Last modified on 29 January 2015, at 20:17

User talk:Ellin Beltz

The Life of an Admin Never Changes
Line drawing of a cat with mice, by Palmer Cox
You can please some of the people all of the time,
you can please all of the people some of the time,
but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
John Lydgate (1370–1449) source: BBC

Questions about why your image is nominated for deletion?Edit

Licensing tutorial en.svg

  • Read this first! ... Then read COM:L
  • Reply on the deletion nomination page, not its discussion page.
  • Replies left here have no effect on deletion nominations.

Please note that none of the following claims are valid license justifications:


  1. I own a copyrighted © website from which the image/s was/were copied but can't file an OTRS;
  2. I have the same user name as a copyrighted website, but I can't send an email from that address.
  3. I am the official representative of the owner of a website whether personal or corporate;
  4. I own entire pages, or clippings from, newspapers and periodicals;
  5. I own a print of the image;
  6. I am one of many heirs of the subject of an image;
  7. I am the alleged owner via a long shaggy-dog story;
  8. I am the recipient of a gift of a print of a photograph;
  9. I am the recipient of permission to use a photograph from family album or other private source;
  10. I am the recipient of permission to use this photograph from the web regardless of © or no © on the pages;
  11. I am the creator of professional images up to and including Getty and Reuters files labeled ©;
  12. I have really long arms and can take selfies from 100 feet away;
  13. I only copied part of this image from somewhere else;
  14. I don't remember where I got the image;
  15. I have no idea who created the image;
  16. I paid for this image or portrait so I own the copyright;
  17. I was given permission to use this picture on Wikipedia;

However, ... if you think you really do have permission despite the above, there are ways to work within the system to discuss it. Please leave a message on my talk page, including the file name of the image which was nominated or deleted.


You uploaded what to where? Oh mai!
Can I help you fix it?
Don't worry... Whatever it is, we can handle it!

January 2015Edit

-- see archives for earlier correspondence


Reason for deletion, pls?Edit

Hi ellen. Some of the pics nominated here were deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Nidrac36 Someone had just opined the pictures fell in the scope of pseudoscience. Could you explain why they were removed. It made prefect sense to document lens artifacts that were pseudoscientifically purported to be claims of nibiru (a mythical planet), no? Also there were 3 other images that weren't deleted from that page. Does this mean they can be kept?

And, these two images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&user=Emphatik&ilshowall=1) were derived from the images you deleted. So they dont have a source now. How can I rectify this? thank you. Emphatik (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(P.S.: I just gave this previous message a new title. Because I thought you might not have noticed it. Sorry for the haggle, lol) cheersEmphatik (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hiya Emphatik: Please see the two new deletion nominations I placed on those images with reason "A composite of images deleted as unused. This image is also unused, and thus out of COM:SCOPE." Personally I don't think every lens flare belongs on Commons, please see Help:Improve the quality of your pictures and etc. for help. For deletion policy for these images, a good place to start is COM:SCOPE. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh noes. I was actually going to use them. But since their parent files had been nominated for deletion, I didnt know what the proper procedure was. Could we please take the two derivates off deletion. Here's what I was going to do - There is an article on a pseudoscientific theory about a mythical planet, nibiru within the solar system. The picture purported to be evidence of this so called planet, in the wiki article, is one of the V838 Monocerotis star. However, this star doesn't fall within the critera of this so-called planet. And moreover, much of what is purported to be Nibiru on the internet is essentially curious lens artifacts (some of which dont act like normal lens artifacts-hence giving fire to this claim).
I was going to use the Nibiru-5 image in the article, to represent what is more frequently passed of on the interwebz as purported claims of Nibiru. And then I was going to link the other composite image to the Nibiru-5 image. That way readers can see it is just one of many other lens artifacts. Only those two pictures left on the commons. Pretty please. Emphatik (talk") 07:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Emphatik : While I appreciate your fervor on the subject, I don't think blurry lense flares are educational. So, I suggest you take your request to COM:UNDEL. Please leave a short cogent note why you feel any/all of these images could/should be restored. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ellen. thanks. But I was talking about the 2 pictures that have been nominated. Not the ones that were deleted. Can we get ppl to comment on the nomination then? Is there like a rfc for the two images nominated I can use, before they get deleted? cheers Emphatik (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Oh. As I understand it the COM:UNDEL is the equivalent to a rfc for wikimedia. thanks. Emphatik (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ellen. Sorry to keep bothering you. I went to COM:UNDEL. They told me it was the wrong forum. So I went to the village pump. And they told me to go back to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg. So now I'm back to square one. I left a note on the nomination page detailing why I thought the two pictures are worthwhile. But now I fear, noone else will opine & it will be deleted w/o a discussion. (Thanks for you patience). Emphatik (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced messageEdit

(this was on your userpage)


Hallo User Ellin_Beltz (if this is the wrong place to ask you, please help me. All these pages are so confusing - I am not an experienced user of Wikipedia, but want to contribute my knowledge)

There was a picture I uploaded to Wikipedia (Bewegungskontrolle) deleted by you in November. - There were people who messed up the whole article, first the text, then I found two messed up pictures and one deleted. So it took me some time until I found your responsibility for deleting pictures. I wrote a mail to you to ask you why you deleted the picture (Open_closed.JPEG). But I did not get any answer. Now I ask again. I went through the possible reasons, why a picture might has been deleted, but there was nothing that could apply for my picture.

So please give me some information why you deleted the picture and please reinstall it - there was a reason, why I wanted it at that place. --Jakarandatree (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jakarandatree: Sorry for the delay in replying to you; this message was left on my user page and I did not notice the edit.
I see from your user page that you were notified of a couple of images for deletion; however I didn't have anything to do with the images which are listed on your user pages. For [[:File:Bewegung1.JPG - it was deleted 00:27, 3 July 2014 by Fastily. The entire discussion is here. I don't see my name on any of that discussion or those images, so now I'm as confused as you are. I don't see any deletions on your account in November at all, nor do I see any deletions I made on your account. I see an image "Deutsch: Kontrollzentren der Bewegungskontrolle im menschlichen Organismus" but that image is active and undeleted. I looked on the page that the image was attached to and find that the image is still on that page, no deletions of images appear to ever have been made on that page. So I'm drawing a complete blank here. If you can find the file names in question, I'd be happy to try to help you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Source of File:Struktura BPEJ (Bonitovaná půdně ekologická jednotka).pngEdit

Hello and thanks for concerning about my work. Can you please help me with the file you marked as a file without souce? It has a source description, it is my own work. What is wrong with this? Thanks for reply --Tarenor (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarenor: What is the source of the information in the diagram? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Direct research of our research institution where I work. If you are interested, then it is Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, founded by Ministry of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic. Futhermore this diagram or origin of the data is not protected, it is public information. --Tarenor (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi [User:Tarenor|Tarenor]]: The best thing to do is to put that information on the file and leave a comment on the deletion nomination. If you'll let me know when your changes have been made, I can withdraw the nomination. Cheers!  !!!!
Hello Ellin Beltz, I am more and more confused with every new information:
  1. Deletion nomination with this specific file has been if IU understand this situation correctly withdrawn by one of your colleague with comment "rv in this case own work is correct".
  2. When I uploaded documents I carefully read tooltips and basic info about publishing at Commons and I tried to fill all columns as good as possible. Yet it seems that selecting source as my own work is useless: it is nominated for deletion. Every tooltip or description has IMHO meaning: "what is source of the file", but your approach has meaning "what is the source of the information of the file (e.g. where did you get the formula)". I have no problem with that, but then tooltip is wrong, because it refers to file and not it's contain.
  3. Similar problem with description is in the step of uploading a picture: I have a choice to select, that I am the author, or I can say that someone else is. But Tooltip says: "Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication" I admit that meaning of word "publication" is fuzzy for me in this context, but I understand it that I have to fill the column with a URL link, or ISBN of book or other published paper. But some of my files are my work, some have origin in Institute archive, there is no public place to point and verify my statement. It this okay?
  4. The last point is about my two files which has beed deleted about an hour ago after your marking as a possible violation: File:GAEC 2.png and File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg I tried to communicate to your colleague who deleted files. Should I use Undeletion request instead or is direct approach to administrator faster?

Sorry for bothering you, but I would like to understand the process to avoid this situation in the future. Thanks! --Tarenor (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarenor: I'd work with the deleting admin in this case prior to going to UNDEL. In future, don't use Upload Wizard, use the long form upload. When you get to source, explain that the research is being done at your place, why it is considered "open permissions" and if possible a link to something that shows that the research of your institute is open permissions. Tooltip explanation of course is only a brief one, please read COM:L for more information about sourcing and licensing for commons. Does this help? If not leave me another message and what part I can help with and I'll reply as soon as possible. We're having crazy weather right now and no guarantees that the power will stay on all day! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz thanks for reply. I will try to avoid this sitations in the future by adding as much description as possible. Thanks. --Tarenor (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Sabine Kornbichler 6853.jpgEdit

Dear Ellin, My name is Frieder Kornbichler. I'm the husband of the author Sabine Kornbichler. A few weeks ago I uploaded a photo of my wife, which I shot myself, and included it into her Wikipedia page. This photo was deleted by you.

From your message on my talk page I cannot see the exact reason for this deletion. Did I make a mistake when setting the license? Or was there a misunderstanding about who I am and/or who shot the photo? What must I do to get the file undeleted?

Thanks for your help,

Frieder Kornbichler (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frieder : The person who nominated the image for deletion cited "http://www.amazon.de/Sabine-Kornbichler/e/B00457O672" as a place on the internet where an older version of this file was placed. This caused them to think that the file was being swiped to use here (which is unfortunately quite common). I understand from your note now that you took the image. I have restored the image, and put the Amazon address in the "other versions" box. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your understanding that the process is for the protection of the image creator. In this case, yourself! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Wiki PKusGE.jpg + File:Cover neu.jpgEdit

Hi, yesterday you deleted these both files. I took the pictures, I edited them, I created the final pics. And I am the only copyright owner. So why that? Unsigned by User:SiegfriedWhite

Hi User:SiegfriedWhite: Your uploads appear to be promotional in nature as they are of the same band/band leader. There is no "fair use" on WikiCommons. The two which were deleted already were posters / promotional material and/or covers of musical albums, LP or CD. The two of yours which I nominated today, one is from YouTube, the other is trimmed from the band's Facebook page. Are you sure you read COM:L and COM:SCOPE, especially the part where it said "no promotional use"? I hope this helps you understand better why promotional images have and will continue to be nominated and removed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Eben Bohan 1489.jpgEdit

Why are you deleting an image, which dates from the year 1489 ??? --GDK (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi GDK: The file history has two statements: 1) Mine: "Marking as possible copyvio because lower left of image reads (c) Jewish Encyclopedia" & 2) Deleting editor Fastily "Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored." Since Fastily deleted it, I'd suggest discussing it with him. I'm only the suggestor, he's the deletor. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be clearly obvious, that a book page from 1489 cannot be copyrighted any more, regardless of any copyright claims in the image. --GDK (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi GDK : It is also clearly obvious that the process to get image restored is 100% laid out above. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Suppressed filesEdit

Hello, I see that my file entitled File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg is still missing since my problems with Biopics, who flagged all my pictures for deletion. I tried to upload it again today and I was told that this file can't be uploaded as it had been deleted... Hence could you please restore it ? I have the valid OTRS licence "{{Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 Bourjon}} for it. Same thing for File:Thalamita coeruleipes, de nuit, accouplement.jpg and File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. Thanks ! FredD (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi FredD : Please take the time to put your OTRS tag on each of those three pages which I restored. Good job on the OTRS!! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ellin Beltz".