User talk:Jbc01

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 09:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also upload the images you have generously released under GFDL to http://commons.wikimedia.org ? There are two reasons for this:

If an image on en.wikipedia.org has no links to it, then it will eventually be deleted; &
Images on commons can also be used by the non-English Wikipedias.

Thanks -- llywrch 17:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images from JBC Productions

Hello. Its been brought to my attention that you have uploaded a substantial number of photos from JBC productions and you are saying they are released under the GFDL. A tag on the website says:

Oh yeah, one more thing folks. These pictures are for your own personal use!!! What does that mean? It means that these pictures remain the property of me, and any UN-AUTHORISED use of them, such as putting them on your own web site, or downloading them all and popping them on a news site just isn't the done thing. Above all else, it just ain't plain nice!!! So come on, be a pal, do the right thing!

Which seems to suggest against these images being released under the GFDL. We must be able to verify that images that are posted on commercial websites are here by permission. This means we need some way, off of the wiki, to verify that these images are in fact released under the GFDL. Can you suggest any way that we might do this? --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The images have had the copyright notice that normally sits over the image removed, a comparison with images from the site will show that this hasn't simply been achieved by cropping the copyright info off of the image. I can also be contacted at justin@jbc-productions.com and justin@aussieropeworks.com to verify my identity and ownership of the material. --Jbc01 02:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response! I'm working my way through a list and will send you email in the next few days. Thanks for the images--best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin sure is a rm personal attack! Jbc01 contributes extensively and this is how you show gratitude? Hey kevin, Why don't you start flipping through all GFDL images that exist on Wikipedia and play detective for every single image that is self made. Sound like fun? 70.251.199.90 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it's quite reasonable to be cautious when someone posts a set of images from a website that makes its money from selling access to those images. — Matt Crypto 13:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they're uploaded by the owner of that site.--Taxwoman 13:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how can we tell that they're uploaded by the owner of that site? Answer: we contact them through off-wiki channels. — Matt Crypto 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and that could easily have been done without starting on the user's talk page.--Taxwoman 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So..? It could also easily be done by asking the user on their talk page. Kzollman asked Justin how he could contact him off-wiki to verify his identity as the owner of the images. That's an entirely reasonable course of action. — Matt Crypto 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check would reveal that this editor has not edited for months, so probably hasn't logged in!--Taxwoman 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Strappado bondage

I have nominated Strappado bondage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strappado bondage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. rootology (C)(T) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) rootology (C)(T) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adoration

Hi Jbc01. I love the pictures you've uploaded. Very nice, especially the one mentioned above, and [1]. Regards, --Rebroad (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bondage harness for deletion

The article Bondage harness is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage harness until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:MonogloveWhite6.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MonogloveWhite6.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.170 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable contributor

Jbc01 has contributed excellent professional-level photographs which are in extensive use on global Wikipedias, as well as here on English Wikipedia. It is common practice for users to record their contributions on their user page. I see no reason this user should be denied the same respect to do so.

A now-banned editor objected to Jbc01's valuable contributions and nominated the user page for deletion. 19 minutes later, an IP suspiciously showed up casting the sole supporting Delete vote. I find it particularly offensive that the now-banned-editor's deletion justification was that the contributions brought Wikipedia into "disrepute". If these contributions bring Wikipedia into "disrepute" then the proper thing to do would be to delete the many articles illustrated with Jbc01's contributions. Or at least find less "disreputable" images to illustrate those articles. Good luck with that.

Jbc01 is currently inactive but they have previously returned after a three year absence, so they may well return again. If they do return I do not want them to quit because their contributions have been inappropriately deemed unwanted, and inappropriately and insultingly deleted from their user page. I am restoring the content. If anyone objects to my edit, no problem. I will gladly submit to an RFC to resolve it. Alsee (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The relevant policy WP:User_pages#Images_that_would_bring_the_project_into_disrepute says:

There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review.[Note 2] Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-provocative nature on sexual matters (such as LGBT userboxes and relationship status) are unaffected.

As noted above, these are a record of the user's valuable contributions benefiting many articles. The context here is a user rightfully listing their contributions, exactly the same way countless other editors do on their user pages. The only objection here is that some people WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the very Noteworthy articles illustrated by these contributions. Alsee (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]