instead of throwing slurs around, why don't you focus on trying to refute my arguments? I don't understand how that building could possibly be De Minimis: it is clearly the main subject of the photograph. Would you care to explain your unconventional views on De Minimis so that I can understand why you close discussions the way you do? Buddy431 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For FOP-related issue, we take into account the threshold of originality. A simple straight building does not meet that threshold. If a building has original aspects (like a special shape) we have to see if those aspect are that prominent that they cannot be considered DM. Jcb (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you back up that claim that a "simple straight building" does not meet that threshold? Even the simplest building, provided it is not a slavish copy of another, has some creativity (i.e. originality) put into it. The threshold of originality in the U.S. is extremely low; do you have a citation that it's higher in the UAE? Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There must be something in the guidelines, but I couldn't find it for now. (I read it before). Although I found something interesting: Category:UAE FOP cases which did not result in deletion. Jcb (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing about simple buildings in the guidelines, you are mistaken. There has developed an informal consensus that buildings under construction are not copyrightable (something which I very much disagree with, but whatever). I don't like this aspect of copyright law either, but we should follow it, if we want to only host images that are truly free. Buddy431 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:PPoC logo sge sm.png

Why did you keep File:PPoC logo sge sm.png? It contains an original work logo. If you feel that this logo can be allowed on the commons, could you please undelete File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg, which was just the logo? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I kept the file, because it is PD-textlogo. I'm not going to undelete the other file by just a talk page request. You will need to request that here. Jcb (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Салаватцы.jpg

I really don't understand this deletion, how it's in line with our conversation at #Фотография - комсомольская площадь? There is no doubt that jane6666 on fotki.yandex.ru is account of user Qweasdqwe (he uploaded several pictures to his jane6666 photostream on request), http://salavat.jimdo.com controlled by Qweasdqwe as well (it links to the very same jane6666 fotki.yandex account -- just click on the picture in question on the site). Trycatch (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, restored. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Καστοριά 1903.jpg

Hi! You are aware that nearly all images of that uploader are in use simply because he immediately after upload he includes them at his home-wiki no matter if they are really usable or not. He even managed to find use for a painting with 50x50 pixels no matter that you can't recognize anything on the upload except that it is greenish with two light points that probably are people? And you are aware of the upload-history of this user which mainly consists of very copyright-problematic images? We have the rule that in case of a doubt we delete. A seems to be free is not a is free. If you can say without a doubt that this image is free than keep it, but when you can't even manage to not write about doubt in your own keep-declaration then there is something seriously wrong with keeping it. Keeping should be done if it is a sure thing and with that kind of uploader you can't be sure unless you get a second source of information (which in this case misses). All you have are some dates by someone who among other things claimed copyright to the Wikipedia-globe. -- Cecil (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe of interest: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Dgolitsis. -- Cecil (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the formulation, but please don't try to catch me on word choice, I never stated to write english on native level. The file is use. You may have any opinion about the use at EL.wiki, but it is simple not our task to judge that. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can quite simply get it out of use by removing it from the one page. The only user at greek Wikipedia who would add it again would be the uploader as he knows that pics in use are less often to be deleted. But since you say it is not our task to judge them (after all he uploads here and not there anymore as they disagreed with him too) it is our task to judge his uploads. Where is your proof that the image was made 1903? Where is your proof that it shows the people he claims are on it? Where is your proof that the author died in time for it to be old enough? You seem to have it and as I can't see anything exept a user whose uploads are that problematic that adding new templates on his talk-page causes problems, a user who stated as his home-wiki that he does not care about copyright I want to see where you have the information from that this is definitely PD. -- Cecil (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-old}} certainly does not apply though (we don't even know who the author is, how would we know when they died). As Sv1xv suggested, you may argue it's {{Anonymous-EU}}, but since it comes from a family archive, I doubt it was made available to the public more than 70 years ago. –Tryphon^☂ 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The image description page states clearly: photographer: Λεωνίδα Παπάζογλου (1872-1918). What reasons do you have to think that this information may be incorrect? Jcb (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the author field, which doesn't indicate who the author is. And following the history of sources from this image, from the uploader being the copyright holder through hereditary rights to the photographer being someone unrelated to him who conveniently died in 1918 (plus the uploader's history pointed out by Cecil above), I do have reasons to believe this information is incorrect. –Tryphon^☂ 16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but this is not DR related, but user related. I propose you further deal with this at the user problems page. Jcb (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Banknotes of Mexico 2

Given the lengthy-ish discussion I and another user were having on that page (in Spanish), could you elaborate a bit and comment on that discussion on the talk page for both of our sake? Preferrably in Spanish, as User:Inri doesn't speak English at all (or understands it with great difficulty). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. How does someone from the Netherlands speak passable Spanish in the year 2010? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I overlooked the complete Spanish part of the discussion, due to its wrongly leveled heading. I will read it now. In 2002 I lived in Spain for 5 month. From 2003 I yearly visit the Dominican Republic for development aid. I run my own organisation. We have a project in the slum area of El Seibo with a basic school and a medical center. So I have to speak Spanish quite often. Jcb (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeping of image without correct license?

I would like to hear your reasoning to keep this image. Did you keep it because a license with further restrictions is valid for commons, or because the additional requests of the uploader have no meaning and can be removed? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know this license allows such specifications. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, because the license allows to mention the authors credits in any reasonable manner (not the wording). Even using this images inside articles of Wikipedia projects would violate this additional restrictions, which are enforcing the mentioning of the author directly under/next to image:

Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained.

Also usual usage in books (image directory at the end) would be questionable. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask the same question. Please be aware that this is an important decision and will be used as precedent in similar cases. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It would not be a precedent, I saw this already in 2008 with File:Scott, Melody Thomas JPI 2007 4.JPG, were a subscript in the article, "(foto: JPI Studios)", was enforced, see nl:Melody Thomas Scott. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scott, Melody Thomas JPI 2007 4.JPG. I really hate such abuse of the license, but the community in 2008 decided to support this behaviour. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Both cases are not comparable. The wording of the credits can be defined by the author. This is perfectly fine. But he can't define where to place the credits. In this case Wolfgang enforced that the credits have to be directly under the image. The license does not define the placement. I allows it to be anywhere. "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; [...]".

If this additional restrictions made by Wolfgang would be allowed, then someone else could also insist on a watermark inside the image. Which is not the case. See latest decision under Commons:Watermarks. Also the usage of icons could be lead to absurdity. Using the images inside articles would also be illegal, since it is not common practice to note the author under the image inside articles. Instead the credits are placed reasonably inside the description page. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is not what we should accept here. The JPI image decision was IMO completely wrong. I removed the restriction. (other comments will be answered later, time is up). Jcb (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you also consider that some of Wolfgang Pehlemann's images have the additional restriction "re-using only with my original file name"? Just to make my point clear: If the community agrees that such restrictions are allowed, I have to accept it, whether I like it or not. Before this, however, we have to verify that the community really agrees on such restrictions (and is aware of potential lawsuits based on such restrictions). --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary of deletion request

Just to make the further discussion easier: as I understand, there were essentially these point of views:

• The license restriction is compatible with commons and valid. This was supported by

1. Túrelio 08:13, 22 April 2011 (later changed?)
2. smial 13:16, 22 April 2011
3. Martina Nolte
4. NVO 11:06, 23 April 2011

• The license restriction is not compatible with commons but can be ignored (or deleted). This was supported by

1. innotata 22:08, 22 April 2011
2. Chaddy (22:56, 22 April 2011
3. High Contrast 07:02, 23 April 2011
4. Túrelio 15:47, 23 April 2011 (Mind changed?)

• The license restriction is not compatible with commons but is valid. The license restriction can only be deleted by the copyright holder. This was supported by

1. Niabot (who started the deletion request)
2. Me (NeoUrfahraner)
3. Lokal_Profil 22:30, 22 April 2011
4. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011
5. Wiggum (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2011

• The discussion is waste of time

1. Alchemist-hp 18:32, 25 April 2011
2. ST 09:48, 26 April 2011

The copyright holder Wolfgang Pehlemann insists that his restriction is valid, might it be compatible with commons or not ("Free ...freeer ...freeest  :-) ...this will not work.")

Please check and feel free to correct if I missed some votes or assigned them to the wrong opinion. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw that Tryphon reverted my removal. I reverted that action. If he or somebody else again places the restriction, I will change my keep decision into a delete decision. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to remove the restrictions. If this is the authors will, then we have to respect it. He released it under CC-BY-SA + His own restrictions which is legally valid to do so. The license itself does not forbid to add additional terms (It's only forbidden for re-users). The question is: Do we keep such images with further restrictions or not? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the situation gets more clear to me. Well, if restrictions make it impossible to use the image within our projects, then there is no place for it at Wikimedia Commons. I deleted the file. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So that you don't get the impression that I systematically disagree with you, I just want to point out that I completely agree with this decision. Thanks for doing the right thing. –Tryphon^☂ 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the restriction would have been an option if we could assume that the copyright holder does not understand the license (and would agree with the removal). In our case, however, Wolfgang Pehlemann is well aware of the license and repeatedly said that his licensing stays as given. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, there is no hint at all, that Wolfgangs explanation would make it impossible to use the image within our projects. Where did you get that from?! He agrees to the usual Wikimedia usages and integrates his images into Wikipedia articles without direct credit. --Martina talk 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's impudent to enforce a credit below the image within the article. Somebody may have spend hours on the text of the article, but he will not be credited below the text. And then somebody inserts a picture with a credit below it. We just cannot accept it. It's also incompatible with Wikimedia Commons, because it restricts in a certain way the posibility of derivatives. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But why does he impose further restriction on the image description pages? Why does he insisted multiple times, that the images are only licensed in the way he wrote it? You know, that an permission only for Wikipedia isn't enough. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to repeat myself a hundred times. --Martina talk 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:20110221 美国之音新闻 中国低调报道茉莉花抗议活动.ogg

If I may ask, how does this outcome work? The previous nom had nothing to do with copyright violation. It was a completely different issue, and hence I do not understand how "as per previous outcome" makes sense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Russavia sufficiently addressed the copyright situation in his keep decision. Jcb (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Xhe was referring to original VoA works, which are released into the public domain. This work is not an original VoA work, as it contains AP derivative material. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of your DR closes

For Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMS during F1 interview.jpg, note that Flickr's WinterRose84 and Commons's WinterRose84 both uploaded the image on April 20, 2011. It is highly unlikely that someone else would immediately see the image on Flickr, create an account with that username, and then steal the image, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that they are the same person. For Commons:Deletion requests/File:WgaTray.exe dosası.png, threshold of originality is somewhat subjective, so consensus cannot be ignored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first one, I am willing to restore the file if uploader changes the license at Flickr. Regarding the second: consensus is a big word for one nomination and one vote. Closing administrators have to take into account the arguments, but don't have to count votes. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First one: It doesn't matter. By your logic, we should delete all photos that are not available anywhere else online, because they are under a proprietary license by default. "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL." Even if they decide they want to use a noncommercial license, too bad, they already released it under the full CC license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also just to clarify: Do you have any doubt that the Commons and Flickr users are the same person? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Davina van Wely.jpg

OTRS has received permission for the file File:Davina van Wely.jpg from Evert Sillem, son of the photographer Astrid Sillem-Klink. The OTRS ticket # is 2011050110432564 . Can you please undelete this file? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I see Adrignola already restored the file. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristiansand Gamle Varoddbrua 1956 auf der Varodd-Brücke L 618 m Spannweite 337 Foto 2010 Wolfgang Pehlemann DSCN1547.jpg

Hello, you decided to keep, than deleted this file and worte After some additional discussion I changed my mind. Where did this discussion take place? I'd like to have the possibility to join that further discussion. Where can I open a review of your decision? --Martina talk 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such further discussion. I revised my decision, but I'm not a yoyo. Jcb (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What than did you mean with After some additional discussion? Again: Is there an official site for deletion revisions? --Martina talk 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it. --Martina talk 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Service. -- smial (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: [7]. Thanks to Smial. Neo's and Niabots Summary even is not correct, they distort some user's statement ignoring their other contributions on one ore more of the three other discussion sites on this matter. I'd really like to request a CU on these two accounts. --Martina talk 21:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CU? No problem. Go on. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@Martina: If you mean that I distorted your statement, then I agree that this might be the case. Actually your statements moved between "license restriction is compatible", "license restrictions are not valid" and "do not discuss". Indeed I am not sure what you are really thinking. If you think that I misinterpreted other user's contributions, please feel free to inform these users so that they can correct or clarify their position. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, Jcb, be consequent and delete all files files uploaded by User:Wolfgang Pehlemann. Your "decision" easily appiles to almost all of his images here. --High Contrast (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

service again -- smial (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If I process a DR with the same reason, I will act the same. After this decision I already deleted one other file from this series. I'm not actively searching for files that could be nominated for deletion, but feel free to nominate such files. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Service ---Martina talk 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Any new non-functional comment about this file on this talk page will be reverted. Jcb (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeltaOmegaEpsilonCrestB.jpg

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeltaOmegaEpsilonCrestB.jpg as delete, but I think you forgot to delete File:DOECrestA.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I see another admin resolved it in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Election posters in Singapore

Hi, I noticed you've deleted the category as well. Can you restore the category and the notice that was in the category? I am going to upload some photographs from the Singaporean general election, 2011, that do not pose copyright issues. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, done. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of files by Mr. Jcb

Ooh yeaah, i'm very happy with your deletions, I was waiting for... - some people in the WMF are renaming and re-licensing my photographs not in a correct definition of file name and licensing from the global Wikipedia to the WMF - please, do me the favor to delete all this renamed and wrong re-licensed photogroaphs wich are in the WMF without agreement from my side. Deletion must happen by your opinion, - with your deletions like this I'm feeling there is no wrong understanding in all the WP and the WMF by transfering, renaming and relicensing of transfered photographs. Don't stop your activities. Thank you very much.
-- 91.43.69.46 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/All images from the Remote Sensing Tutorial from NASA Goddard Space Center

Have all images on this list been deleted that need to be?, there appear to be some that still have DR templates and show up on that list as blue links still, even after the closure of the DR. Thanks, --Tony Wills (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some files have been restored after an undeletion request, see e.g. here, but the processing admin forgot to remove the deletion tags. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungarian Rhapsody No 2.ogg

Why did you keep this file? We don't know anything about the copyright of the arrangement (or even the arranger, beyond his surname), so we should assume it's copyright. —innotata 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reasons to suppose that the changes made by the arranger are sufficient to create a new copyright situation? Jcb (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about that, but in most cases arrangements are according to Fishman's The Public Domain: and this one is an orchestration of a composition written for the piano. —innotata 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still searching, but I already found music from Ernst Schmidt-Köthen from 1929. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've noticed, but it also mentions some by him from 1938, and this mentions an arrangement from 1912.

By the way, can you delete the files listed at User:Innotata/sandbox. They're artworks from the U.K., tagged {{PD-old}}, but the artist (en:Frederick William Frohawk) died in 1946. I've previously nominated others by the artist for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/Aves Hawaiiensis illustrations by Frohawk), and I've moved these to Wikipedia and told the uploader. —innotata 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the arranger, this seems to mention something from 1940. —innotata 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With works from 1938 and 1940 it gets risky. I deleted the file. The files from your sandbox will need a normal DR. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This says he died in 1942, and looks like User:Mikemoral added it.

Bother, too much trouble to make a multiple dr. Sure it's not a clear cut case? —innotata 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply not allowed to ignore the procedures. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When I've missed files, it's been fine to ask admins to delete them referring to the dr. Just a lot of copy-and-pasting making a mass dr, perhaps I should ask if a tool to do this faster can be cooked up. —innotata 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:POL 5 złotych rybak 1958.jpg

Hi! Can You explain me why did You delete this image? I have sent a permission to OTRS and I could publish it... TR (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you the copyright holder of the coin? The deletion nomination was not about the copyright of the picture, but of the subject. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Suicide_bag.jpg

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Suicide_bag.jpg and leave your comments. Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One admin didn't have the decency to wait a little for some comments and speedy restored it ?!? - Jcb (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See now. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey there. May I ask why you elected to keep a file that (a) was deleted in the recent past, (b) was re-uploaded by a banned user abusing yet another account, (c) was not the uploader's own work as claimed, (d) did not feature the claimed subject either, and (e) was most certainly not taken in Italy let alone in Italian territory (Ethiopia is not Italian territory ), and therefore does not fall under PD-Italy? I'm very confused here because I was under the impression that Commons:Essential information requires source, author and date info, not just unproven assurances that a file is "public domain". Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Blackcat as mentioned. Jcb (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So are the above unproven claims. Middayexpress (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

clarification please...

I wrote here that, after checking your recent contribution history, it seemed to me you still had not offered an explanation as to why you discounted the keep arguments for the suicide bag image.

Clarification please -- have you offered an explanation as to why you discounted the keep arguments?

Were you planning to offer an explanation? If you were not I would encourage you to do so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did explain why I deleted the file. I did it at the two most logical places. So I'm sure you read it before you posted this comment. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Really? I am sorry, but I think I have read all the logical places, and I didn't see any policy-based explanations. All I saw was an expression of your personal opinion, with no attempts to address the arguments you didn't agree with. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Map of Macedonia

Hello. Can you explain this decision please? All involved users were against the content and the map, except the author and it promotes nationalistic propagandistic Greek POV. Besides that, the map is not used at all, but it is shown on BG Wiki as a funny thing that exist on Commons. I hope you will correct yourself. Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the map shows Greeks and Bulgarians but they do not exist in Macedonia at all. The user tries to represent the ethnic Macedonian population as Greek or Bulgarian. Additionally to that, the names of the countries are incorrect and Macedonia is reffered as Vardarska or FYROM, two names that harass the Macedonian nations. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I see insufficient reason to delete. (And we are not going to spend another 40 kb on this). Jcb (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Offensive name, incorrect data, POV. What is insufficient here?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you see now that it is too different and imaginative? That map is created out of fun and it is useless. I do not know whether you have read the discussion at all. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I read a big part of the 40 kb (!) you produced and we're not gonna repeat it. Jcb (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So how can you make a decision when four or five users were against the map, only the author was? BTW, the author is already blocked for personal attacks over admins. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello? What is your problem? If you do not know anything about Macedonia please stay away. Unblock the file.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to upload another map, choose another file name. Jcb (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You really does not understand the map, do you? Have you ever took a look at the map? Do you know that there are only 2000 Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, but the map says over a million? Are you aware that you are taking care of propaganda? I am trying to correct it, but you abuse your rights. I am not here from yesterday and I know how to edit, but by blocking pages I do not. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may just throw in a brief comment here, while I can see how Commons standards would lead to a keep here, the rationale "kept: in use" seems just slightly off: the only place it's currently displayed is on a talk page on bg-wiki, where it isn't actually being employed for anything but merely cited in a discussion about whether it should be used in the article; the discussion ended with an explanation that it should not. I'm not sure that really counts as "being in use". – But I can well understand if you're not too keen on having the debate continue ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain why you deleted the following files? You closed the discussion, but you didn't offer any explanation.

I remind you the nominator's justification was double redirects. In actual fact most of these redirections were not double redirects. I went back and fixed all those that were double redirects.

Exactly one other contributor weighed in, in the discussion. The only attempt they made to justify the deletion of the redirects was an assertion that there was a COM:PEOPLE concern. However, in January 2006 US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled that these individuals had no reasonable expectation of privacy. I believe this makes COM:PEOPLE inapplicable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 
34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 
46. 
47. 

Did I delete files? If so, please tell me which and I will restore them. Unused redirects after renaming are often speedy deleted. The deletion of those redundant redirects is non controversial maintenance. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)