Open main menu
  • I seldom edit on weekends and generally do not access Wikimedia email during the day (CET/CEST).
  • Transparency is important; I endeavor to act, or to abstain from action, in pursuit of its promotion; for example:
I do not participate on IRC; I do not respond to emails whose comments could reasonably have been made, or should have been made, on-wiki (i.e., those not of a genuinely private nature); if I enter a discussion as a result of a request (i.e., canvassing, in the pejorative), I will disclose the request that brought me to the discussion.
  • Comments and emails that denigrate or otherwise fail to be civil or to assume good faith will not receive a response.
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will generally respond on this page.
  • Please include links to the pertinent page(s) and/or file(s).
  • IP editors may leave messages on this page.



Happy New Year, Elcobbola!

About File:BD-Cepleanu-Malaussena.jpg

OK, thanks. I don't presume any bad faith in you, only I'm not agree with the actual rules about copyright (for example, Alexander Granholm can not have drawn the skull of Pompei fresco and write a greek text on my derivative [1] : may be he draw some flags since the same background, but he's not the single graphist who use this background). I have not hostility for you as a person and human being. By the way, thanks for delete this flag because it's not historic, only anecdotic, as [2] and [3]. I have no intentions for the future : I'm retired. If you are a generous person, it's not for me (I'm not important) but for the readers. It's a good thing. About this poster [4], if each one of the both authors (my friend Philippe & me) must send an authorisation to OTRS, please delete, delete ! I'm tired. Have a nice year ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

About File:Jonathan_Cohler.jpg

Thank you for closing the deletion request and keeping the file. However, I spoke with the photographer and he confirmed to me in writing as he did in response to your query that this photograph and the others in the same job were work for hire and that I am the copyright owner. Could you please update your statement to reflect that fact? Currently, your closing entry says "Permission received from Mr. Chomitz" which is inaccurate. Mr. Chomitz has no basis for issuing permission. He simply corroborated the fact that the photograph was work for hire--as I have been stating all along--and that I am therefore the author and copyright holder. I would appreciate you reflecting those important facts accurately on the page. Thank you. --Cohler (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


@elcobbola, How would I be able to be granted permission so that my user account is automatically granted the permission to upload these types of files at all times. I have been granted the permission to use these photos for whatever I so choose to represent Deana Martin, her likeness, and her produced works of art anywhere online as I so choose. Having my client send a photo to WikiPedia at each and every time in which we want to upload one is not feasible for us. Please advise the best course of action as it integrates into the rules and guidelines of WikiPedia and WikiMedia commons. Thank you so much for your work and thank you for taking your time with me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdicarlantonio (talk • contribs)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

File:Tranvía eléctrico de Guadalajara 1905-1940.jpg

Danke für die Wiederherstellung. Falls es Dich interessiert, die Zusammenfassung des mexikanischen Urheberrechts auf Commons braucht offenbar eine Generalüberholung. Siehe Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Can you have a look at this? lNeverCry 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Inconclusive. Machine doesn't match what I have on file (CU wiki is very out of date); uncommonly high number of ranges, especially for a new user (November 2016), but all geolocate to same region - and not LPC's. Эlcobbola talk 02:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to check though. Maybe he's on Hola or another VPN. He's one of our smart sockmasters. I always classed them into 4 classes. 1, Dumb ones; 2, smart ones; 3, ones who don't give a shit; 4, crazy ones. lNeverCry 06:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Phoenix Picture

I am glad that you found that Jetset Magazine was using my photo without giving credit to me as the photographer. Eventhough as it was pointed out your logic was entirely flawed in citing them as the owner of my photos, you will now note that after and email from Ms. Phoenix; which has also been forwarded to Permissions in it's entirety; to the owner of Jetset Magazine, they now correctly credit me as the photographer.

Also, the OTRS email from Nikki from her gmail account to the owner of Jetset Magazine is included in it's entirety in the Permission email, since she, along with every other model I have ever shot, uses gmail, which in fact does not make them "Suspect" because they choose to use it. Since the owner of Jetset Magazine responds to her directly and she references your statements and problems experienced here on Wikipedia, that ends any speculation on her email as well.

Since I have already fowarded the original signed model release, Sanitized ID shots of Ms. Phoenix, and her Lawyer has also emailed permissions validating that I am the owner, rights holder, photographer and can do what I like with this photo, this will end any argument from any pundit here regarding ownership and use.

Thanks again for finding someone who needed to list me for credit on my photos and if you find anyone else, please let me know.

I guess the takeaway from this is:

Never tell the photographer who owns a photo he is not the owner, he will have the documentation, the model, and the industry resources to prove otherwise everytime.

Best, --Art javier (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: template licensed-PD

Re: your revert at File:Statue of Liberty 7.jpg as "The photo is cc, the statue itself is PD", that is exactly the intent of my edit using {{Licensed-PD}}. Contrary to your edit which only indicates the license of the photo, AFAIK it is always a better idea to indicate copyright status of both the original art and the photograph, is it not? What are the current best practices? Or should {{Licensed-PD}} be deprecated? --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

朝彦, my apologies, you are correct. In the change summary I missed that the CC license had been retained (i.e., I thought you'd changed it to have only the PD template.) I've reverted to your version. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, relieved to know I wasn't doing anything wrong. Cheers! --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Tren Ligero GDL

Hi! You may want to take a look at FranciscoQ001 - pretty sure this is a sock (also see their page on enwiki). --Rschen7754 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed! Much obliged. Эlcobbola talk 18:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock (I'm in the automatic translator.)

I tried to insert a checkuser request but I could not. That's why I'm informing you here. Check this account AHBVP (talk · contribs) With these accounts Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cidade Falcão By having the same behavior and possible blocking outline . O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, O revolucionário aliado, this is   Confirmed. Thanks for letting me know! Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the fixes -- I think I never really read the template -- just followed what I had seen others had done. I also note that you used {{Sockpuppeteer}}, which I had never seen before -- it seems better than {{Sockpuppet}} because it expresses just the right amount of uncertainty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Using that template on talk pages was one of INC's pet peeves. There's a practical reason, too: blocked users can edit their talk pages (unless revoked), but not user pages. Using the template on the user page thus prevents its removal by the sock (in case we forget to have them watchlisted), which happens from time to time. Эlcobbola talk 00:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image query

Hi Elcobbola, I have a question about creativity and free images.

I'm writing an article about an academic paper that became controversial, and I'm thinking that I might eventually nominate it for FAC.

I'd like to add, as the lead image, a copy of the journal cover or the article itself. What do I need to do, in terms of added labour and creativity, so that the image is free and can be released? Ideally, I would like to photograph a hard copy of the journal lying open at the article itself, perhaps out-of-focus on the words of the article to avoid copyvio problems.

It's a difficult lead to illustrate unless it's something of that ilk. Any advice would be much appreciated. Best, SarahSV (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV, while it’s difficult to comment accurately without seeing the work in question, as a general proposition, adding “labour and creativity” would probably not be sufficient to extinguish the copyright of the underlying work. As long as the contributions of the original author remain discernible, you would merely have a derivative work. Further, obscuring entirely the original work could raise the specter of original research (or something analogous) in a FAC context. Your idea of a photographing a hard copy of the journal, however, may be workable. As long of the genuine subject of the photograph is the open journal, not the text therein, I would think you could make a legitimate de minimis claim - the more out of focus the words, the better.
Is this for w:Hypatia transracialism controversy, is there to be an article specifically for "In Defense of Transracialism," or is for something else entirely? I'm trying to think of alternatives, but I suppose I need to know alternatives to what. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet


I have noticed that you have blocked Sher Aziz I for abusing multiple accounts. As a global renamer, I would suggest you have a look at "Decordes emis" (I don't want to notify these accounts), as both have filled very similar renaming requests in the past few days. Litlok (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Litlok, Decordes emis has not edited the Commons, so, unfortunately, I don't yet have a basis for a check. I'll watch the account, however, and look into it if edits appear that are similar to Sher Aziz, et al. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Elcobbola, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Please check User:WaseCatro-Y as possible sockpuppet of User:Yahadzija. Best regards, --C3r4 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Confirmed and blocked. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Can you take a look at this? This user has tagged several accounts as socks. Daphne Lantier 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daphne, of the three users tagged, 計猥訂 would be stale, but that キャンサーフリートピア = Gappayah Warabah is   Confirmed. ja:LTA:GRIMM confirms the former is a sock (others in Category:Sockpuppets of パッションサタデー are stale, so that page is the evidence linking to the original master), so this tagging seems legitimate. Эlcobbola talk 22:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet farm

Thanks for taking time to treat this request. SashiRolls (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

SashiRolls, as noted at the top of the page, I do not access Wikimedia email during the day (it is ca. 17.40) and, accordingly, will not be able to view the email for at least several hours. If there is a sockpuppet farm, you may wish to contact another CU if the issue requires more urgent attention or, preferably, file a request at COM:RFCU. Indeed, I am not sure why you appear to have contacted only me; if it is because this relates to an RfCU I previously worked on, it would help if you could provide a link. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I've sent the information to Arbcom on en.wp, perhaps they will address it. Thank you for your time. SashiRolls (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser#Arthur Brum

Hi Elcobbola. I think Arthur Brum may be back as User:Red Monarchist since the account was created shortly after the Ignácio account was blocked on both Wikipedia and Commons, and the focus of the editing is articles related to Brazilian royalty. Red Monarchist also uploaded File:Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança.jpg, which is a photo of the same "Prince" as was pictured in all the other files that Arthur Brum and Ignácio were trying to upload as copyvios. The editor Wikipedia's user page is also basically formatted the same way as the other two were only the personal information is different. So, I am wondering if it would be possible to request a checkuser to compare this account to Ignácio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Elcobbola. I think User:HugoTol might be another sock given that their only upload has been File:Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança.jpg which again look like a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Marchjuly. This is   Confirmed along with several new sleepers (see Category:Sockpuppets of Arthur Brum). Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


This so needs its own article. Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

John Mckalie SPI

Hi, the John Mckalie SPI has been stuck in limbo for almost a month now. Is this simply because of the number of socks? Or are they stale? I'm looking to investigate all their uploads and those of any sleepers found as the manipulated maps that they upload were and possibly still are being used quite widely on WP. Please let me know what can be done about this. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. You noted, "Secondly, and relatedly, we require requests to "Show what the disruption to the project is" (COM:CHECK). I don't see that was done here." This was implied in the fact that many (at least three) of the socks listed have uploaded spurious maps to Commons with fabricated sources which are then passed and used on English Wikipedia as legitimate ones and used for POV-pushing. Isn't this considered a violation of Commons policy or a disruption to the project? My objective is to remove all the maps uploaded by these socks and any sleepers. This is not fishing.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is argued that, as the Commons serves as a mere media archive, it ought to be agnostic with respect to content; accordingly, even fictitious/bogus content should be hosted and individual projects or re-users free to use or to decline to use a given file on its own (de)merits. To that end, we indeed host thousands of such maps and flags, just in case Brazil undergoes a Communist revolution. While I absolutely disagree with this position, the consensus, unfortunately, has often been that fabricated maps are not necessarily disruptive. DRs are needed to make that assessment.
Remember also that I was speaking in the context of an RfCU. CUs handle disruptive use of multiple accounts, not disruption in general. As an example of what would have made this case appropriate for a CU:
  1. John Mckalie account 1 uploads fabricated map
  2. Map is nominated for deletion as a fabrication, and indeed deleted.
  3. John Mckalie account 2 uploads another fabricated map, or reuploads the deleted map, or had !voted along with account 1 in the DR, etc...
Without the second step, there was no (relevant) adverse action, sanction or the like on the Commons that the accounts were seeking to circumvent, and thus this had not risen to the level of CU involvement. When the goal is "to remove all the maps," DRs exactly like these need to be pursued and CUs only involved if those DRs do not remedy the issue ("Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." (COM:CHECK)). This is very much fishing due to the temporal aspect (note, for example, my comments and tense: "we require requests to "Show what the disruption to the project is"; "What accounts are still active?"; etc.) Effectively, you indicated you knew of no active accounts, and thus had no evidence of active accounts, but wanted a sleeper check nonetheless. That is more or less the definition of fishing. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation. To me, this reads like one of those CIA-FBI plots where the two agencies don't cooperate with one another while the whole country burns down :| Is there any shortcut or tool that I can use to list all the files uploaded by the socks listed on the SPI? I have thus far only been able to discover two more spurious maps: File:India 18th century.JPG and File:Marathas India (1758).jpg. I had only nominated one of them for deletion until today as I wanted to retain the other for comparison purposes in case the SPI turned up anything. Anyhow, thanks again for looking into this. Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not explaining the issues well if that's the analogy you're drawing, but I think it’s worth refocusing on the timing because it renders all else moot. Even if this were a request valid and warranted in every way, I could press buttons into eternity and get nothing but blank screens because data from 2015 simply do not exist. Even if there were an active user suspected of being John Mckalie, a check wouldn't work because there would be no historical data to which to compare that user's results--we need two data points. The discussion of what constitutes disruption, and the distinct variant of disruptive use of multiple accounts, is more for future reference. I'm not familiar with such a tool, but I'm likely the worst person to ask about bulk handling tools. A positive note, which I mentioned at the RfCU, seems be that many of the accounts here exist only because they were attached by SUL, not because they were actually active. I would imagine you could use the Popups gadget on the RfCU page to identify more quickly which accounts, if any, have indeed uploaded images. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I've just seen you've already blocked him for abusing multiple accounts. See it:Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/MANNAJESU/SP, I'm a checkuser on and Special:Contributions/Danilomenna58 is a SP too, with some contribs. Best regards.--Shivanarayana (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll look into it. Эlcobbola talk 13:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Another sockfarm

Heya, this is a promo sock group that I blocked at en: Kumargargavinash‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter logblock user (I've linked a statement on the DR where they confirmed that they don't own rights to the images) and Gopalagarwal11‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter logblock user which goes on to do the same thngs as the master (when the master is blocked or has had too many warnings). The latter just uploaded an image that I haven't sent to DR yet. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 23:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tren Ligero GDL

Hi! I thought you might want to be aware of a block of a sock I made on enwiki with edits here on Commons: [5]. Rschen7754 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation


The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on Commons. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

Other ways that you can help

  1. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  2. Help with translation.
  3. If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.
  4. Help summarize the discussion to share back to your wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I apologize for posting in English.
  • Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on this wiki. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on this wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

  • I apologize for posting in English.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction request File:Paises con mayoría cristiana.svg

In File:Paises con mayoría cristiana.svg, could you correct Azerbaijan because it is erroneously shown as a Christian majority country? The percentage of Christians in Azerbaijan is below 5% according to various academic sources and research companies. (It is shown as a nominally Muslim Shiite majority country in these sources, but it ranks among the least religious/most irreligious countries in the world according to these same sources as well.)

Sources: and

Thank you. Artoxx (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that I have ever edited this file. I have no knowledge of it, its content matter, or its sources and, frankly, have no interest. You will need to ask for assistance elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction request File:Christian States.svg and File:State Religions.svg

In File:Christian States.svg and File:State Religions.svg can you remove Argentina, Moldova, Slovakia and Cyprus because they do not have state religions?


Section 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Moldova:

Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Slovakia:

Article 18 of the Constitution of Cyprus:$file/CY_Constitution.pdf

Argentina does not have a state religion. According to Section 2 of the Constitution of Argentina,"The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion." but does not stipulate an official state religion, nor a separation of church and state:

Thank you. Artoxx (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that I have ever edited these files. I have no knowledge of them, their content matter, or their sources and, frankly, have no interest. You will need to ask for assistance elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elcobbola !

So, "File:Carte des sites du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle.jpg" was one of my maps on [6] (the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle was my workplace). I have not upload this map on Commons, but I improve it on Commons. I do for Commons another map here [7].
It is not necessary to advertise me when someone as Túrelio delete my uploads, for two reasons : a.- when I receive the advertising, the image is already deleted and the discussion is closed ; b.- I'm retired.
I take this message to ask you, please, to look here [8] to see that the people who share the IP are real persons, our little team, and not "sockpuppets". Thank you.
Good continuation, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, just making a comment, (received a mail by this user saying there was some issue), having met this user a few years ago, he is probably telling the truth, despite his poor history of uploads. Now I don't have neither the will nor the time to sort things out... Esby (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esby, yes, I am very much aware that the accounts are operated by distinct individuals rather than a single person. We do not have specific templates for meat-puppetry (as opposed to sock-puppetry), so templates may give a false impression. This is, however, a distinction without a difference; abusive use of multiple accounts, whether technically operated by a single person (sock-puppetry) or multiple people (meat-puppetry), is not allowed, and sanctions are identical. Indeed, in this instance, the accounts are unambiguously being operated in coordination, and in a disruptive manner (recreation of copyright violating content); for example:
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Portrait de Roger Heim (dessin).jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Roger Heim.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Pr. Francois Doumenge.jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Francois Doumenge.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Jacques_Fabries.jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Jacques Fabriès.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
The disregard of copyright law by this group of people is, frankly, reprehensible. That multiple individuals are involved is no excuse; in fact, it makes it all that much worse. Эlcobbola talk 02:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, are those files exact copyvios ? (I am not admin anymore) are those coming from their work place archive with a 'grey' status (photograph taken by a co worker or an unknown photographier years ago etc.) ? (I assume they are old teachers not knowing or applying copyright laws to the letter. Esby (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
There are dozens of problematic (copyvio) images, so particular issues are varied and certainly not confined to your example. For example, taking images from Google Streetview is rather blatantly unacceptable in my estimation, so this is not an issue of "'grey' status" or pedantry ("laws to the letter"). Regarding the former, as I presume you know, our requirement of evidence and prohibition of reasoning along the line lines of "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" and "The file is obviously common property" means the grey is ultimately no better than the black and white. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I send the user an e-mail explaining they (people at his workplace who are banned) should put the content they's want to transfer on Commons on their website, with appropriate documentation proving it is free content, so people who wish to transfer some material can do it after verifying it. Esby (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wharf Dilemma

Hi, is the list o linked accounts public somewhere? And if it is not, can it be? Ankry (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged known related accounts and created Category:Sockpuppets_of_Thepoliticsexpert. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I like your essays. Would you be opposed to making them draft guidelines to avoid the potent counter-argument "That's just an essay"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That was a consideration when I wrote the models essay (and I believe there is related discussion on its talk page); however, I ultimately decided not to take that route for a variety of reasons. As only one example, I think the referenced counter argument is quite the opposite of potent. A good (potent) argument succeeds on its merits, not on its label (essay, guideline, policy). In fact, someone saying "that's just an essay" has fallen into something of a trap; arguing labels immediately betrays the position as weak and not engaged with the issue. In a sense, status as a "mere" essay can serve as a honey pot. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
'Nuf said.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I received an e-mail like this: "Someone (probably you, from IP address requested a reset of your password for MediaWiki (<>). The following user account is associated with this email address:

Username: E4024

Temporary password: (I erased it.)

This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password."

I just saw this. It is two weeks old. The IP looks like in the USA. I have not been there since long. Can this be an address used in Turkey? What? I really do not remember the last time I changed my password, but it's a "strong" one and I see no suspicious edits, AFAICS. Should I do anything? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you do not need to do anything if you did not make the request. Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @E4024: Just someone who is bullying you. Anyone in the world can go to Special:PasswordReset and enter your username. - Alexis Jazz 01:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked it to Elcobbola also -other than to learn what to do- to see if they could discover who did that. --E4024 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
For future reference, CU policy does not allow us to run such a check (it would be fishing), as we require some evidence of a relationship between accounts, be they users or IPs. In the case of a bogus password reset, for example, we could check if there were multiple IPs involved, as then there would be a behavioural relationship. One IP, however, is not at the threshold for CU involvement; checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. FWIW, this does not appear related to the Eaglezero case, which is recent, and indeed you note the request is some weeks old. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I never thought Eaglezero was in the States. I thought more of a relation between them and an IP with similar attitude from Germany; but frankly, since I myself have suffered from blocks and this kind of checks in the past, as a principle I do not ask anything (blocks, etc) against people even when they insult me. I was a bit angry at Eaglezero because they did not act honestly (I would prefer them to come and tell me what was wrong with my files or edits that they needed to attack me) and also for they have no useful edits in Commons (I mean under this name. :) I take things with humour... Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I misread something.

It just dawned on me that when you said "This is a lazy, ill-informed report and deserves a trouting." you may have been referring to the deletion reports, not my user problem report.

If this is the case I'm sorry. - Alexis Jazz 21:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alexis Jazz: It may help you both to know that PR was banned from French Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio sock farm

Hi, there's a copyvio sock farm here that only uses IPs on to place pictures. Romeliawiki (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser) and Rachellwiki (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser) are the latest two, I don't know the earlier ones as the images are deleted but the ips used to spam these copyvios on are in a /18 range around, I think that's too much collateral damage for a rangeblock (at least on, but could you take a look here please? As it's getting tiresome having to tag individual copyvios from this farm. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged, blocked, and nuked the uploads of these accounts--see Category:Sockpuppets of Shajeevanwiki--and added a range block. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Could Mittalwiki be part of that farm as well? Copyvio image uploads related in Indian films/television. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  Unrelated, both as a technical matter and Mittalwiki's uploads are promotional in nature (e.g., official ads, etc.) whereas Shajeevanwiki socks generally upload random pictures of actors with disparate contexts. I suspect the name similarity is just a coincidence. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciate the check. The coincidence seemed pretty odd, but sometimes it is what it is! Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this is way more than I expected! —SpacemanSpiff 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  Confirmed, blocked and nuked. Much obliged. Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Picture Deletion

Hey just saw the deletion request and the reason why. I totally understand about the overload of pictures on that category but I request one picture remain and that would be the one titled Semi-erect Uncircumcised Penis and my reasoning is I have looked through the pictures available on that subject and many are not available that truly depicts that and I think it would definitely be beneficial to keep it and use it on pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomymaster1017 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 April 2018‎ (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Anatomymaster1017: Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anatomymaster1017 instead.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Caricatures in art

Hi. I think other than categorization mistakes, there is a red user farm around this and similar files. I avoid reverting them again, because one of your colleagues warned me for edit waring (sic) which I was not making (see my TP :). I could show edit warring to anybody who wishes to see real edit warring, but that is another story. (BTW can I make caricatures of one or two admins without fear of anything? No, no I won't. :-) Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a "red user farm" or disruptive editing related to this file. The majority of this message seems to be dancing around a grudge with other admins; perhaps the composition time would have been better spent detailing the farm, because I'm not entirely sure what the issue here is. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any grudge with admins; but it is a fact that lately a couple of them -in my case- confused their own edits with their administrative functions. Whatever, I have not spent any time in composition, because I generally write very quickly, and as I feel. I wish everybody was as transparent as me. As regards red users, I'm kind of "receptive" to probable "sleepers" since some time; but of course just like anybody else I may be mistaken. Thanks for your time and kind reply. --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo d'Albert Fleury

Hi Elcobbola,
You've deleted Photo_d'Albert_Fleury.jpg uploaded by @Koakoa:. I knew Koakoa, I met her during a Wikipedia workshop I conducted in Moulins' library (France) last January and we kept in touch. Koakoa do not understand english so she was unable to give her arguments in the delation process page. She is closed to Albert Fleury family and the photo she uploaded was given by one of the Fleury's family member with free licence to illustrate the French Wikipedia article. What do you need to restore the photo (more complete information, OTRS mail) ? Thanks.
TCY (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi TCY, we would require evidence that the photographer has released this image under a free license. Although a family member ("the photo she uploaded was given by one of the Fleury's family member") may own the physical property (a photo), that is distinct from owning the intellectual property (a copyright). We need permission from the owner of the actual copyright, which would be 1) the photographer him/herself or 2) the Albert Fleury family iff they have a written conveyance from the photographer transferring copyrights to them. Either would need to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


I plan to unblock this user per AGF. Of course I will provide another warning about OTRS. While the sockpuppetry is problematic, new and especially non-technical users are often overwhelmed by the process and make poor decisions.

Please let me know if you have any objection. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: As I indicated on the user's talk, Wanimation15 relates to Wizart Animation and is thus a violation of COM:IU. If you wish to unblock the Ormsnow account, however, I would not object if there is an indication that they have now read and understand the appropriate policies. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Elcobbola. It's possible that Arthur Brum is back as Ragnarkhorrangor and is trying to upload more questionable images of en:Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza. Another editor (DrKay) has tagged the account with {{Sock}}, but I'm wordering if a formal SPI needs to be started. FWIW, DrKay is an Wikipedia admin and en:User:Ragnarkhorrangor has been checkuser confirmed to be a scok of Arthur Brum on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'd figured I ask you sine you have been previously involved with dealing with Arthur Brum socks and have indef'd a few which have been previously found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've commented at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Brum. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hans Asperger deletion

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Asperger ca 1940.tif

So would {{PD-Germany-§134}} apply? This seems to have been closed very speedily, preventing proper discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No. COM:L and COM:EVID, among others, require appropriate information to support the claimed license. That license relies on date of publication, which is not date of creation; at best we know the latter. (Indeed, that this image was described as "from his personnel file, ca. 1940," strongly suggests it was in fact not published in 1940, but at a later, perhaps posthumous, date.) If, for the sake of argument, we were to assume a 1940 publication date and the validity of {{PD-Germany-§134}}, the image would have become PD in Germany 01.01.2011 (1940 + 70 + 1). Works on the Commons, however, are required to be free in both their country of origin and the United States, if different (COM:L). Per COM:HIRTLE, foreign works solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date (01.01.1996) have a copyright term of 95 years from publication; accordingly, even if {{PD-Germany-§134}} were valid, this would not be PD (free) in the US until 01.01.2036 (1940 + 95 + 1). As an aside: I spent a great deal of time searching for a free image of Asperger related to this discussion and am likely more familiar than most with this particular image's lack of support for a PD claim.
As for your comment, the file was uploaded with an unambiguously inappropriate/incorrect license claim - a belief you and the uploader share. Such cases are explicitly allowed to be closed earlier than seven days (COM:DR). If you wish to discuss PD options, you have the village pump, UDR (for if/when you have actual support for a PD claim) and indeed my above comments on this very page. The purport that the closure somehow "prevent[ed] proper discussion" is disingenuous hyperbole. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Chyah

Sorry to break into your userspace, but first just a little wish. If you are unwilling to have involvement with the stuff specified below, then please, say soon that you won’t do the thing. In such a case I will press Trijnstel into doing the job, although it is less preferable to me – not only due to her demeanor, but also because I have a good estimate for your admin skills, seeing you to unblock accounts wrongly identified as puppets.

During the last 14 hours Chyah (Sonia Sevilla) surrendered three puppets: one due to a tantrum on Commons and two directly to me via an off-wiki channel. Of these three puppets none were blocked or tagged by you. Those caught by you did promotion of one male singer from Iran. Wikipedians deem that Sonia is the sockmaster for those spam accounts, but who of responsible admins did see the raw data? We know, e.g. from the story with Solomon203 or Thecreativejanet–Gotole incident, that Wikipedians may not be trusted blindly, without verification. It is known that government of the Islamic Republic of Iran restricts a regular Internet access to many Wikimedia pages. It causes users to evade censorship via proxies, and the use of proxies can lead to occasional IP intersections of unrelated users.

Can you please look at the data available on Commons and do your best to determine whether the accounts constitute two distinct clusters? You know, the SPI case is already underway. If two clusters can be delimited, then the category should be split to the socks of Chyah proper and the Iranian singer’s spammers. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

At the present I will not be having further involvement, no. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure Wikipedian “masters” will discern and appreciate this furious show of loyalty to their groupthink, but I received the signal. Have no idea which wonderfully “strong” evidence against Solomon203 they mined (and presumably presented at checkuser.wikimedia and/or in the mail list) or whose ideas about the “clueless contributor Incnis Mrsi” do you reiterate. But you certainly see a very skewed picture of me – beware poorly founded conclusions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC) বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Village pump #To_make_checkusers_work_for_Commons. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia

Hi. I need a favor. I noticed that the Flag of Serbia has been converted from cdr with low drawing precision and because of that there are jugged lines if you zoom at the crown (zoom in completely). I have converted a cdr to svg with better drawing precision and better optimized from here to save you the trouble. You can find the svg here (I've upload it on mediafire because there is no svg vector on the website), can you replace it with the current one IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT!!! ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Taivo turns you down, then Ankry turns you down, and now you come to me, who knows nothing of vexillology or of Serbia. I truly don't know why you've contacted me about this--you've not even bothered to provide a file name--but it's an area about which I have no knowledge or interest. If you need assistance from an admin, a noticeboard is here, as Ankry already advised you. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Amanbisauri

Hello friend you are saying that I had copied images but my friend those are my own creations (File:SGRPG College ( faculty) 02.jpg

File:SGRPG College ( faculty) 01.jpg and some other like this)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbisauri (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 June 2018‎ (UTC)
These images were previously published on the the SGRPG College Facebook page and, as such, require COM:OTRS permission. (I understand you know how to use section headers, link files, and sign posts; please extend me that courtesy going forward.) Эlcobbola talk 20:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That facebook post was mine. Anyone click pictures of it will look like same. Even this was also mine (File:Aman Singh Raghuvanshi .jpg)

Comment from Monika Kocięba

Elcobbola Dear Sir, the photos I loaded were legal. I have written permission from the author for their publication in Wikimedia with the appropriate license.


Monika Kocięba

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika Kocięba (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2018‎ (UTC)
Monika Kocięba, if you have permission, it will need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Note that being in someone's collection ("those pictures are private pictures of composer Ryszard Szeremeta who gave me them" [9]) is not adequate. Permission must come from the party (usually author) who holds the intellectual property rights, not the mere physical property rights. (I understand you know how to use section headers and sign posts; please extend me that courtesy going forward.) Эlcobbola talk 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Logótipo OE com Fundo.png

Hi Elcobbola, wäre es für dich o.k., wenn ich die o.g. Datei wiederherstelle, weil der Hochlader - nach meiner Aufforderung (User_talk:Túrelio#File:Logótipo_OE_com_Fundo.png) - inzwischen eine Genehmigung an OTRS erwirkt hat[10] ? Da deren Warteschlange derzeit bei 99 Tagen liegt, müsste er andernfalls ewig warten bis die Datei wiederhergestellt wird. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

O.k. von mir aus! Эlcobbola talk 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you removal mistaken entry to Wikipedia Commons Page

"Hello! I noticed that you tried to create a Wikipedia article on Commons. Please note that Commons is not Wikipedia, and does not host encyclopedia content - Commons only hosts media (photographs, videos, etc). "

Thank you for removing the page I accidentally created under Wikipedia Commons. My apologies, it was my mistake placing in the wrong section, i thought I was editing in the regular Wikipedia page.

Noticed you moved my reply to proper location of newest at the bottom. My apologies again, no need for a reply.

--CRTGAMER (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC) CRTGAMWER

Victor Gibby

Hi, Elcobbola, I'd like to personally thank you your understanding about Victor. I firmly believe that he's one of many that simply do not understand well the rules and need help. Most of the times, there're not enough hands to help and it's simply not possibly to cope with them but with a block. Hopefully we can add a fruitful contributor. Best regards --Discasto talk 12:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Putting this here to avoid attention. (feel free to revdel this edit)

[11] [12]

Note the tags. I have more if needed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block


You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologizes for posting in English.

Deleted images

Hi Elcobbola,

There are some images you deleted as copyright violations asked for undeletion by the author. It would be greatfull if you take some time from your schedule and have a look at ticket:2018081710007753. The request seems to be sended by @Okiehistory: to OTRS team. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tiven2240, a couple of things: the OTRS queue, as I'm sure you know, is quite backlogged; as we've only just received this ticket 17 August, it would be unfair to the others who have been waiting patiently to process it out-of-turn. Second, even if it were to be processed now, it is not a valid ticket. Permission must come from the copyright holder (e.g., photographer), not the mere subject. For us to accept permission from the subject, they must provide evidence (e.g., written conveyance) that the author transferred rights to them. Эlcobbola talk 10:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues with COM:UA

Hello Elcobboba, I take the freedom to trouble you about your closure yesterday of some DR on design furniture. For example, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Butaca Vallvidrera.jpg considering it was "likely a useful article". There are two aspects of concern to me.

  1. According to Commons:Licensing, "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work". As you probably know, the utilitarian approach to copyright is foreign to European copyright law, particularly in Spain [13] and even in the UK, since the repeal of section 52 of the CDPA [14].
  2. Notwithstanding the above, in the US, "an artistic feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article" per Mazer v. Stein and more recently Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.. In particular for design furniture, this has been confirmed by Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Collezione Europa, USA, Inc [15].

I am concerned that the wording of COM:UA could be misleading in that respect, as it might lead some closing admins to assume design furniture is not copyrightable on the sheer basis of the utility function, despite non US origin or eligibility in the US in view of aesthetic features. What do you think? Thanks, — Racconish💬 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that COM:UA is not well written, which is the case with nearly all copyright guidance on the Commons, which is why I occasionally write essays in particularly underdeveloped and misunderstood areas. I am admittedly not well-versed in Spanish copyright law; your cites, however, were not presented in the DR, which seems a material omission.
Speaking to United States law, I would disagree that Star Athletica would apply, as this particular piece does not have imprinted designs and thus would not be subject to the same (germane) consideration of conceptual separability. Similarly, Mazer dealt with lamps whose bases were statuettes. In both cases, those works (graphic designs in Star Athletica and statuettes Mazer) were not necessary for or fundamental to the utilitarian function of the greater object (overly simplified: a uniform need not be decorated to function as clothing; ergo, the decoration is conceptually separable. A lamp need not have a statuette base to light a room; ergo, the statuette is conceptually separable.) Further, the subject in Universal Furniture was decorative sculptural designs on the furniture, not the furniture itself ("Universal sought copyright protection in the '[o]riginal decorative designs appearing on suites of furniture'"). Turning now to the piece in question: I do not see any conceptually separability elements to this chair. You may wish to read this section of my awards essay. The Kieselstein-Cord case mentioned there is probably your "best bet" in this circumstance, but you would need to establish that this chair's utility as furniture is subordinate to a decorative role; that is, however, not a notion I currently find persuasive. Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Your considerate answer is very appreciated. I do not claim to own a truth on the appropriate way to apply the US doctrine of conceptual separability to any of the pieces of furniture for which you closed DRs recently. My concerns are the followings:
  • These pieces are coming from Spain, exhibited in Spain in a design museum, with related articles on the Catalan Wikipedia and existing litterature on their originality, all of which create a presumption of entitlement to copyright in Spain. I do not think you need to be an expert in Spanish copyright law to realize such creations are copyrighted in Europe. Per Commons:Licensing, as quoted above, their copyrightability should be analysed first in Spain, in view of Spanish and European copyright laws (Directive 98/71 and European Court of Justice jurisprudence). I am sure you are familiar with the European notion of cumulative protectability by design law and copyright law.
  • If US copyright alone should have been considered, which was not the case, I suggest your rationale should have been a failure to pass the separability test and not the sheer fact these are useful objects.
Thanks, — Racconish💬 06:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"I suggest your rationale should have been a failure to pass the separability test and not the sheer fact these are useful objects." This seems a non sequitur. When a work "fails" the test, the components, by definition, cannot be separated and thus, in this context, the entire work is considered utilitarian. Accordingly, to say "failure to pass the separability test" is preferable to "this is a useful object" (which, in fact, I did not say: "likely a useful article" is very much a different assertion) is to make a distinction without a difference (indeed all furniture is sculptural and inherently a separability failure - this is germane). On the topic of Spain, if I was not explicit before: if you are aware of a unique or uncommon legal treatment in the instant jurisdiction, and fail to make any reference to it, there is no fault in the closing admin not referencing what was not presented. Эlcobbola talk 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree I should have been more explicit about European copyright. — Racconish💬 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Nur zur Kenntnisnahme: de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme/Problem mit Srittau und Elcobbola auf Commons (und dazugehörige talk page). Wurde bereits von den dewiki-Admins als off topic abgewiesen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Kaum zu glauben... Эlcobbola talk 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Нужна помощь

Здравствуйте. Я новичок и никак не могу разобраться с вопросом загрузки изображений. Мной создавалась страничка "Чудо-Юдо" (мультфильм). Постер загружала с сайта "Кинопоиск", ссылку на источник указала, а файл все равно удалили. Обосновали, что это не свободный файл - Как загрузить файл и где прописать, что он не свободный, чтобы его не удалили? В мастере загрузки не нашла ничего похожего, не понимаю как добавить постер к описанию :( Буду очень благодарна за помощь!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puancetia (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand you've since gotten guidance elsewhere. You may also want to consider posting questions to Commons:Форум in the future. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/

Alexey Trefilov answered you, can we leave? Панн (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Josh Hawley Official Attorney General Portrait.png

Hi Elcobbola. You deleted this image recently as a copyvio, but assuming it was the same as the image on this page (I'm not a Commons admin, so can't check), would {{PD-USGov}} or one of its derivatives not be applicable? There's a OTRS ticket complaining that its deletion is some nefarious plot to turn voters against him; it would be nice to be able to go back to them with a definitive answer as to why it was deleted (or restore it, if PD does actually apply). Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC) PS. please ping me when you respond, as I don't visit Commons all that often. Thanks!

@Yunshui: 1) {{PD-USGov}} is for works of the federal government (created by federal employees in the normal course of their duties). It is not applicable to state works (Josh Hawley is the AG of Missouri, although there isn't even evidence this is a Missouri work, let alone CC-by-SA-4.0 as claimed by the uploader); 2) The uploader is a globally blocked serial copyvio uploader and sockpuppeteer (I don't see the ticket, so it must be in a queue to which I don't have access; presuming the sender is the uploader, the OTRS ticket is trolling); and 3) If it helps ease their delusion: I am not an American, have never been to Missouri, have no knowledge of Hawley or his politics, and thus have no plot against him (but do sincerely wonder about the implication that Missouri voters are so fickle as to base important civic duties on the presence of images in articles). COM:AGF may well be yet another policy the uploader is violating. Эlcobbola talk 13:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. I'm a Brit, so not especially familiar with the way US government agencies operate - wasn't aware of the federal/state distinction. Thanks for the explanation, it's much appreciated. Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 13:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yunshui: I'm not sure how closely you're following this, but I understand you're an CU. You may wish to look at Natureofthought there. Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23 (who's pretty good at what he does, and is familiar with the case to boot) has already run a check earlier today; given that he hasn't taken any action I think it's fair to assume that there's nothing obvious in the results. I'm therefore not planning to run another check unless there's some clearer evidence, though I'll keep an eye open... Thanks for the heads-up nonetheless. Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Ah, that's consistent with my Commons check. The account has more edits on, a bigger sample set, so just curious whether there was anything there. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


Why no indefblock? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Because that link was not information provided and I am, in fact, not omniscient. Эlcobbola talk 19:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I am disappoint! Actually I thought most admins kept track of ANU/ANV/etc. The socking info only became available after my last edit on the talk page, I didn't think I had to add it as the case was already on ANU. Thanks for dealing with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNODC definition of homicide.png

Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNODC definition of homicide.png

Hello. I am assuming you looked at page 102 of the NC (no commercial use) copyrighted PDF where this chart image was directly copied from:

Are you saying I can copy any chart from that document and claim it is in the public domain?

I thought that facts could not be copyrighted, but presentation of those facts could be copyrighted.

So that has meant one had to change a copyrighted chart by moving around its columns and rows, changing column head wording, deleting and/or adding columns and rows. And so on. Something has to be changed in its presentation.

Then I could upload the chart to the Commons with a Commons-appropriate free copyright. Am I wrong?

It is a flow chart or diagram. It is not a simple logo as described in Commons:Threshold of originality. And it is not a trademark.

And Template:PD-shape does not apply, because it is not even a shape. It is a flow chart or diagram, with text. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Verily, facts are not eligible for copyright protection; a presentation of facts can potentially be eligible for copyright protection iff it is sufficiently original. This presentation is not. For example, the copyright office identifies as "designs not subject to protection" those that are “staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary.” This presentation is a mere drop-line chart--common, prevalent, and ordinary, especially in genealogy. Further, "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work" (17 U.S.C. § 102(b)) A mere simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements does not demonstrate the level of creativity necessary to warrant protection. I do not see, and you have not identified, a "creative spark" (Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) or anything beyond "mere trivial variation" (Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. , 191 F.2d 99, 102-03 (2d Cir. 1951)) of a drop-line chart. Although not authoritative like my previous references, you may find this page has more specific germane examples than COM:TOO. Эlcobbola talk 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up. This is a great page that needs to be copied to the Commons if we can get the owners to release it under CC-BY:
The non-free images could be uploaded under Fair Use just for use on that page.
I will try to link to that page from some chart resource pages on the Commons. For example:
Commons:Chart and graph resources
There are many charts that could be uploaded to the Commons right now instead of waiting on someone to create one specifically for the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The Commons does not allow fair use for any purpose (see COM:FU). Even, which generally allows fair use, does not allow non-free images to be used for guidance pages (which was a hurdle illustrating my guide to reviewing non-free images there). That said, there's no need for fair use. "Copyleft" images on the Commons are still copyrighted (they've merely relinquished some, not all, of those rights) and thus are able to demonstrate threshold distinctions (e.g., for a hypothetical Commons version, the mouse in this chart could be replaced by this mouse--and the same done for the other copyrightable elements--and the result would still demonstrate an example of a chart that is above the TOO). Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
A good example of the need for en:WP:Ignore all rules. This illustrated, easier-to-understand, help page needs to exist on the Commons:
Or at least some of that page. I tried pasting the charts and graphs sections into a couple sandboxes with visual editors to see what I could retrieve:
I may use Fair Use to put the images also on the Wikia page. I wish I had higher resolution images.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
IAR may be invoked when a rule prevents one from improving or maintaining a project, not for avoiding inconvenience. As I just explained above, the charts and diagrams can be recreated as free versions still above the TOO without the need for fair use. The COM:FU and WP:NFCC policies are not preventing improvement, merely requiring you to make an effort to create rather than copy. Although thus moot, it also bears mentioning that the prohibition on fair use on the Commons is a foundation mandate ("It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project"), not a community-derived policy (e.g., it is a "law" rather than a "rule," and IAL is not a thing). Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Just another example of how the WMF can be clueless at times. But that is another discussion.
Feel free to create what you discussed. I don't have that skill. I am very good at some things. That is not one of them, and I have less time nowadays to learn in new areas. I have so much to learn further in areas I already know about, and use more often. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(unindent). I started a section here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi Elcobbola, could you help me with this Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WhyHellWhy? Am I requesting it properly?--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 15:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Які фото можна завантажувати?

Допоможіть, будь ласка, які файли можна завантаувати? (UA)


Hey Elcobbola,

The supposed author has sent an email to OTRS about the image you deleted. -- 1989 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook media

Hi, I just saw your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SVDLT.jpg. The reason I nominated File:SVDLT.jpg is because if you look at the EXIF data, you'll see a string that begins with "FBMD", which is automatically added to photographs when they're oposted to Facebook or Instagram. So link or no link, reverse image results or not, there's little question that File:SVDLT.jpg (and the user's other uplaods) all originated from Facebook or Instagram. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. The issue is that merely appearing on Facebook ceteris paribus does not mean the image is a copyvio. Although uncommon, it does occasionally happen, for example, that Facebook images are accompanied by a license statement or are otherwise able to connect the account to the uploader. What I don't know, however, is how to use the metadata string (FBMD01000a9c0d0000922300000d41000092420000294400006b6100000c980000439e00004ca1000071a40000be090100) to locate the image. If you could tell me how to do that, I would be happy to re-evaluate. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, User:Bart Versieck is saying he did not have a sockpuppet, that's unlikely, but do you have a log or something that proves it? Now he is using his userpage, while he is blocked. The talk is about the block, so that is not forbidden, but if it's clear, then he has nothing to do at his userpage. See here Thnks and grtz. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There are CU logs, yes. Your concern seemed to be, in essence, that Versieck was harassing you (targeting your images). I'm not entirely sure then why you are still engaging with him. Эlcobbola talk 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not feeding a troll. B. Versieck did a request to unblock him on the NL-Wikipedia (with restrictions). If I'm sure (I was for 99%, now fully) I can inform people. If there is only a little doubt, I cannot do that. Because the file was found at the NL-Wikipedia (a page he follows) and the file was recently put in that album, it's an example for what can happen if they give him his right to edit back, even if it is with restrictions. PS in the past I always defended him, except the last time (a block-poll). Then I thought "he will never learn it". So I needed the information. Now I don't 'need' him anymore and will not look him up. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello, you keep-closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombing of the Syrian army in Hama, Idlib against the Al Nusra Front.jpg. {{Tasnim}} license template states "Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license" (emphasis mine). Actually, Tasnim logo means nothing to me. The Iranian agency has a recorded history of stealing other people's works and adding their logo to the images they do not own (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg as an example). However, attribution to an in-house photographer is a good sign (or proof) of originality for most of their works. I think COM:PCP applies here. Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider your closure, because otherwise it may set a bad precedent for Tasnim works. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've read the discussion several times and the only consensus is related to Stefan2's comment: that the {{Tasnim}} template should be amended to request a license review (for new images) and that existing, non-free images should be nominated separately. The consensus does not include a requirement of specific photographer attribution. (To be clear: this is not a comment on whether it perhaps ought to have, merely that it did not.) I cannot make a closure based on an inaccurate summation/interpretation of the discussion--that would be the bad precedent. Indeed, to the extent the template verbiage you quote requires attribution of a specific photographer (and I don't believe it does as per my closure comments, at least due to its poor, ambiguous wording), the addition of that requirement is without basis in the discussion. It makes no sense to me that, for an agency with "a recorded history of stealing other people's works," we would trust the addition of a watermark and cite, but not the watermark alone. If they are so unscrupulous, what would stop them from adding an erroneous cite as well? Why would that be one step too fraudulent for them? (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg does not support your assessment, as that image does not even have a watermark as this image does.) I would suggest you open a VP discussion to gain clarity on the level of evidence/attribution we require from Tasnim. The Files of Tasnim News Agency DR simply sets a framework for handling images, but does not offer a consensus on the criteria to be used therein. Эlcobbola talk 12:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note that the user has cropped File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg before its upload to Commons. See the uncropped version of the image on Tasnim website (the source is also available at the file description page itself). This "unscrupulous" news agency does steal other people's works.
Their logo means nothing. For example, see this set of images on which they have added their logo, while they have cited "" which is a non-free website. This is a well-known and well-established fact among regular Tasnim uploaders and reviewers that the presence of their logo does not matter and the only important factor is whether they cite an individual photographer or not. I really don't think it needs further discussion at the VP, but if you don't reconsider your position, I may start one at the Persian VP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that this is responsive to my points or that notions are being consistently applied or adequately supported; for example:
  1. Your basic premise is that the attribution line, rather than the watermark, is what should be relied upon. To this end, you offer a new example of where Tasnim adds their watermark to an image they attribute to "". That's all well and good; that image belongs to because we trust the attribution and ignore the watermark. However, you also offer the deletion of File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg as an example I should follow. Yet the uncropped version at the source attributes "Tasnimnews" (!!!). If we are to rely on the attribution, this should in fact be undeleted--the opposite of being a compelling precedent.
  2. Alternatively, you would presumably argue "Tasnimnews" is not good enough, because the "only important factor is whether they cite an individual photographer." That they attribute "" above suggests a measure of honest attribution, and that the watermarking is perhaps clueless rather than malevolent. Accordingly, why would we reject "Tasnimnews" because it does not single out a specific photographer? I explain above why this discussion does not present that requirement. I also don't see that you've contested that explanation. You say that requirement is a "well-known and well-established fact." Okay, well where are those discussions? Where are the diffs? Why is the only evidence you offer a discussion which does not say that?
  3. Even if it were the case that individual attribution is considered reliable, you haven't answered my question about "what would stop them from adding an erroneous cite as well? Why would that be one step too fraudulent for them?" Why are we cherry-picking what we are willing to believe from a source that systematically steals and falsely attributes the work of others? Эlcobbola talk 16:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kong_of_Lasers and IExistToHelp

Anything to say about these users? You blocked the former. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Known IExistToHelp socks are here, and I understand them to be unrelated to Solomon203/Nipponese Dog Calvero. Эlcobbola talk 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relation to Solomon203 is only a metaphor about our dumb-shooters who prefer to lock all users sharing an IP than segregate LTA from poor bystanders. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sony Ericsson.svg

Bonjour, je ne comprend pas votre interdiction de droits d'auteur car cette image est déjà utilisée sur wiki! Pourquoi autoriser certains droits d'auteurs à certaines personnes plutôt qu'a d'autres ? Cette démarche est plus discriminatoire de part ce qui existe déjà sur wiki! Hello, I do not understand your prohibition of copyright because this image is already used on wiki! Why allow some copyrights to some people over others? This approach is more discriminatory from what already exists on wiki! Nicoc1amour (talk)

I have never edited this image. I did not nominate it for deletion. I did not delete it. Accordingly, I do not understand your question or what you believe my "prohibition of copyright" to be. That said, this is image understood to be the property of Sony Ericsson. You may not upload and license works to which you do not hold copyrights merely because they exist elsewhere ("this image is already used on wiki!"). Please see Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution. Эlcobbola talk 17:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Add OTRS permission for below photos thanks

File:Vijaymattuk.png File:Vijayrajni.png

I am a photographer and sent email to permissions wikipedia but no response kindly do the needsome. Many thanks Fghjkltyuiop (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Dear Elcobbola

i have the permission from boogie down berlin for both pictures what do you need from me?

Many thanks

User:Emil Ecrivain 13:44, 21 January
Evidence of permission will need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Note that this permission must come directly from the copyright holder, e.g. an authorized agent using an email address from a or domain. Эlcobbola talk 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin Request Vote

Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc anymore, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your vote on my admin request. Even though it didn't end the way I wanted, I appreciate your input and your constructive criticism. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello, ec, are you around? I pinged you here, and would be so grateful if you are able to have a look. Stay warm! SandyGeorgia (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Greetings, Sandy! The image is relying on {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, specifically "[It is PD] because it represents a Flag, a Coat of arms or another ensign of the Republic, of the States or of the Municipalities and, in general, of any Venezuelan entity of public character". The original is "la Bandera, Escudo de Armas u otra insignia de la República, de los Estados o de las Municipalidades y, en general, de cualquier entidad venezolana de carácter público". Thoughts:
  1. I read this as applying to flags, coats of arms, and insignia only. The issue at the DR of whether Gauido is an "entity of public character" seems a red herring because, even if he were (and I don't think that's the meaning intended), the exemption applies to flags, et al. of public characters, not to other works (i.e., photos) of them.
  2. As a check to the above, if we adopt LuisZ9's premise that this applies to more than flags, et al., we get a bizarre outcome: any government employee--from janitor to president--could be photographed by anyone (including ordinary, private citizens at, say, a campaign event) and no one would be able to hold a copyright on that image. I can't imagine Venezuelan lawmakers intended such a state and, indeed, I don't imagine that interpretation is correct.
If my Spanish fails me, let me know, but I don't think this can be kept. This seems the all too common circumstance of someone finding an image with government subject matter, loosely defined, and carelessly slapping a PD-gov template on it. I'll look around and see whether I can find an alternative. Эlcobbola talk 13:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Ec, you are wonderful; thank you so much! I (we) sure do miss you! Best, SandyGeorgia (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Previously published media

By the way, what do you think about that incident? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If File:Tufara.png (uploaded 8 December 2018) is indeed a still from this YouTube video (uploaded 25 November 2018), which appears the case, we do indeed require additional evidence of permission. As an alternative to OTRS, the license on YouTube could be changed to the "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" license, or Siloe Mascolo could note on their profile page that they are Santista1982. Not only is this policy, the uploader has a history of dubious and inconsistent authorship claims (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cunha.jpg claimed "own work," but with author "asilvaju," which is of course neither Santista1982 nor Siloe Mascolo) which suggests confirmation would be especially prudent. Доверяй, но проверяй. Эlcobbola talk 16:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock contributions

Hi! I see that you've been dealing with this never-ending story – thank you! We've had a great deal of trouble with this user on en.wp, with tens of hours of work going into clean-up. So I wondered, will anyone be nuking the contributions of the various socks, or do you not do that here? On en.wp I'd have speedily deleted this page, for example, as created by a blocked user in violation of a block or ban; here I can't even find the appropriate speedy criterion to make a request. Any advice? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not explicitly have an equivalent to G5. We do have precedent and WMF statements that allow us to nuke contributions of editors subject to global bans (which would then be considered uncontroversial maintenance - COM:GCSD#6), but that would not apply to Alec Smithson. Generally the lack of G5 is not an issue, as the nature of the Commons typically means blocks are related to the upload of copyvios, which can be speedied based on other criteria. It is problematic in the case of Alec Smithson, however, as the uploads are old paintings, which are likely PD. The only real options are cumbersome and bureaucratic: 1) start a discussion to add a DENY-based CSD; 2) nominate sock uploads for deletion with DENY rationale and/or because they violate COM:EVID and COM:L (while true, those are not commonly enforced for images that appear "old enough"); or 3) follow the procedure on Meta to have Alec Smithson globally banned (he indeed meets the criteria), which would allow speedy deletion of his contributions as ban enforcement. The third seems to me the best option. Эlcobbola talk 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a very helpful answer, thank you! Certainly a global ban seems to be the way to go, and I'll try to initiate that. Meanwhile, Special:Contributions/Eccehomo32 this is unmistakably another one. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  Confirmed, along with Ester7412, Sandrin121, Julios8932, ArchivesdelaBanquedeFrance and MilanHistory. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

I see some your comments—even me, Incnis Mrsi!—as unnecessarily vitriolic. It should be noted that Sealle promptly reversed his fault when we confronted him, and doesn’t behave like many other people do in similar conditions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Эlcobbola talk 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

DW of graphic design on bank cards


please explain me why you consider that my recent uploads [16] are considered as DW ?

What are the differences with Category:Visa (credit card), Category:Mastercard (credit card), Category:Diners Club International,... ?

Is it the fact that the files are in PNG format? The reason is that I took pictures of my own credit cards, then I used Photopshop to "erase" my name and my card number and convert the JPEG file to a PNG file so that the outline of the card is transparent. Let me know. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

COM:DW was linked in the nomination. Have you read that policy? What about it is unclear in this case? There are two copyrights in the given image; let's take File:Carte bancaire Mastercard - Fnac.png as an example: 1) the bank card (background photo of the raised hands) and 2) your photograph of the bank card. Because you are not the author of the image on the card you cannot license it. We would require COM:OTRS permission. That you possess the physical card ("I took pictures of my own credit cards") is merely ownership of tangible property, not an intangible property right (copyright). Whatever other images we may host is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF; if you have located other problematic images, you are welcome to nominate them as well. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I read the COM:DW page and I do not see the case of "bank credit card".
On an other hand, regarding the background of File:Carte bancaire Mastercard - Fnac.png, I do not see the "originality" of this background picture.
Regarding the OTRS, I do not see why I have to provide copies of the original photos of the cards with my name and the cards numbers.
Let's wait the decisions on the request. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


J'ai le droit de récupérer mon fichier et d'en avoir les droits. Il m'appartient totalement. J'ai pris la photo et s'est retrouvé sur internet. Je souhaite la récupérer. Elle ma propriété matérielle et privée. Veuillez s'il vous plait cessez de m'empêcher de modifier mes propres fichiers. Personne ne m'a aidé sur cette plateforme et l'on a pris mon bien sans mon accord.--Aavitus (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You uploaded the image using the UploadWizard ([17]); when you clicked the "This file is my own work" radial, you were presented with the line "I, _________, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code)." You disregarded that line, and continued on to upload the file successfully. No one stole the file ("pris mon bien sans mon accord"). You voluntarily released some of your rights; accordingly, you no longer own it totally ("Il m'appartient totalement"). In addition to your speedy requests being declined four times (!!!), which should have given you indication that you are operating under a false premise, you have been explicitly pointed to Commons:License revocation. If you continue to edit the file disruptively, you will be blocked. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hi, you blocked User:Datsofelija yesterday due to some files she uploaded that are not free. However she believes that her recent uploads do satisfy the license, as she was browsing free content on flikr. For instance she ensured me that the license of the "Jeremy Scott" file you deleted is CC BY-SA 2.0. Could you please look into it again? She might have incorrectly filled the upload form, but I don't think it was her intention to upload unfree content.

Also please notice that although she received several warnings, it was due to the fact that she was uploading fair-use content from en.wp. She just did not understand that en.wp has different rules for file uploads, and she stopped once she learned that. Essentially she is not a vandal, she is a new, young editor and she is trying to learn.

Thanks, Binabik (d) 00:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Jeremy Scott.jpg is on Flickr here and is "all rights reserved." Users are responsible for what they upload to Commons, regardless of whether copyvios from the broader Internet or from Datsofelija recieved ten (!!!) warnings, not "several," from 5 different editors, two of whom speak French as a native language. Despite these warnings, she continued to upload more than a dozen copyvios, on six separate days, over a two week period. At some point being new is no longer an excuse for ignoring extensive notices with universal, non-lingual indicators ( ,  ) and the disappearance of one's uploads. Per the extensive notifications and period of time noted above, Datsofelija is well past that point. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and due care, regardless of wiki experience, would realise something was wrong, stop, and seek guidance. Datsofelija did not do that, but continued to upload blatant copyvios; that is why she is blocked. As an admin on a sister project, you are expected to know that blocks are preventive, not punitive. She is not being punished for being new, and no one has called her a vandal ("she is not a vandal"). Эlcobbola talk 14:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for defending me Binabik.

Datsofelija (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija


Hey, Thanks for blocking me on Wikipedia Commons ! all the pictures i've uploaded failed. Ive used the right licenses. So if you block me again no worries. It's fine. Datsofelija (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

Requesting to unblock User:Radhatanaya

Hello Elcobbola. Hope you are doing well.
Previously Radhatanaya requested to unblock his account here. I saw your oppossision for that. I understand the reason and I respect your concern also. But the day he requested, I personally met him. He is a wonderful contributor on Kannada Wiki ( During our meeting I explained him what is Sock puppetry also. I explained him copyright policies. I explained him why it is necessory to reply to the talk page messages. He ensured that he will not edit from his another account Rangakuvara. I ensure that he will correct his misake and I personally observe his contribution too. I kindly request you to unblock Radhatanaya because contributors like him is very important to the movement. Let me know what is your opinion. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Elcobbola: can you please reply? --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This is Commons, not; whatever his good contributions there, here he has abused multiple accounts and uploaded significant copyright violations. It's all well and good that you have explained the issues to him, but that is not adequate and does not meet the criteria of COM:BLOCK. I asked multiple questions that need to be answered; they were not rhetorical. Radhatanaya needs to answer them himself and demonstrate the requisite understanding. You cannot speak for him. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not doing ppl favors

I know it's fun to pile on me, but I wasn't aware that I needed to release a version of the written permission that I received from image rights holders as a part of uploading previously rights restricted images. It's cause a lot of trouble for me and for the people who used to own the rights, who just wanted to see pictures of themselves in the public domain on wikimedia, and free to use to illustrate wikipedia articles. As far as I can recall nobody has ever complained. ~ Pengolodhlerner March 21, 2019

You were unaware because you ignored the guidance of the UploadWizard. Further, when you upload images you purport to belong to "Genesis Prize Foundation," when Genesis Prize Foundation itself (!!!) credits them to " Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images. All rights reserved," that is your failure of due diligence. It's quaint that someone so obstinate about presenting blatantly false information--a disservice to the actual rights holders and to potential reusers of Common content--sees fit to lecture others about favours. What I find "helpful" is actually not dismissing the rights of others ("nobody has ever complained" - see COM:PRP#5). Эlcobbola talk 18:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Replace image

Hello, This image contains an adverting banar for "western union" in the background, I use the crop-tool to omit that advertise, and to focus on the person. The cropped version is here. Is it possible to replace the orignal image with the cropped version? Thanks for you. --Dr-Taher (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The only current use of the uncropped version is a bistro discussion on; whether the cropped version should be substituted there is not a matter for the Commons. I don't see an issue with the uncropped version (e.g., the Western Union banner is in all likelihood well below COM:TOO), so the use of either version is at the discretion of reusers. Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for IP range...

Could you revoke TPA for User: in line with w:en:WP:DENY, it's an LTA perp - more specifically w:en:WP:LTA/DENVER.

I generally don't believe TPA should be revoked for range blocks, especially ones as broad as /19, as that would disallow productive editors caught as collateral from communicating (e.g., from requesting an IP-exemption). Just revert and tag for COM:GCSD#3, if needed. Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Profsundstrom.jpg

Regarding [[18]] - I note with disappointment this deletion process was closed without anyone interacting with User:HannesLeS's offer to upload a higher-resolution image. Indeed, the original deletion request seemed to refer only to the availability of a higher resolution image, and there was no reference to needing further OTRS evidence. As a casual editor, I wanted to raise this with you here before making an undeletion request, because it's not clear to me what exactly is the procedure here. DWeir (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As I stated, "previously published images require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS." That page has the procedure you will need to follow; an undeletion request would not be successful and, indeed, is unnecessary as the image will be automatically restored by an OTRS volunteer once appropriate permission is received. Эlcobbola talk 11:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand and accept that, but would it not have been possible for you to ask User:HannesLeS to do this, rather than deleting without engaging with their offer to upload a better image? Again, as casual users we are less familiar with the rules than yourself. DWeir (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you believe "casual user" to mean; we are all equal volunteers subject to the same rules. We have a tremendous backlog (that DR was nearly 6 months old) and such individualized attention, while "possible," is not currently a reasonable expectation. (One also notes that you have not engaged HannesLeS, which is more your duty than mine.) Even if I had "engag[ed] with their offer to upload a better image" (the issue is not image quality), OTRS would still need to process the ticket, something which also has a several month backlog. We cannot knowingly host images that lack proper permission, so we would not retain the image in the mean time anyway (and, again, OTRS would restore it automatically if the permission were in order). Эlcobbola talk 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have actually been in touch with them off-wiki today and I believe that they will send an OTRS email soon. But I think that they believed that they had done everything they needed to do: they had uploaded an image they owned and offered to upload a better image when that image was nominated for deletion. If someone had said "actually, even though you are the rights holder, because a better image exists online, you need to send an OTRS email" then they would have done so. Closing the deletion process therefore came as a complete surprise to both them and I. DWeir (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, the reason I refer to the "higher resolution" issue is that that appears to be the reason on the deletion page. That was, as far as I was aware, the only issue with the image. Again, thank you for getting back to me on this, I genuinely appreciate your help. DWeir (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I understand how such a paltry nomination rationale would not be particularly helpful. What "higher resolution" is meant to convey is merely that the version cannot possibly have come from the Commons (i.e., it is evidence that the image was previously published.) Because we so frequently have people simply uploading images they have found on the Internet (generally well-intentioned, just unaware of the distinction between gratis and libre), we require the aforementioned additional evidence of permission. In this case, we have found a higher resolution version, hosted by a reliable entity claiming "© University of Helsinki 2019," and with metadata that claim "Copyright: Lotta Sundstrom." Accordingly, a high resolution image from HannesLeS will not be adequate; we would actually need permission from Sundström verifying this statement. Эlcobbola talk 14:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, thanks for clearing this up. If someone had made this clear to us earlier (bearing in mind IJME!) then this situation could probably have been averted in its entirety, and there wouldn't be a female scientist on wikipedia who currently doesn't have a picture illustrating her article, which is what brought me here in the first place. DWeir (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Elcobbola. I would like you to summarize the results of discussion here and here. Thanks for advance. Раммон (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I was preparing to close them today, but am no longer willing to do so as this notice would put my closures under the cloud of canvassing. Even if neutrally worded, requests are tainted when specifically targeted to parties with known stances favourable to those of the requestor. Going forward, please endevour to be genuinely neutral and to be cognizant of the optics of even well-intentioned notices. Эlcobbola talk 15:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user's file

A user that you blocked recently, User:Jacques-Yves Cousteau, that was actually the sock puppet of User:Эльбрус Казбекович, continues to try to upload this file on Wikipedia. The file contains false information, so it can never actually contribute to an encyclopedia, and Эльбрус Казбекович has an agenda of trying to upload this on as many Wikipedias as possible, as you can see on the file's page. I removed the file from some articles, and he created a new sock puppet, Вреж Мегриан. That sock puppet is now banned, but the sock master already has a new account apparently named after me. Since this user continues to add this file to articles by creating new accounts despite being globally locked, and the file itself was uploaded by a sock (Jacques-Yves Cousteau), I think allowing this file to still exist is just rewarding vandalism at this point. Will you delete it? ----Preservedmoose (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock, but I cannot delete a file that is free and in scope. If you're aware of a policy-based reason the file should be deleted, you're welcome to open a DR discussion. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio from Minecraft

IMHO both File:Goldore.png (histlogsabuse log) and File:Ironingot.png (histlogsabuse log) “obviously” were {{PD-trivial}}. Please, beware of taking ThatBPengineer’s innuendos at face value. You could be much more helpful as a peer reviewer after 1989’s holocaust on Special:Diff/340185323 #I purposely put the images here to see how of many still remains here after one year on 20 Feb 2020 to prove my points rather than bluntly as a guy with delete button. Based on extrapolation of ThatBPengineer’s accuracy from the yesterday case, I estimate that about ten files could be deleted wrongfully. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Related: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎‎ #Sysop 1989 takes ThatBPengineer’s baits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

Thanks for your investigation and deletion of these images. Does that also bring into question items remaining in the category Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign, which is mentioned in the DR. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Gabriel F A Rodriguez, Ligiamendes04, Flanobre, and Fhpatucci are unambiguously related, so I will be deleting the latter three's remaining images (which are all in that category) on that basis. The remaining files would all be uploads of Gmortaia's, which might be best addressed by a Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Gmortaia. Something is different about that account--older (01.2019), non-North Face uploads, etc., yet blocked for SPAM/UPE before this North Face business and a sock of the aforementioned per I'm still investigating. Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I case you didn't spot it Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign is the DR. -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Another view on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

Hi, I disagree with the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci (I was actually writing my keep vote at the moment it was closed). I'd like to explain my reasoning here (since that's the first step recommended at Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions). My understanding is that the ultimate reason for the deletion was suspected copyright violation (per COM:PRP). But I think on the balance of evidence, there should not be "significant doubt" about the freedom of the images.

I don't know if you saw the video uploaded by the ad agency that did this (it's available at this AdAge blog post), but I think it's the smoking gun that shows that the agency took these photos - it contains video footage clearly showing them at several of the locations where these photos were taken, with the people shown in the photos (e.g. you can see backpack guy from File:Farol do Mampituba.jpg walking around by the lighthouse).

I can't imagine a plausible scenario under which these images would be copyright violations. The agency took the photos, and they clearly intended them to be released under a free license so they could appear on Wikipedia - The North Face and the agency have never disputed this.

The varied names in the author field (and EXIF metadata) aren't surprising given what we know of the provenance of the photos. It's not unlikely that the agency paid multiple freelance photographers to shoot at different locations (a google search says that Clayton Boyd, Tim Kemple, and Pedro Dimitrow are all photographers who have worked with The North Face). Moreover they could easily have paid someone else to edit them, and had yet other people actually upload them to Commons. Even if the author of each photo is uncertain, it's likely beyond a reasonable doubt that the copyright owner (likely the Leo Burnett agency) consented to release the photos under a free license.

I can understand finding the undisclosed promotion aspect repugnant (I do too). But consider that Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign stands as a monument to their misdeeds. I actually added one of these photos to illustrate the article W:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#The North Face (and someone has since added it to the fr article). Deleting the evidence of what they did is kind of doing them a favour. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Several points:
  1. Your reading is too narrow. Copyvio (copyright violation), as used on the Commons, does not only or necessarily mean copyrights are being violated, but that there is a violation (of Commons' policy) related to copyrights. (In this case, significant doubt that the purported licencor has the necessary authority to license the images," as "a license can only be granted by the copyright holder" (COM:L).)
  2. Verily, it is likely that an advertising agency is somehow involved. Where is the evidence the agency, rather than the North Face (or photographers), owns the copyright? It would actually be far more common for The North Face (VF Corporation) to hold the copyrights, or at least those related to relicensing. In fact, one of the socks even claims the author to be "TNF" (The North Face). If this is were actually an official, sanctioned corporate donation to Wikimedia, are we so credulous as to believe it would be so clumsy? (The "by" in CC-by-SA is attribution--vitally important to get that right, yet Colin M knows better ("the copyright owner (likely the Leo Burnett agency)") than the North Face?)
  3. Not only is there no evidence which entity owns the copyright, we also lack evidence that the uploaders were both a) agents of that entity and b) authorized to license intellectual property on its behalf. Merely being an employee is not adequate; authorization must come from an appropriate officer. We do, in fact, not uncommonly have "social media" and PR teams erroneously upload images from press packages because they a) have no IP law training; b) don't understand gratis versus libre, and c) ignore our instructions--just as our notices prohibiting promotion were ignored here.
  4. You reference "balance of evidence" but do not actually provide any for retention. Per COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] that any required consent has been obtained.") We do not and cannot accept idle speculation, all that is on offer here, which is precisely why we have COM:OTRS. You link COM:PRP in your first sentence, so I wonder how you reconcile your purports that "they clearly intended them to be released under a free license so they could appear on Wikipedia" and "The North Face and the agency have never disputed this" with PRP#3 and #5. If those purports are true, it would be a small matter for the appropriate entity's general counsel to submit permission. Эlcobbola talk 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the copyrights are owned by the ad agency, The North Face, or the photographers, I think the copyright holder agreed to freely license the photos. In what plausible scenario is that not true? Are you imagining the agency commissioned the photos, had the copyright of the photos assigned to The North Face, but The North Face didn't agree to freely license the images so they could be uploaded to Commons? The AdAge article has a direct quote from a The North Face executive talking about the campaign (before the fallout), so TNF were clearly aware of the plan.
You reference "balance of evidence" but do not actually provide any for retention I linked to a video that shows them taking the photographs in question (since in your closing statement you speculated the images might have been grabbed from the internet without authorization). I doubt many uploaded photos claimed to be self-authored come with that level of proof. The other evidence is the statements (before and after this became a scandal) from Leo Burnett and TNF, which makes it clear that all parties were on board with the plan to produce these photos, upload them to Commons, and use them on Wikipedia articles. Given that information, Occam's Razor suggests that, yup, these are the photos taken for that ad campaign, the users who were uploading them were working for the campaign, and the people running the campaign arranged to have the photos legitimately released under a free license. Colin M (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Plausible scenario: North Face contracts Agency to create promotional images, works for hire whose copyrights are thereby owned by North Face. North Face then, or additionally, contracts same Agency to use North Face's images in an advertising campaign. (Allowing mere use is not the same as allowing (re)license on North Face's behalf.) Agency decides to use WMF as a vehicle for an advertising campaign, ignorant of the licensing implications. In this not only plausible, but likely, scenario, the agency would not own the copyrights ("a license can only be granted by the copyright holder" (COM:L)) and thus their purports would not be legitimate. Indeed, moving from the hypothetical to the actual: this particular Agency's negligent ("A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act" [19]) conduct on WMF projects only supports its unreliability, as it has demonstrated a failure to consider, respect, and follow legal formality (the aforementioned TOS breach related to promotion) and has, in fact, breached the CC license (to be explained below).
  2. Even if we make the assumption that the copyright holder, whoever they are, intends these to have a CC-by-SA license, they are in breach. Works with "copyleft" licenses (like Creative Commons), despite the cutesy name, are still under copyright. A Creative Commons license is legally binding and the rights retained and provisions therein are every bit as enforceable and mandatory as works for which all rights remain reserved. Indeed, there are numerous court cases in which failure to comply with CC license provisions was found to be a breach (e.g., the most recent of which I am aware, Philpot v. Music Times LLC, 1:16-cv-01277 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)). As I previously indicated, the "by" in CC-by-SA means "attribution". The work must be accompanied by attribution. If the copyright holder is the Agency, every file uploaded by Fhpatucci is a license breach (copyright violation) as not one attributed the Agency. If the copyright holder is North Face, every file uploaded by Fhpatucci is a license breach (copyright violation) as not one attributed North Face. Any reuser of these images, if hosted on the Commons, would also breach the license as we do not know the copyright holder. Again, for "real world" and Commons policy reasons, we require evidence, not idle speculation, of what entity owns the copyright (and, of course, that a represented license is legitimate). As yet another example: COM:OTRS explicitly says "If any of the following statements is one you could make, then you must send an email to the OTRS system: [...] I am an employee of the copyright owner." (underline added)). Эlcobbola talk 17:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with elcobbola's points but suggest that Colin M's post was made in good faith and uncovered some information that was new to me (the names of real photographers likely behind some of the images). So I think "yet Colin M knows better" seems a little unkind, especially given he's not an old hand like you. Just a small point. Otherwise, glad to have your expertise demonstrated here. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (another Colin).
Although not my native language, I'm fairly certain that phrasing in English can also be taken as jocular--the meaning indeed intended. While I would apologize for any perceived unkindness, I would remind another Colin that even old hands are deserving of charitable interpretations. Эlcobbola talk 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll admit, I did find that sarcasm a bit pointed. But glad to hear it wasn't intended maliciously. (And glad that Colins are looking out for each other :)) Colin M (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Glad to know you weren't being deliberately unkind. Yes all sorts of phrases can be used between friends in a jocular manner that are taken in a light heart, but you don't know Colin M, and we can't see the smile on your face when you make it. I wouldn't have been at all concerned if you two were familiar. Anyway, it seems no harm done. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I see your update above. Don't know whether those arguments apply to the remainder in the category, but I think it would be very educational to post some/most of your analysis on the category DR so that Wikipedians can see how Commons goes about deciding that it mustn't host an image. I think that would be better than the current comments which merely argue against certain vote rationales being relevant here. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Wikied commons.jpg‎

What is your opinion: copyvio or stubbornness? Have you any idea where File:Sophora toromiro Skottsb.PNG and File:Sophora toromiro 2.JPG can be stolen? If really copyvio, then I complain to Miraheze as well. If the guy merely doesn’t want to follow Commons procedures, then I drop it altogether. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations and stubbornness need not be mutually exclusive. File:Sophora toromiro Skottsb.PNG and File:Sophora toromiro 2.JPG are unambiguously magazine scans (the page was poorly aligned, so a portion of the scanner bed is visible; the image has halftoning; etc.), but the specific magazine is not known. Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

About File:MES-3.jpg file

Hello, I noticed you deleted this file from the page "Maria Elvira Salazar" ([20])- Can you tell me what is the problem, please? We sent the required letter signed by this public figure (politician/TV journalist). What can I do to solve this issue? Thanks, --Ernestolake (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If you sent the permission using the process at COM:OTRS, you do not need to do anything; the volunteer who processes the ticket will automatically tend to the restoration of the image if the permission is acceptable. Note, however, that copyright is generally held by the author (photographer) rather than the mere subject (Ms. Salazar). As the letter is "signed by this public figure," we will need to receive either a) a copy of the employment agreement between the photographer and Ms. Salazar indicating that the former is an employee of the latter and that the photo was taken in the former's ordinary course of duty or b) a written conveyance, signed by the photographer, transferring copyright to Ms. Salazar (i.e., we will require evidence Ms. Salazar, rather than the photographer, owns the intellectual property associated with the image.) Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of photo Sun Yingsha

You deleted File:Sun Yingsha Asian Games 2018 Atlet Tenis Meja Perempuan Rangking 17 Dunia mei 2019 (cropped).png. But:

  • this file was not nominated for deletion;
  • this file was only one image of Sun Yingsha.

The same situation with File:Wang Manyu Atlet Tenis Meja Perempuan Rangking 5 Dunia mei 2019 (cropped).png. Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realise this was in use (i.e., that the OOS closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dirham Prof should not attach). I've restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

About photos added to "Minnesota" page

Hello! I have updated the Minnesota page with photos that belong to me. There is no copyright infringement. I would like if they could stay on the page. Let me know if I am still doing something wrong as you say this is my last "warning." Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaminnesota (talk • contribs)
Copyright is generally held by the author (photographer) of a work (photograph). That you were given the photos as assets does not mean that the copyrights were transferred to you. Your uploads have been authored by, at least, Paul Vincent, Paul Stafford, and Leslie Hough. We need either 1) to receive permission directly from these authors or 2) if Explore Minnesota Tourism (EMT) owns the copyright (asserted in certain of the metadata), evidence that the authors transferred their copyrights to EMT and that you are authorized by EMT to license intellectual properties on its behalf (merely being an employee is not adequate; you must be a director, officer, or analogous authority). This evidence needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS.
As you seem unaware, you are purporting to release these images with a CC-by-SA license. The "by" in "CC-by-SA" means attribution is required. If those licenses are genuine, indicating yourself to be the author, as you have, instead of the actual author (Paul Stafford for File:Minneapolis buildings.jpg, for example) could, in fact, be an infringement of Mr. Stafford's copyright. Do your employers actually know that you are applying legally-binding licenses to their assets, and in apparent breach of conditions thereof? Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Biopics case

Hi. Did you deliberately post below the noinclude in this edit?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No - fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Эlcobbola talk 01:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shince Steve Thomas

Copyright violation after last warning, See talk page. Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 11:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing File:Starship troopers terran ascendancy poster.jpg

Hello! Why you remove that poster? It is original poster of that game. I have permission for using at wikipedia article from internet portal where i take that image. With great wishes K1ll8а̀22a 2:56 (MSK) 11 jul 2019 го̀да

1) Previously published works require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS; 2) that permission must allow use everywhere and for any purpose (permission only "for using at wikipedia article" is not adequate); and 3) that permission must come from the copyright owner (Blue Tongue Entertainment/MicroProse), not a mere news/fan/forum site (permission "from internet portal" would be illegitimate and license laundering). Эlcobbola talk 15:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for а̀nswer For Эlcobbola , K1ll8а̀22a 1:38 (MSK) 12 jul 2019 го'да

File:Chile mine oct13 2010 dg.jpg

Hi, This deletion is not OK. It has a validated permission. If you don't agree with it, then create a proper deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, @Yann:, your undeletion was "not OK". @Túrelio: deleted the file, its restoration was requested here, @Ankry: closed it as not done on 4 July, and you restored it anyway on 6 July. If you don't don't agree with it, create a new UDR. Эlcobbola talk 12:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola, Yann: As i am no longer an OTRS memeber, I have to rely on OTRS people opinions. And I think, that if two OTRS members have different opinions about ticket validity, this should be resolved in a discussion in otrs-wiki rather, than in public. Ankry (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: There is no need for an OTRS-wiki discussion. There is now one on COM:VPC#Joggling deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)



For me this request is abusive. The other have not provieded evidence to prove that I am this user.

This request, written by an opponent, is a form of pressure on me and a misuse of procedure. It's an insult to me and my intelligence. I do not want to miss this abusive action, and I do not blame you, except perhaps for not having asked my opinion (in reality, it was up to the author to have the honesty of write on the request that I am against in principle).

What can I do? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho did provide evidence suggesting a disruptive use of multiple accounts: Drgfrt, an account created more than a decade ago, suddenly emerged to make its first edit to the Commons, the restoration of a version of File:Parliament_of_Turkey_2018_Current.svg favored by you in an edit war. Further, you have been blocked multiple times, on multiple projects for edit-warring ([21], [22]) indicating both a willingness to edit-war and an awareness that edit-warring is disallowed and sanctionable (i.e., that you might attempt to evade new sanctions by socking). In the aggregate, this history and fact pattern was a reasonable basis to suspect Drgfrt was an alternate account. There is no requirement that either Dereck Camacho or I contact you. I exercised my independent judgement (to my knowledge, I have never interacted with you, Drgfrt, or Dereck Camacho and have never edited File:Parliament_of_Turkey_2018_Current.svg or any other content related to Turkish politics or Turkey in a non-trivial way) when considering the request and found the prospect of an abusive use of an alternate account plausible. Эlcobbola talk 22:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That the other account tested was doubtful did not warrant me be tested. You could have tested it yourself and have the same conclusion. Having an antecedent for "edit warring" (if you look at other Wiki is a common behavior to several contributors) does not prove that I have multiple accounts. In addition, Drgfrt did not commit an edit warring, it updated a file that was outdated for months (he have not restaured my version). It's Dereck Camacho who (after more than 2 month) deleted the stable version for no reason. For the last September warring edit, we two were at fault (not only me and Guanaico have only restaured the stable version). I think I will write to the Wikimedia ombudsman.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not coherent and not responsive to my comments. The evidence available plausibly suggested a connection and formed a reasonable basis for a check. I will not be able to assist you further. Эlcobbola talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a small thing. The liability (in addition to another site, not even on Commons) on the "edit warring" is off topic about whether or not a person has multiple accounts. Do you have any real clue about me (and not about the other account) that suggests we can be the same person? I'm not asking what the charges are (socketpuppet to impose a POV), just what makes you say that we could have been the same person with reasonable arguments. In English and French WP, same requests are rejected by the checkusers and the authors sometimes blocked. (Why there are differences?) Finally, what recourse can I file if I consider the treatment as abusive?--Panam2014 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Panam2014: Go to COM:AN, cry murder and call for a desysop. Ain't never gonna happen in this case, but you asked what you could do if you consider the treatment as abusive.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Are you admin? If yes, could you respond to me if an user have or not have the right to replace an updated file by an outdated? Is it a vandalism? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

[23] Sorry, Panam2014 hadn't notified you about the AN thread, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Elcobbola".