Caution
General
  • 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: a) I do not participate on IRC; c) 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); and c) 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.
Procedural
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will generally respond on this page.
  • Please include links to the pertinent page(s) and/or file(s).
  • Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages on this page.


Archive

File:Krzysztof Stanowski 2008.jpg

I would like to clarify the situation regarding the photo of Krzysztof Stanowski. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krzysztof_Stanowski_2008.jpg The author of this photo is Anna Kertyczak as you can see on the webpage https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/stanowski-nie-chodzi-o-mnie-chodzi-o-sprawe I submitted a copy of a letter of confirmation from author (Anna Kertyczak) (in Polish) on address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Túrelio has already replied to your identical post to his page. What elaboration is needed? Эlcobbola talk 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

own images deleted?

I recently uploaded some of my own images and they have been deleted by you. They were made by myself and had no copyright etc. Please explain? --Stan traynor (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You took, for example, File:Come and take it.png from here (who themselves took it from here) and File:Drink up saerom.jpg from here (who photographed a TV screen). These are not your works and they are, in fact, copyrighted. (You yourself purported them to be licensed as "cc-by-sa-4.0," so your comment above is nonsense however considered.) Please read COM:DW and COM:NETCOPYVIO. Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That's my Instagram account. Stan traynor (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It's edited to look like it was on a tv screen. The image style is known as vaporwave. Stan traynor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Did you not read COM:DW? You didn't take the underlying photographs (e.g., [1],[2],[3]) and badly photoshopping them does not remove the existing copyrights. Further, we are not a host for fan art. Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Scott Smith futurist.jpg

Hi. Is it possible to get you help/opinion about this issue? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ganímedes: the ticket looks fine to me. The problematic work for hire statement was made by the uploader, who is not the sender. Given that 1) the sender is using an email domain verifiably associated with them; 2) the metadata are consistent with a device expected to be used for timed selfies; and 3) the sender has provided other collaborating images, I find their assertion/licensing to be credible. Эlcobbola talk 16:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Krzysztof Stanowski 2008.jpg

Hi,

Please undelete this file: File:Krzysztof Stanowski 2008.jpg. After discussion via OTRS the author granted CC By-SA 4.0 licence, and also managed to change description of the file on this page: https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/stanowski-nie-chodzi-o-mnie-chodzi-o-sprawe. ticket:2019123010008824. Cheers, Polimerek (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that these are acceptable. The photograph is by Anna Kertyczak. The OTRS correspondence is a) not from Ms. Kertyczak and b) implies the sender is in control of the content of publicystyka.ngo.pl (i.e., the recent change of license there is license laundering.) We need either permission from Ms. Kertyczak herself or evidence that she has transferred copyright to the sender. Эlcobbola talk 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a direct agreement of author - see E-mail #4 and the hand-signed pdf: Anna_Kertyczak_Zgoda_KS.pdf. Normally it is more than required in such the cases. Polimerek (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'd missed that. It is, in fact, what we always need in cases like this. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Polimerek (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Evaluate possibility of undelete files File:Comediante Talokudo.jpg, File:Humorista Talokudo campeão do canjica Show.jpg and File:Talokudo e personagens.jpg

Hello Elcobbola, good day! The owner of the images uploaded by the account Special:Contributions/Escritorporamor (File:Comediante Talokudo.jpg, File:Humorista Talokudo campeão do canjica Show.jpg and File:Talokudo e personagens.jpg), authorized, through the OTRS ticket #2020010210005086 the use of such images. As the account was blocked by sockpuppetry, I believe it is up to you to assess whether or not the image restoration can be done. Greetings!--Leon saudanha (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

John Mathew Smith

Hallo, Elcobbola! I am afraid you made a mistake in blocking User:John Mathew Smith and User:John Mathew Smith photographer. These accounts belong to the FlickR photographer John Mathew Smith. He has donated hundreds of high quality celebrity portraits, mostly taken in the 1990s. It took me a while to convince him to join Wikimedia Commons, which he finds a bit difficult to navigate. He had just found a YouTube tutorial to help him learn the ropes when he found himself blocked. He is an immensely valuable contributor, not a sock puppeteer. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Surtsicna: as you imply that you are in contact with them ("It took me a while to convince him to join Wikimedia Commons"), I'll accept that as evidence of a false positive. You may wish to advise them, however, 1) to restrict themselves to a single account, 2) not to override existing files, and 3) that files previously uploaded elsewhere on the web require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process. In this case in particular, as the username relates to a real name/established photographer, they would probably be well-advised to verify their account as per COM:UPOL. Эlcobbola talk 20:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have been in contact with him since late 2018. It is I who uploaded the majority of his photographs on the Commons. I suspect the second account was created because the first was blocked; as he is inexperienced, he probably did not even realize that he had been blocked (let alone why). He said he would like to use the second account, User:John Mathew Smith photographer. He has sent an email to info-commons@wikimedia.org. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
User:John Mathew Smith and User:John Mathew Smith photographer were blocked within minutes of each other, and neither was created after a block, so an existing block cannot have been the reason. I'll switch the unblocked account. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiperlink

Dear Elcobbola,

How do I create hyperlinks on my user page to my user pages from other wikipedia? I noticed that you created hyperlinks of German and English.

Best Regards.

A.WagnerC (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @A.WagnerC: if you're referring to the links at the bottom of the left toolbar, the markup is:
[[en:user:elcobbola]] [[de:benutzer:elcobbola]]
So if you wanted to link to pt.wiki, you would add the following to your user page:
[[pt:usuário:A.WagnerC]]
Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! A.WagnerC (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Accidental Copyright Violation

Hi Elcobbola, you've stated I've uploaded several files that are copyright violations, but these have been in error. I uploaded photos that were in the public domain and/or were given permission to upload. There is no ill intent in my files or content, as it was my belief that the images were perfectly fine to upload. The file of Lahna Turner (Lahna Turner at Flappers.jpg) was provided to me from the actual photographer after meeting him at a comedy club in Burbank. He gave me permission to use it and also gave the photo to Turner's publicist to use as well. If this is a copyright violation, it was not intentional. please let me know what other issue you may have and/or noticed and I'll be happy to address them. Thank you. DaJerm (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What part of my previous comments was unclear? How do you believe this at all responsive? You must provide evidence of permission for previously published works. Эlcobbola talk 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Эlcobbola Thanks for providing a link to your previous comments. For some reason I did not see the notification so I was unaware you left a comment. After reading your response, I believe I understand and will work on uploading photos appropriately in the future. I'm still new to this and am learning as I am going so I appreciate the feedback. Feel free to let me know if I overstep and/or do something incorrectly and I'll be happy to resolve it. Best, --DaJerm (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access of User:M.k.m2003

Hello Elcobbola.

User:M.k.m2003 asked me via email (they allowed me to disclose the email content) that they want their talk page block lifted so that they can appeal their original block. They told me that they were new to the project then and were inexperienced, and promised that they will not repeat their past behavior. As you're the blocking admin, I wanted to ask if you see restoring the talk page access appropriate.

Thank you. Ahmadtalk 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

4nn1l2 was the blocking admin; I merely removed talk page access after the repeated non-responsive requests rose to the level of disruption. I am not okay with talk page access being restored to appeal their block. Our conditions for lifting a block are an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. This user has no recent (or any) image work on the projects on which they are active, and rather than pristine editing records on sister projects to demonstrate applied respect for policies and other editors, they have been recently blocked (e.g., ar.wiki in December 2019 and blocked on en.wiki twice in January 2020) and warned. In short, their demonstrated recent editing history would only contradict the credibility of anything they would seek to offer. If they wish to edit here again, they would be best advised to reach out again after a significant period of time has passed with no sanctions. Currently, including in emails and notes to me on sister projects, they continue to demonstrate an utter lack of clue, sincerity, or contrition. Эlcobbola talk 20:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll let them know. I agree that this is most probably not a good time for the unblock. Ahmadtalk 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Providing help to upload images Prevale

Hi Elcobbola,

can you suggest me what to do to upload the images that you have deleted and that are found here: Galleria Prevale? Do I need to get an authorization from the author? If this is necessary, I know how to get it. Let me know what an authorization looks like. Thank you! --Emilygarbi (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Emilygarbi, how do you reconcile this request with the guidance presented at your UDR request(s)? What was unclear? Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Elcobbola, I ask for help and a seggerimento on how to upload the images found on the site: Prevale Gallery on Wikimedia Commons, if this is not possible,

I ask: if I upload photos of the artist made by me, therefore unpublished, never used on any platform, under a Creative Commons 3.0 license, could they be deleted or going ok? Thank you! Emilygarbi (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've asked questions you've not answered. I don't understand how someone who had read the guidance presented would raise your initial question; so, again, what was unclear? Эlcobbola talk 19:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Elcobbola, yes, ok, all clear. Having understood therefore that I cannot upload the images you deleted, I ask you to answer my last question: if I upload photos of the artist made by me, therefore unpublished, never used on any platform, under a Creative Commons 3.0 license, could they be deleted or going ok? Forgive me, be patient I have to get practical with Wikimedia Commons and I ask you why you are an administrator. Thank you! --Emilygarbi (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your deletion requests

Hallo Elcobbola, why are you requesting deletion of photos of toys and model cars? Are you a lawyer hired by the manufacturers (which I can't imagine) or perhaps by the United States government? There is no clear reason, for example, to delete the photo of the Wiking model VW 1303. Or can you name one? Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not nominated any of your images for deletion and thus have no idea what you're talking about, and you seem not to either. 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I am amazed. Accordingly, there must be a second person who appears under your name. It is also interesting that a lot of requests for deletion can be read in the list of your user contributions. -- Spurzem (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me please. As I have just seen, it is not you who make the deletion requests. There is someone who refers to you. -- Spurzem (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Photos

Hello Эlcobbola,

Thank you for checking some of my contributed photos. I am a celebrity photographer, and most of these photos are my own. Please let me know what I need to do to set things right. Thank you for your time. Danke! -- CelebrityBuzz (talk)

Hi CelebrityBuzz, previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. I am concerned that you claimed all images to be yours at the time of upload, but now claim it to be merely "most." That is a credibility concern that you will need to overcome in your correspondence with OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Elcobbola, all the photos that I've submitted are indeed my own, except the photos which are logos. But thank you for doing the due diligence and making sure everyone does things correctly, we need more admins like you. Do I have to submit Logos to COM:OTRS as well? Thanks again -- CelebrityBuzz (talk)
The undeleted logos do not need permission; they are mere variations of text and thus would not be expected to be eligible for copyright protection. You should, however, change the license template(s) to {{PD-textlogo}} to reflect this. Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Elcobbola, Ok understood, I will fix and change the template asap. In regards to the deleted photos, should I just leave them deleted and upload to the public space correctly from now on? -- CelebrityBuzz (talk)
Yes, do not reupload deleted images. The agent who processes your OTRS ticket will automatically restore the images (or arrange for their restoration) for you if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 21:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Elcobbola, thank you, I am glad you did you a full check, using copyrighted images is a major issue. If I come across my images being used on Wiki, can I report it to you?-- CelebrityBuzz (talk)
You do not need to report issues to me. If you encounter unambiguous copyright violations, either of your works or someone else's, you can tag them with {{copyvio|your reason here}}. If you merely suspect a violation, you can use the process at COM:DR to nominate the files for a review. 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Soheilsiami

File:Animal-Welfare-ENG--t-shirt-slogan-for-website-2012.jpg

Dear Elcobbola, Actually this file is one of the promotion material which can be used freely for promoting "Animal Welfare" in countries. the page رفاه حیوانات is dedicated for promotional purpose in compliance with Improved Animal Welfare Program (IAWP) - AWARENESS by WIKI. Thank you for your Attention. Soheil Siami Soheilsiami (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Animal Handling - Animal Welfare.jpg

Dear Elcobbola, like previous comment, Actually this file is one of the promotion material which can be used freely for promoting "Animal Welfare" in countries. the page رفاه حیوانات is dedicated for promotional purpose in compliance with Improved Animal Welfare Program (IAWP) - AWARENESS by WIKI. Thank you for your Attention. this specific picture is a picture which is using for training and social awareness. Soheil Siami Soheilsiami (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Terrcod2020enbtik.png

Dear Elcobbola, Actually this file is one of the promotion material which can be used freely for promoting "Animal Welfare" in countries. the page رفاه حیوانات is dedicated for promotional purpose in compliance with Improved Animal Welfare Program (IAWP) - AWARENESS by WIKI. this specific Picture is the book cover for Terrestrial Animal Health Code-TAHC. please check the page. Thank you for your Attention. Soheil Siami Soheilsiami (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

File:0-2106-Assur02-Achaemenid-Animal-Welfare.jpg ; File:Achaemenid-Animal-Welfare-steps-Iran.jpg

Dear Elcobbola, These files are from Takhte Jamshid persepolis (a registered world heritage) site stone artwork. i have the photo in my album. for the file "Achaemenid-Animal-Welfare-steps-Iran.jpg" i got the better version from the site http://www.SHAB.ir. all photos and content in this site is free for republish. please check Shab page. there is no copyright restriction in this site. the file "0-2106-Assur02-Achaemenid-Animal-Welfare.jpg" is from site "Kherad Association". all the photos of this site can be republished with referring to the site or citation. actually it is an informative site for this purpose. Thank you very much. Soheil Siami Soheilsiami (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Soheilsiami, please see COM:L, COM:EVID and COM:PRP. That you have found promotional material on various websites does not mean that material is free (libre). Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


Ticket#2020032110000229 SLUG Magazine Contribution

Dear Elcobbola,

I have been trying to make legal contrubutions to the SLUG Magazine wikipedia page through uploads of magazine covers and captions. SLUG Magazine has given full premission to Wikipeida to be able to use the magazine covers. I have emailed @photosubmisison for Wikipeida and said that SLUG Magazine gives full premission to use the images that were uploaded and sent to @photosubmission as well as the captions attached. My contrubution of the images to the SLUG Magzine page were still deleted. I gave proper credit to the authors as well as to the artist that created the cover. How do I make uploads that stick on the SLUG Magazine Wikipeida page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerschlaf (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 March 2020‎ (UTC)

@Parkerschlaf: As previously published images require OTRS evidence of permission, uploads will not "stick" until that permission has been successfully processed. Your current correspondence is not adequate, as permission must be for a specific license that explicitly addresses commercial use, derivatives, etc. and must be allowable/applicable to anyone everywhere (i.e., cannot just apply to wiki projects). Please see COM:OTRS for guidance and resend permission with an acceptable release (a template is even available on that page). Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The sock of long term vandal Bookworm8899 is back

Hello Elcobbola, I am writing you because you have dealt with Bookworm8899 and his sock Mendduets (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendduets). Here is the suspected account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zhu_Zi_Ling . He also continues his fringe Vietnamese bashing and his theory of an state-operation of the Vietnamese communist party. Here an example on my user talk: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Satoshi_Kondo&oldid=406321124 . Can you plase take care? Thank you in advance.Satoshi Kondo (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You deleted File:Carol Kane.jpg as a copyright violation, but I can't see where you determined it was a copyright violation.

You realize we have about 1000 images from that flickr user https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fpeople%2F36277035%40N06&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This file was not sourced from, and made no reference to, Flickr. 1) It was clearly a scan per EXIF and visible scanner bed (i.e., a COM:DW); 2) The account, or alternative account(s), had historical permission/COM:EVID issues; and 3) The account, or alternative account(s), had technical and behaviourial similarities to an LTA (an issue which has since been resolved). In the aggregate, a COM:PRP issue. If you have a link to the Flickr page in John Mathew Smith's stream in which this appears with a free license, I'd be happy to restore it. Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

Hey, so you just declined My request to check a user for Sock puppetry. I think it is pretty clear that they are used to create an illusion of support. Is there anything else that I can do against this? Thanks Skjoldbro (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As noted, we cannot run a check that would have the effect of revealing an IP. A hypothetical finding of confirmed when all suspected "accounts" are IPs would be a de facto revelation of the user's IP. Further, also per COM:RFCU, "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first." If this is a "pretty clear" case, a CU is not needed. Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Carlo Masi - Ruggero Freddi

hallo, I just saw you deleted a picture I had uploaded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruggero_Freddi.jpg I took that pic here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/188146761@N05/49826675387/in/photolist-DZtLh-6Em6Ch-9T599o-9T2na6-9n5TvN-52Soij-9T59Lw-4ZBJ44-ohYp1-4ZQZic-54jQy5-5nDrvr-aPksrX-54fB3g-6nNhCo-2kFxHT-26WVeJK-gsSNM-apwb74-odwbDB-hpgHi-52N8fx-owexTj-2iV1JE8-DaKqAD could you please explain me what I did wrong? I am puzzled. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This question comes a mere two minutes (!!!) after my closure. Especially when considering time to notice the closure and write this question, I suspect you have not fully, if at all, engaged with the guidance and explanation provided both there and in the numerous templates on your talk page. Please make genuine efforts to consult what has already been provided before asking questions--COM:L, COM:LL and COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 18:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I read that if it is open licensed on flickr one can use the image. Fine, I will re-read 150 pages to fine an answer that is probable one or 2 line long. nevertheless, please, next time if you want me to see your answer, ping me. A well experienced wikipedia person like you should know it. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The notice at the top of this page is yet another thing you've not read. Эlcobbola talk 19:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Alfred the gorilla.jpg deletion request should not be requested

Hi,

I understand the other deletion requests but the file File:Alfred the gorilla.jpg should not be deleted as I took the photo from Bristol zoo or if it should could you explain why and what I did wrong.

Thanks! Ibuprofenunlocked (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ibuprofenunlocked, there are two works (and thereby two copyrights) in this image: 1) the photograph and 2) the bust itself. You may well have taken the photograph; however, as you are not the sculptor, you cannot license the bust and thus we cannot accept the image without permission from the sculptor. The guideline linked in the deletion rationale, derivative works, explains and elaborates this concept. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to confuse you with more copyright concepts, but you've just mentioned this bust is installed in Bristol, which would make this image acceptable as the U.K. allows freedom of panorama for permanently installed 3D works. I'll close the DR and make note of the same. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey Elcobbola, please see ticket:2020050610009675. ~riley (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I'll look into it. Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Löschungen

Hallo Elccobbola, mit der Löschung der nachfogenden Dateien bin ich nicht einverstanden. Die abgebildeten Zeitungsauschnitt-Zitate enthalten ausschließlich Sachinformationen ohne urheberrechtlichen Wert. Ich habe diese Artikel als Belege für diverse Wikipedia-Artikel und Commons-Auflistungen, die Wikipedia-Artikeln dienen, verlinkt oder zugeordnet - wie auch in der Löschdiskussion dargelegt.

Beispiel → Pelzdesigner: In der DDR, wo Anglizismen wenig erwünscht waren, gab es den Titel Anerkannter Kunsthandwerker, der mit einem einer Jury vorgelegten Teil erworben werden konnte und steuerliche Vorteile gewährte. Auch einzelne Kürschner hatten sich hiermit ausgezeichnet, in Sachsen waren das der Kürschnermeister Michael Kaufmann in Leipzig und 1987, kurz vor der Wende, sein Kollege Peter Margenberg in Riesa.(→ Artikel-Einleitung).</ref>


Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Schönen Tag, -- Kürschner (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ich kann Deine Argumentation nicht nachvollziehen. Zeitungsartikel unterliegen fast immer einer Schöpfungshöhe und dürfen nicht verwendet werden, wenn der Urheber nicht zugestimmt hat. Zum Beispiel heißt es in einem Urteil des Berliner Kammergerichts dazu: "Zeitungsartikel und Zeitschriftenartikel stellen in der Regel persönliche geistige Schöpfungen dar […]. Die vielfältigen Möglichkeiten, ein Thema darzustellen, die fast unerschöpfliche Vielzahl der Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten führen dazu, dass ein solcher Artikel nahezu unvermeidlich die Individualprägung seines Autors erhält. Dies gilt nicht nur für Artikel, in die die eigene Meinung des Autors einfließt, wie etwa Kommentare, sondern auch für die reine Berichterstattung." Du verwechselst vielleicht bloße Sachinformationen mit der Darstellung davon. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Usuario9751

Hello Elcobbola, this user was blocked here, but he said in Spanish a sort of strong words at you (You can go to h*ll...) in his Discussion page after the block in Commons. Actually was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia for his behaviour. Thanks. Taichi (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

why did you delete all my work? :(

why did you delete all my work? :( I love listening to music (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect an answer! I love listening to music (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

These are not "your work." You seem to be under the misapprehension that uploading random internet images with concocted licenses is acceptable. Taking only your most recent upload, File:Noah Urrea 2019.png was taken from here. I have an expectation of my own: that you stop uploading copyvios immediately. Эlcobbola talk 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I just took this one, did it cost to delete the others? Do you have sources that the other photos are from websites? Place the site where the other photos are on then ... I love listening to music (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just one? How about File:Sub Urban.png here. You know as well as I where these are from. I won't be entertaining you further. Эlcobbola talk 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Only 2? And the others? I love listening to music (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I wondered why I was getting errors when I was tagging the motor car images   and thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion of a selfie

Ciao Elcobbola,

Thank you very much for supporting my request not only well motivated , but more than that in a way that the admin who removed it restored it within very few hours.
Complimenti & cordiali saluti, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  09:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Content

Hi, I had uploaded a picture with all the necessary details and the picture was taken from the Actresses Instagram account with the permission of the actress. I just wanted to know on what grounds is it a copyright violation.

Neogi007 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As appears at least twice in the warnings on your talk page, "everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (bold in original); you may not upload random images from social media. Even if you have "permission of the actress," that would not be adequate. Copyright, and thereby the ability to license a work, is held by the author (photographer), not the subject (actress). The subject would only hold the copyright if transferred by the photographer through a formal written agreement. If the actress has this, she will need to provide a copy of that document using the process at COM:OTRS. (Somath Roy is clearly indicated to be author in the image's watermark. Permission can only come from him.) Do not continue to recreate deleted content out-of-process. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Löschung eines Fotos

Sehr geehrter (oder sehr geehrte?) Elcobbola, vor Kurzem löschten Sie wegen irgendwelcher urheberrechtlicher Bedenken mein Foto eines Wiking-Modells. Auf meine Anfrage, in der ich den "Bildersturm" schilderte, erhielt ich heute von Wiking folgende Antwort: „Dies ist uns auch nicht ganz klar, da es ja Ihr eigenes Foto ist und keines von uns. Aber gerne erteilen wir Ihnen die Genehmigung zur Verwendung Ihres Fotos eines WIKING-Modells.“ Ich bitte Sie deshalb, das Foto wieder in die Commons und auch in den Wikipedia-Artikel einzusetzen, in dem es verwendet worden war. Und noch eine Bitte: Sind sie mit ihren Löschanträgen in Zukunft ein bisschen zurückhaltender. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

File:LCA Tejas hot refueling.jpg

Hi, I started the deletion request for the image, so I realize it's weird for me to be asking to undo the deletion, but since the source is an Indian government corporation, I think it can be kept with the {{GODL-India}} license. Would you mind restoring it? Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: I've restored it per your request. I note, however, that I do not believe {{GODL-India}} to be a valid tag (the supporting document does not say what the template purports), so I'll leave that issue to you. Эlcobbola talk 13:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, appreciate it. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My Blocking

Hello Elcobbola,

You blocked me a week ago. But I was innocent. I did not see your warnings, so I was not aware that I did not download free content. Despite everything, I I am very happy that the blocking is over. But I can't understand that why the contents that my uploaded isn't free. Can you explain it,please? Yours sincerely, Merih2006 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That you ignored or otherwise did not see the numerous warnings does not make you "innocent." Those warnings explain, and link to policies explaining, the issue, and I'm unsure how you reconcile your question with, for example: "Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above" [4] and "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" [5] (emphasis in original). Screenshots from w:AI Football GGO are in no circumstance yours to license - see COM:L, COM:NETCOPYVIO, and COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 13:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Elcobbola,

Now I understand my fault. I will try not to make these mistakes again. Very thanks for your interest. Yours sincerely, Merih2006 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

Why did you just delete a bunch of Warhammer 40,000 pics? I had sorted out the legal issues with Games Workshop, and the editors who nominated them for deletion changed their minds and withdrew their nominations! Kurzon (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

{{GamesWorkshop}}

The reason was provided in the closing rationale. Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

About your comments on the checkuser cases I've opened

Hi, Elcobbola. First of all, I opened the case on Bruno Bertoldo Jackson because I asked on COM:AN/U if they could be blocked as DUCK here (since they are proven SOCKS) or did I need to open a CU case and I was told by a sysop: "Yes, you should create formal request for checkuser". This why I opened this case. About creating a new case for Rodrigozau. I did so because their case was closed, so I thought that I couldn't re-open it. I failed to properly read the instructions and I'm sorry about it. These two users are long-term abusers on PT.WP. I'm grateful for your help and I apologize for the problems I, may have, caused. Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 19:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Elcobbola. I'm an Sysop and Oversighter in pt.wikipedia and Global renamer. I saw that you blocked Rangel Carregosa by using multiple accounts. The publisher asked for a renaming of the account at pt.Wikipedia because he didn't want his real name to keep appearing on Wikimedia projects. However, according to the Global rename policy, we cannot rename blocked users, especially if using Sockpuppet. The publisher told me via Telegram that she and he friend use the same computer (they probably live together) and, therefore, share the same IP address, which made them think that it is only one person using the same account, when in fact they are two different people using the same computer. Rangel Carregosa does not wish that her real name does not continue to appear, however I cannot make the rename because she is blocked. How can we solve this problem? Sorry for my english mistakes. Is that I'm using a translator. Thanks in advance :) --Editor D.S (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Editor D.S: Rangel Carregosa is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, which encompasses the scenarios of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Even if we accept the "it was a friend" excuse--and I don't; I think they're lying per w:WP:NOTME--Rangel Carregosa was still engaged in meatpuppetry. Further, even if I had not blocked Rangel Carregosa for abusing multiple accounts, I would have done so for copyright violations (which is what drew my attention to them in the first place). They were indefinitely blocked (their third block) on 20 November 2019, but unblocked 30 January 2020 after purporting to "understan[d] previous issues and [to be] compromised on not repeating them." Contrary to that purport, their very first upload after unblocking was a copyvio (!!!), and they have uploaded many others since. In short, I don't see that there is a problem to be solved here. This user is blocked for good reason--several, in fact. If that block prevents their renaming, it's a consequence of their repeated misbehaviour (i.e., their own fault). It seems to me the resolution is to deny the request as ineligible per the rename policy. Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola:, I didn't realize that the publisher had already been blocked multiple times. And on second thought, it really seems like a case that fits w:WP:NOTME. It really cannot be unlocked. Many thanks for the reply. Hugs! --Editor D.S (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Declined

You have declined this CU. You may check how many successful CUs are done by me at Meta. BTW, you have told Susenaes is not blocked here, but the user was. See User talk:Susenaes. Premature declines will give freedom to promotional users and tiredness for users like me :) --AntanO 19:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This is the Commons, not Meta. Here, you failed to follow our instructions and thus to meet our requirements. One notes, tellingly, you offer no explanation of how my decline was incorrect nor do you offer the evidence required. "Is" is present tense; I've made no comment on what was. Users who fail to follow simple instructions allow potential issues to go uninvestigated and create unnecessary work and frustration for users like me (checkusers). You seem to have plenty of energy to spare (opposite of "tiredness") if you can allow yourself nonsense messages like this. Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of User:Yuiyui2014.

I see you have previously blocked this user. Other socks showed up since then:

If possible, please block these users as well. Thanks! Howard the Duck (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Thanks for note.   Confirmed, and Yuiyui2K2 too. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
YW, and thanks for spotting that one too. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Who told you I never took these pictures?

I don't understand what/who told you I don't own the rights to these pictures, I literally took them myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherAKaram (talk • contribs)

As easy examples: File:Dill herbs on a cutting board.jpg is the work of billnoll; File:Mixed-vegetable-oils-avocado-broccoli-canola.jpg is the work of Lisovskaya Natalia; File:Fish-oil-pills-on-a-table.jpg is the work of sharaff; File:Steaming-cup-of-white-tea.jpg is the work of Margarita Komine; etc. I could do this for all of your uploads, but I trust the point is made. Your purport is simply untrue, and you seem quite confused, including regarding the meaning of "literally." Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Эlcobbola talk 20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You know nothing about what I do nor my carreer, I've been a photographer for years and sold my work to many of people. Your arrogant, garbage, uninformed behavior will just make me upload my work else where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherAKaram (talk • contribs)
I know you seem to think I was born yesterday, and that you're an IT Analyst by day and fitness trainer and nutritionist by night here to spam a nutrition website and upload random internet images. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Miaandmelogo.png

Hello, there is the exact same logo on the English page of the article, why can I not use it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsigu (talk • contribs)

This is explained in the notice(s) I've left on your talk page. Please read them and the linked guidance and inquire if you need elaboration. Эlcobbola talk 22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

DanHOwens.jpg and PPFCPoster.jpg

Dear Sir,

I am the producer of the film Project: Puppies for Christmas and the business partner of Dan Hewitt Owens. I absolutely took that picture on the set of the movie. I provided the picture to Dan to use at his discretion. I appreciate you security measures. I really do. Please undelete.

Frank Parrillo 1 Media Productions, LLC frank@1mediaproductions.com

Dear Sir,

I am the producer of the film Project: Puppies for Christmas and co owner of the production company that filmed it. In fact I am the person who filed the copyright on the project. I so appreciate you protecting us the way you do, however, I co designed the artwork and layout.

Frank Parrillo 1 Media Productions, llc frank@1mediaproductions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panch10963 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for understanding the nature of the concern. Because any user can upload anything, we require additional evidence of permission when works have been previously published and when rights are owned by a corporate entity (to verify, for example, that users are in fact authorised agents thereof). This permission can be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. You may not, however, reupload content that has been deleted until the issue is resolved. The OTRS agent who processes the ticket will restore the image, or request its restoration, for you. Эlcobbola talk 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hiya! As you can probably tell I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing! I've read through all of the rules and regulations and I believe the photos you've flagged for deletion shouldn't be deleted. The photos are indeed screenshots, however they're taken from my own personal videos which only one of which is on YouTube as you mentioned (link here), on my personal YouTube channel. I do acknowledge that the poster image I uploaded and the headshot weren’t up to Wikimedia Commons standard and I apologise but then again I'm very new to this. However, these files are my own work. If you could guide me as to how I can prove the work is mine please let me know! Thanks! Sorry for the trouble, I really didn't mean for anything like this to happen, and as you can tell I'm quite new.

Thanks,

Account2468 (Otto Colwill)

Account2468 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to the identical query at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Account2468‎. Please continue to make future related comments there to keep conversions in one place. Эlcobbola talk 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Argia

Hello Elcobbola: The weekly Argia has published all its contents under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license (https://www.argia.eus/albistea/creative-commons-lizentzia-izango-du-argiak-datorren-astelehenetik). It would be possible to upload the images on this page to Commons?:

https://www.argia.eus/argia-astekaria/2627/argiak-100-urte

Thank you,--Xirkan (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Xirkan, as I don't speak Basque, my ability to interpret the comments may be impaired. The phrasing of "This will allow anyone to take, adapt, copy and publish the material published by this medium" ("Horri esker, medio honek argitaratutako materiala hartu, moldatu, kopiatu eta publikatu ahal izango du edonork") may imply that the CC-by-SA license would apply to contemporary Argia web content, but not necessarily to physically published "physical" content (i.e., that scans thereof, as mere derivate works, would not be retroactively re-licensed). Can you comment on that? Эlcobbola talk 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xirkan: All the content, including the historical content, is licensed under cc-by-sa license by Argia. It's one of their highlights. Media not created by Argia (historically or nowadays) can't be upload to Commons, only content created by or for them. -Theklan (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What is the basis for this contention? The source provided says "As of December 3, [2012]", which implies the CC license is applicable to content subsequent to that date. Where is a statement that this license applies retroactively to previously published works? Эlcobbola talk 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand that

are to be deleted, as they are works derived from copyrighted images.

Thank you so much for everything --Xirkan (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Riezukoa

This image was published on the page guregipuzkoa.com under license CC BY-SA:

https://www.guregipuzkoa.eus/?s=jorge+riezu&lang=eu#gallery/0d0bbcdf77e95ca011754c0afdadb087/7921/comments --Xirkan (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've removed the no permission templates. Эlcobbola talk 23:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Double move

Hi, as I see you active now, could you please do the following steps? :)

(No redirect behind)

I am the original uploader. I'm also the original creator of that book. This is a PDF version of my book whose text is hosted on Wikibooks. I fixed a graphic glitch on this file, nothing that requires a step forward from version 1.2 to version 1.3. Unfortunately I can't do these things by myself because this PDF's size is greater than 100MB so I can't use the "upload a new version of this file" function, because the new Wizard can't handle file replacing. So I have to disturb admins.

Thanks a lot. :) Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 15:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Done by Fitindia. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 15:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you deleted HalterPartsHe image?

It is a free image אלטר (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have evidence the image is free, please provide it. Otherwise, merely adding labels to an image you've found on the internet does not make it yours to license--please see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 18:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It was written in the description that it created from [6] which is free אלטר (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That image is also a copyvio. It is derived from File:Halter Leather Stable S.jpg, which is a copyvio from here. Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I see in the logs that the original image is from wiki from 2007 maybe the site took it from wiki and not the other way around? אלטר (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The link I used above is the archived version from 25. February 2007, which is before the 02. May 2007 Commons upload date. The image also appears in the archived version from 02. March 2016, before the en.wiki upload date of 23. July 2006. Note also that the uploader was caught, and warned about, stealing images from that site. Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

also what is the problem with site www.piqsels.com? it is a CC0 search engine. אלטר (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It is license laundering, the image is from Fashion Lookbook Magazine or otherwise published well before piqsels.com's May 2019 creation date. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the deletion

Hi there Эlcobbola, the images and logo I've published are owned by my company, and I've received the permission to use them from the photographers and designers who made them. I am sorry I am new to editing, I read through the licensing page and couldn't find what I did wrong, could you please guide me through this process if it's ok, as I would like to use these images on our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unpluggedbrain (talk • contribs)

Hi @Unpluggedbrain: Please see COM:OTRS for the process through which the authors (photographers and designers) can provide permission. Note that we will need to receive permission from the authors directly; we cannot accept forwarded permission. Alternatively, if the authors have transferred copyrights to the company, copies of those formal written conveyances should be provided. Эlcobbola talk 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer @Elcobbola: I will provide all the requested documents today. Unpluggedbrain talk
Hey @Elcobbola: wanted to thank you for the curation and help. I resolved the copyright issue thanks to the link you provided. Won't make the same mistake again in the future. See ya around. Unpluggedbrain talk

My file is not violating copyright

Hi Elcobbola, The photo that I trying to upload is from the CEO of the company that I work for. I'm not violating the copyright permissions because he took the photo exactly for the professional usage, like articles, interviews, websites, wikipedia and others. I have all contacts from the photographer, if I need to do something to upload without being ban please let me know and we will do it. I wanna follow the right process to have it all done. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpmadeira (talk • contribs)

"Copyright violation(s)" means "violating our policies regarding copyright," which this image is and you are. As is explained by the policies linked in the numerous warnings you've received, we require evidence of permission when the uploader is not the copyright holder. Copyright initially vests with the author (photographer), not the subject. The company, or CEO, would only own the copyrights (intellectual property rights distinct from physical property rights) if transferred by the photographer through a formal written conveyance. You will need to provide a copy of that document (not mere "contacts from the photographer"), executed by Calvin Thomas, using the process at COM:OTRS. Alternatively, Thomas may contact us directly (we cannot accept forwarded permission) using that process. If the permission is in order the OTRS member who processed the ticket will arrange from restoration on your behalf. Do not continue to reupload the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, we will work to have it and submit the permission ASAP. Just a quick question, if I choose to upload a photo that I took myself at the office, should I have the same issue? I need to do a process to provide my permission as well? Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpmadeira (talk • contribs)
If you are the author (photographer) and the image has not been previously published elsewhere, you do not need to go through that process and should have no issues. Be mindful, however, that the image is not a derivative work (e.g., a photograph of a copyrighted work, like taking a picture of a sculpture) and that the image is in COM:SCOPE (realistically useful for an educational purpose). If you anticipate uploading on behalf of your company in the future, you may wish to have the appropriate executive/officer/director email COM:OTRS indicating that you are authorised to license on the company's behalf. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Sheep-and-wolves-pig-deal.jpg

I have tried to upload a poster for the movie Sheep and Wolves: Pig Deal for the article under fair use terms. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work, product or service for which it serves as poster art. However, I tried to upload the image at first in Commons and it got deleted. Then I tried to upload the image through wikipedia itself with Image button. That also got deleted. What am I doing wrong in these processes? Shouldn't the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_and_Wolves:_Pig_Deal have a poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnshrineSnowVista (talk • contribs)

You variously claimed this image to be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{Cc-by-2.0}} which are themselves contradictory licenses, and blatantly untrue. That is why they were deleted here. Erroneous representations aside, the Commons does not allow fair use - see COM:FU. I can't speak to why the image was deleted on en.wiki; you will need to inquire there and review their criteria. Эlcobbola talk 18:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you elcobbola for the information. I think I know how to proceed now. I think I upload the media to Wikipedia instead of Commons with a bottom link which I didn't see before. However, if ever that upload does go to Commons for some reason. Please, don't see that as a ban because I will now carefully proceed to label the media with their appropriate copyright law settings.

File:EvgeniaJenBaranova.jpg

Hello Elcobbola! Please, undelete this file, because it is my own work I made last year for the official website of this person. And as a sign of copyright violation, you indicated exactly this website. A new version of the photo has been uploaded upon request of the person indicated above. --DaCassar (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. This photograph is credited to Svetlana Khromova, who is the person from whom we must receive permission. (I won't post the links here so as not to "out" you, but Evgenia Baranova has made social media posts referencing a "dacassar" account name which appears not to belong to Khromova. This raises significant doubt that this is your own work, a circumstance that will need to be overcome.) Эlcobbola talk 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

mao-the-dachshund.png & Black-&-Tan-Brindle-Dachshund.jpg

Hello Elcobbola,

You have marked my three files as violating copyright. I am the copyright holder for 2 of the files and was given permission to upload one of the files.

Owner of copyright I am the copyright holder for two of the photos and would like them to be undeleted. These are my work. This is my dog and photographed by me. I would really like for these photos to be reinstated. Please let me know what is need from me to do that.

  • File:Mao-the-dachshund-wikipedia.png
  • File:Black & Tan Brindle Dachshund.jpg

Given Permission to upload The last photo I was given permission by the copyright holder to upload it.

  • File:Dave the dachshund.jpg


How can I help to resolve this issue? I appreciate you looking out for the community and media uploaded to Wikimedia.


Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspells wrods (talk • contribs)

Previously published images require additional evidence of permission. The easiest method would be to comment at the Instagram source(s) noting that you release the images under the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Alternatively, you can submit evidence of permission using the process at COM:OTRS. If you make the Instagram notes, you can advise me once you've done so and I will restore the images. Otherwise, the volunteer who processes you ticket will arrange for their restoration on your behalf. Do not recreate the images yourself. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
______________
I have added "I released this images under cc-by-sa-4.0 license" to the for the photos I hold direct copyright for. They are ready for your review. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help resolve the issues with these two photos.


Thank You
Misspells wrods
Thank you for taking care of that; I've restored the images and added license reviews. Эlcobbola talk 17:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your quick response :-)

Copyright in Commons

Hey, I have a few questions. Why, beside I put the information, still keeps showing me that I'm not putting the right copyright information?. What's missing?. And, if it doesn't allow internet pictures, only pictures of our own, how they expected to informate someone without a impression?. Hope u can answer, have a great day. Greetings from Argentina. Hoxton41 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A free license is missing. Merely providing the source from which you took a random internet image is not adequate; the source in that circumstance must evidence the license you are purporting. This also addresses your second question. Internet images are allowed if and only if you can provide evidence they are free (libre). Эlcobbola talk 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Band1301

Hello there. I mainly edit over on Wikipedia, but just thought I'd let you know that there is a user continuing to upload possible copyright violation images, claiming images as their own work. I also see that they've been warned and blocked for this behavior in the past, so might want to look into this... User is Band1301. Magitroopa (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Magitroopa:. I've blocked them and deleted the copyvios they've uploaded since their previous block. Эlcobbola talk 23:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Minimi.jpg

Hi Can we first discuss the delation before we defently delete the file? Because it is on commons since 2007 so of course lot's of pages could have copied the file from commons.--Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sanandros: I'm restored the image. It was not my intention to delete it. The action was a bulk deletion of files from Ljenshd, who has never uploaded under this file name as far as I can tell; I don't know why or how VisualFileChange included it. Эlcobbola talk 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sanandros: I've figured it out. Ljenshd uploaded File:Fn, Minimi.jpg, a small copy of File:Minimi.jpg in which they erroneously claimed to be the author. The image was deleted and a redirect to File:Minimi.jpg left, which is why VisualFileChange incorrectly forwarded to the action to the file. Эlcobbola talk 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
OK thx.--Sanandros (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible socks

Hi! I wanted to get your opinion on some users that may be socks of a sockmaster that you previously blocked. In June 2019, you blocked James Earl (Jimmy) Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism, then socks Lta2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) that August and Lennox Theodore Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) this April.

I recently blocked Renokkusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for questionable uploads and refusing to communicate. Lee Gok Da (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) left an odd message on their user page today, leading me to look into their edits. The two of them, along with 通りすがりの猛者 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (blocked by Mattbuck in June) all seem to be involved in artificially upscaling portraits. There's a lot of overlap between the three of them - and with the Carter socks.

My first thought is that this is all one person with a bunch of socks. However, given the complexity of the situation, I wanted to get your opinion before taking any action. Is it worth a checkuser; if so, should I go to RfCU, or will you do it? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @Pi.1415926535: I'd actually already noticed and checked Renokkusu and Lee Gok Da. The former is indeed James Earl (Jimmy) Carter, but Lee Gok Da is technically unrelated. (I've now checked 通りすがりの猛者 and they are also technically unrelated.) As you've said, however, the user page message and editing similarity seem too much to be a coincidence. I've been tabling action until I have more time to look at their edits closely. File:Junichiro Koizumi 20010426.jpg, just using first image in the interaction analyser as an example, is quintessential Carter, but I need to refresh my memory as to whether he's previously edit warred with himself. If you've already looked closely at edits and think it's a duck, you can certainly take action; this is one of those instances where CU data don't particularly assist a finding. Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it! I'll defer to your judgement here; I haven't really dealt with socks except for obvious cases before. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi I am sorry I used incorrect images

Hello, I am sorry if I have caused any issue. The photos were taken by myself and my father so I thought they would be allowed and I have his express permission to add them to the article if needed to prove who he is. I also tried linking to some of his images but then your articles say not to link to his own website? So its very confusing. Many sources are not "online" for citing who he is. I am sorry I have done it wrongly I will not upload anymore images.

Infinite IP blocks?

Hi. Noticed that you have an infinite IP block. Was this purposeful or just artefact of actions?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It is purposeful. I do have it in my notes of issues to periodically revisit, so it is not "forgotten" if that is your concern. Эlcobbola talk 14:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Just checking. I had a swag of accidental indefs, so I just went through the list as some seemed similar to mine.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not recreate deleted content ( File:Thomas Wangsmo CC-BY-SA-4.0.jpg)

Alright, I guess I'll just have to wait for the undelete procedure. It's just frustrating because the deletion of this image was made without due process IMHO by User:Jimfbleak, because I had the image uploaded on my own personal website without a CC notice connected to it. The result of this is that the Norwegian Wikipedia article about me now has no photo. I have subsequently removed the image from my website, in order to reupload it to Wikimedia, making it the first website to host the image. I do understand the copyright law behind this, I am a filmmaker and deal with copyright issues all the time. What is happening right now is that one single editing user on Wikimedia is effectively blocking me from attributing a CC license to my own intellectual property through Wikimedia. This has now happened with three images. Surely that is exactly the opposite of the purpose and intent of Wikimedia - it explicitly exist in order to facilitate artists freely distributing their work, right? In my case, it is currently hindering exactly this. But, I shall wait for the process to take its due course. I do understand that you automatically delete these kinds of reuploads in order for the proper process to take place. There must be a ton of possible copyright violations through this website, and I'm sure it's impossible to give every case its deserved attention on first sight. Hopefully this matter will be sorted shortly. Thomaswangsmo (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thomaswangsmo: You misunderstand the issue of previous publication. COM:OTRS, the page underlying our comments, says: "I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter" is a condition for which "you must send an email to the OTRS system." The condition of "on a medium I can't alter" is critical. This is why I gave "adding that license to that site" as an option. You can resolve this issue immediately by either: 1) adding "This photograph is available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" to that page or 2) going to COM:OTRS/CONSENT and using the generator to send us permission (using the gmail account referenced on thomaswangsmo.com). The system will send you an email with an OTRS number; if you give me the number, and everything is in order, I will restore the image for you. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Thank you, that was very helpful. I wish Jimfbleak could have advised me of this to begin with - it would have made everything a lot easier. However, my suggestion of a Kafkaesque bureaucracy malignantly deleting my uploads was a bit exaggerated, even if it is very frustrating when someone who seemingly sits with all the power deletes something of yours without any dialogue. Again, I understand the tremendous amount of these cases that must arise through the Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects, but it would still be nice with some form of dialogue, like we're having now. At any rate, I'm sorry for the hyperbole, and I do very much appreciate the work that is being done through Wikimedia and Wikipedia - I use it all the time to do research, as well as your dedication to not allowing actual copyrighted material to be uploaded. I have now sent an email with my permissions to publish both the image on my personal website and the filmposter at filmaffinity.com under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. The third image that was deleted is nowhere to be found online, at least through TinEye, but I'm not really using it anymore so that doesn't need to be undeleted or reuploaded. Hopefully I've done everything correctly. Again, thanks for you help. Thomaswangsmo (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thomaswangsmo: Thank you for sending that permission. I've processed the ticket for, and restored, File:Thomas Wangsmo.jpg. I've left the permission for File:Inn i mørket filmplakat.jpg open for another OTRS member, however, as I'm not comfortable with it. Copyright accrues to the author who fixes a given work in a tangible medium. In the case of an audiovisual work (film) with the complexity that this appears to have (i.e., not a hobby film), I would expect it to be a work made for hire for which the owner would be the employer or party that ordered or commissioned the work. (And the poster appears to use a scene from the film.) I'm thus not convinced that the email is adequate evidence but, again, will leave it for another who may not share my concern. Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Normally, that is very true, yes. However, due to the very limited budget we had on our film, I actually did the poster design myself. The image is indeed from the film, so of course there is a cinematographer (by the name of Patrick Säfström) involved in creating that image. But as producer on the film (I had to take on a lot of roles to get it made), I actually do own the rights to all the images as well. I have contracts written in Norwegian to prove this, but I don't know how we would go about verifying this on your end, as I assume you are not Norwegian speakers. But if you can use Google translate, maybe that's an option? Will the other user you left this to contact me as well, do you think? Or maybe you could pass along this information and ask them to contact me for further verification? I think you should be able to tell from the original image file that it was created by me as well, although I'm not sure all that info is transferred with the JPG file. Thomaswangsmo (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thomaswangsmo: You could reply to the confirmation email you received (2020081110009516) with a copy the germane contract (pdf, for example). We do have Norwegian speaking OTRS agents, and generally my West Germanic languages (German and English) allow me to get the gist of North Germanic languages, especially with Google translate. I've left the ticket completely untouched, so I would only expect them to contact you if they had concerns or needed additional information. I could certainly add a note referring to this conversation if you would like them to have that reference. Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thomaswangsmo: As an alternative, if you have and could attach the .psd file, I would accept that as evidence of authorship. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: That's great. I've replied to the email with a link to a Google Drive folder containing the source files for the poster. The project file opens with Illustrator, and the TIFF file containing the full res background photo can be viewed anywhere.

File:Chrionexfleckeri1350

Hello, not sure why I am getting flagged for uploading this photo. It is a photo I took, hoping to add to an article. Any update here would be much appreciated.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrionexfleckeri1350 (talk • contribs)

What update are you expecting? Why are you posting here when you have already opened an undeletion request (and at which I have already responded--indeed, approximately 15 minutes before this message)? Эlcobbola talk 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Hi. Sorry for the mistaken revert. Hope you don't mind. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Happens to me occasionally too. Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:First Order Stormtroopers et al

Two weeks ago, I posted to COM:UDR asking to undelete a lot of (a storm of? a troop of?) recently deleted cosplay files, because there was a clear conflict in the way they were closed and what COM:COSPLAY says (in fact that whole rule is ambiguous). You directed me to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I did that, in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Need_to_revisit_COM:COSPLAY_and_possibly_delete_most_of_Category:Cosplay. You were pinged, among many many others. Response, which was substantial, was almost unanimously to stop the deletions and undelete. Discussion has stopped. So, now what? --GRuban (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: ? --GRuban (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
If it were me, what I'd do is ask responsders: a) why they engaged in parroting !votes instead of offering substantive commentary on a complex issue; b) why not a single one of them has referenced Silvertop Assocs. Inc. dba Rasta Imposta v. Kangaroo Mfg. Inc. (from 2009 (!!!)) or the new tests established by the Supreme Court in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017), both of which after Godwin's comment; and c) how they expect those omissions to reflect on the validity of their opinions or on their intellectual honesty (i.e., why, exactly, they felt it unnecessary to investigate the issue before opining.) Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Aha. I see you clearly have an opinion, even though in COM:UDR you just said it was the wrong forum! I'm not asking you "how do I ask leading questions in order to overturn the consensus and establish that opinion?". Instead, I'm asking you in your capacity as the administrator who refused my post on COM:UDR, directed me to another forum, where you were specifically asked to state your opinion, but did not, and instead allowed that discussion to lapse, with a clear consensus to undelete, what is my next step in order to get these files undeleted, according to your instructions that you gave in COM:UDR? I'm not asking you for your opinion on the undeletion any more. I'm asking you about the next step in the process, as the administrator which you gave the impression you were giving instructions on, in UDR. If you want to argue against undeletion, then your talk page is not the forum for that. Your talk page is the forum to ask for instructions from you on the process, as an administrator. Which is what I am doing. --GRuban (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nmudesk comment

All images are uploaded for wikimedia commons are with the permissions or are my own work. You are sending Copyright violation notices as you are the owner of the images. Please provide all the documents which proves these images are violating copyright. --Nmudesk (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your purports have been self-contradictory or demonstrably untrue (e.g., [7][8]). I did, in fact, provide links to sites from which your uploads were taken or otherwise hosted those images before their upload here. This was not even my duty; indeed, per COM:EVID: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." Please see COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:L and refrain from making untruthful authorship claims in the future. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

File:พิพิธภัณฑ์บ้านจิรายุ-พูนทรัพย์.jpg

Any reason you nominated File:พิพิธภัณฑ์บ้านจิรายุ-พูนทรัพย์.jpg for deletion here but not the three interior images? They were uploaded on the same date, and I presume likely originated from the same source. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been nearly two months since that DR, so, unfortunately, I don't recall why I nominated certain images and not others. I certainly wouldn't interpret the nomination to imply the others are without issue, so feel free to nominate any remaining images suspected to be copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 20:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:License laundering

To explain why I reverted your edits, it's because that it is discouraged to move the text around without moving the T: tags (<!--T:1-->) along with it. It basically screws up the translation and one needs to re-update the translated pages accordingly, which I believe is extra work. --Minoraxtalk 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Lindsay Ellis.jpg awaiting OTRS email

I've been in touch with Lindsay Ellis's assistant to provide a head shot for her Wikipedia bio, and had thought an OTRS email was forthcoming for File:Lindsay Ellis.jpg which you deleted 20:16, 16 August 2020. Apparently Ellis being the copyright owner isn't sufficient and they asked for email from the photographer, so Ellis's assistant has had the photographer send it again. I'm not sure if the photo needs to be brought back for the OTRS email to have something to refer to. Should I re-upload it or wait for OTRS? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Dennis Bratland: I've processed the new ticket and restored the image. As a clarification in case it will be helpful for the future: copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject. The subject (Ellis) would only own copyright if formally transferred through a written conveyance. There's thus nothing wrong with Ellis owning the copyright ("Ellis being the copyright owner isn't sufficient"), we would just need evidence of the transfer--a scan/copy thereof--that caused Ellis to be the owner. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my meaning was that she is the copyright owner but that's not sufficient unless you also have evidence that she is the copyright owner. In my initial email to them I said "If you have an image that can be used but someone else is the copyright holder who must explicitly grant permission, such as a publicity still by a studio photographer, there's an email verification system as explained at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS". When I've done this before there's usually a lot of back and forth over the legalisms, usually because I have to repeat several times that they can't only give permission for Wikipedia to use the image; they're actually licensing it publicly. Or as in this case, it's not quite enough if the photographer merely told you they give you the copyright.

But it's all good now. Thanks for your help! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Luis camilo

Hi. I wanted to notify that LuisAlvarez37 appears to be another sock puppet account of Luis camilo. Best reagrds and thanks beforehand! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Q on blocking

Hi.

Upon seeing these kind of accounts. How would you process the files and decide whether a block is needed? --Minoraxtalk 06:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The subjects tweeted [9][10] for someone to update their Wikipedia images, so it seems most probable to me that these are Twitter followers responding to those requests independent of each other. This would be consistent with their various account aging and edits (two SPAs, one not active since 2006, and one sporadically active). Outside of warnings about concocting CC licenses and that authors, not subjects, generally hold copyright, I don't think other action is necessary at the moment. Эlcobbola talk 13:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm ok. Thanks! --Minoraxtalk 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

sock

Hi. With regards to NikkiWood01, it's probably related to Nikkiwood007. --Minoraxtalk 15:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Rangel Carregosa

Hello Elcobbola,

Some time ago you blocked Rangel_Carregosa for sockpuppetry. He's a young editor which for some time has been participating both in wiki.pt, and at our Telegram group. After initially uploading copyvios for lack of understanding how this project worked, he actually turned to a vigilant on that issue, and has been helping me and others scouting for music related copyvios and warning about them. As he told me back then, in May he was sharing his cell phone with a friend, which used it to upload those copyvios and argue with you. Of course, I can't say if it is true or not, but I can say it is not inline with his general behavior at the time. In any case, he assures that will not happen again, and asks if you can please unblock him. On my part, I'll be monitorizing and helping him closely (something I've been doing for long, already). Also, he's in good standing at wiki.pt, as far as I know, and he's a regular member of our Telegram community (just in case it helps). Additionally, he registered in Wikipedia using his real name, and now wants to change the account name, for privacy reasons, and the block on Commons can be a problem. He's quite sad to be forced to continue using his real name here. Finally, we had a project of documenting his municipality, which is quite a remote place inside Brazil and has no photos at all here (and not much probability of having), and he was supposed to start doing it, when the block came. Of course, I understand if you refuse, but would appreciate a lot if you could reconsider. Thanks, -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, could you provide a link to where Rangel Carregosa's made these statements ("As he told me back then")? Our blocking policy requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue, so the explanation needs to be directly from the user rather than by proxy. I especially need to see the comments regarding "the friend." This is a well-known excuse, a lie; your summary, as presented, "in May he was sharing his cell phone with a friend, which used it to upload those copyvios and argue with you" is contradicted by the timing of edits and technical data. Frankly, I only expect this excuse to be an untruth to save face, but am willing to look at the actual statement to see whether important nuance/detail was lost in your summarization. Эlcobbola talk 15:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a conversation on Telegram. I can ask him if it's OK to send it to you privately.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoax in image file

Hello. I found this image [11]. It is a hoax, It was used to vandalize Martin Lawrence's article from enwiki. And the origin of the image is doubtful. The author of the placement put "Own work", it may not be a free license image. I don't know how to name quick deletion on Commons, sorry. Best regards. A.WagnerC (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: thanks for letting me know; I've deleted the image. If you come across issues in the future, you may use {{speedydelete|<reason in prose>}} to request speedy deletion. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Kang Daniel in December 2018.png

File:Kang Daniel in December 2018.png should not have been deleted to begin with. As the source code (view-source:http://web.archive.org/web/20181229133340if_/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm0upjbRiI&gl=US&hl=en) of the archived link shows, the video was originally licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)", and CC licenses are irrevocable. The latter link was provided when the license was reviewed, and it was further demonstrated that content from the YouTube channel in question had a history of licensing its videos under the CC license when it was categorized in Category:Korea Dispatch. Contrary to your deletion summary, the restoration was not out of process. In fact, COM:D specifically allows users to bypass the original deleting admin to request undeletion at COM:UND, where a reviewing admin can unilaterally undo another admin's deletion. Your original deletion did not follow policy to begin with—you deleted an adequately licensed file—and by re-deleting it, you engaged in wheel warring. ƏXPLICIT 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Per w:WP:WW: "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator." I deleted the file (administrator's action) and you unilaterally restored it (reversed by another administrator). You engaged in wheel warring. When I deleted the image 12 August 2020 its only source was "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm0upjbRiI&t=35s" which did not, and does not, a) contain a CC license; b) contain an archive link; and c) reference source code. (Per COM:EVID: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence"; per COM:L: "All description pages on Commons [...] should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status,") Contrary then to your nonsense purport, the deletion was proper. Even if it had been improper, if you disagreed with my deletion, the process is described at Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion (which, of course, does not include unilateral restoration.) Indeed, the logic that your (out-of-process) restoration was allowed because certain UDR requests can be immediately granted is tortured and, critically, misses the point that such restoration is not done by the requestor (i.e., you). Эlcobbola talk 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
You conveniently omitted two-thirds of that sentence: "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." There is even a boldface cautionary note right under the paragraph that explains it specifically. Wheel warring commences once any adminstrator reinstates a reverted action without a consensus. Only one of us reinstated an administrative action. Unless Wikimedia projects have suddenly become governed by bureaucracy, there is no requirement for me to take the issue to UDR, especially when the original deletion was flatout wrong and I provided evidence to support that. If you did not have the sense to apply common practice and check the archived link's source code, you could have simply inquired about it. You still were not in any position to reinstate your action, and you abused your administrative tools in doing so. ƏXPLICIT 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I omitted nothing germane. The entirety of the definition at your link is "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." Other statements are en.wiki policy and of no relevance here. It's indeed curious you cite no Commons policy supporting your actions; do you know where you are? If you find following our well-defined process for appealing a deletion to be too bureaucratic, feel free to resign as an admin. You certainly ought to. If you use your tools out-of-process again, you will be blocked. Эlcobbola talk 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

About your warning on Pan Am 747 photo

Hello. I see you gave possible deletion warning to a user who uploaded a Pan Am 747 photo in Bali. Upon my search, I think I found more things about that image. Please review the discussion I made here. Thank you. Naufal Praw (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. If you happen upon any other copyvios by this user please let me know, or nominate them for deletion. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding.
Well, from this case I randomly chose three more (re)uploaded images, all related to the one I told you. Turns out all of them are copyrighted, with one belongs to national archive. Based from this finding, I think it is evident enough that most, if not all images (re)uploaded by that user are copyrighted.
Given you already nominate the pictures I cross-checked for deletion, I suggest for immediate deletion of them and if possible, permanent block of the user. But the decision is yours. Naufal Praw (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Fresno Mayor Related images

Hello, Recently these were added after extensive searching. I am not attempting to violate any copyright laws in finding these. A majority of the images are scans from archived newspaper articles and I would like to find out how you wish to have these categorized and permissions provided to maintain the image. Thank you User_talk:Jwsponsler 19:24 UTC 09 Oct 2020

COM:EVID requires "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain" and, per COM:L, the description page "should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status." Accordingly, if you are claiming that an image has been published on a certain date and did not renew its copyright, you need to provide appropriate supporting evidence. A link to a facebook page that provides neither, for example, is of course entirely inadequate. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Pinephone.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinephone.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. Reason:' This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:DW of phone GUI' This is a LINUX phone running MOBIAN. MOBIAN is an open source operating system, GNU/Linux, open free software. There is no copyright violation in my image. Please, remove the violation tag and the 'speedy deletion' tag. thank you

The license of the operating system source code (Mobian Linux) is not necessarily the same as the icons and/or visual manifestation thereof. As an inverse example: a Firefox logo displayed on a Windows 10 desktop would not be subject to Microsoft's copyright on the latter. Do you have a link specifically addressing the status of the GUI/icons? Per COM:EVID, this is something you must provide. (""In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain.") Эlcobbola talk 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. I do not understand why the fotograph has been already removed from Commons when we are still discussing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinephone.jpg Let me go by poits: 1- (""In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain.") The file is a photograph I took with my camera. When I uploaded I agree with wikipedia commons copyright. So, the "file" is now in a public domain. 2- Mobian ( https://wiki.mobian-project.org/ ) is under CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ ). Anyone is free to "copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format ". I also mention PinePhone was running 'Mobian' cdrediting the OS. 3 - The applications I showed are part of the Mobian project: https://wiki.mobian-project.org/doku.php?id=apps

Please, undelete my image, so I can re-inserted in the page. I can add Mobian links and Licence also in the Image site once is restored. Thank you Daniel Barcelona Daniel Barcelona (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit] The image has been restored, so we can discuss: Hi, I've restored the image and immediately put it into a regular DR to allow for discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Daniel BArcelona Daniel Barcelona (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[2nd Edit] In addition to my previous points, I would like to add further arguments to my case. I went over Wiki Commons and apparently this case has probably been already discussed since other photographs from wiki users of PinePhone and other phones and OS desktops are displayed as 'own work', and without further links. Example #1 - PinePhone using FOSS Ubuntu Touch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone#/media/File:PinePhone.jpg ; Example #2 - Linux wen browsers: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptor_Linux_App_Center_Screenshot.png ; Example #3 - Android interface: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Android_10_interface.png ; Example #4 - Hundreds of images showing icons from Linux desktops. I just picked one showing Firefox to follow your example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eeebuntu-desktop.png These are apps developed under the GNU free open source and they are free to use. Thanks again. Daniel Barcelona (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[3rd edit] I have contacted Debian/ Mobian Team. They confirmed my word. All the apps appearing in my photograph (calls: purism; chatty: purism, epiphany: gnome, and so on...) are software distributed as part of Debian and they are free to be modifies and destributed, all artwork being licenced under CC (or GPL/LGPL/MIT). I see my image has already been substituted by another user, which bring me more problems now, I have to deal with the other user explaining this image was posted first. I understand you are doing your work and there are many cases to attend, but also editing Wikipedia should be easy and not getting this kind of problems, when the case is simple. Can you remove the tag for deletion? or should I ask Turelio? thank you. Daniel Barcelona (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I talked to Turelio (see his talk page). He told me to ask you or to any other admin (I don't know any other admin) to check the case. More than a Week now. He also told me to be patient. Can be months. Ok. Just checking. Good night. Thanks.Daniel Barcelona (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Barcelona, the DR is still open. That is the only place comments should be made, and the closing admin will weigh their (de)merits accordingly. There is no further action necessary at this point, and I cannot close it both because I raised the initial concern and continue to believe you've failed to understand the distinction between source code and visual manifestations thereof. Case law is clear on this matter; regarding fonts, for example: a font file (.OTF, .TTF, .FNT, etc.), as a "program" can be eligible for copyright protection despite its output (mere letters) being ineligible as useful articles. None of your comments provide adequate evidence related to the output GUI. The source code is utterly irrelevant. Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. As I mentioned in the right place (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pinephone.jpg) all I am showing is FOSS. This includes software code and associated artwork. I am not showing an iphone or android which are propietary. I am showing a Linux phone with FOSS software. Daniel Barcelona (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Udalov Yuri 1943.jpg

Dear Elcobbola File:Udalov Yuri 1943.jpg I made a photo picture of the original photo of Yuri Udalov at local exhibition on WWII veterans. Thus I claimed it was my picture. If needed I can present you the original picture of File:Udalov Yuri 1987.jpg but there're other people who are still alive and who probably don't want to be published in the internet without their concent. Please, help me to restore the truth---Mitic (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You've already entered these comments at the UDR, which is the correct venue. Please keep the conversation in one place. Эlcobbola talk 20:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but you didn't reply to me there. What shall I do to restore these images?--Mitic (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked under IP range

Hi Elcobbola,

I think your block of the IP range 2600:387:0:800:0:0:0:0/60 also inadvertently blocks me from making mobile edits (over my cell network) or using the Commons app, even when signed into my account. Is there any way to discontinue or circumvent the block to let me continue editing on mobile? Thanks, ɱ (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @: I can grant you an IP exemption flag; I'll just need you first to agree not to edit using an anonymizing proxy (see COM:IPE). Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I understand. ɱ (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the flag. Let me know if you continue to have issues. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Think it worked, thanks! ɱ (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

In what way have I uploaded copyright violation(s)? The director of the series who is also the owner of all the stills stated very explicitly under one of her videos that stills and any content from the series can be used on Wikimedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_fwSvk5upI&t=705s

How, then, does this consitute a copyright violation?

Pito22 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"The stills, posters and production images for ‘Control’ may be freely uploaded to- and used on Wikimedia and other Wiki-related pages" [12] is not acceptable. 1) We require explicit licenses (e.g., per COM:L: "simply writing that 'the material may be used freely by anyone' or similar isn't sufficient")--indeed, you did not even provide licenses (!!!); 2) Permission must apply to everyone, not only to "Wikimedia and other Wiki-related pages" (e.g., per COM:L: "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: Use by Wikimedia only") and 3) Copyright for audiovisual works (like a film) is not expected to be held by the director, but instead the production company (by way of example, surely you don't believe Steven Spielberg holds the copyright to Jaws.) A director, further, would not generally be the copyright holder of a film's poster. COM:OTRS is required for previously published works. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)