User talk:Jcb
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
For any questions about OTRS permissions, please visit the OTRS/Noticeboard
Could you apologize for your unfair block of myself?
To put Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_59#Block_of_User:Piotrus behind us, could you kindly apologize for the block on my talk page? Then I will archive that section, forget and forgive and we can all shake hands and move on. It is human to err, as long as we learn from that. I would feel better to know that the Commons admin which caused me significant stress realizes his/her mistake and won't do it again. Sincerely, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Two weeks ago before even trying to contact me, you started to complain about me in the village pump. Later that day you continued to remove problem tags from your own uploads without fixing the problem, instead of converting to regular DR, despite clear instructions. So of the two of us, I may not be the one who needs to apologize. So better just forget about the incident, instead of asking people to apologize, while completely ignoring your own dubious role in the case. Jcb (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Reverting my work
Hi Jcb,
You reverted my edit. I fixed 300 of the files where you only put in "..." while often valid sources were present in the description field. This is the one case where (because of the language) I have difficulties determining whether a source is mentioned or not. I can not state it is unknown if there simply is a source in the description I'm unaware of. I've spend hours on fixing the files you previously tagged and one of them goes back into the maintenance category and I get an instant revert. If that is how this is going to work than I won't be motivated to fix the other files and re-raise the request to find a different solution which doesn't involve hours of other my (or other people's) time. Basvb (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- You should have just let it as it was, I see no reason to have a 12th century work in the maintenance category for files with a source problem. But now you apparently doubt about that, I will nominate the file for deletion. Jcb (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not really constructive as it makes no sense in this case. This file has a source problem, but not a copyright problem. As such there is not reason to delete it and it can safely be kept without a source. The thing that makes this file stand out from the rest is that it is uncertain (for me) whether it has a source in the description or whether the source is unknown to us. So I can't simply add an unknown-template, something which was the resolution in a lot of other cases. Basically we need somebody who understands Alemannisch to resolve the question. Please withdraw your deletion request as it makes no sense. Basvb (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see there is no source information in the description field. I will not withdraw the DR as long as the file is in the 'images without source' category. It's rather the forced unneeded polluting of this category than the DR that's not constructive here. Please be aware that the processing of this problematic backlog has almost come to a standstill due to all the unproportional discussions and unpragmatic reverts. Jcb (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fae seemed to have been able to figure out the sourcing from the description, and has been so kind to feel the source field. The issue which is returning time after time is that it seems that you've set yourself a goal: reducing the backlog of the 'images without sources'-category. In doing so you seem to prioritise emptying this category over improving the files in general. Adding "..." to the source field gets it out of the category, but is not informative in the long term as the goal is to provide the source in the proper field. Nominating files which can easily be kept is not in line with sharing the sum of human knowledge as it is causing the deletion of valid files. The issues with some files in the category cannot be resolved in an easy way, you do however seem to try to do just that (nominating them for deletion is the main example). Where the situation is complex it is better to accept that the issue is complex and can not be resolved easily. That's what I accepted in the case of the Rothwiiler_Wallfahrer.jpg file, it was too complex (due to language) for me to resolve, where somebody else would be able to resolve it. The discussions were not at all disproportional, they were, and seem to still be, necessary because the current way of working by you is far from optimal. By throwing important principles out of the window when it concerns reducing this backlog you're harming the project. The block of Piotrus discussed above being the worst example of how you seem to ignore everything when it comes to reducing this backlog. Please get your priorities straight! Basvb (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is an unfair and inaccurate observation. As has been pointed out by several users, the 'images without sources'-category is problematic. Thousands of copyright violations go unnoticed, sometimes for over ten years, because this category is so extremely backlogged. It's impossible to resolve this if thousands of files without a real problem keep cluthering this category. Not sure if you are aware that this category is an official admin backlog. In the past months I have spent many hours on this and I have fixed thousands of files. I don't want to say something general about your work, because I know you do a lot of good work, but regarding this particular file I think you are the one with the wrong priorities. This file had no real problem. If you would just not have touched it, several hours from several users would have been saved for more effective work. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence that the category is an "official admin backlog" (it's not on Commons:Admin backlog). It is a backlog which can be worked on by every user. I agree that it is an important backlog. However it is not that important that it allows one to misuse procedures, such as the deletion request in this case (and the blocking of Piotrus before). So the remark on priorities stays valid. This is not an unfair or inaccurate observation. I understand that an observation like this of your behaviour is unpleasant, and for me it is also unpleasant to provide such an observation as I prefer to keep away from conflict and negativity. I do however feel that it is important for you to consider how it comes that your actions have received so much criticism. In general not all criticism is right, but if dozens of people criticise something this is surely a reason to look into that something. Commons indeed has huge backlogs including loads of files which are copyright violations. Sunday I've tagged and nominated 100's of files with Facebook as a source, which is an indicator of potential permission issues. The "images without source"-category is on just that: images without a source, if a file is valid like the file in this case a source is not strictly necessary, it is however still an image without a source. Of course the number of images in the category should be reduced, and the quicker the better. But don't throw common sense out of the window in doing so. I really appreciate the effort and commitment with which you are working on this backlog, but not when it is: above everything else/no matter what the costs are. The point you make about not touching the file saving time applies just as well, if not stronger when combined, to both your revert and DR. Basvb (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Backlog. And about the amount of criticism, well that has a clear cause, which should be obvious right now. From the moment I closed this DR (two months ago), one particular user has not stopped to do anything he could, to direct everybody's attention to me. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence that the category is an "official admin backlog" (it's not on Commons:Admin backlog). It is a backlog which can be worked on by every user. I agree that it is an important backlog. However it is not that important that it allows one to misuse procedures, such as the deletion request in this case (and the blocking of Piotrus before). So the remark on priorities stays valid. This is not an unfair or inaccurate observation. I understand that an observation like this of your behaviour is unpleasant, and for me it is also unpleasant to provide such an observation as I prefer to keep away from conflict and negativity. I do however feel that it is important for you to consider how it comes that your actions have received so much criticism. In general not all criticism is right, but if dozens of people criticise something this is surely a reason to look into that something. Commons indeed has huge backlogs including loads of files which are copyright violations. Sunday I've tagged and nominated 100's of files with Facebook as a source, which is an indicator of potential permission issues. The "images without source"-category is on just that: images without a source, if a file is valid like the file in this case a source is not strictly necessary, it is however still an image without a source. Of course the number of images in the category should be reduced, and the quicker the better. But don't throw common sense out of the window in doing so. I really appreciate the effort and commitment with which you are working on this backlog, but not when it is: above everything else/no matter what the costs are. The point you make about not touching the file saving time applies just as well, if not stronger when combined, to both your revert and DR. Basvb (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is an unfair and inaccurate observation. As has been pointed out by several users, the 'images without sources'-category is problematic. Thousands of copyright violations go unnoticed, sometimes for over ten years, because this category is so extremely backlogged. It's impossible to resolve this if thousands of files without a real problem keep cluthering this category. Not sure if you are aware that this category is an official admin backlog. In the past months I have spent many hours on this and I have fixed thousands of files. I don't want to say something general about your work, because I know you do a lot of good work, but regarding this particular file I think you are the one with the wrong priorities. This file had no real problem. If you would just not have touched it, several hours from several users would have been saved for more effective work. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fae seemed to have been able to figure out the sourcing from the description, and has been so kind to feel the source field. The issue which is returning time after time is that it seems that you've set yourself a goal: reducing the backlog of the 'images without sources'-category. In doing so you seem to prioritise emptying this category over improving the files in general. Adding "..." to the source field gets it out of the category, but is not informative in the long term as the goal is to provide the source in the proper field. Nominating files which can easily be kept is not in line with sharing the sum of human knowledge as it is causing the deletion of valid files. The issues with some files in the category cannot be resolved in an easy way, you do however seem to try to do just that (nominating them for deletion is the main example). Where the situation is complex it is better to accept that the issue is complex and can not be resolved easily. That's what I accepted in the case of the Rothwiiler_Wallfahrer.jpg file, it was too complex (due to language) for me to resolve, where somebody else would be able to resolve it. The discussions were not at all disproportional, they were, and seem to still be, necessary because the current way of working by you is far from optimal. By throwing important principles out of the window when it concerns reducing this backlog you're harming the project. The block of Piotrus discussed above being the worst example of how you seem to ignore everything when it comes to reducing this backlog. Please get your priorities straight! Basvb (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see there is no source information in the description field. I will not withdraw the DR as long as the file is in the 'images without source' category. It's rather the forced unneeded polluting of this category than the DR that's not constructive here. Please be aware that the processing of this problematic backlog has almost come to a standstill due to all the unproportional discussions and unpragmatic reverts. Jcb (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not really constructive as it makes no sense in this case. This file has a source problem, but not a copyright problem. As such there is not reason to delete it and it can safely be kept without a source. The thing that makes this file stand out from the rest is that it is uncertain (for me) whether it has a source in the description or whether the source is unknown to us. So I can't simply add an unknown-template, something which was the resolution in a lot of other cases. Basically we need somebody who understands Alemannisch to resolve the question. Please withdraw your deletion request as it makes no sense. Basvb (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jcb, as a courtesy, I closed a DR you nominated as kept. I believe it can be speedy closed as kept because there's no sense to continue it as Fæ has provided the source for the file. If you disagree with my action, I am open and we can discuss about this or ask an independent admin review at COM:AN, but please don't reopen nor renominate the DR on your own. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I agree the issue was resolved, so no need to keep it open. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response (and you're welcome for your thanks). I hope we would work together constructively in the future.
★ Poké95 10:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response (and you're welcome for your thanks). I hope we would work together constructively in the future.
blackPanther OS Images
Another thing: all rights of blackPanther OS and the associated content uploaded to Wikipedia are owned by V3ct0r, who edited the images as well (you can see it in history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tczgabor (talk • contribs) 22:10, 04 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've updated the license description on the referenced welcome page (http://www.blackpantheros.eu/contact-us/), you should have no problem with it now. Another thing: all images you deleted are property of the developers, none of this content violates any copyright, but then I do think you need to justify your deletions by proving the opposite. I am going to request that the images are restored in UDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tczgabor (talk • contribs) 21:55, 04 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please read it:
http://www.blackpantheros.eu/contact-us/
There was no copyright violation, you made a mistake. Please restore the pictures. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H Miki (talk • contribs) 02:08, 03 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, 'free usage' is not a valid license, it's very vague. And undeletion requests go via COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
warning
it is my own work, reupload it please.Kontrola (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please contact OTRS to establish that, so that the stream of repeated deletions can come to an end. Jcb (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Gruzberg.jpg
Jcb, it's my first experience in creating a Wiki page for which I need to upload a photo. I uploaded the photo yesterday: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Gruzberg.jpg The creator of the mediafile has sent today an email for release of rights to the file to OTRS. It probably took me more time than it is allowed (2 weeks) to find the creator, write to him and ask him to email to OTRS. It's simply 'cause the 1st try is really time-and-effort-consuming. Is it possible to restore / redelete the photo file? Or what else can I do to restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilphi (talk • contribs) 19:07, 03 November 2016 (UTC)
- As soon as the OTRS volunteer thinks that there is a valid permission, they will undelete the file. Please be aware this may take several weeks, because OTRS is understaffed. Jcb (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. Neilphi
Why the deletion ???
Hello I am 11lawpt1 and you deleted one of my image in my sandbox due to copyright violation, however I have received and is authorized by the author of the paper to edit and publish said source, is that not sufficient for a wikimedia commons upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11lawpt1 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello
You deleted several images upon the argument that no OTRS permission had been received. However, the history of the file indicate that permission was appropriately sent. It provides the OTRS ticket number. And upon checking on OTRS, the permission has indeed been sent and recorded properly.
I am a bit pissed off to be honest because we WERE SUPER careful to get the permissions done properly and had MANY back and fro with Orange so that it would be done right. we actually were not careful enough...sigh
One such example is here [1]. The file was uploaded on the 1st of September. The permission was sent on the 2nd of September. It was recorded on the file. The ticket is Ticket#2016090210007336. It include permission for
OK https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_logo_EN1.png
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_web_EN1.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_web_EN1.png
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_poster_EN1.png
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_poster_EN1.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_web_fr.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_web_fr.png
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_poster_fr.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiChallenge_poster_fr.png
Still, you deleted them on the 6th of October without any warning. Given that the permission had been sent and recorded on the commons page, it sure was difficult to guess that we were expected to do something.
I restored one to try to figure out what the problem was. What is the problem ?
Let me add that not only has OF agreed to release those under a free licence, but File:Orange logo.svg is considered PD. If the issue is that visuals could be trademarked, perhaps we could be informed of the issue before deletion ?
So what is wrong exactly ? Please clarify. Anthere (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anthere : Hi, did you read the template? It says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. [...] If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted.". The copyright owner didn't reply to the questions asked by FDMS4. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Arggg. You are completely correct. My mistake. I present my apologies. Well, on the road again to go digging information to fix that... /me cries Anthere (talk)
- No problem. By the way: files may always be undeleted as soon as a proper permission is processed. And yes, our OTRS system is sometimes a mess, leading to unnecessary deletions from time to time. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Arggg. You are completely correct. My mistake. I present my apologies. Well, on the road again to go digging information to fix that... /me cries Anthere (talk)
Deletion of contents
Dear Jcb,
Could you please indicate me what should change in my images in order to make sure they are not Advertisement? Could you please also explain to me how I can prove you that I have the right to post these contents?
Thanks in advance for you feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph.Ber (talk • contribs) 11:17, 07 November 2016 (UTC)
- The files are out of scope. Please don't upload them again. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, as the scope is quite large, could you please advise me on the points I have to rework so they will fit the scope?
- Mainly we have editable wikitext articles, in which we include illustrations. We don't combine article text and illustrations into an image file. Jcb (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, I understand better now. Could you please indicate me if there was any problem with the two images that have been deleted and that had no text in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph.Ber (talk • contribs) 14:13, 08 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please help yourself getting started, starting from here - Jcb (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, I understand better now. Could you please indicate me if there was any problem with the two images that have been deleted and that had no text in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph.Ber (talk • contribs) 14:13, 08 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mainly we have editable wikitext articles, in which we include illustrations. We don't combine article text and illustrations into an image file. Jcb (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, as the scope is quite large, could you please advise me on the points I have to rework so they will fit the scope?
Rami Al Ali - Profile Image Deleted
Dear Jcb,
Hope all is well.
I noticed that you had deleted the profile image stating that there is a copyright issue.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rami_Al_Ali_Profile_Image.jpg File:Rami Al Ali Profile Image.jpg
So, I managed to track down the photographer of the image that I used. I asked him if I can use it for this designer and he told me I could.
Please let me add this image that was deleted. I'd like to give this page a face :) Thank you for your understanding.
This is what he wrote me:
Dear Michael (Timepoverty),
It occurred to me that there is some issue or question over the Rami Al Ali images used on his wikipedia page.
I am the photographer that shot the images and I agree and give full permission to use the photographs. The images are under their ownership and I have no commitment towards. Please use them as they need to.
Thank you Saeed Khalifa www.saeedkhalifastudio.com
Hope to hear back from you soon! Best regard, Michael (Timepoverty) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepoverty (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please contact OTRS. If they find the permission valid, they will undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Dr. Mike S Adams photo
Uh, I as the uploader was not informed as to the speedy deletion prior to the file being deleted. OTRS ticket has been received.[Ticket#2016111010004999] Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- As soon as the ticket is processed, and OTRS agent can restore the file. Please be aware this may take some time, OTRS has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Your posssibly erroneous deletion of File:Llanos de moxos1.jpg.png from my User:Smallchief/Sandbox9
I thought I made it clear in putting this map in my sandbox that it was a cropped version of a map that is already posted on Wikimedia as File:Llanos de Moxos.jpg -- and is displayed on the German language article titled Moxos-Ebene. The only alteration I made to the original map was to crop out the German legend.
So, what seems to be called for is that the map should either be removed from Wikimedia and the German article -- or re-added to my sandbox. Please look into this. Smallchief (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- It seems that the maintenance robot listed it for speedy deletion, because you forgot to add a license template. I will have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick action. I didn't realize that a image already on Wikimedia needed a license. Smallchief (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of Phaenops aerea
Hallo Jcb, why did you delete the side? There were two pictures, that is, the deletion-criterium was no fulfilled. Besides that the side concerns a biological species, so shurely there will be more pics. --Siga (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- The guideline says: "Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category.". In this case the category only contained two files and the gallery page was merely a redundant duplicate of the category. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think, that guideline is not very useful, but O.K. If I find an old picture, I'll put that to the category and not to the side, so that you can find the animal with the search-machine. --Siga (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletions about PBA
Hello (sorry for my bad English, I can write it in French if you prefer...) You have deleted these two files : File:Le personnel du musée en 1934.jpg File:Coupure du journal Nord-Matin.jpg They were uploaded thanks to a partnership between the Museum and the newspaper, owner of the photos, inside of a wiki-project named WikiMuseum. Certainly there was a mistake about the "own work" or about the licenses but it takes time to teach the rules to our partners in this adventure ! And between the announce of the probable deletion (15:23, 14 November 2016) and your deletion (16:48), there was no time enough for us to correct that. Is it possible that you restore these files and let us a few days so that we correct all the mistakes ? And my other request is : for the further mistakes you will probably notice in this project, could you tell it to User:Lamiot and/or to me before you delete ? We try to make pedagogy towards the conservators and the journalists who discover the wiki-rules (and sometimes a lack of patience...). Thanks ! Best regards. --Cbyd (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am able to read French, so feel free to write French. I think this problem cannot be fixed by adding the correct information. The problem is that the museum is normally not the copyright holder of such newspaper articles. In case of an article with a picture, we need to receive permission from both the author of the article and the photographer of the picture. Jcb (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, As you may have probably guessed, for many contributors, it was their first upload to commons. Not so easy for a beginner. It would be nice to explain to them clearly why the image is removed, that they are not disgusted to contribute again. Nous sommes bénévoles, et n'avons pas toujours le temps de réagir très vite. --F. Lamiot (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
/// copied from the page on the link - my comment is below ///
<cut out copy of the DR>
- PS sorry to write this here, but since I haven't found more suitalbe place, it is going to stay here, until you move it somewhere else. Žiga (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Aha, and, no, Marquez never wrote or published a diagram in such a manner. He just wrote a complex book. A reader must figure it out by himself. I have never heard, that a synopsis of the work (susch as this fam.tree is) would be violation of rights. I am not the author of the book, but the author of synopsis, made as a chart. Any objections? Žiga (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- So if I understand correctly, you created the diagram based on information in the book and you put the Marquez name in it? Jcb (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course, wouldn't you? So one knows, what the chart is talking about. Besides, I made it ca. 10 years ago, so I did not use family tree template, since there was none. If I would have done it now, there would probably be no title, but only a chart. Somehow in that time I was proud :) of doing the chart, and since it was cited and copied to other non wiki pages, it's ok that my wiki user name stands there too... There are so many publications using my photo material without naming the author (me) or at least wikipedia, where they took the image from. I just don't have time and energy to deal with it, but that is how it goes. As for deleting the material on Commons, if I was in your place, I would have asked the author of the image about the background history before deleting. There is though one Slovenian user Eleassar who does the cleaning for Commons and usually tells me what is going on, before doing some changes / deleting in Commons. Perhaps it would be right if you did so too. Žiga (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Apparently "HeNeverCries" put it back anyway, so there is no sweat anymore. But besides, I see there is some Slovenian text there (I made it for the purpose of wiki-sl at the time, not having a global usage in mind) - so it is not really usable unless being reverted to this one. Thx, bye. Žiga (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so this one seems resolved now. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
These two files nominated by you has been just restored. You're the solely responsible about the removal of them from Wikibooks, Wicktionary and Incubator, and someone should fix that (you maybe?). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Undeleting admin is the primary responsable person to check the delinker log. Jcb (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, I fixed the hunderd of pages affected by the deletion of these files. And, the correct answer for my question above is the CommonsDelinker tool, but you just don't want to take responsibility for your disruptive actions and leaving the dirty job to others (pressing the Delete button take less tan a second). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Stop your erroneous accusations. You are already wasting quite too much of everybody's time with all your mistaken keep votes. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is more time wasting? Voting Keep, or tagging/nominating files without researching, affecting dozens, hunderds and even thousand of pages? You already questionated to use indiscriminately the {{No permission since}} tag, and you're still making DRs without researching. I spend all the day to fix the mess you created, even if it si not my responsibility (if you used Google Image Search, you will found indications that this pepper is part of the GIMP brushes). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Stop your erroneous accusations. You are already wasting quite too much of everybody's time with all your mistaken keep votes. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, I fixed the hunderd of pages affected by the deletion of these files. And, the correct answer for my question above is the CommonsDelinker tool, but you just don't want to take responsibility for your disruptive actions and leaving the dirty job to others (pressing the Delete button take less tan a second). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If you can, may you fix the SVG file with the following update code?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="900" height="600" viewBox="0 0 9 6"><path fill="#ED1C24" d="m0,0h9v6H0"/><path fill="#fff" d="m0,1h9v4H0"/><path fill="#241D4F" d="m0,2h9v2H0"/></svg> Thanks! User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with editing SVG files. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jcb. I replaced it in a user page, too. --Leyo 08:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I have deleted the file. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyright Watcher Barnstar |
| I would like to award you The Copyright Watcher Barnstar because you helped to keep Wikimedia Commons clean from copyright violations. Davidng913 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Jcb (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Please help restore all that you deleted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._Douglas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdc (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For some reason you deleted all the images and formatting I uploaded to my wikipedia page. All pictures were submitted properly as far as I can tell (I am not a genius with wikipedia). All images ARE MINE. I own the rights. I am very bummed I have to start from scratch again. Any way to put them back? Some guy added a horrible picture after you removed all my good ones. - --Misterdc (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be the depicted person of these pictures. That means that somebody else is the photographer and therefore the copyright holder, unless there is a written document in which they declared to transfer the copyright to you. Please ask the photographers to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Help to revert deleted images?
Hi Jcb,
I'm new at Wikipedia so I hope this is the best way to comment.
I noticed that two images were deleted due to copyright issues:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adam_Savage_SBU_1.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daniel_Wood_SBU.jpg
But they are properly attributed with:
"Images on this page may be used under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
On the following link: http://focusdesigns.com/media/
Can they be restored?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwantmp3 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Restored - Jcb (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Special:DoubleRedirects again
While reviewing I noticed this. What is the intention behind this? I am a bit confused. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- It somehow appeared in Special:BrokenRedirects. I think it's about time to make a list of pages with this kind of bugs. I will try to make a list at User:Jcb/temp2. Please feel free to add any of these cases to the list when you encounter them. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have issued a bug report, see here - Jcb (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andrija1ss, some images remaining
Hello Jcb,
You closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andrija1ss and deleted the files, but five images are still remaining. Were they intentionally kept? MKFI (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- No. Thanks for the notification. Now they are deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thank you so so so so much for deleting all of those files, You my friend are a life saver!, I'm sorry for once again having to take up your time - If there was another way I could do this without taking up anyones time I would happily do it but other than running for adminship I don't think there's any other way ?, |
- Thanks! For future cases feel free to just drop me a note. Although the system worked 45 minutes on the deletions, it just took one minute of my time to start the automated processing. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh okay, Well I just didn't want to constantly bug/annoy you and thought the other admin would delete without hassle, Anyway thanks again and infuture I'll just come here, Anyway thanks again :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Sasanian Empire Map sources.
I left you the sources on the deletion page discussion you recently made.
Now I warn you to NOT delete that image. It will spell DISASTER for the Wikipedians who contributed to that article and there will be massive edit warring over a new Inbox Image.
I know this because I was in one and so were many others before me, going all the way back to a decade ago.
I granted you the exact sources I used for that article and I'm telling you that map is the closest you can get to being the most accurate. It's not as accurate as it should be, hence why I'm making a 2.0 version of it, but as I said on the deletion discussion page, I ma have to leave this up to the map workshop to get the rest done because my life has been quite bus lately.
However, I need to present them that map in order to get anything done should I give this up to the map workshop because they will need a map to base the foundations of making a new one on. A source in particular, which would be that.
Regards, Kirby.