User talk:Ellin Beltz

Welcome! - User is recovering from a dislocated cervical rib, please be kind.
Additional treatments are scheduled for the upcoming week. Recovery is predicted for 28 May 2016.

Hi! I'm one of the admins and bureaucrats here on Wikimedia Commons. If I can help, please leave a message here!.

I work in a spirit of COM:AGF with Commons images for deletion, as well as categorizing and sourcing images.

Please do not be offended if your images were nominated for deletion or even deleted. There are processes to provide copyright permission and undelete even images which have already been removed. If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the Village Pump. To contact me, please leave your message

Commons Administrator.svg This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
Commons Bureaucrat.svg This user is a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
~~~~ Ellin Beltz signs her posts and thinks you should too!
Wikipedia laurier wp.png This user believes in assuming good faith and civility.
AdamSmith.jpg This user is a geologist.
Licensing tutorial en.svg
  • Medieval Wisdom

You can please some of the people all of the time,

you can please all of the people some of the time,
but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
John Lydgate (1370–1449) source: BBC

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I noticed the talk page semi-protection - that's a definite sign of an active admin! Keep up the great work! Face-wink.svg INeverCry 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, if it makes you feel any better, at least you don't get messages like these. That's this guy... INeverCry 04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


I just noticed the hatnote about your ailment: I wish you a painless and swift full recovery. -- Tuválkin 00:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tuvalkin. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

May the kitten keep you warm. Speedy recovery!

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hedwig in Washington Hedwig!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Control copyright icon.svg The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
Don't be afraid to block spammer's though; Dentaide was a clear case based off their file description. :) ~riley (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Omar al-Mukhtar's Signature2.png & File:Omar al-Mukhtar's Signature.jpg

Photo already exists on Wikipedia, i just used the signature itself.

(first picture in search results, i somehow could not get the url of the image itself to work correctly in this post because of the arabic characters)

Thanks in advance. Shaltut (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shaltut : Sure thing, thank you for the link. Let me know if you have trouble in future, I'll be happy to help. I restored both files, if you only want to use one, just start a deletion nomination on the file you don't want to use. Notice that it was the licensing that got you in trouble, but if {{PD-Libya}} (as placed on both those files) is suitable for your other uploads, just add it where it says "license". Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi - I cleared up the issue with Davod Solaris. Would it be possible for you to undelete JESSE_WAUGH.jpg and restore it to

Thanks! Jessewaugh (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The process for getting photos taken by another restored is for the actual creator to fill in the small form at COM:OTRS. By the way, you might wish to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jessewaugh where your other two dozen plus head shots are being discussed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

May 1 close

Just a passerby nominating a few non-free files for deletion, but did you mean to close the entirety of May 1? --Izno (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Resolved, a user manually put their nomination into Commons:Deletion requests/2016/05/01 by mistake and from a visual aspect, you couldn't tell the difference. I have fixed the page and moved the nomination to Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Asifhayyat1. ~riley (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @~riley. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo deleted

I am new to Wikipedia... I made a page about a finance firm in Chicago a few days ago. From my understanding, I didn't accurately source the logo I used. Why was all the text from my site taken down as well? Will it ever come back? I worked really hard to learn as much as I could about them and now I feel like I lost all my hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagofinance32 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chicagofinance32: I looked at File:GKC Logo.jpg, the deleted file, and found you had sourced it to the company website, The only problem with that is at the bottom of each page of that website it reads © 2016 Gerchen Keller Capital, LLC. Therefore you don't have any rights to their images, logos and so on.
Incidentally File:GKC Blue Box Centered.png will be removed unless you provide a source other than own work which it obviously is not.
Both of these files are (c) someone else, you cannot just upload them "because."
To repeat the problem you had with the article "Gerchen Keller article ... Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that it has no citations to sources like news articles and books. That worries me since without proof that this company is notable, meaning covered enough in independent sources like the media to get a Wikipedia article on it, the article may get deleted. (Also, if you have any connection to the company, you need to disclose it - that's a link explaining how you do this.) Are there any reliable sources (ones not written by or for this company) you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know. (user) Blythwood (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)"
Additionally when the page was deleted, another user took the time to leave you a lengthy message which read in part "A tag has been placed on Gerchen Keller Capital requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences." I do not see that you have replied to either of the people who contacted you on your Wikipedia talk page,
So to answer your questions. The images were deleted because they are copyright, the words were deleted because you copied them from a copyrighted website. Might I strongly suggest you read the instructions about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons before more uploads or contributions? For Commons, I'd start reading at COM:L. Also everyone now has cameras in their phones. Is there something preventing you from taking photos yourself? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CP Wien.jpg

I am writing because the photo I added of my father, Carlos Piantini, was deleted... as I stated on the "deletion" page, "Yes, it was - from my Facebook page. This is a picture of my father, taken by my mother, that I have on FB. it's from a scan I did some years ago... The photo is accurate. Pls contact me with further questions."

So I am wondering why the photo was deleted and I was not, at least, contacted about it. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpiantini (talk • contribs)

Hi Fpiantini: You asked the same question on the deletion nomination and received a reply, thus: "If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them, providing evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish the file under a free license. If everything checks out, they will restore the file, if deleted in the meantime. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed and may take several weeks to process the license. Gunnex (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)" It's the only answer any of us can offer. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi, just curious, are you aware of different ways or places to obtain photos of album covers? I want to do so without posting an image that will violate copyrights. Where are the majority of the album artwork sourced from? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariosheats (talk • contribs)

Hi Mariosheats: As far as I know all current album covers would be copyright. But if you have ONE in mind and want an opinion, go to the Village pump and ask about that specific one. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Nazarat taleem logo.png

Hi Ellin Beltz. I believe File:Nazarat taleem logo.png is the same as File:Nazarat-taleem-logo.jpg which you deleted as a copyvio. Same uploader and same source website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly: I saw you also got help from Jcb. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did. Thank you for checking and further keeping an eye on this editor's uploads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Marchjuly. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg

Hi! I'm the random person who wandered into the deletion request that just won't die. In hindsight, it was a mistake for me to add to the discussion there; as you said, "Discussing it at the closed nomination is also not the way to go." Sorry about that.

However, I believe that there are legitimate reasons to revisit the matter, and so even though I wasn't the one nominating it, I'm putting in an appeal of the decision not to delete.

To recap the events as I understand them:

  1. The original file at this name was nominated by The Photographer (talk · contribs), and deleted by admin Ezarate for reasons of unclear licensing: the source said, effectively, "all of these are PD unless they aren't—and we don't know if any of them aren't". This was deemed not good enough for Commons (and rightly so).
  2. User Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk · contribs) was aggrieved by this decision and recommenced discussion on the (closed) nomination. Their objection to the deletion was that it had introduced a lot of redlinks. They also seemed to feel that Venezuela had been singled out: "By the way, many coats of arms don't even have a source. … Go ahead and request the deletion of all coats of arms of every contry. Go ahead."
  3. Incendiary Iconoclasm then uploaded a file to the same name and made the following comment on the above discussion: "There you go, I've reuploaded the coat of arms as {{own}}, just like all other coats of arms. If you delete this one, you have to delete all others as well."
    • I infer, but I don't know, that the new file was the exact same as the old one. As an admin, I believe you have the power to check?
    • Admin Yann remarked, "This deletion may be an error, but it would be better than you request undeletion rather than reuploading the file." However, Yann did not take further action, such as deleting the reuploaded file.
  4. The Photographer opened a second (improperly located) deletion request. You closed that deletion request with a decision to keep, and the remark, "Per Fry. It would be better if discussions could be limited to the points, not personalities."
    • While not the main goal of this appeal, I would like this clarified; the only comment from Fry1989 (talk · contribs), or the only one still on the page, is "Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Close this nonsense", which is not really a reason.
  5. The Photographer opened another deletion request on the same page. The only comment was from Fry1989. You closed this with a decision to keep, remarking "no valid reason for deletion". The Photographer objected (on that page), saying that the file needed to go to undeletion. You replied, saying that as you had kept, not deleted, the file, there was no need to go to COM:UNDEL.
  6. The Photographer renominated it, again, still on the same page. I wandered in from a similar deletion request and added a vote to delete, along with remarks about the confusing process that had gone before. (Again, I apologise for jumping on the "let's edit a closed nomination page, again" bandwagon.) You closed this with a decision to keep.

And that brings us down to the present and this appeal. The reasons for deletion are there, but have gotten obscured in the wall of text. Always assuming that Incendiary Iconoclasm's upload is identical to the original, deleted image (which I can't verify, but I believe you can), its source information is false and it should be (re-)deleted. (Incendiary Iconoclasm's arguments about redlinks are irrelevant; a free replacement is urgently needed, but we can't postpone deleting an improperly licensed file until one is sourced.)

Thanks for taking the time to read this, when I'm sure you're heartily sick of this nomination by now! -- Perey (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Perey. I re-read the entire thread just now. I reviewed over a dozen pages. I've read talk pages and I don't see any reason to take any action other than to keep the file. The bandera is described on page two of I see a lot of "I think" and "I believe" in the comments on the various deletions, what I do not see is any hard evidence, citations, sources, etc. showing that this file needs to be deleted. I also don't see anything which would tip the COM:PRP on this one at this time.
Since the file is not undeleted, going to COM:UNDEL would be appear to be illogical - but if you'd like to do it, please feel free.
Actually "close this non-sense" makes perfect sense in the context in which it was offered. I am not here to figure out what other people meant to say; it is up to them to say it for themselves in a way which is easily understood by others.
Regarding reviewing or verifying a deleted image, there is no file history to show that the image was deleted before, so I am at a loss to know what you'd like me to look for. Besides this image
I didn't research the history of the .gif file, as we are dealing with *.svg's. The last one was uploaded in 2011 and also has no deleted versions. Is it possible you are confused by the file renaming of the latter file? History reads (INeverCry moved page File:Escudo de Venezuela (1871).svg to File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg: File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ...)
Unless you have something else to add to this pile of information, I'm going to have to continue to say kept because I happen to agree with Fry1989's opinion and comment on this bandera. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read, research, and reply.
  • "The bandera is described..." But the image used does not appear in that PDF. It's generally established (see COM:COA) that with coats of arms, a description and a drawing are two separate (and separately copyrighted) things.
Whoever originally drew this image of the coat of arms needs to be determined, for us to know its licensing status. In the absence of that, this file needs to be deleted because:
  • Its current license tagging is false.
  • Its real licensing status is indeterminate.
There are two possible exceptions to this.
  1. Is Venezuela an exception to the above principle? Are faithful drawings of Venezuelan coats of arms not separately copyrightable? COM:COA doesn't list it with other known exceptions, but there is one image bearing licensing text suggesting that it should be.
  2. Is what Incendiary Iconoclasm uploaded in fact different to what Azarate deleted? Could it genuinely be Incendiary Iconoclasm's own work?
On that second point, you're right: this is only what "I believe" (although my belief is grounded on what Incendiary Iconoclasm said). The only way to know for sure is to look at the deleted file. Speaking of...
  • "...there is no file history to show that the image was deleted before, so I am at a loss to know what you'd like me to look for." That's odd. Ezarate's deletion of the file shows up in the log when I look at it. But I'm not an admin and I don't know what exactly you can and can't see.
And on sundry other points...
  • "...going to COM:UNDEL would be appear to be illogical..." Yes, it would. Nobody is saying anyone should go to COM:UNDEL, only that it would have been the right action for Incendiary Iconoclasm to take (back in December 2015) instead of uploading the file.
  • "I am not here to figure out what other people meant to say..." Then I can only hope I have succeeded in being clear where others have failed. :)
  • "Besides this image [], there are two others..." I can't seem to find the deletion requests for those, and can't (of course) view the images themselves. I did find at least one relevant deletion request, though.
--Perey (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agonás Gyuri 4.jpg

Ellin Beltz,

You deleted the other files mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bardosgabor, but File:Agonás Gyuri 4.jpg still exists. Was it intentionally kept? MKFI (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ellin Beltz".