User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 5

Active discussions
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Funny user name of the day

This one takes me back to the old days too: 2allbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun...   INeverCry 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ya it does... I think I ate the whole thing and can't get up. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Deletions

The SVG file was deleted as well. SVG was to be kept; Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battles of Ancient Greece.jpg the jpg was to be deleted, the svg was linked to show that a better file existed. This was to be kept, File:Battles of Ancient Greece 700-168 BC (English).svg .

Same here; Commons:Deletion requests/File:GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg jpg was to be deleted, svg to be kept. MaryroseB54 (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete the 2 svg files :) MaryroseB54 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@MaryroseB54 ...   Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Outch - I am working on these files


As an OTRS volunteer, I am working on the huge list that you can find in the undeletion request that got accepted. Could you please stop deleting the files from the list (File:Blaise Patrix 5.jpg File:Blaise Patrix 4.jpg) while I am going up this list?


--Scoopfinder(d) 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scoopfinder: I don't have any access to "the undeletion request" unless you provide a link. Those two were the only ones on the speedy page which were of art and do not have an OTRS mention in the template. You might wish to go over to the speedies and modify some of those nominations because there are others still there that I did not do because of the OTRS case number mentioned. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_Xavierd80. Like I said, I am goign trough this list, but it is splitted between dozens of OTRS ticket and take some time to treat them. --Scoopfinder(d) 18:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I've restored those 2 again and replaced the speedy tag with {{OTRS pending}}. INeverCry 18:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey INeverCry & Ellin Beltz! I just finished this big list and conencted the dots between the tickets and the files and removing the duplicates. You can safely delete all the files from Xavierd80 that have a speedy deletion (using VFC for example) :-) I will get the last emails to validate the remaing permissions of the other files in the next days. Thank you both --Scoopfinder(d) 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I did the needed deletions. INeverCry 20:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PlanetUser

Hello, I do not believe we should delete these files unless there are copyright problems. It has been brought to my attention that some of the deletions were without replacements. I think it would be best if this is properly addressed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi とある白い猫/16 : There's no reason to keep piles of duplicates of the same images. I deleted "the three images which were listed as duplicates and for which duplicate Commons file URLs were provided were deleted. The remainder which did not have exact urls for comparison were kept." The identical image which you are concerned about is listed in the DN commentary File:Apollo 12 (15012100809).jpg. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I would argue is that we should avoid deleting duplicate files as it is not like we are saving drive space. I would agree that having duplicate files is plainly annoying. However, why not leave a redirect in place of the duplicate files? That way even page histories will properly work with the correct files displaying in the correct place. Also while at it, it may be best if identical files are history merged. This way dupes wouldn't even be deleted and everyone is happy with a full history of the file in question. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Atapuerca pictures

Hello, you have deleted 3 pictures I recently added about Atapuerca. Two pictures come from a PLOS One article, that is under the CC-BY-4.0. The last picture was taken by an independent photographer whose name was in the 'author' field and who wrote me on twitter he put it under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence. Thus I do not understand why the deletion happened. Thanks in advance if you can guide me. --UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi UtaUtaNapishtim: The PLOS article is not free to copy as "own work". Some form of linkage to the claimed 4.0 license needed to be provided. On the other image, if you have permissions from someone that's great, but it doesn't fulfill the Commons requirements, please see COM:OTRS. Please feel free to take your request for review to COM:UNDEL where another administrator can have a look! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Great, thank you for your quick answer ! But then how can I know when pictures can be shared or not ? If PLOS One contents are CC-BY-4.0, why can't they be shared here ? Thanks. --UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi UtaUtaNapishtim: They might very well be able to be put here, but I'd like another admin to take a look at it to give you a second and unbiased opinion! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, You nominated my photos to be deleted. Well, I have full permission to use these pictures given by the actress herself. Thank you.


Excuse me, you deleted the Cover picture from Anna-Maria Hallgarn album. As I wrote in a previous message I have a full right to publish it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonese (talk • contribs) 13:25, 04 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Solonese: Please have the owner of the copyright send email to COM:OTRS, thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian Mist

Well, I found one CC image on Flickr: File:Australian Mist (4985423018).jpg. I'm not sure if you could use it as a replacement for File:Australian Mist.jpg, but sometimes it's slim pickings at Flickr...   INeverCry 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Paul signac, donne al pozzo (giovani provenzali al pozzo), 1892, 01.JPG and File:Paul signac, strada di gennevilliers (faubourg di parigi), 1883.JPG

Hi, I think you made a mistake deletins these 2 photographs of mine. I am the author of about 150.000 images I generously upload on Commons (there are more not in the category), many of them are pieces of art I shot in museums, and for this great contribute to the project i was supported by Wikimedia CH to upgrade my photograph tools and skills. When I uplaod, as source I have to put "own", meaning the pictures is mine, of course I am not a painter, so if I shot a painting I clearly state in the filename and categories who is the real author.

If you calculate I contribute to Commons for 10 years, that makes an average of about 15.000 files a year (of course in the beginning there were not so many files, much more are now, recently). Imagine like I shot 50 pictures a day every single day of my life, I put a name in each one, I retouch them of Photoshop and then I upload them on Commons. I definitely know I could use a sharper template on Commons to each single type of artwork I upload, for each site, variating the licence, the decription and selecting almost 10 categories for each, but I think at some points it's too much. I have to use a general good licence for them all, and use the most common sense description and categories.

This is the very first time I get some files deleted because they were actually "more free" than what I wrote, and there is really no reason to discard my good-quality files because of a cooler free version downloadable from internet. My files very often include the frame (reason why I was thanksd more than once by art historians around the world), and offer a real vision of how the artwork looks like in the museum, according to the current lighting of the room.

So please, I am asking you to restore these two files, being more accurate when you decide to cancel a file, for the future. If you are not going to restore the images please give some valid reasons not to, so that I can ask somebody else. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sailko: The situation began because you uploaded those pictures as "own work" when they are actually the work of a famous painter! Both source fields read "own work" and there was no mention of the artist at all in the template. Anything can be categorized any which way, what is in the title could be anything, but what is important is to provide accurate template information. Besides the fact that both File:Paul Signac Femmes au puits 1892 high resolution.jpg and File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg are of higher quality than your images, they're also correctly credited and attributed as well as in use all over the project. There is really no reason to keep lesser size/quality duplicates of the same images. If you'd like someone else to take another look, please don't hesitate to request a review at COM:UNDEL. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! One of the images had frame, so it's not exact duplicate. Also, when a template is wrong you fix the template, you do not cancel the image. --Sailko (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like someone else to take another look, please don't hesitate to request a review at COM:UNDEL. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Documents from a court case

Can you see Special:Contributions/Abilicom and figure out if the files are compliant with policy? This person appears to be arguing a court case on Wikipedia, for instance with this edit. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet:
Please see and feel free to comment on:
Due to the different kinds of files and their various situations, I nominated separately. Good to see the POV edits were also reverted, but two editors doing the same thing, one gets blocked and the other appears... how "unusual". Thanks for the heads-up! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, Commons:Deletion requests/File:DAVID GELSINGER IN THE BOHEMIAN GROVE.pdf for a version uploaded by Northerncalifornian (same one as did the 6K of edits on the en:wiki). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Both accounts blocked here as SPAs, and uploads deleted. INeverCry 16:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks INeverCry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Image source

Hello, I noticed a request to add a source to this image File:Polish border 1939.jpg that I recently posted — I went ahead and added a source, and just want to confirm if that is ok, to keep the image, and remove my name form the new user page [1]. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi E-960: Great job on the source, thank you. I can't removed you from the new user page, see the FAQ's, the page is automatically generated. I was on it until I got enough edits too! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of photos on Joseph Fuller and Robert Perless pages

This is very disturbing. I am a new contributor and we have followed all your requests. Fuller says that all the photos on his page that you have deleted were taken by him and should be restored. What is the problem? How do we do this?

File:Old Town Hall Interior.jpg
File:CCNY Longshot.jpg
File:AITE Exterior.jpg
File:AITE Longshot.jpg

Also, as to File:Orion's Belt Perless.jpg, Robert Perless sent you a message saying that we had taken the photo. What else do we have to do? (Robert is my husband, and everything submitted on his page I know for a fact was taken by him because I was there.)

Please send exactly what has to be done for each of these files. also, where will I find the files so I can send the exact url? Have they been removed from the Commons?

Eperless (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


To find the file names involved, all you have to do is look at your own (talk) page! see User talk:Eperless Each file which is nominated generates an informative box explaining the problem.

Since you're uploading pictures which you didn't create, you're getting a lot of boxes. Each one offers you help at COM:L, also called "Commons:Licensing", but the upload problems persist.

Let me make this super simple. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you cannot upload it to Commons unless you can provide the proper permission from the person who created the image.

In cases like this, where there are at least four photographers work all being uploaded by one person, who may or may not be any of the four, a situation called COM:PRP, the Precautionary Principle goes to work and the files are examined carefully.

Here is a list (the same as the one on your talk page) with additional comments.

  • File:Exterior Old Town Hall.jpg - deleted, no permission June 11, 2016. It is identical to the next file which was uploaded July 8, 2016, after the first one was deleted. Uploading copyright violating pictures which have formerly been deleted is so highly not recommended as to be forbidden. I suspect you thought that the email you posted on your talk page was enough, but had you followed the links in the paragraph to COM:L, you'd have found he needs to send it directly to Commons, to a link at COM:OTRS. This process is very simple and direct.
  • File:Old Town Hall Stamford, CT.jpg - identical to the prior photo which was previously deleted. Again, no permission "Source Kyle Norton sent an email in June giving permission" and no license at all.
One of the several problems is, on the edit you posted "Thursday, April 14, 2016... Hi Carol, You have my permission to post any images to wikipedia. Kyle Norton" Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses. What Mr. Norton wrote you is a conditional license because he gave you permission to post to Wikipedia. Commons isn't Wikipedia, they have different licensing requirements. To approve a license for Commons, Mr. Norton would need to directly email COM:OTRS volunteers, it's really simple and the sample letter is on that page as well as the email address and so on. To read about the licenses available, please follow this link which is the same one as in the prior notice about this file... visit COM:L.

These two links COM:L and COM:OTRS are repeated throughout all the notification boxes on your talk page. You asked "wasn't this enough" and had you read the next box down, you'd see it wasn't and clearly explained why and what to do about it.

  • File:AITE Exterior.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation because the metadata showed the creator was Kyle P. Norton, it was uploaded as "own" work of Eperless and given a self license which is not possible.
  • File:CCNY Longshot.jpg was found at, marked (c), but uploaded as "own work" of Eperless and again given self-license. This flickr page is owned by "jag9889" and every single image I checked is marked copyright. I don't see any permission or connection to this image at all from Eperless.
  • File:Old Town Hall Interior.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation because the metadata showed the creator was Kyle P. Norton, it was uploaded as "own" work of Eperless and given a self license which is not possible.
  • File:Orion's Belt Perless.jpg - Permission was PD-self, uploaded by Eperless, with the statement that both source and author were Robert Perless. It was deleted as there was no permission or real source for the image and the license is again a self license.

With the reason "No confidence that these photos were created by uploader, variable sizes, three cameras and four pictures, no apparent connection in white balance, composition etc. User's other uploads had metadata crediting another name as well as one picture "sent by". Please read COM:L befor emaking more uploads." You can comment on this request here.

So for all the people here, we have

  • Carol Stroh (speaking on behalf of Joseph Fuller, Jr. AIA President, who doesn't seem to have created any of the images),
  • Kyle Norton (who is named in the metadata of some of the images),
  • jag9889 (from flickr - no apparent connection),
  • Robert Perless and
  • Ellen Perless.

However all the images are uploaded as "own" work, which is obviously impossible. Regardless of how new you are to Commons, the basic idea is still the same. Only upload your own work, unless you get COM:OTRS permission from the real photographer, and be sure to give all uploads a valid license, please see COM:L.

For the architectural images which were designed by Mr. Fuller, we'd need a COM:OTRS from him as well as the photographer because the United States has no "Freedom of Panorama" and the architectural works themselves have copyright over and above the copyright of the image. You can read more about this at COM:FOP.

For the sculptures which were created by Mr. Perless, we need a COM:OTRS from him to cover the sculpture as well as a COM:OTRS from the photographer, for the same COM:FOP reason.

There is an additional problem with these images in that someone else has uploaded some of the same images before and some have been deleted, see the talk page of Jmoskowitz

Jmoskowitz also appears to be a major contributor to the Robert Perless article, see

Also the Eperless account is the major contributor to the Joseph Fuller page, as seen

Both of these pages suffer from being written like promotion or press releases and light on citations. I'm asking our friendly Wikipedia editor, Binksternet, to help out with the two wiki pages: Joseph Fuller and Robert Perless and also asking another Commons administrator, INeverCry, who has not been involved so far to look in at the situation here on Commons. Thank you for your letter, please do read COM:L. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


I have added citations to the Robert Perless page yesterday along with Orion's Belt. The page has been up for 3 years and the reviewers have felt it was fine. Robert Perless has major sculptures all over the country and you are making a mountain over a molehill. Robert gave permission on Ticket # 2016071010007011 for the use of the Orion's Belt photograph. What is the problem with you people? There are 18 citations on the Fuller page, including the New York Times. How can you say that these entries are light on citations. The citation that I added yesterday on the Robert Perless page is also from the New York Times. Eperless (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't work yourself up. This is a process, not a judgement. While you may feel that it is a mountain, realize that it is a mountain easily scaled by thousands of other people who didn't fight the system or get upset, but rather worked within it. Remember that while the Commons servers are here in the U.S., we deal with images from around the world - each has to be fully public to be hosted here for free. You are welcome to start a webpage or a Facebook page and upload anything you want to it, but Commons can only host free images. The only OTRS permission I see is on File:Robert_Perless.jpg which was uploaded by Jmoskowitz, ticket #2013020710006328. As I don't have permissions to read the OTRS files, I'm asking administrator ~riley or administrator Natuur12 to please take a look to see what that ticket covers. I do not see anywhere a ticket number for the Orion Belt image on the file templates, no one can know it exists if it is not placed on the file. You gave it as File:Orion's Belt Perless.jpg ticket # 2016071010007011, again, I'd ask an OTRS volunteer to review this image/ticket as well. OTRS administrators can restore images when/if the permissions are correct. We will work through these images with your help, there is no reason to be upset by a process which protects the rights of architects, artists and photographers. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ticket:2016071010007011 is one sentence long and states "(Redacted) sent permission for this file on Friday." (redacted is a person name being kept confidential) ~riley (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ticket:2016061210008607 contains Wikipedia-only permission for Kyle Norton images. ticket:2016061410011841 also is a ticket for Kyle Norton processed by Amitie 10g and includes proper release that extends to the image File:Old Town Hall Stamford, CT.jpg, now tagged. That is all the information that I am aware of relating to this user. ~riley (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


I have also sent Mr. fuller a request for him to fill out an OTRS form as the Architect whose work is depicted in the images. He it OOT right now but will do that shortly.

I am very disturbed that you have raised the issue that the material is "promotional" and would like to know how to contact the person called Binksternet that you have asked to look over the entries. Mr. Perless' entry by jmoskowitz has been accepted since 2013, and all I did was upload an image of a sculpture Perless did in a photograph he took, and add the requested citation, which was from the New York Times. It is very unfair that you are raising conceptual issues that were answered 3 years ago, just because I am new to your process and do not understand all the correct forms. I was going to add YouTube URLs, because it is important to see kinetic sculpture in motion, but now I am afraid to do so.

In the case of Mr. Fuller's entry, I have 18 references to publications. The copy is merely explanatory of the architecture and its program.

There are numerous areas in which I could contribute, but Wikipedia makes it very hard for new contributors to join your ranks. Eperless (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your help. It is very difficult for new contributors to understand the process and the relationship between the Commons and Wikipedia itself. I have sent Kyle Norton the OTRS form for him to fill out and submit for his files. Robert Perless has filled out an OTRS form today for [File: Orion's Belt Perless.jpg] and sent that back on Ticket # 2016071010007011.

File:CCNY Longshot.jpg which was found at, was sent to me by Mr. fuller as the work of his office. He may have misremembered, or the author may be someone at Fuller d'Angelo. Is there away to link to a flickr image?Or do we need to reshoot?

Mr. Fuller owns various cameras. So does Mr. Perless.

The Long Shot of AITE definitely does not belong to SchoolDesign although they were given permission to publish it. A low res version was sent and was PhotoShopped on this computer.

Kyle Norton has received permission on the [File: Old Town Hall Stamford, CT.jpg] which follows:

> From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <> > Date: July 10, 2016 at 12:58:31 PM EDT > To: > Subject: Re: [Ticket#2016061410011841] release > > Dear Kyle Norton, > > I have made the necessary modifications to the file page. > > Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. > > Yours sincerely, > Riley Huntley > > -- > Wikimedia Commons - > --- Thank you for all your help. Eperless (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Michele Manerchia Masarà

It's true that I have take this on internet but from my site, I have the copyright. I already sent the authorization to Wikipedia and this was accepted. For the quality sorry but they are old photos ('800) and there isn't a better quality. So please don't delete this images. There is no reason. Tell me how I can improve the description but don't delete. I'm waiting. Thanks. Michele Manerchia Masarà — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michele Manerchia Masarà (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michele Manerchia Masarà: Please leave your comments at the discussion about the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Michele Manerchia Masarà as listed on your talk page. Please provide the authorization number for the images which you say you received on that page to help the closing administrator assist you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Hallo. Du hast Anfang 2015 meine Datei File:Jubilaeumslogo Verein für die Geschichte Berlins.png gelöscht, leider kann ich nicht mehr prüfen, wie die Diskussion damals verlief. Verstehen kann ich es bis heute nicht, da ich die Datei selbst kreiert habe... Ich würde sie gerne hochladen, wie kann ich das bestenfalls machen? Über Deine Hilfe wäre ich sehr dankbar! --Klius (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Google translate... "Deletion Hello. You have my file early 2015. File:Jubilaeumslogo Association for the History Berlins.png deleted, unfortunately I can no longer consider how the discussion was at that time. I can understand it to this day, as I have done the file yourself ... I would like to upload, how can I make the best? About your help I would be very grateful! - Klius ( ⧼Talk Page Link Text⧽ </ span>) 15:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Klius: The file was claimed as "own work" when it included a logo or seal that was made by someone else and incorporated into the design. You need the permission of the person or agency who actually created that logo, it can't be uploaded as "own work" because it isn't. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

difficult to understand

I apologyze but I find really difficult to understand How it works. Really frustrating. I really wonder how people create pages in wikipedia. I am creating a Page regarding an artist, I am tryng to add a simple picture I have the rights, I declaired to give the rights to wikipedia many times, anytime I try to add the picture it says the file already exist but I don't see it on the page, and then I receive messages that the picture are going to be delated because no rights. I am really confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giostile2 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giostile2: Please leave your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Two Works of Giannoni.jpg. This isn't very difficult to understand. This website is not Wikipedia. For help with Wikipedia, please write their village pump. On Commons, you[ve uploaded The current image is a composite of several images of a man and some artwork. Each one of the base images of that composite need to be credited to their creator/s *and* you need the artist's permission for his paintings.
Note that File:The Artist in Italy.jpg and File:The Artist in his studio in Florence, with two of his tipycal subjects.jpg. contain the same base images as File:Two Works of Giannoni.jpg, so you are uploading the same images over and over without establishing permission on any of them. Please read COM:L before making more uploads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Here's how it looks once in a while: File:Empty speedy deletion categories on Commons.png... I've got the DR backlogs down to 3 weeks which is pretty good. If you find yourself with a daily DR page with one or two complex DRs left that you can't close, I would suggest re-listing them on a newer daily DR page, usually the one that's exactly one week old and so closeable, and then deleting the old daily DR page. I do it now and then when I run into one of these riddle of the Sphinx DRs...   INeverCry 01:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry, you know my stats are dropping like a rock now that you're doing all the deletions! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Just imagine if my old friend Fastily was back on the deletion team... You could always forget about deletion and help me sort out Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (check needed)...   INeverCry 17:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually INC, I might get to uploading the 400 or so images backed up over the last year. One memory card is still in my camera! Bad photographer!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to see them. You could always start Category:Files uploaded by Ellin Beltz (check needed) if you want to take your time with categories and descriptions. INeverCry 03:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nakedb2b

The photos in question were taken at a public event, the "Bay To Breakers." I had the authorization of the photographer and the persons posed in the photo to contribute, and post them for public viewing. They represent body freedom, and promote the acceptance of body freedom. Their use is fully approved, and not intended to offend anyone. Please allow these photos to stay for the public to view or use as they desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedb2b (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nakedb2b: The issue isn't body freedom, fully-approved use, or lack of intent to offend (which I'm not and I doubt anyone else volunteering here would be either). The problem is that you uploaded the images as your own work but they're obviously taken by other people. Discuss the issue here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nakedb2b where the only concern is the lack of permission from the photographer/s. If you know the photographer/s, please have them complete the simple email form found at COM:OTRS and send it to the address listed there. If this takes a while, don't worry. Ordinarily when valid permissions have been received after an image has been removed from public view, the OTRS volunteers can restore it to visibility. So don't worry, be happy. It's a process not a judgement. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ellin, the photos were taken by someone else, but with my camera phone. Both of the women took pictures with their cameras, then I asked if they would mind taking one for me, with my phone. I didn't realize this would be an issue, but I don't want to create problems for you or anyone else. As far as permission, you have mine. I have no way of contacting the women who took the photos (would you give your phone number to a naked stranger?) Anyway, thanks for your help......Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedb2b (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nakedb2b: Personally I feel your pain, but the rule of copyright is whoever took the photo has the copyright, not whoever owns the camera. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ellin, I have other photos taken at the same event, some were sent to me by the photographer. What would I need from them to be able to post them? I know they don't mind if I post them as the photos are already posted on various websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedb2b (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nakedb2b: The process is the same, have them do the email at COM:OTRS. Please also learn how to sign your name with four "~~~~" tildes and you don't need to make a new section every time you reply. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Book covers

Dear Ellin, please return the photo cover of my textbook "Communication technologies" - Photography magazine cover communicative technologies - Volume 1 and 2 011.jpg and my monograph "Theory inmutatsii society" - Cover of the monograph AM KHoloda INMUTATSII THEORY SOCIETY (in Ukrainian. language, 2011) .zhpg I am the author of these books and the contract with the publishing house have the right to distribute More Photos cover and content of the book. I would be grateful for your response. Добраго. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Добраго (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi : Administrator Basvb was the closing administrator on that nomination for File:Обложка монографии А. М. Холода ТЕОРИЯ ИНМУТАЦИИ ОБЩЕСТВА (на укр. языке, 2011).jpg. The best way to proceed at this point would be to file a COM:OTRS simple email form. If/when it is accepted, the OTRS administrators can restore the visibility of the file. On the other picture --"7 November 2015 DMacks deleted page File:Фото обложка журнала КОММУНИКАТИВНІЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ - том 1 и 2 011.jpg ]]. You could include that file name in your request to OTRS as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent editions

Hi Ellin, I am surprised to see that you have recently tagged for deletion several images and graphics uploaded by me. Please kindly provide me the reason because I am upset, these images were uploaded with the proper permissions by their author (I can provide evidence of this ) or are either own works. Do not delete them. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hanjin, as stated on the links left on your talk page:
No permission from creator:
No indication of own work:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Solar-powered repeater.jpg
Unused & replaced by one of your SVG's
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esquema autoconsumo.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balance-neto.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swanson-effect.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:PV 2000-2016.jpg
The duplicates are obviously not necessary since you replaced them with SVG's. The Solar-powered repeater looks like a rephotograph from another source, and Elliot Berman's photo is listed with him as author, so you cannot license it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


For questions about "why was my pdf file deleted?" Please read Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats, Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos to be deleted warning!!!!

Dear Ellen, Based on the warning regarding copyright violation just want to clarify that those photos are my own family heritage since i'm from harfush's family and all the owners and photographers of those photos passed away long time ago which means they are all before the year 1922 that doesn't violate american copyright regulation. I really appreciate your concern about this issue which is important to me as well! And in all my articles i work hard to abide by wikipedia regulations!! Since all my articles are in arabic could you please send me your comments and concerns because those articles are all history topics that are dated from 500 years ago! Regards --Mharfouche (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mharfouche: Please discuss the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mharfouche because nothing we discuss here can be included by the closing administrator. The major problem is that they're all claimed as own work; and COM:EVID says it's up to the uploader to say where the images came from, including proper dates and country of origin to determine copyright status. BTW, I don't see 500 year old things, I see color photographs. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, have I been blocked from sending emails?

Hi Ellin,

I almost never use the email feature, but over a year ago I received an email from a French lady regarding a picture, and we replied back and forth a few times. As far as I can remember, there was nothing wrong in those emails (but maybe an Administrator here disagrees), and I don't recall having contacted anyone else on Commons using that method. I just wonder if that feature has been disabled for me. You see, around half a year ago, if not further back in time, the "Email this user" feature wasn't working for me. Of course I could try again, but right now I have no one to write to here on Commons. Any clarification of the matter would be very much appreciated, and sooner or later I'll come back and nominate more files for deletion to help out Administrators and other people who work very hard to try to keep Commons free from copyright violations. Kind regards, and thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dontreader: I don't see any blocks on your account. It's possible that there was some glitch when you tried it, or that the person you tried to email has it closed. Perhaps admin ~riley can take a look, he's far more "computer savvy" than I am. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dontreader, hope your day is going well. I have no knowledge of any ongoing bug with the email user button, please try to use this direct page: Special:EmailUser and let me know how it works. If I may be of further assistance, my email address is listed publicly on my user page (at the bottom) and I'd be happy to assist from there as well. ~riley (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ellin and ~riley, thank you very much for your help. I'm very happy to know that I wasn't blocked from using the email feature. If I remember correctly, when I tried to send an email a couple of times here on Commons (many months ago), I did not receive an email from Commons with what I wrote in my message (which is what I think did happen when I wrote to the French lady much earlier), and I didn't receive a reply from the person I emailed, even though it's almost impossible to imagine that the person ignored me, given the circumstances. Perhaps it was a glitch, as Ellin said, or an issue with the account I tried to reach. What I will do, since I'm a simple man, is go to Riley's page and send him an email from there, as an experiment only. Please, Riley, if you receive an email from me, just let me know you received it by replying, if you don't mind. Many thanks to both of you for your help and kindness! Dontreader (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ellin and ~riley, I guess the wikigods have forsaken me. This is what I sent to Riley:
Hello Riley,
I have clicked on "Email me a copy of my message". Now I'm sure that the last time I tried to send an email, I clicked on that option but did not receive a copy. Hopefully things will work this time, and please reply with a very brief message just to let me know it's working again.
Many thanks in advance, and have a great day!
However, I didn't even receive a copy of my message. It could be an end of times sign!   Dontreader (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this applies to you, but at one point, people using Yahoo email addresses were unable to send emails with the "email user" function. It was something on the Yahoo side. If that hasn't been fixed, maybe that's the problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Auntof6 (sorry for pinging you but I'm not 100% sure you are watching the page). Yes indeed, I have a Yahoo account associated with Wikipedia. Apparently the problem has not been fixed in many months, perhaps even a year. That is very odd. As I said, my attempt failed again today. You have lots of rights, I see, on Commons, so please try to contact the pertinent people (Riley too, since Ellin says he's extremely computer savvy). There must be a solution. Many thanks again for your message, which at least makes me feel that I'm not alone in this situation. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem about the ping. I do watch this page, but I appreciate the ping.
I'm not sure how the rights I have come into play here. When I discovered that I was unable to use the email function, I pretty much did all the follow-up I wanted to. I'll leave it to you to do more if you want. You might have to do it from the Yahoo side.
By the way, is your user name a play on "Dawn Treader", as in Voyage of the Dawn Treader? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Auntof6. And I'm sorry if I sounded ignorant when I thought your rights on Commons might help. I'm just a peasant here! I sporadically look for copyright violations in the lists of new files uploaded to Commons, and I only nominate the simplest cases! The mere thought of trying to communicate with Yahoo to solve the problem might cause a short circuit in my brain! Anyway, that's correct: My user name is a play on the book (nice catch!). Actually, some people thought my name was Don't Reader, so I added the correct information to the top of my user page (although few people check it). Best wishes... Dontreader (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I received a wikimedia notification that the email was sent, however, my inbox shows nothing. This looks like bug:T137337. ~riley (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, could you contact a reviewing administrator on Wikipedia?

Hi again, Ellin,

It's not my intention at all to abuse your generosity, but my current situation on Wikipedia is troubling me. An administrator blocked my account indefinitely (the matter can easily be found on my Wikipedia talk page). I had never been blocked before. Anyway, I opened a UTRS appeal a couple of days ago. The reviewing administrator is TParis, who merely has a redirect page here on Commons. From what I gather, I was supposed to hear from him within hours of my appeal, but it's been two and a half days now. Of course under normal circumstances I would just wait for a reply, but I'm worried that the Yahoo mail issue might be causing a problem. Furthermore, if I receive a response and I don't reply in a timely fashion, then the process is closed. I'm just worried that a response may have been sent to me and it never arrived. However, there just might be a delay caused by deliberations. Since I don't know, could you please send TParis an email on Wikipedia, telling him to read this message? I do have a few more days left before the deadline, but TParis is officially semi-retired, and I can't expect you to always be around on Commons, which could cause further communication delays, so I'm asking you for this favor now instead of closer to the deadline. This is in no shape or form an attempt to evade a block. There just happens to be a conflict between Yahoo mail and Wikimedia, as you saw. I just need to know if a message has been sent to me or if I should just wait due to a delay. I hope you understand my concern given the severity of the situation, and I would greatly appreciate your help, please. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has gotten lost in transmission. No emails have been sent out. I've released the ticket back to the new queue because there are too many nuances for me to investigate and I've left it for another administrator to review.--TParis (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for clarifying the situation, TParis. The "Email this user" feature doesn't seem to work for Yahoo accounts, at least not for a long time, so I was worried. I did receive a generic message from the Unblock Review Team when I finished my appeal, so I guess that's a good sign, but I just hope that whoever sends me a message will send it straight to my email address and not through the system, because there is too much at stake. Thanks again, and best wishes, Dontreader (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dontreader, Any chance of you just getting another email account and "autoforwarding" all the mail to your yahoo? I think you could probably get a free extra account and solve the problem sideways like that. I am sorry that you had troubles on Wikipedia, the only thing I can offer there is that you are not alone; some of our most wonderful contributors to Commons are on the same side of the door as you are. It makes me extremely careful to contribute anything to 'pedia anymore. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ellin and the second block is one of the most abusive blocks (involved admin, block given for the offense disproportionate) I have seen in a while. You are not alone and my advice to you would be to appeal your block at the en-wiki Arbcom in a mellow way and you will have to reflect on your own behaviour. If you don't do that the odds are the block will be upheld. Natuur12 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, thank you very much for that advice. I do have other free accounts, so that sounds like an excellent solution. I've never tried to autoforward emails but it can't be that hard. I suppose a Google search on the matter would provide multiple pages with clear instructions. Also, I really appreciate your very kind and comforting words regarding the Wikipedia situation. One of the many things I like about Commons is that when someone nominates a file for deletion, which I have done probably 200 times or more, the closing administrator does what is right to the best of his or her knowledge, and if the admin isn't sure, he or she will consult with other admins. But on Wikipedia, in the name of consensus, too many articles that should be kept are deleted, and too many articles that should be deleted are kept. If I'm allowed to edit there again, it will definitely not be the same. I have totally lost trust in the authorities there. I have already cancelled many constructive projects I had in mind, plus others I was already working on. Many thanks again for your advice, comforting words, and overall kindness! Dontreader (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Natuur12, for taking the time to analyze the situation. I really appreciate the gesture. The decision to block me indefinitely shows very clearly that the administrator was determined to get me out of Wikipedia from the beginning, just as I had suspected all along. I promised to comply with all the demands, but I was blocked indefinitely anyway. If he was acting in good faith he HAD to give me a chance to show that I was sincere. Also, notice that his reason for the indefinite block was "for harassing other users." Who did I harass while I was blocked? His admin buddies? I certainly did not harass the editors I had problems with. It's sad to see admins act like a brotherhood instead of independently and impartially. Another administrator (Drmies) threatened, as you saw, to block me indefinitely "for incompetence". Based on which guideline or policy? That's ridiculous. To make matters even more pathetic, he was an involved admin. But what's even worse is that he's on the Arbcom on Wikipedia. And the admin who warned me (before blocking me and then blocking me indefinitely) said in his warning and also during the block that I was not allowed to even mention the article, the subject of the article, or the editors I had a problem with. He can't do that. There are no guidelines or policies that say I cannot do such things. I would have gotten treated better if I had been held hostage by Somali pirates. I know that my behavior was wrong on many occasions before the block, and I do regret it very much, but for example Rebbing gamed the system in an AfD to block consensus, which is extremely serious. That doesn't excuse my personal attacks, but my frustration is understandable, and an admin must appear to be neutral while handling a problem between two editors, yet he told her "I know it's not your fault", and he gave me a warning that was not based on policy. He portrayed me as a menace to society, when in reality someone who abuses administrative power to that degree is the real threat to the Wikipedia community. I deeply regret that the administrator who reviewed my case decided to pass it on to someone else. TParis (a military guy, and I trust in military personnel), said publicly on DGG's page that he was going to make me an offer. But probably now my case will end up in the hands of one of DGG's buddies, or somebody that he can influence. At least I can continue to contribute on Commons, where volunteers like me are very much needed because there are so many new files being uploaded illegally all the time. Many thanks to both of you for your excellent work here! Dontreader (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Weird username of the week

I noticed this in the log: User:Exonerated torturee...   INeverCry 21:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That has to be the most brilliant username I've ever seen, anywhere! And the level of sophistication is truly admirable, especially for just two words! Two days ago I watched the Baywatch intro theme on YouTube (both the iconic music and the scenes with the intro credits). Someone wrote, "This song is so emoceanal." I really appreciated the pun, so after hours of thinking, I wrote, "I think it was recorded in Sand Diego." I was so proud of myself, but this degree of creativity? Sublime! Let's just hope he doesn't behave like what he claims to be, if the torture was severe and recent! Dontreader (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


The author already sent permission 9 days ago; you have the email address offered, so in case you lost the original email you can still contact him. This refusal to offer closure is hilariously petty, but it needs to be concluded. - Falconfly talk 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Falconfly: All discussion on this file needs to be on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ichthyoconodon.jpg. And you need to be patient, COM:OTRS can take up to three weeks, if not longer. Hostility to me and JuTa on the Deletion Nomination is unnecessary. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

deleted pdf - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geschwister-Scholl-Weg und Gedenkstein in Ruhland.pdf

Hallo Ellin Beltz, the structure of Wikipedia-page "Geschwister Scholl" requires 2, 3 or 4 sub-categories for 4 named objects (a path, a school, and 2 memorial stones there: Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, Gedenkstein an der Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, Geschwister-Scholl-Weg, Gedenkstein am Geschwister-Scholl-Weg) and their pictures. Every picture may have an explanation, but it will be much better, if there were explanation on relations between them. But this is a (and then are 2...4) Commons-sub-categories - will they then be deleted by reasons of project scope? Or I must link a new Wikipedia-page into the Commons-sub-category - dont know, how and if its possible at all. Therefor I created the pdf, which was deleted without answering of my questions, at last, if a similar jpg will be accepted. Thanks for answer Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: There seems to be some confusion in your notes. This isn't Wikipedia, it's Wikimedia Commons and *pdf files are out of scope. You need to upload only your own work images to Commons and then link to Wikipedia. Each image needs to be uploaded separately, please do not make collages or collections of pictures. For questions about "why was my pdf file deleted?" Please read Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats, Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Ellin Beltz, first thanks for answer. I thought the Category {{Category:Hans and Sophie Scholl} and sub-Category Category:Geschwister-Scholl-Gedenkstein in Ruhland‎ are in Commons. The Wikipedia-page "Geschwister Scholl" contains the Link Template:Commonscat, and I must follow this path. So my question is, how restricted is the explanation on relationships between the categorized pictures and perhaps between sub-Categories, i.e. text and perhaps links, in a Commons-sub-Category ? If its strong restricted and I need the relationship's explanation: (how) can I link a Wikipedia-page into small explanation instead of complex text in a Commons-sub-Category ? (The linking of Commons-objects (e.g. pictures or Categorys) "up" to Wikipedia is clear, but linking "down" a Wikipedia-page to a Commons-sub-Category to avoid complex explanations (text) - dont know, how and if its possible at all). If the explanation text in a Commons-sub-Category is allowed, I need no pdf. "downlinked" Information from Wikipedia may be helpful, if possible. Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: What language do you speak as a native? I'd like to find a ______-speaking Administrator to help you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Ellin Beltz, my native language is german - in my User-"profile" are the Categories: User de User de-N User en User en-1 May be ChrisiPK is what you seek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Greetings Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: Yes, ChrisiPK or JuTa perhaps could help? I apologize, I have no German at all with with to help. I always ask people about their languages instead of making the assumption! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Ellin Beltz, once more thanks for answer (or investigation). The pdf was occasion, the source of the problem seems to be in the border region to Wikipedia. So the title of further discussion could (or should) be changed . . . Quite right, my questions are in Commons, because of the existing categories tree for the ("my" 4) objects clearly is here. I could seek a solution with a page in Wikikedia, but then I ignore the category tree, and I fear then in Wikipedia it will be no good categorization - with respect to priority and comparability of the objects. Therefor its a borderline case. So I tried to explain the problem to ChrisiPK in german to find an anwer, if its allowed to discribe relationships between named objects respectively her Commons-sub-categories in the sub-categories or in a page and redirect these information in these Commons-sub-categories. May be this will be out of Scope in Commons - or will for this case educative text or a link in a Commons-sub-category be admissible ? Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The mama cat

Here she is just a few minutes ago: File:Feral cat eating 2016.JPG. I got her and the other two some proper bowls a while back. The black one looks like its eye is going to be fine.   INeverCry 23:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad she's ok!!   Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tintin et Capitaine Haddock (graffiti).jpg

Hello. Thank you for closing this DR. Please note that Belgium has now FOP (since July 15th), so the question of the copyright is not relevant any more. That is why I asked the deletion for quality reasons. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

no evidence for own work, COM:OTRS required

Dear Ellin,

I uploaded some graphics in the german wikipedia "Wildunfälle". You can see the list in the photo I added. I think the problem ist the evidence for my own work. The login "Jagdexperte" is made by "Deutscher Jagdverband". So I am really the creator of the graphics and they are free to download on: Is it possible to accept, that Jagdexperte ist the owner of the graphics or what can I do to avoid these problems, even with the other photos in the list. Thanks for helping me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagdexperte (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jagdexperte,
I am not an administrator, so I cannot see the deleted photos, but Ellin is an administrator, and administrators can see the deleted photos. You do not have to upload a screenshot to show a list of deleted photos. Ellin can see them automatically. Also, if you can prove that you created the graphics and the photos, they will appear again (an administrator can do that, so you do not have to upload them again). But I see some problems. For example, File:Sicherheit bei Jagd.jpg says "Quelle: Mross/DJV" (Source: Mross/DJV). So, I suppose that picture was taken by Mross for DJV. But File:Jäger auf dem Hochsitz.jpg says "Quelle: Kapuhs/DJV" here [2]. So, I suppose that picture was taken by Kapuhs for DJV. The graphic File:Aufprallgewicht.jpg says "Quelle: DJV" here [3]. So I believe these images were taken by different people, at least more than one person, not just you. I think you need permission from those people to have the pictures here on Commons. I see this email address on DJV: ... for (Torsten Reinwald). Maybe he can help. But please wait for Ellin to reply to you. Good luck... Dontreader (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jagdexperte: The images were taken down from view because there was no indication of user's own work. There is no way to tell that Jagdexperte is also Torsten Reinwald without Mr. Reinwald following the instructions at COM:OTRS. I am sure you understand that people can say "I made this, and I own the website" but only by using COM:OTRS can we verify that. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Government data

Hi - U.S. Government data is in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted.

Please don't delete my Wikimedia entries!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginia Tech Libraries (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Virginia Tech Libraries: It has nothing to do with Government data and everything to do with copying the work of another from a book, and uploading it to Commons as own work. You cannot copy other people's work, that's called a Derivative Work and is not able to be uploaded to Commons. To take from only one of your images "Originally published in Fundamentals of Business by Stephen J. Skripak . Created for Virginia Tech Libraries by Brian Craig" Permission is needed from Mr. Skripak and Mr. Craig. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ellin, The Virginia Tech Libraries own the copyright for the images which we commissioned Mr. Craig to create. These are a Work for Hire and the Dean of the Libraries (Mr. Craig's now former boss) has given permission for the images to be openly licensed and freely available to the public. Please send me your email and I'll forward this to you in writing. The book "Fundamentals of Business" is being published by the Virginia Tech Libraries in collaboration with Mr. Skripak's department. It will have a Creative Commons license on it. The images, however, are owned by the Virginia Tech Libraries and we would like to share them with the world. Kindly reinstate these images. Thank you Virginia Tech Libraries (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Virginia Tech Libraries: Sorry, but that's not how it works. COM:EVID requires the uploader to chase around for permissions (if required). Please follow the process at COM:OTRS. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I'm new to this. I've emailed the permission to the address. Virginia Tech Libraries (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of Staples High School on the Joseph Fuller page

Hi, Ellin, You found that some of Mr. Fuller's photographs were actually taken by people not in his office. We have contacted the photographers and they have sent in the appropriate forms on Stamford Old Town Hall and AITE. But nobody has told me why the Staples High School photographs were deleted. Can you help so I can contact the photographer if there is one. Thanks. Eperless (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eperless: The whole explanation is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eperless, as linked on your talkpage! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Tintin et Capitaine Haddock (graffiti).jpg

Hi Ellin Beltz, Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tintin et Capitaine Haddock (graffiti).jpg. Just in case you missed it, there is since 15 July Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. The reasoning you give on this deletion request page does not count any longer, as thanks to FoP murals and graffiti from Belgium are now allowed to be on Commons. (But deletion is fine to me: too blurry.) Greetings Romaine (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Romaine: Yes, thank you this was already pointed out by others (see the archives), but perhaps you misunderstood. "Previously deleted" is the important part, the title still read grafitti and I made the statement that it is still a mural - a painting on a wall. The ticket was closed as deleted based on the prior deletion and the image lack of use most likely due to it being blurry for no particular reason. It wasn't like the mural was running along and so could not be captured without motion! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MSc (Med Sci) Graduation.jpg

hi, i took this photo for myself. may i know it has been nominated for deletion? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chancheeching (talk • contribs)

Hi Chancheeching, Please discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSc (Med Sci) Graduation.jpg. Nothing we talk about on talk pages can be included in the final decision. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yer weekly dose of "wait, whooooo?"

I thought I'd found some run of the mill bandspam right? But then I looked at the "backing" vocalist: File:James Franco, backing vocalist and synth player of Chew Lip 2014-04-29 00-15.jpg. My first thought: "Fuck, that's really James Franco!" I had no idea he was a synth player and a singer... INeverCry 01:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry: It looks like one of the infamous Franco Instagram shots, as seen on Instagram. It's 12 from the top on that page. I'd wonder how our user [4] with a first name Catherine is also James Franco? I'd also look deeply at the other two uploads. Just my two cents.   Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yer goofy name of the week

I had to do it: File:Delilah dingle 2014-04-29 00-20.jpg. Luckily, it's just her character name... INeverCry 01:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry Image was in use in 2010 long before our copy was uploaded, see ... Great name, but I don't think it's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, nobody said these weekly doses wouldn't be copyvios now and then.   I've nuked the lot of 'em. INeverCry 18:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:ENT Surgery.jpg


i took this photo in 2012 using my own camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chancheeching (talk • contribs) 06:26, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chancheeching, Please discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ENT Surgery.jpg. Nothing we talk about on talk pages can be included in the final decision. You don't seem to be paying attention to my prior reply or be following the links we left on your talk page. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of editions on {{PD-textlogo}} files

Could you explain why you reverted the editions in File:TractionLogo.png and File:West Lafayette High School logo.png (both of them clearly bellow the Threshold of originality in the United States) without a valid summary? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Amitie 10g because the edits I reverted also had no summaries and the system carried those "null entries" forward. You may find things "clearly" one way or another, but the process here is to let the admins make decisions - and you are not an admin. Please stop taking off copyright violation tags placed by others without converting them to DN. This has been asked of you previously by others, as well as myself as shown on your now archived talk page from before your last block. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. An example of this type of conversion can be seen at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stereograph of Graf Zeppelin over pyramids in Egypt.jpg where it is obvious the image is PD, but I converted a speedy to DN to establish a history and provenance for the image. It's not enough to know something is ok, or to believe it, by working the system and the process consensus is achieved and the files gain history for the future. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I seen your large answer, but you didn't mentioned anything related to the Threshold of originality and even the Copyright Law of the United States (the only requiriment to make a logo or shape protected by Copyright under the US Copyright Law; you, again, can't claiming Copyvio if the logos aren't actually protected). And yes, I didn't left a summary, but changing the license to {{PD-textlogo}} (even without a summary) is 100% correct; nobody questionated that except you. This is a large history of the misapplication of the Copyright Laws, and you still claiming Copyvio without even invoking the actual legislation that governs them.
I just noticied that you added {{No source since}} to the files. This is less worse than removing the {{PD-textlogo}}. There is already concensus about the TOO cases and the requiriments (sourcing and licensing); as I remember, some admins like Yann agree that PD-textlogo does not require a valid source in order to keep, so who is right? Seroiusly, admins can't have different opinions about the same matter, specially Copyright.
As you as admin, you should distinguish between Copyrightable, copyrighted, and Protected by copyright under the Copyright Law, that determine if a file is Free or Non-free. Some examples (answer them yourself):
  • File:Snplogo.jpg
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the copyright holder (Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC) still have the copyright on the logo
    • Copyrighted? yes, per above
    • Protected under the Copyright Law? No, because it does not meet the Threshold of originality in the United States
    • Free or Non-free? Free, permission not required
  • File:Best Western logo.svg
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the copyright holder (Best Western International, Inc) still have the copyright on the logo (but not the SVG, since it was created by third party)
    • Copyrighted? yes, per above, and the SVG itself can be also copyrighted, but copyright was released
    • Protected under the Copyright Law? No, because it does not meet the Threshold of originality in the United States, and the Copyright Office rejected its registration
    • Free or Non-free? Free, permission not required
  • File:Bengal, Asia.jpg
    • Copytrightable? No, works from NASA (including derivatives) are in the Public domain
    • Copyrighted? No, per above
    • Protected under the Copyright Law? No, per above
    • Free or Non-free? Free, permission not required
  • File:English Pokémon logo.svg
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the Copyright holder (Nintendo/The Pokémon Company/Game Freak) still have the copyright
    • Copyrighted? Yes, per above, and the SVG itself can be also copyrighted, but it was released
    • Protected under Copyright Law? No, too simple to meet the Threshold of originality in Japan (related DR)
    • Free or Non-free? Free, permission not required
  • File:Game Freak logo.png
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the Copyright holder (Game Freak) still have the copyright
    • Copyrighted? Yes, per above
    • Protected under Copyright Law? Yes, above the Threshold of originality in Japan (this is why is Fair use at the English Wikipedia)
    • Free or Non-free? Non-free, permission required (or the exceptions like Fair use)
  • File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.png
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the copyright holder (The Mozilla Foundation) is still the copyright holder
    • Copyrighted? Yes, per above
    • Protected under Copyright? Yes, as long as the Mozilla Public License covers what is considered not-allowed uses
    • Free or Non-free? Free. The MPLv2 is free license, so no permission required
  • File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the copyright holder (The Mozilla Foundation) is still the copyright holder for both the raster and vector format, since the source is the EPS found at the Mozilla website
    • Copyrighted? Yes, per above
    • Protected under Copyright? Yes, as long as the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (for the vector) and the MPLv2 (for the raster) cover what is considered as not-allowed uses
    • Free or Non-free? Free. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the MPLv2 are free licenses, so no permission required
  • File:Apache Hive logo.svg
    • Copyrightable? Yes, the copyright holder (The Apache Software Foundation) is still the copyright holder of the raster logo, and SVGs themselves are also copyrightable
    • Copyrighted? Yes, per above, and also I'm the copyright holder of the SVG itself
    • Protected under Copyright? Yes, as long as the Apache Licnese covers what is considered as not-allowed uses
    • Free or Non-free? Free. The Apache Licnese is free license, so no permission required (I also decided to release the SVG under the Apache License, so the SVG is also free)
You know that I'm not a newbie, but I think that you're still a newbie in Copyright matters. Therefore, why I'm changing the license of these files? Because I have better knowledge of Copyright matters than you (in this case, are you who shouldn't make these kind of editions). If you still want to questionating the TOO cases (but IMHO you're questionating Me), why don't nominate {{PD-textlogo}} for deletion? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you also know why the File:Best Western logo.svg logo for example is free? Natuur12 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I already mentioned that above (The U.S. Copyright Office denied its registration three times, since they considered that the logo does not surpass the TOO)... --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. The crown is just a fancy W. That's why. Why do I mention this? Because it is quite a misleading reference sample. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Fancy or not, it just consist in just simple lines, therefore bellow (and the failed registration just mention that the Copyright Office determined that is is bellow the TOO), and I don't see your opinion about the TOO over that fancy W. This is why I mentioned 3 logos as examples: Bellow the TOO (raster), Bellow the TOO and failed registration (vector), and a japanese logo bellow the TOO in japan (vector). --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to future Deletion Nomination discussions where you can share specific knowledge about the file under discussion in a constructive manner. As always, discussions on the talk pages are not included or able to be included in Deletion Nomination discussions. It would however be great if you could permit other people to participate in consensus by allowing the images to remain in places to be discussed. No one is required to be an expert in all things at every minute of every day; Commons works by group effort and consensus. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Well... almost one year passed since you nominated File:Bethlehem Steel logo.svg for deletion, enough time to learn and understand what means Threshold of originality (a legal statement in the legislation of the United States in this case as logos of companies from the United States); since you're an admin specialized in dealing with Copyvio, you're required to know that (several admins already know that, so no excuses). Be expert in all matters is not required for admins, but a minimal knowledge is mandatory to do some actions, specially with critical ones like dealing with Copyright. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any excuses. Consider your own talk page history (now archived) which documents things you did over a year ago - and within the last year up to and including having various of your formerly held rights removed (including OTRS) for significant errors. No one is behaving like this to you, merely hoping that you will be a constructive contributor henceforth. Please find and maintain your COM:MELLOW with others and be productive. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g:, please stay focused on a case by case and do not make a trial to Ellin. I already said to you that I think you has the right to be at odds, and to let us know the disagreement, and to edit all the DRs you want. So do turn these disagree into too complicated conflicts or you will suffer the consequences again. You said you points, Ellin too, and you're both still in disagreement, now pass you way. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Q samakura

Hi, by reading your talks, I can't understand why my files were deleted. If you take a look to the, you can see other files like mine you didn't delete. So do you only hunt new users*, or does your deletion was a mistake ? Thank you for answer me with some attention to my bad english understanding. Q. P.S.:New account, to be true. And you must know that my files are always deleted before being undeleted, the reason why I ask about the "new users hunting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q samakura (talk • contribs) 14:17, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Q samakura: The files were nominated by EugeneZelenko because they were "Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused texts document of questionable notability". Breaking that out: "unused" is that no one has placed the file into use; "texts document" two of the three were pdf files, not allowable format; "questionable notability" means that there is no indication that they are useful to the project, out of COM:SCOPE. To answer your other question, new users files are looked at because it is within the new users we find the most people who have not read or understood COM:SCOPE and COM:L. There are many websites, blogs, Facebook and so on where you can post whatever you want; to be here on Commons, the material must fit COM:SCOPE and be correctly licensed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Jerry Siegel 1939.jpg

I can now provide a source for this: Super Boys by Brad Ricca. This was a commissioned work for National Allied Publications, and its copyright was not renewed. BaronBifford (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi BaronBifford: Please make your request at COM:UNDEL and don't forget to ping both INeverCry and myself. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A heads-up

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Wire Issue14v18.pdf as delete. I am letting everyone who weighed in there know about Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

help for chek all photo upload from user sonia

hi, i check any photo upload with user sonia , and see all this photo not free photo and copy from sites , i need help or tools for deep check this user Photo Uploads thanks --Florence (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

David Probert Jockey

Hi Ellin I see you have removed a photo i took by my self of my son david David Probert.jpg which i took my self at warwick racecourse 2009 also i noticed you deleted a photo of Impulsive Moment taken at Epsom Derby Day 2014 taken by my self, i have not got the original as i have a new pc, i always have problems uploading images and setting them out in a nice format on his page and could do with some help, as i am writing the wikipedia page as my son progresses in his field of his sport, as he has acheived a lot since becoming a jockey, also the dancing star jpg was given to me by my son david after he won the stewards cup last month hope that helps many thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisticks (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daisticks: File:Impulsive moment.jpg is still here... I am going to undelete the File:David Probert 2009.jpg based on your statement and also I searched it again online and found that while, yes, the image was found at that other website, it appears to have been taken from Wikimedia Commons, not the other way around. Please give the system a short while to do it's thing, and it should be back. The File:Dancing Star.jpg having been given to you is not your own picture and we'd need the actual photographer to work with a volunteer at the COM:OTRS to get permissions for it. I also added the category "Jockeys of the United Kingdom", if that's not correct, please let me know and I'll change it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ellin did the File:Impulsive moment.jpg get removed im not sure ? Jockeys of the United Kingdom would be a great Category i will pass on the information regarding File:Dancing Star.jpg thank you for your time i am still learning how everything works but im slowly getting there . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisticks (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daisticks: The Category:Jockeys from the United Kingdom already exists! Click here Category:Jockeys from the United Kingdom. I added it to the bottom of both of the pictures, just scroll to the very bottom of the page to see it. Help note for the day, if you click on a link like File:Impulsive moment.jpg, it will take you to the file. It's just fine. Please do not hesitate to ask for help in how to use Commons, there's a lot of text and many buttons and I know it can be confusing when you're starting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

hi Ellin many thanks i could do with some help, as i dont really understand Commons, so when u download a file of your pc you download it in Commons then you can load it up in the page, also how do you make the neat liitle frames that surround the pictures used, as i would like to make the work i contribute as profesional as possible, and also how do i link the references which are displayed in news reels on the web to the time line of the person etc, for example * Won stewards cup goodwood 2016 then supply the reference which i always do at the botton but the little number above the Citation to coincide with the news cliping ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisticks (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daisticks: Just tell me the page you want to work on, and I'll take a look at the page. Different kinds of jobs have different infoboxes & styles, I don't want to steer you wrong! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

check later

Delinker seems slow, check this later {{universal replace|Yutog Yontan Gonpo.jpg|Physician Yutog Yontan Gonpo - Google Art Project.jpg|reason=better quality, larger size, same painting.}} Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

New section

Když nevíte kdo je to František Horenský, tak se do toho nepleťte--Zdeněk Horenský (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Je to procesní problém s COM: OTRS číslo není správné a čtení "xxxxxx" ... Nejsem COM: OTRS dobrovolníka, takže nemohu "opravit jízdenku", ale jmenováním it, bude OTRS dobrovolníka přezkoumá situace a pravděpodobně ji opravit. Nebojte se! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your weekly dose of people you don't want as neighbors

Here's a less-than-friendly-looking chap you'll be glad doesn't live next-door!   INeverCry 00:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry Looks like the band spam from
sites... Click on the thumbie to get to the big ones. Yar he doesn't look very friendly. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I love how he's holding the gun sideways, gangsta style...   INeverCry 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Similar to how I hold my DN button. See now. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No source

I see you have been tagging files with {{No source since}}. The first I checked did indeed have a source, although not mentioned in the right field, e.g. File:YMengbarriers.jpg had a link labeled "Image du DOE" (image of DOE) and File:19651201 FDA Report.jpg is an FDA Report (what copy of the report was scanned is hardly relevant), File:100RSD front.jpg says "From the site of the National bank of Serbia".

I notice some of the templates are about real issues, but I'd hope you could check a bit more carefully before putting the files on train for deletion.

--LPfi (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

LPfi It would be perhaps a good idea to think all the way through these. Sources are needed for images and documents... "of the DOE" with nothing further to lead to a source. The FDA report has no source, and isn't helpful, all the other images uploaded by that uploader of this type were already removed as no source, this is just the lat one. The "from the site of the National bank of Serbia" does not lead to an image of what was uploaded to Commons. I really do think I know what I'm doing on "no source", it would be nice if you either reverted your edits, or put them to Deletion Nominations where consensus can be achieved rather than to take the tags off and just toss them back into the pile of "no source" images because the sources as shown are insufficient. Or you could find valid sources for the images - I was unable to do so - there was nothing online to indicate where they came from. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The {{No source since}} is meant to lead to deletion unless a source is found. Thus it should be used only if there are real problems. For a PD document, I have a hard time believing who scanned it, what copy was scanned or similar things make a major difference. Would a "scan of my own copy" suffice as source? For "DOE" and "site of the National bank of Serbia" I'd be ready to assume good faith. Even if the link is down now, I'd suppose those files are downloaded from those sites.
But OK, we seem to have widely different understanding of what kind of source is needed, and you probably have enough experience to have a well-grounded understanding, so I'll make a DR on one of them: Commons:Deletion requests/File:100RSD front.jpg.
--LPfi (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
LPfi You are welcome to make any assumptions you choose, you are not welcome to apply them to me. I am perfectly aware what happens to "no source" files. There are 161 administrators on Commons; currently I am the seventh most active, see [5]. I work with "no source" images all the time, and continue to work with our backlog of slightly over 55,000 images at present. I would appreciate a lack of lecturing on the process. Since you only dealt with one of the three, please have a look at the nominations for the other two. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry if I seemed to make some wrong assumptions or was too lecturing. English not being my first language may limit my options somewhat; I might have worded it better in Swedish or Finnish. I did see that you are an administrator (after making the first comment), and I still think the assumption that you know what you are talking about is well grounded. I also think that I am as capable of understanding as anybody, so when I think something does not make sense I want clarification. --LPfi (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ফিরিয়ে দিবেন কি

De Mazid islam নামের যে file টি ডিলিট করা হয়েছে ৷ সেটা আমার নিজস্ব ছবি, অতএব আপনি দয়া করে file টি ফিরিয়ে দিবেন কি — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Mazid Islam (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@De Mazid Islam: I've restored File:De Mazid Islam.jpg for you, but you have to use this on one of your user pages, otherwise it may get deleted again. INeverCry 19:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of VOA files

Hi Ellin. Could you please join the discussion here regarding a couple files that you deleted today? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Mike, Muffler Man, Hayward, California.jpg

So, is this being kept or deleted? the comment you left doesnt match the action taken. if its to be deleted, how about all the other images of muffler men w/o detailed info on their pre 1978 copyright status? if its the only one, i definitely feel singled out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mercurywoodrose: It was a fat-fingered mistake. Thank you for pointing it out; they should all have been the same! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ellin,

I trust you are fine. I love your userpage design. Can I copy it for use on my userpage? With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology... Sure, but you really want the whole thing? Most of it is references so I don't always have to use the same computer and its bookmarks! The images of course are all from Commons! Thank you for the compliment! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ellin, I found everything on that page valuable. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Stranger

Hi Ellin, I am doing housekeeping now on the many contributions I made and I am wondering if I can automate the process. I hope that you are well. I still post a pic or two really just for you but I decided that I need to really organize my contributions before some clown "indefs" me here on commons for taking too nice of photos and donating them. Live and learn...

I would like to replace the author filed with my name and no link, should be easy enough one would think. Also I made a cat for D Ramey Logan and it would be great to have some script just place that cat on every one of my almost 1500 contributions.

I have been doing it by hand and don't have the month it will take to get it done.

Thank you, talk soon ok! ;) --D Ramey Logan (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can use VFC. Jee 10:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Heya D Ramey Logan: JEE is totally right, just click where it says VFC! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, so it worked on the author, but I have yet to figure out how to add a cat using this tool to all the pics I have contributed. fixed it Thanks - Don

Duplicate image


I found duplicate images:

I'm not sure if these can be merged, or maybe one should be deleted?

These also seem to be two different version of the same file:

Thanks! Mvolz (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mvolz: I put in a deletion request for the smaller of the two candle holders, the other one is harder to decide because people might like it better pointing one way or another, so I didn't ask that the "duplicate" be deleted, because with the change in orientation, it seems not to be exactly the same. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocking and leaving of Colin

I see with sadness, that Colin has not contributed to Commons after the Jun/Jul events. And I understand, that it would be really difficult for him to spend his time and energy here, after so bad case of „criminalisation“. I am afraid, that he has found new channel for his energy for now, and Commons has lost him forever. Colin’s leave is big loss for Commons. E.g., besides his great photos, he enriched the Commons by his reliable and weighty critics. This was also good educational material for beginner photographers. I know also several persons, for which the Photo challenge – created and managed by Colin, has been great stimulus to develop their photography skills. The importance of Colin is emphasized by the fact, that besides his friends, also his opponents are crying for him now.

I write this here, just for you, as I think that just your temporary block to Colin was important in conducting the events to the Colin’s leave. The conflict between Fæ and Colin had smouldered long time before. I think that everybody should know, that some persons – though wonderful persons per se, just cannot match between themselves. Any contacts between them have only destructive results, and real peace between them is just not possible to create. The only way to decrease the destructions is the decreasing of contacts between these persons. And I see that Commons already has quite suitable tool for this – interaction ban. I wonder, why you did not use this ‘interaction ban’ tool in this conflict between two valuable contributors. (Or any other mild tool.) Instead you chose, which is “bad” party in this conflict – by blocking Colin.

I hope that you have learned from this case, which ended with a leave of a valuable contributor. And that you are able to solve conflicts better – without so big losses for Commons in the future. --Maasaak (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maasaak Previously Colin did not accept interaction ban. I have absolutely no control over any contributor staying or going from Commons. To blame me for the actions of another adult is unnecessary and not in keeping with Commons principles including COM:AGF. You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to play some kind of "blame game" on my head based on your opinions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maasaak: Are we still playing the same game here? Colin is a great photographer and a valuable contributor. If he wants to return to Commons, that would be great. But what's the point of dragging Ellin through the mud over and over? She already apologized openly. The next move is up to Collin himself. He's a grown man and he makes his own decisions. Ellin isn't responsible for what he does or doesn't do. She's not his boss in any way as far as I'm aware. All you're doing is tiresomely repeating the comments of others, which Ellen has already responded to more than once. Drop the stick and stop with the drama. It's getting very very old. INeverCry 20:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request File:Portrait of Professor Rezső Burghardt.jpg

The File: Portrait of Professor Rezső Burghardt.jpg was nominated for deletion because allegedly there is some problem with the licence and there is nothing to indicate the age of the image. The age of the image however stands in the decription. The photo was taken in the summer of 1954. László Ördögh junior (born 21st June 1951) , the son of the painter can be seen in the shade of the canvas with his mother. I tried to add a licence when the file was uploaded with the wizzard. How shall I correct it? Mirabella Mirabella (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mirabella, Please reply to the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Professor Rezső Burghardt.jpg nothing discussed here will change that discussion. FYI, someone could easily say "Filename1899.jpg" and the image would not have been created in 1899. So filename alone is nothing to show the age of the image. The person who took the picture needs to release rights to the image, it's not ok to just copy people's scrapbooks. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request: File:Ördögh László senior painter.jpg

It is the original photo and was not rephotographed. There are several works in the background and an unlit space. I am the heir of the painter with my husband, who is his son. The file was uploaded with his consent. Shall he somehow give his permission officially? Mirabella Mirabella (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mirabella: Please reply about the painting at the Commons Deletion Request as linked on your talk page. Nothing we discuss here will have any bearing on the outcome of the discussion over there. Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ördögh László senior painter.jpg] at that link please! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthieu Bastien


Could you elaborate on the reason for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthieu Bastien? For example, why did you nominate some drawings by Matthieu Bastien and not some others? This files were used on an exernal wiki and can be used on Wikimedia articles like fr:Brest 2016. We we're 20 wikimedians there and we upload a lot of files, including some drawings (and we did the same thing in 2012 and 2008, so we are a bit perplexed about this deletion).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi VIGNERON: I must have missed the second batch the first time, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthieu Bastien where I fixed the error by nominating the rest of them. Commons isn't a personal art gallery, these are personal sketches, out of COM:SCOPE. Pinging also INeverCry who was the deleting admin for the first set. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We only keep artworks by notable artists. Perhaps these can be uploaded directly to Any use on fr:Brest 2016 would be questionable at best. Illustrating an article on any Wikipedia with your own personal artworks is gratuitous and self-promotional. INeverCry 18:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz, INeverCry: I respectfully but strongly disagree. Why would the technic matters? We accept files regardless of the technic used, it can be photos, videos, sounds, whatever, or drawings. I don't see why a drawing would be a less valuable representation than a photo or a video. Moreover, we have a lot of drawing made by simple and not-notable users (I see a lot of drawings for coats of arms for instance) ; as far as I know, there is no rule against drawings, how a personal sketch could be less useful then a personal photo? If needed, I'll took these file from the deleted history and upload them to wiki-brest but I'll think it would be a great loss for Wikimedia projects. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Think about the number of artworks hosted on deviantART alone. Millions and millions. If Commons scope were suddenly made to encompass artwork of any kind by anybody, we would have a mess of noneducational files. Some of them would no doubt be somewhat educational, but the majority wouldn't be. As for COAs, these have an historical background. The COA is in scope itself, so the person who does the rendering is secondary. I've deleted plenty of fake COAs and flags. We get a lot of uploads here that are drawings of teddy bears and women, or abstract paintings. If we allowed the above drawings to be hosted on Commons, how would we be able to say any of the others should be deleted? What if it was a scribbly drawing by a kid (I've deleted hundreds of these here)? COM:SCOPE is relatively strict for a reason. Personal artworks can be displayed on Facebook, Twitter, deviantART, and many other sites, but Commons maintains an educational standard. INeverCry 19:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I thought about it and I agree with most of your points but I think that you miss the point.
Of couse we don't want all the file on DA, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, and so on.
The Commons scope already encompass artwork ; technically *all* the files on Commons can be seen as artwork. Artwork can be educational (see COM:FAN for an example of acceptable artworks in fiction, if you remove « fan » this gudelines can apply to the files we're discussing), these files seems educational to me, they are valuable depictions of Brest 2016 (and some depict subjects we don't have any others files as I said on the RfD) and they are not fake nor abstract.
I don't suggest to change the rules (who are gloabbly good), I just think you interpretations are too strict, more strict than the rules themselves.
Finally, if these files are moved to an external website, how could we use them on Wikimedia projects?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi VIGNERON While everyone is welcome to their opinion, the rules of Commons (in this case particularly COM:SCOPE) prevent the retention of these uploads. FYI, Administrator INeverCry is one of the most experienced admins at Commons; I personally wouldn't argue, but you are - of course - welcome to your opinion. However, I would appreciate it if you would stop arguing about this on my talk page as it's not relevant. Personal artworks are personal artworks, no amount of prevarication changes that. As for "how they are to get used here", the rules of Commons suggest they won't - as they are out of COM:SCOPE. You are welcome to upload artwork to Deviant Art, or your Facebook page, it's not in Scope of this project. And since Commons is providing the free hosting, they get to make the rules. However, the discussion over on this page as the dead horse beating has begun. If you want to write more about your opinions and how they do not merge with Commons rules and policies, please feel free to put it on your own page. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Triddana Logo gold.jpg

Hi, is it ok now? I added a source for the logo. Best regards, --M.I.A. (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi M.I.A.: Where did the logo come from? If it's really the logo of some entity then you didn't create it, and it would need an actual source of where it came from. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz: I created the logo in Photoshop for the band, I´m new into editing photos and articles in Wikipedia, so if you could please tell me what I need to do I will do it immediately. Thank you! :) --M.I.A. (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Hampi Tour files

Hello Ellin, Sorry for late reply, Can you please tell me what is wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherishsantosh (talk • contribs)

Hi Cherishsantosh, since the discussion started on your talk page, I'm going to reply over there to keep it all together. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Peoples170

Hi Ellin Beltz, the uploader from all those pictures actually confirmed in German Wikipedia, that they represent the company (see here). So not sure why you delete all his pictures..?--MBurch (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MBurch: I nominated these advertising images; とある白い猫 deleted them. Please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE for explanations of why advertising is not permitted in Commons ... which is - by the way - not German Wikipedia. The projects all have their own methods and rules - confusing but that's how it is, I didn't invent it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should be the picture of their planes and airports be advertising more than any other pictures of planes and airports?--MBurch (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for retention or deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Good morning!

    INeverCry 05:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you!!!!! 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested sources


I have modified detailing all the sources for contested images. StoNumPri (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi StoNumPri: Please reply at the deletion nomination/s as nothing we discuss here affects the deletion nomination. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting image on Flickr


Thanks for following through on the deletion here. I was wondering: since the issue was the Flickr page with the false license/claim of authorship, is there an established process for having photos with incorrect licenses deleted from Flickr itself? I would imagine this kind of problem has probably come up for Wikimedia admin before. Museums have asked permission for use on that page, and at least one book has published the photo claiming that Flickr user as the author. Thank you! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk)

Hi Brandt Luke Zorn: We have no control over what Flickr does, sorry! covers their copyvio policy... as in most other DMCA, it has to be the photographer making the complaint. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


yet i don't know whats exactly is "Copyright" of "Pictures" means in Wikimedia. the File:Sheraz Hosny.jpg is a pic emailed me, after i request the Copyrighter. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonia Sevilla: If you have no idea what COM:L means then please stop uploading images. You've been getting copyvio notices for over one year, by now surely you have had time to read/understand it. The page is translated into multiple languages. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
stop a moment, i just cropped. Cropping an uploaded picture. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Image says "Author Ali_Qazem - Copyright holder Ali_Kazem". There's nothing there about cropping. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Solicitud de Borrado de varias imagenes

Hola, Antes de nada, muchas gracias por el tiempo que has dedicado a revistar todas y cada una de las fotos que he ido colgando en Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard (talk • contribs) 08:43, 09 September 2016 (UTC) He visto que ayer has solicitado el borrado de diversas imágenes que he subido a lo largo del último año. He procurado contestarte en cada una de ellas. Te escribo aqui para decirte que la mayor parte de las imagenes han sido realizadas por mi, o cedidas por amigos, que me han dado el copright para que pueda incluirlas en Wikipedia con el fin de mejorar sensiblemente cada artículo. Te ruego por tanto que no procedas al borrado de ninguna de ellas. Al tener el permiso de la mayor parte de ellas, pienso que deberían permanecer en Wikipedia. Gracias por tu comprensión. Un saludo muy cordial. --Hard (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Google translate... Hi, First of all, thank you very much for the time you spent revistar each and every one of the pictures I've been hanging on Wikipedia. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard (talk contribs •) 8:43, 09 September 2016 (UTC) I have seen yesterday requested the deletion of several images I uploaded over the past year. I have tried to answer each one. I write here to tell you that most of the images have been made by me or provided by friends who have given me the copright so you can include them in Wikipedia in order to significantly improve each item. I pray therefore that do not proceed to the deletion of any of them. By having the permission of most of them, I think they should remain in Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. A very warm greeting. --hard (Talk) 8:17 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hard. This isn't "wikipedia", this is Wikimedia Commons. The two are related projects, but not the same and with different rules. For Commons, please read COM:L. If you upload images given to you by other people, they have to send permission to COM:OTRS. Please leave your comments on the Deletion Nominations as nothing we discuss here can be included in their final decision. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hola Ellin Beltz. Si, disculpa. Cuando citaba Wikipedia, me estaba refiriendo a Wikipedia Commons. He dejado mis comentarios en cada una de las imágenes en las que has dejado tu comentario. Me tienes a tu disposición para aclarar cualquier malentendido u ofrecer mas explicaciones sobre las imágenes en las que no estoy de acuerdo con las valoraciones que has hecho. En algunos casos, no tengo nada que decir y acato el borrado. Pero en otros, no estoy de acuerdo y espero que mis alegaciones se tengan en cuenta. Muchas gracias por el tiempo dedicado, tu comprensión y tu ayuda. Un cordial saludo.--Hard (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

City halls in California

Would you care to finish off some of the other City Halls that are incorrectly listed as Town Halls? I'm leaving the REAL Town Halls alone, and I'm considering a treat for Palo Alto. ----DanTD (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanTD: The only ones I'm sure of are the ones in my photos, and I reviewed and fixed those this morning that were not previously done. I'm headed into a working weekend, and don't have time to review all of California until perhaps next week sometime. Sorry! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My pictures

Dear Ellin Beltz, copyright holder of all pictures I uploaded (with the exception of the Richard Mohaupt picture) is the Hofer Symphoniker gGmbH in Hof, Germany. I am a member of staff of the Hofer Symphoniker gGmbH, so I am a part of this institution and was allowed to upload the pictures by my account. You can see me here: (I am Ulf-Martin Keller.) Could you please reverse your deletion requests respectively deletions? --Ulphilos (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Ulphilos: As our user accounts are anonymous, please fill in the permission form at COM:OTRS for the images you would like retained. I can't "un-nominate" them because they're not yours. That you say you were "allowed to upload the pictures", yes, of course you can upload pictures, but the system asks for valid sources and permissions for each image; and those are not present on your uploads. All three
were claimed as own work on the upload template and all three are clearly not "own work" and now of course you say that they are from the symphony. Please read COM:L before making more uploads, and work through the process at COM:OTRS for the images you have already uploaded.
It would be a very good idea to not continue to upload the work of others claimed as own work, no matter your connection with the photographer, the musician/s or the source. Please comment on the Nominations at their pages as shown on your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ellin Beltz! I regarded my account here quasi as Hofer Symphoniker account, this is why I as a member of staff published the pictures as "own work" ("own work" of the Symphoniker). Now I understand better, thank you very much again. --Ulphilos (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:"My Grandmother Mary Fildes 1871 aged 81 Born at Cork 9 June".tif

There is a problem with this? Is this a copyright issue or to do with the clarity of resolution if the image? This is the only photo of Mary Fildes which I know to exist, although it is not impossible that other branches of the family may have something. - (I also have a photo of Mary Fildes cottage near Chester.) CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattenkoenig24 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi : There are a few problems, but only one which will get the picture removed. Your description on the template reads
"Description English: This picture, amongst others, has been passed down through various Fildes descendants and can be authenticated.
Date 1 September 2016
Source Own work
Author Rattenkoenig24"
I'm sure you can see the problem. The image title says 1871, the template says 2016. Obviously no one alive to take a photo in 1871 is alive now rendering the claim of "own work" in the source field impossible. So the source needs to be accurate, as in "I scanned this 1871 photo which I got ____". Also at that point, since you have access to the original, please rescan the image and make it as large as you can. The way it is now, it's barely thumbnail sized. Please examine the original for maker's marks, name of photographer, studio, etc. It's not who owns a photo who owns the copyright but the original creator/photographer and his/her heirs. If the image was published before 1923, it's fine - no problem. But as this appears to be the first publication, the copyright issues need to be resolved. In general, if this is an accurate representation of an 1871 2-dimensional object, it's likely to be out of copyright. Check out COM:HIRTLE for the chart of copyright considerations. I personally believe the image is old enough, but I'd like to see a larger copy while someone still has access to it, and it is often possible to find the author/creator's names with a little digging. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. My grandmother was also born at Cork but in 1896.

Your deletion request for a poem in an image

Hello Ellin, you Commons:Deletion requests/File:ΑΝΘΙΖΕΙ ΕΞΩ.jpg requested the deletion of File:ΑΝΘΙΖΕΙ ΕΞΩ.jpg. The user now asked for help in Commons:Help desk#Ελληνικα obviously not understanding English. He (Βαγγέλης = Vangelis is male) also removed your DR from the file page (Special:Diff/206485399/206658051). But what I actually wanted to write: The user uploaded this poem another twice times, cf. file upload list. I do not know, how to deal with such cases, now. Of course, we could add a DR for every file, but shouldn’t they reated together? I’ve also seen, collected requests for files of other users, but do not know they were created. I hope you know the best way. — Speravir_Talk – 15:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Speravir: Thanks for the heads-up... I added the other two images to the first nomination. It would also have been ok to start new nominations for each image, with a reference to the original one. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:ΑΝΘΙΖΕΙ ΕΞΩ.jpg. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Meanwhile I accidently noticed, that James Woodward in a similar case copied the DR from one file to the others, cf. files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albany Vietnam Veteran Memorial.jpg. This would probably a good idea here, too (plus page protection <grin> ). — Speravir_Talk – 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Speravir: Either way works fine. There's no compelling reason to protect the pages, the DN won't disappear just because the template does. Even so I protected the altered one. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:"EDC TempCO2Dust".svg

Dear Ellin, Thanks for your admin work. You tagged the figure I created as missing information about where it comes from or who created it. However, in the file description of the file there is the "|source=Own work" line. Please let me know what I need to add more specifically, I don't know what's missing. I randomly changed the already existing licensing information to "{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}". Hope that helps. Thanks, Fabrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice.Lambert (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fabrice.Lambert: The problem is, where did you get the data for the last 800 ka? You didn't sample all that time by yourself, so where did the diagrams come from? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes I did :-) I spent 6 months on the ice and 3 years processing the ice core high-resolution data. But yes, the temperature and gas data are not mine. All data (temp, gas, and dust) are published and freely accessible on the NOAA paleoclimatic server data ( and in the case of the dust on the Pangea data server as well ( I have added the NOAA source to the file description. Thanks, Fabrice.Lambert

Hi Fabrice.Lambert: Thank you so much for your reply, please now categorize your image, perhaps Category:Paleoclimate over time? If you need help with categories, please let me know. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help, Fabrice.Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I made changes into category relevant as per my view

  • User:Ellin Beltz All noted-mentioned pictures by you on User talk:Khurshed.yusufbekov - File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov and Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg, I made changes into category relevant as per my view: cc-by-sa-4.0; self|cc-by-sa-4.0; PD-Russia; Category:Tajikistan; Updloaded with UploadWizard.
    Files - File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg, File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov and Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg - uploaded as my own (I know Okmir Agakhanyanc from childhood, he was close friend of my father (both pictures taken by me), I have a lot of pictures where he and I are together. If you will correct me on other appropriete category for the sake of the pictures in the article, I will not have any objections;. With respect Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. FYI - Armenian Encyclopedia “Hayzag” already (Usage on using these two my own pictures, thanks Wikipedia. Here is the link

Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov: Please reply at the deletion nomination/s as nothing we discuss here affects the deletion nomination. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Ellin Beltz: Please see my words on the photo account on the following links: [6], [7], [8], [9], and adding categories, etc. in the photo files: [10], [11], [12], [13], if I am guided properly. Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov: You have correctly replied at the nomination. Now we both wait for the closing administrator to decide. Please remove your follow/s on me from social media, nothing said beyond Wikimedia Commons Deletion Nomination pages will have any influence on the outcome and your follow/s are unneeded and bordering on inappropriate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Ellin Beltz:I did not understand what exactly I need to delete from Wikimedia Commons Deletion Nomination pages, please explain – is that things just your name - like “User:Ellin Beltz” or all things which we discussed on the following links: [14], [15], [16], [17] Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov: You don't need to do anything more, just wait for the administrator to make a decision. Probably within 7 days or less. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi User:Ellin Beltz: This is druft letter I wanted to leave on the page Commons: Village pump for (Jmabel talk 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)!) Hoping to solve the problems through you. Today I was informed by INeverCry (talk | contribs at 00:20, 9 September 2016 - deleted all pages: "You have to be confident = on the page "User talk:Ellin Beltz| discussion" it is written clearly: If I can help, please leave me a message! further there - If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the VillagePump, that’s why we visited VP page, also I don’t sufficiently master English and have to outline my thoughts in Russian and then look for people who speak English for translation, in addition reaction, mentality and our culture of communication is different, then writing categories in the photo files we thought that you will check. Now we understand that we have to indicate them on the deletion nomination/s discuss pages, regard to the authorship, I started photography when I was 9 years old at the Club of Young Technician in 1969. First camera “FED” was presented to me as a gift by this person photographed by me including the one with my father in 1972 on the day of my birthday. The downloaded photos, as indicated, I took on August 25th 1974 and July 27th, 1977. FYI: Article Agahanyants, Okmir Yeghishe edited from 25.06. - 27.7.2016 (see it in History of this article), which I redirected through the section References to the article Yusufbekov, Khudoyer Yusufbekovich, also there I gave redirection in p/n 6 & 11 to the article Pamir (created pages (pictures) with UploadWizardon on 30 June 2016‎ & 2 July 2016‎) in, concurrently recommend reading ОКМИР АГАХАНЯНЦ. ВЕТЕР НАЗЫВАЕТСЯ «АФГАНЕЦ»=[OKMIR AGAKHANYANS. WIND CALLED «AFGHAN». (also from article comments) – “there were two telegrams. One of them from republican Academy of Science to the director of Bio station on Eastern Pamir to Khudoyor Yusufbekov. Due to this, my work at Circus “Zor” was disrupted. Director …”". I hope for you to return Pictures Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    Hi User:Ellin Beltz: I felt it necessary to inform you of my bringing evidence in favor of the return of my photos (see the facts given in Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) & 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) at Commons: Village pump), I think your participation would be no harm in addressing the issue and will remain teammates + User:INeverCry (there are many details in Russian, I think you will understand with him). Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov: Wikimedia Commons is a bureaucracy like the old CCCP. The way to fix the problem is to go to COM:UNDEL where a different administrator will look at your case on its own merits unburdened by all the above. Several people have told you this over at the Village Pump quickly after your first correspondence. I have been without Internet for the past three days, they expect service turned on completely by tomorrow. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Ellin Beltz: Please see - Restoration of pictures (now well-founded): Files: ... (at 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)) on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requestsThanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! User:Ellin Beltz I followed the advice of [UserJmabel] to facilitate the explanation on COM:UNDEL... and as always, please take a look as if not will too much turn out. Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Hi! I wanted to ask how long the Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current ... will stretching the decision of return the photos, about the accounts of the two my newly uploaded own, no objections, no comment - it is understood as an endorsement? can i insert them in the article? Whether there are ways to address "unknown|author" pictures (File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg) with sources without external links, I think you know the recipe for solution to the problem (different). Sorry for my bad english. Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry I'm forgot Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov: Please ask COM:UNDEL how long they plan to take; I am not COM:UNDEL and I really don't have anything more to do with this. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! User:Ellin Beltz You misunderstood me, apparently I did not clearly outlined the idea in English, I mean Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (no COM:UNDEL), there should be all right (all four newly uploaded photos activated) with the exception of "unknown|author" pictures - File:Amdinov family2.jpg and File:High School was established in 1936.jpg with sources (have only one source for both) without links - poverty affects. I apologize to you for so long disturb you, in compensation I invite you to Pamir in Tajikistan :). Thanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania Esino Lario

Dear Ellin. thanks for the notifications. The files you have been reported for missing source been produced in the frame of the project Wikimania Esino Lario, all under cc by-sa (it is a Wikimedia related project). The project is managed by Associazione Amici Museo delle Grigne Onlus which has a cc by-sa license on all its documentation since 2006 and on the documentation of Ecomuseo delle Grigne (related institution managed by the association); all volunteers involved have accepted to contribute to the project with content under cc by-sa (the association has the documents and manages the rights). [Ticket#2008120210020401] Permission Associazione Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus (included and [Ticket#2015042710012928] Permission Ecomuseo delle Grigne and all the documentation associated. Please let me known if you need any further information. all the best --iopensa (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iopensa: That information needs to be on the files, not on my talk page. Because the information is not on the files it looks like you don't have permission. Please let me know when you've added it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting undelete of File:Koid%279_Magazine_featuring_Discipline_band_(April_2012).jpg

Hi, Ellin. The file below was deleted improperly: The sole copyright owner, Kevin Scherer, emailed granting Creative Commons Share Alike 4.0 rights for reuse of this image on Wikipedia. Please undelete this image for discussion purposes while OTRS review is pending. Best regards, Matt Disciplineband (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Disciplineband: I wasn't the closing administrator, please see File:Koid'9 Magazine featuring Discipline band (April 2012).jpg and must respectfully decline to override Jcb's close. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your request for deletion for the pictures I uploaded

Hello Can I pix-elate (blur) the part of the pictures containing advertising, so that they cannot be recognized ? I wish I can keep the same pictures, with blurred part of them! Thank you for your answer! Segnargsed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segnargsed (talk • contribs)

Hi Segnargsed: Please discuss everything about the deletion nomination at the nomination as nothing we say here will influence. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1 cni s.png

NOTE: Message automatically translated from Spanish, using google translator, may contain errors of style.
Hello, I wonder if you have not noticed that that picture is of my creation, and is used on Wikipedia in Spanish for competitions Wiki-project:Science, i will remove your application erased simply because I consider totally inapropiate, the image has the author template, which specifies clearly that I am the creator and i make public it under the terms of the Creative Commons 3.0. Thanks for your understanding Miguu (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Miguu: Please provide a link to the source photographic image used as well as to the one for the bicycle and illustration. By the way, using the Hipster Logo Generator ( and uploading their png files isn't "own work." Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
And how the hell you want to put the link to Hipster Logo Generator! if you protect the damn page!. PS:If you really going to delete the image (No matter what you do or say), you should also delete images from Wikipedia in Spanish: Wikiproyecto:Ciencia/Concursos , I'll make my own logos ;) Miguu (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Miguu: Usually one uses "edit" to change the file to show source. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The page continues with indefinite protection!, can only edit the administrators, as want me to do to change the font?!. Miguu (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

How are you Ellin?

I was thinking about you today and thought I would share:

Balboa Island, Newport Beach California

You also might enjoy this VIDEO, hope that all is well. Cheers Don... Daytime 18 September 2016

Gorgeous thank you!!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rogue bots

You left a note on User talk:Geo Swan#File_source_is_not_properly_indicated:_File:V_Mail_Poster_WW2.jpg informing me that a file I uploaded had not been properly documented.

If you look at the history, however, you will see that this is an instance of a fight between dueling 'bots.

I was not the original uploader. The image was uploaded to, in 2006. I relied on a bot to transfer the image from there to here. That bot left a fully populated {{Information}} template that looked OK to me. But a dozen hours after the upload Ogre bot 2 came along and gutted that {{Information}} template.

You found it as an image with inadequate information. Well, a bot was responsible.

Bots shouldn't fight. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, your nomination disturbed me. Having an online source for images -- that is obviously desirable. But surely any image that is unquestionably PD, like this image, should be retained, even if we have no online source for it?
In this particular case a couple of minutes with tineye found one of the Library of Congress's page for this image. Can I ask whether you considered performing this search, yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Geo Swan: Thank you for fixing the file, yes I did search, no I didn't find the exact image. Not every search returns same results for different people, and sometimes you know stuff about where your images came from that I do not. "Unquestionably PD" is only if the provenance of the image is known, which means a source. I am sorry you are disturbed by my nomination, please consider how many images we deal with and that no one can possibly be 100% right 100% of the time. Again thank you for your assistance with this image. On your comment about "bot gutting", I checked the history, what the second bot removed did not contain a valid source, the removed text read " |Source=Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. |Date= (original upload date)|Author=The original uploader was Valyer at English Wikipedia.|Permission=PD-USGOV-OWI." Obviously "transferred from Wikipedia" is not a valid source. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

how to cancel, delete images

thank you very much, it is my first collaboration in wikipedia. I'm trying to write a story about my father (painter), the pictures are of his paintings. What would have to do to make these images were not deleted? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martaaltuna7 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martaaltuna7: The problem with the images is that you claimed them as own work, and you didn't create them. Also you added them to an article which has been listed for deletion in 30 days as not being "encyclopedic in scope". To retain these images, they'd have to be educationally useful; which if your dad doesn't have a wiki article (accepted, not going to be deleted) is unlikely - otherwise wiki would be covered in everyone's dad's paintings! If I can be of any additional help, please just ask. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thank you very much for the information, is already underway. regards --Martaaltuna7 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can you explain a little :-)

Hello, You submitted a deletion request for the images I uploaded, my answer was "can I blur the images", I had no answer, but all images have been deleted. I do not complain about deletion, if it is needed I can understand, but I had no answer to my question ! Who can explain ? Thanks a lot in advance!, :-) Segnargsed

Hi Segnargsed: The closing administrator apparently didn't think blurring them would help or there would have been request to do it. You can ask at COM:UNDEL if you think they should be brought back, or wish to get multiple opinions! Sorry I have been offline of Commons a lot lately, we had internet outage, followed by router failure and then work (blast work) got in the way. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of certain images by Meher Mansion

I've seen the tags for deletion of some images uploaded by me. Request you to let me know how best they can be saved. Indeed, I have scanned them but would like them to be recategorized. Thank you.--Meher Mansion (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meher Mansion : Please make any comments on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Meher Mansion. It's not a matter of recategorized; it's that you don't own the copyrights to the images you scanned but by claiming own work. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Illustration pictures for articles dedicated to Christian Defaye

Dear Ellin,

My name is Claudette Defaye, I am the widow of Christian Defaye.

I have shared my life with him both on and off screen. We have co-hosted events, tv shows and covered cinema related news on the swiss national tv for 3 decades together, totaling between the two of us over 3000 shows. We co-hosted "Special Cinema from 1975 until 1997, when Christian passed away a few weeks after having recorded his last show from the stairs of the Cannes Festival. I took over and hosted another show dedicated to cinema for another 10 years.

He was a passionate journalist, which has lived before the times of the googles and their likes, which makes it very difficult to share easily documents and substantiate his work. It is hardly a 4 liner which can show the breadth and depth of the work and contribution which he has made of the cinema:

I have uploaded part of the archives I own, and for which I detain the rights, when the pictures haven't been released as "libre de droit". All the material I have contributed to Wikimedia commons is made available as "libre de droit". Now how can this be translated?

My project is to ensure the legacy of Christian's work and illustrate the articles pertaining to his life, and work (the shows Specal Cinema and others) with pictures and references, such as scanned material which isn't made available online by the press.

Best regards,

Claudette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudette1944 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 03 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Claudette1944: Your desire to publicized your husband is commendable, but can cause a problem for the project. Your archives may contain physical images you own, but if you do not own the copyrights, they cannot be uploaded. I'd also caution you against editing only on your husband's pages, which could be considered promotion or self-promotion. I totally understand your desire, but I urge caution to be sure you really do have the rights before making uploads here. The appropriate license are on COM:HIRTLE and COM:L. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting emblems of United States Air Force emblems

It appears that you have been busily deleting images of United States Air Force emblems. Yet, I cannot find that any of these have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Is there a reason you are avoiding listing these pages there? Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing some examples as I have uploaded a lot of USAF images. Thanks -- (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lineagegeek: Forgive my confusion, please see my [18] Contributions to see that the most recent actions regarding emblems were to close two deletion requests for Air Force emblems as kept.
*Commons:Deletion requests/File:31 MSS.jpg
*Commons:Deletion requests/File:31 MSG.jpg
There were several more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research but I ran out of time. I had previously searched for sources and found none for several other emblems which were sent to "no source" and had been there for a week. I don't think any were 's uploads. I would have been delighted to find sources for the ones I removed. There is a major source page at [19] which has to be searched visually over multiple pages to find any matching images. If any of the ones I removed are later found to have a source, I certainly won't oppose a COM:UNDEL. I do the best I can with what I have at the time of each action. And with apologies, again I have run out of time - it is the weekend and family first. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Your deletion puts a stop to anyone who is not an administrator doing any research. The "no source" deletions for likely public domain material remain contentious, as demonstrated by the lengthy recent Village Pump discussion. It would be great if you could avoid the temptation to delete after just 7 days, especially for images which have been hosted on Commons for years without challenge or incident.
Valid USAF emblems (and their simple derivatives) are certain to be public domain and there is no hard requirement to provide a source link. In some cases a textual explanation may be sufficient. I don't know the figures for how many USAF emblems have been later discovered to be fakes, but my presumption is that it must be rare or never.
I would like to examine these, along with the image page text that went with them, but to do so I would need to be able to see the images in a list. When you have time could you or perhaps @Lineagegeek: make that possible for the good of the project? If needed you could email me the files and I'll host them on so that anyone can have longer than minimal default of 7 days to review them. Thanks -- (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one looks at a deleted image to review it. I assume admin permissions are required to view one. Part of my concern with these deletions lies in the fact that there was no notification for them. Similar images were transferred to commons from en:wikipedia (see the 31st Wing units) by a bot, and unless a human being visited the image page during the seven days it was posted as having no source, no one would have the chance to comment on the proposed removal. (Another admin used the proposed deletion route for similar problems with the 31st Wing units, so there was an opportunity to comment). The second problem is that when the bot moved the images to Commons, it hid the sources that were originally listed for the images. In the case of the 31st Wing units, if you look in the Original Upload Log in the comments, you will see that among the comments is "Source: 31AW/PA." Although not an internet link (no requirement for that), I believe this sufficiently identifies the source as the Public Affairs Office of the 31st Wing (which happens to control the content for the Aviano Air Base web site, where these particular images are available online). I have a little less confidence than @: that some of these may not be officially approved emblems, but I think at least some of the removed images may be victims of a "hidden" source because of a bot's inability to list the source in the proper place. I have seen this problem with emblems that @Jcb: has listed for deletion, and I'm afraid that another editor has failed to assume good faith in commenting on Jcb's proposals for similar removals. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lineagegeek: As an administrator here I do a lot of deletions. Your concerns are valid, but the "31AW/PA" is in no way a valid source, and would not be retained if that were the only source. There is no way to "know" by looking at "31AW/PA" all the information you provide above. I do look at the histories, I replied to you above. There was notification for the "no sources", the system autogenerates it. I did not nominate these images for deletion or for "no source." I merely closed them - as I close hundreds of other "no source" images... because they had no valid sources, before or after they were transferred from Wikipedia. After looking for them, I found sources for some of them - but the rest were not there. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi : The same administrator who took some to Deletion Requests, was the same administrator who put "no source" tags on the other images. Perhaps the person who should be hearing your complaints is Jcb? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The process you suggest would be against the Commons norm, which is to approach the administrator taking responsibility for the deletion action, not the person who marks a file with the no source template. I am following COM:UNDEL which states "If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion."
I have not made a complaint or complaints here, my apologies if my text looks this way, or you are feeling put upon. I have asked to be given the opportunity to see the files and the image text pages. As you have already clarified that you had no time to research the files before making your choice to delete them, I am interested in helping the Commons mission by taking a look based on my few years of experience with licensing DoD images and corresponding with different military agencies. If you are not interesting in helping, then the next normal step would be to make the request on AN or go to UNDEL. Though it seems a bit extreme, the first option may be more successful than the latter as UNDEL is intended for undeletions and more complex requests tend to get quickly archived, especially if the deleting administrator has already been asked to assist which makes other administrators reluctant to take action. -- (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi : You misunderstood what I wrote (There were several more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research but I ran out of time.) above. The time sequence is this... Do "no source files"... research their history, and hit google search on each one. Find nothing... finish that day's "no source." Go to that day's Deletion Nominations, see two more USAF emblems. Research those... find those, mark deletions as kept and add source information to the actual file templates. As stated above, there were more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research, but I then ran out of time. I told you who nominated them in case you had more questions about the process by which he created the nominations. I didn't try to go against any Commons norms - I can't even see how you got that out of what I wrote! I don't see that the reasoning for the deletions is unclear at all. Jcb nominated them - looking for a source and finding none. They sat around for a week as always, and I didn't find a source either after searching the history and google searching and removed them. I am totally interested in helping you with this, however all the normal procedures were followed. I think it's not a good assumption "if you are not interested in helping" and considering we're talking about approximately ten (10) images, could it all relax please until I have time to go dig out the list and accomplish what has been asked for before? Every time I have to spend time talking about prior actions - and/or explaining to you what I wrote previously - is time I can't spend working on the actual issue, but instead corresponding repeatedly with the same person on the same easily resolvable issue. I am at work all week, I will do my utter best to get to this in a timely manner. Would you be so kind as to let me accomplish what has been asked for previously as soon as it's possible for me to do so? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with whatever calendar you want to set. I was on my knees too long today cleaning floors and windows, something I really have no stamina for. So I'm not in a hurry to pick up things to chase around this week, and these would sit in a backlog, hence the idea of parking them on Flickr where they can be All Rights Reserved and so there would be no special time limit.   -- (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
List of "no source" files which I deleted last week. None of these are Fae's uploads, instead MGA73 bot uploads from Wikipedia where there was no valid source information provided.
Army Infantry sewn patches
And I'm totally out of time today, no lunch time instead was entirely looking up files for you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Take your time Ellin. However, if there's a way to see the already deleted images to see if they can be rescued, I'd like to know how it can be done. I believe the use of functional address symbols and standard USAF abbreviations does identify the 31st Wing sources. The 37th Wing units are probably lost, since that wing lost its support functions when the US combined Army and Air force support functions in San Antonio. File:37 OSS.jpg is a small loss, since the same image is still available, but the others would be lost, since the units that replaced them would be the ones available on official web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds a lot like we need some formalization of different types of grandfathered images, similar to {{Grandfathered old file}}. This has been mentioned on the Village Pump several times, but I'm not sure many people understand it or why it's appropriate based on legal issues experienced elsewhere; I'm no expert in this area. -- (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hiya , I sent you an email link to the files in my dropbox via Wiki-email. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of certain images by Mihaiprunescu1

No problem. If they are not interesting enough, you may delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiprunescu1 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of File:V hachinski.jpg

Hi Ellin. I saw the deletion request you submitted for this file but did not have time to address it until today, and now the debate has been closed and the file deleted. I wanted to avoid the file being deleted because express permission was given some time ago to Wikipedia/Wikimedia by the original owner of the image. It was released under an appropriate license, and as far as I can tell all necessary protocols were followed. Yet something slipped through the cracks. Can we work together to remedy this? I have a copy of the original email sent by the original copyright holder to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcn (talk • contribs) 23:39, 04 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rmcn: There is a very large backlog of permission emails. This appears to be ticket:2016080910016771, and at a glance it appears OK. Usually I would say "please wait your turn", but the email was received on 9 August, so it's not an unreasonable request. In the future, please tag the file as {{OTRS pending}} and/or mention in the DR that permission has been sent. @INeverCry: and Ellin: any objections to restoration? Storkk (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Ping @ Storkk: No objections. The OTRS pending tag suggestion is a really good one; we have no way to know there's OTRS pending unless it's on the file template. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: No objections from me. INeverCry (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! What happens now? Is action required from me or does the restoration happen at the request of an admin? --Rmcn (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The image has now been restored. Thank you for your patience. In future, when an email has been sent, please tag the image with {{OP}}. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New Section

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessknownhistory (talk • contribs) 12:16, 06 October 2016 (UTC)Lessknownhistory (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Ellin, Less known history had uploaded a few images which came up on 'deletion-debate' recently. Though an invitation to discuss the issue was posted, it could not be attended to immediately upon seeing the friendly notice. Inexperience in posting reply in the right forum/place quickly and lack of time resulted in a delay. However, by the time Less Known History returned to discuss the matter (in just a few days), the pictures were deleted. A notice was made in red on the concerned Wikimedia Commons page saying: "This deletion debate is now closed". Kindly review the matter. Pl ref:

Now, the images were genuine and did not involve any copy right violation so far as Less Known History's understanding goes:

1. The two photographs (bust) put up were photographs of the original photos in print owned by relatives of the "protagonist". It was with their full permission that these were photographed. They had no objection whatsoever to using them. Any evidence required can be furnished if need be. (Photo-credit can still be given where applicable though it may not imply copyright).

2. The photograph with Gandhi taken seemingly in 1937 is a public-interest photograph not covered by the British copy right Act etc (Section 171 (3) of the Copyright, designs and Patents Act 1988 pertaining to public-interest photographs in public domain). Again what was uploaded was only a photograph of that public-interest-photograph found on the internet. In any case there was no copyright notice or symbol on the photograph. Considering all these, it cannot be a violation though 70 years have not passed after clicking the photograph. [It is also very much possible that this is a case of 'copyright orphan"]. If any claim comes up, in spite of all this, it will surely be looked into..

3. The photographs of the pages of the printed article: These were from the pages of a publication which was not priced (not for sale). The implied copyrights were vested in a committee of which just two people or so are alive today. These people have no interest in the articles or the book and there is technically no reason to obtain their permission. Yet they were consulted before the photographs of the pages were uploaded and they wished to have no claim over any article or content on the publication. If necessary written permission can be obtained.

Kindly therefore re-upload these pictures or cause these to be uploaded. If anything further needs to be done about these images, pl advise.. Also it is clearly undertaken that any claim raised by anyone shall be considered and honored by Less Known History ........

It is hoped that this note (clarification) is being put up in the right forum/ discussion page and the response to this will help Less Known History to be better informed. There is absolutely nothing dubious about these pictures as it was mentioned in a comment. However, this clarification could have been offered earlier by Less Known History.

Kindly help.... With kindest regards and many thanks,

................. This note was posted under Tea House also. Lessknownhistory (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lessknownhistory (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lessknownhistory: Jcb gave you the best suggestion at the Wikipedia Teahouse section you started on this, take it to COM:UNDEL. And please read COM:L before making more uploads. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse question

May want to take a look at this thread and see if you can offer any insight. The user seems (?) to be making a good faith effort to comply with policy, but seeing as how the photos were deleted prior to the post, I'm not sure anyone otherwise univolved over at the teahouse are going to be very much help in shedding light on the issue. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood: I think Jcb covered it adequately there. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Vaimos control 2boucles.gif : copyright problems

It seems that the image Vaimos control 2boucles.gif has some copyright. I do not understand, since I made this image. Thus, I should be the owner. I still have the original CorelDraw file. My email is If you want, I can send it to you. Regards. Luc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luc Jaulin (talk • contribs) 18:33, 07 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luc Jaulin: Please talk about the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vaimos control 2boucles.gif! The point is, where did the image of the sailboat come from, you couldn't draw that. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:13pulk-artyleri-kresowej-odznaka.jpg

Hello Ellin,

This is regarding File:13pulk-artyleri-kresowej-odznaka.jpg. It has been scheduled for deletion. I was not sure what license to put here. I took this photo. Its a photo of family memorabilia belonging to my late grandfather. His unit badge, card, dog tags and a photo circa 1938 that was taken with his camera. These items relate to the article as it is an article about that military unit. I have uploaded this and other photos so they will not be forgotten and available for future generations. This is why support wikipedia financially as well. Please advise what is the best license to use here so the picture is not deleted.

I have also noticed that there was another photo I have uploaded regarding this unit. This was a photo from a family album. I just scanned it and I believe that it will be extremely hard to find the original photographer from the 1930ies. He is certainly dead by now. Again in this case I have uploaded the photo for the benefit of the future generations. It is likely that after my death these photos will be forgotten. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to preserve such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkacy (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gkacy: Thanks for your note, please reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:13pulk-artyleri-kresowej-odznaka.jpg where I have left specific questions. Part of the problem is that it's a collage (collection) of items, so each one has to be licensed in order for the rest of them to stay. Visit Commons:Deletion requests/File:13pulk-artyleri-kresowej-odznaka.jpg and help fill in the blanks! Also please see the note I left on your talk page! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (The bit "Commons:" was missing in the links above.) -- Tuválkin 18:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to undelete picture

Hello, You delete my picture without reason. You say that I dont have right reserved for them but I have full right reserved. Please undelete my picture and let put them back on my page. All picture what I have uploaded is from personal collection of Sensei Radmoir Mudric, and He give me that honor to put it on internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Димитрије Давидовић (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Thank You! --Димитрије Давидовић (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Димитрије Давидовић: Rather than have you searching for your answer at any of the three pages you left it, I replied at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests[20]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


How are you doing with your Nikon? Just to give you a idea of the rage of my equipment thought I would share these: just a few of my cameras ;)

Production Camera Station

enjoy & in use:

Behind the Scene

. Have a great day.. --WPPilot (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi WPPilot: You take the most gorgeous photos. I am just totally depressed about mine. I haven't touched the since those July photos. The results it produces are strange and not at all what I'd expect. There's just so doggone many buttons and by the time I read 3 pages in the manual I just want to go to sleep. I used to do fine with film cameras, but this Nikon is like trying to fly a space_shuttle with chopsticks and it weighs a lot too, so it's unlikely to get carried around or be the "go to" camera for daily photos. If I lived somewhere interesting, I might find it more fun to use, but the same old house and garden... how many pictures one needs of that anyway? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't get frustrated, I know Cameras can be complicated. If the Nikon is "heavy" you might want to look at what are called Micro 4/3rds, same quality just about at half the size. I have one a Panasonic GH 4 that is great and has become my goto camera, when I am just out and about. There is beauty on every corner of the world, you just need to learn, how to find it in your minds eye. Try "Macro" photos. Close up on Nature, water drops rolling off flowers do not get frustrated and watch the training videos, as any book Nikon publishes will be worthless, watch the videos about it for a quicker jumpstart. --WPPilot (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Try this, The Orionid Meteor Shower Peaks Overnight tonight. I know its a bit cloudy up north about now BUT try to capture the The Orionid Meteor Shower with your camera. If you have stix/tripod mount the camera on it. You are going to shoot this, in Manual mode to learn "some of those dials". On the longest lens you have open the Aperture (that is the ring nearest the camera body) to the lowest number on it. Next your going to push (rolling the little wheel on the right of the rear camera body) your going to roll the ISO up till, in the viewfinder you can see the stars on the screen. Now your camera is ready. The ISO is going to change as you practice and lowering it will create a longer streak from the Meteor Shower in the final photo. LMK if you have any questions, I might shoot it too so your invited to e mail me your number and I will call and talk you through the process if you like. I am not that busy today so I do not mind at all! Don't be shy ask questions and don't let the poor camera just sit there, you enjoy beauty far too much to let that happen :) --WPPilot (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, WPPilot! But right now it looks like [21] only brighter because there's supposed to be sun still up. Maybe it will clear tonight, but they're calling for solid fog until morning. I'll keep an eye out though, if it was like two nights ago (before the moon came up) it would be crystal clear. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Your quite welcome, I have found this for you, don't take its title personally but this will really help understand, "all the buttons and dials" : - I suggest that you print it out. Use the foggy night to get comfortable with your camera. You will enjoy it I am sure. Start be learning the "modes" using to command dial. Its not that hard and, if you can figure out Wikipedia, el, al, the camera is a piece of cake: --WPPilot (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Need your practical help

@Ellin Beltz: Hello, I need your help, you are a experienced person and you a aware on many details that we discussed and friendly. Also there is a problem that I am not from Russia (language barrier). I am from the Pamirs, Tajikistan:
Regarding the authorship File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg and File:Khudoyor-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg please see the site “Hayzag” Foundation, article Agakhanyanc Okmir Egishevich = Агаханянц Окмир Егишевич - section Miscellaneous where it is indicated that: Author of the submitted materials and photographs is Khurshed Khudoyorovich Yusufbekov = “Автор присланных материалов и фотографий - Хуршед Худоерович Юсуфбеков” + as a confirmation today I got a letter: Letter from the site - Agakhanyans Okmir Egishevich “Hayzag” Foundation To: today, 0:11 = “Кому: сегодня, 0:11” (20 October 2016) – if necessary I can put the copy of the letter on the discussion page (“Hayzag" = "Хайазг” Foundation even ready to remove the article with photo in order to not have problem in Wikimedia).
Regarding the other two photographs (File:Okmir Agakhanyanc (right side)-and-Khudoyor Yusufbekov his sons Khurshed-Isfandiyor.jpg; File:Khudoyor Yusufbekov (right side) his son Khurshed-Okmir Agakhanyanc-Isfandiyor Yusufbekov (left side).jpg), where I am with my father Yusufbekov, my brother and Agakhanyanc - source is indicated for this 2 photos as temporary during the discussion period (Ellin Beltz with which you are in contact and is informed of the detail, also as well as INeverCry) on Discussion page Commons:Undeletion_requests (Author:Shabdolov Charogabdol – photographed by my late cousin with my camera, indicated - Source: Temporarily for Commons:Undeletion_requests – during the discussion did not delete them, seems that it was decided that they are part of explanation if anyone has question or doubts. Regarding File:A view of the Soviet High School-established in 1936.jpg and File:Amdinov family.jpg these are harmless photographs, if included into in corrected category, please correct it. Regarding my self photograph File:Maksumov.akbar.jpg - close friend of our family, my father’s ally, Where the author of this statement - “the author of the photos are not only known, the photo can be unfree” probably wants that the file be uploaded on as “unfree = несвободные” with whom one can agree in File:Akhunakov.akhmadkhan.jpg a source is indicated where it is uploaded several years ago, corrected today as PD-Russia? Please help me to correct the issues, as you are more competent on this field and want to close this chapter once for all. Respectfully, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Khurshed.yusufbekov, and also INeverCry and НоуФрост: COM:L is written in many languages. To say it in one sentence: only images you create, "your own work" may be uploaded without either (a) the image being Public Domain for various reasons, see COM:HIRTLE and COM:TOO, or (b) obtaining permission from the actual creator. Pictures taken of you by other people are not "your own work." Photographs from family albums are not "your own work." And so on. Because the images you uploaded were unable to be licensed as stated on COM:L, they may have to be removed. There are exceptions, based on country of origin, true age of picture, many other factors. That is why we ask uploaders to provide all information so that experienced editors can be more helpful figuring out how to proceed on licenses. But as you have uploaded photographs taken from the 1930s with the claim of own work (which it obviously wasn't), the image/s had to be removed. Please read COM:L and COM:HIRTLE, also look at COM:OTRS if the rights holder - usually the actual photographer (or his/her heirs) are still alive. We are here to help you, but we must have complete information and you have to help, please see COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Please read the PD-Russia box to help you understand what "public domain" in Russia means:
This work is in the public domain in Russia according to article 1281 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006 and article 6 of Law No. 231-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 (the Implementation Act for Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Usually:
  • The author of this work died before January 1, 1942.
  • The author of this work died between January 1, 1942 and January 1, 1946, did not work during the Great Patriotic War and did not participate in it.
  • This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication.
  • This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication.
  • This work is non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929[2] and January 1, 1946.
  • The copyright to this product discontinued, as was part of the escheat of property (Art. 1151 of Civil Code). The product must also be in the public domain in the United States.
This work is in the public domain in the United States, because it was in the public domain in its home country (Russia) on the URAA date (January 1, 1996).
That means that if any of your photographs qualifies under those rules, it would be PD-Russia. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz Thank you for the informative expert advice. Respectfully, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Foto Horungrad - Grytsak & Konovaliuk

Hello, Ellin. All picture what I have uploaded is from personal collection and He give me that honor to put it on internet. Please do not delete the photos. Ready to give explanations on all images up to 21 October. Gangut1702 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ellin Beltz. All picture what I have uploaded is from personal collection Татьяна Кизеева (Konovaliuk), Анатолий Похилюк (Horungrad), Василий Николаевич Грицак (Grytsak Ivan Makarovict) and They give me that honor to put it on internet and Commons. They all sent emails to confirm: permissions-ruСоб@ка Gangut1702 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

deletion contestation

Dear Ellin Beltz,

I am Doxoc the creator of the several uploaded ambigrams that you propose to delete.

Be informed that my personal page was quickly filled after signing up because not much time, but now since your appeal I took the time to detail a bit more my vision and philosophy. I will write even more if necessary in English, which is not my first language, but now already your comment against me seems not valid anymore.

Maybe you don't know much about ambigrams, and that's not a big fault since we cannot know everything on every topic. But be sure that these inventions I did and drawn are more complex than they appear at first sight. And this is why I contest your judgment.

Ellin Beltz, you can't expulse innovative works only because you believe they're deviant art and good for facebook. Actually these words had never been found by the past by anyone else, and I Doxoc am the first one to reveal them. Check out on Google to find if you can find other symmetrical words of this quality. My productions meet professional standards : vectorized drawings, high definition images, animated gifs. This is rare in that field. Take a look at the to see if there are a lot of ambigrams as legible as mine. I believe removing these authentic creations will harm the artistic field. If you really like Knowledge and Encyclopedia, then keep them in.

To my opinion, any word from the dictionary is valid for an ambigram design. This art comes from the talent of making a word symmetrical. Horizontally, vertically or after a rotation of 180 degrees. Is the word offensive ? This is our world. Strong language exists, you can't avoid it. The fact you don't like the words SEX or CLITORIS doesn't mean these words are not perfect candidates for successful ambigrams. Because ambigrams are geometrical objects like palindromes. If you accept to let science and art growing in this domain, then you have to welcome those potentially good ambigrams in the Wikimedia website, for all the community.

Offensive images ? I don't think so. Controversial perhaps, but what is strange or surprising is not necessarily wrong nor bad. The wikipedia page 69 (position) is also part of the encyclopedia. So is included the page even if particular subjects, more frequent on Facebook. My creations don't aim to harm this special field of exploration that is ambigrams, but certainly to animate it, by enlarging the actual limits.

Be sure I'm going to make all the possible to win this challenge and to make the words evolve freely here. Thanks for your understanding and please revise your notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doxoc (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Doxoc Your reply is where the entire discussion belongs: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Doxoc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Lifting a blocked user

Hey mate,
User:פרננדו contacted me on the Hebrew Wikipedia and requested the removal of his blocked status. He claims that he was new back then and didn't understand much.
I have seen him complying with the rules lately and seeking guidance. Is there a chance to lift the block you've placed on him?
He accepts full responsibility and will take extra care not to cause any more trouble.
Thanks for the consideration,
Bharel (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)   Question I noticed their talk page and email access is revoked. Is there any abuse of talk page privileges by the blocked user? Looking at the talk page's history, there's no abuse. And why is email access revoked too? Thanks, Poké95 11:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Bharel and Pokéfan95 from this distance of time I don't recall the exact specifics of this case, but I could turn on their talk page access and see what happens. They had uploaded a lot of copyvios is all I remember. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I unblocked User:פרננדו as Bharel requsted. If he will keep uploading unfree files don't hesitate to block him again. -- Geagea (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Geagea!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

why you want to delete my picture?

the picture that i have uploaded on commons have license i have made Email agreements with the owner and i can show you if you want

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeFly94 (talk • contribs)

Hi DeFly94, The problem with the Talpo website is that he collects photos from all over the place, and may or may not have the rights to license them for reuse. While you have agreements with people, that information needs to be provided to Commons, via the COM:OTRS system. Please reply at the deletion nominations, as nothing we discuss on a talk page will enter into the closing administrators' final decisions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, File:BredaMod35Tavola.PNG is not nominated for deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Raya and Sekina

.. --Rita-saber (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Something New, the Nikon 360 Camera

Hi Ellin how are you? Your going to like this, I added the just released Nikon KeyMission 360 camera to my kit and it does some rather cool shots. While I did learn that no place is safe from this lens, the camera has to be mounted to a pole/tripod to work as my arm in the left side clearly demonstrates, it does a wonderful job:

360 degree shot using the new Nikon 360 camera from the boat in Newport Harbor

and I am looking forward to seeing what it can really do the more I learn to work with it. Cat question for you, we lready have a cat in & I am about to make Category:Nikon_KeyMission_360_photos, for pics such as this taken with this new camera, should this be a sub of the main cat or a new cat and how do I make it a sub? LMK & have a great day, Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Don, hope you are doing well. One of Ellin's talk page stalkers here, I'll let Ellin enjoy the image and if you don't mind, I'll answer the category question. You have the right idea of making a sub of the main category for images taken by the camera. Following suit of the wording of similar categories, I have created Category:Taken with Nikon KeyMission 360. I made a subcategory by inserting [[Category:Nikon KeyMission 360]] into the new category. Once you get more familiar with your camera, perhaps you can create en:Nikon KeyMission 360! Cheers, ~riley (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi WPPilot and ~riley: Great photo, lovely idea to make a 360 view in one unit... Thanks Riley for doing the category!! Glad to see you both back active again! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ellin Beltz nice to hear from you & ~riley hello to you too. Not being one for "selfie's" I guess if your going to do it, to do it in 360 degrees now that is really cool. This pic it turns out was an export from the original 4k video file and for some reason it cut out about 35 degrees of the view, but it works great in the viewer above. ~riley Thank you for cleaning that up, and with regard to en:Nikon KeyMission 360 its a long story but I will populate the Category:Nikon KeyMission 360 and do a write up on it on that page when I have time. --WPPilot (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dennis1989

Dear Ellin,

I've noticed your message about some creations I have made and that you've recently nominated them for deletion. I have proof to have permission from Martijn Reuser to use his profile picture. And the 1975 in the picture was meant to be the year of birth. The other throphy images were adapted from existing pictures on Commons. I would like to hear from you.

Dennis1989 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dennis1989: Please discuss the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dennis1989. Nothing we write about on any talk page will be considered by the closing administrator! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello My Dearest Ellin Beltz,

You've recently nominated my two photos for deletion. However, I (Robert Stewart) own the rights to both images, for they were taken with my camera in my home recording studio, and at a performance in Domodossola, Italy. I own the web site and all that you find there. No permissions other than my own are required for use of my proposed images. Further, the image in Domodossola was taken with my disposable camera back in the mid-1990's. So, I've recently scanned the photo onto my computer, for it is not a digital image.

I thank you for informing me of your concern, and let me know if you need anything further from me.


Robert Stewart--Professorreason (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Professorreason: Since our accounts are anonymous, you need to establish your real name with our COM:OTRS team. Just follow that link and then do what it says on that page and an OTRS volunteer will assist you. Also
Neither one of these looks like you took it; who exactly were the photographers? You will need to tell that to the OTRS people as well. That it was "your camera" doesn't count, the photographer name is the needed information. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:UlliKampelmannAtStuttgartAirtportExhibition.jpg

Hi Ellin, I'm not sure what this is about. It appears you are requesting a deletion of an old copy of the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanroc (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vanroc: If you would follow the link on your talk page provided (copied here to make it easier for you) ...
click Commons:Deletion requests/File:UlliKampelmannAtStuttgartAirtportExhibition.jpg here ...
you would read that it says Unused copy of File:Ulli Kampelmann.jpg which has more correct source/author information and is in use. Thus:
  • Unused - file is not in use
  • copy - duplicate of File:Ulli Kampelmann.jpg
  • the duplicated file is in use and has more correct source/author information
Hope that helps! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sinar Mas Center.jpg

Hallo Ellin, can you look in this deleted file if it is eligible for restoration. If it is indeed Sinar Mas Center and if it not matched the upper deletion reason (low resolution, no exif, unlikely own work)? Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Building appears to be in Shanghai, which has {{FoP-China}}, and it looks like it was accidentally included with others that were in the UAE. Storkk (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ras67, What Storkk said! Thanks Storkk! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you undelete it? Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
No because I wasn't the deleting administrator "(15:32, 17 October 2016 INeverCry deleted page File:Sinar Mas Center.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jackedi07)" and I'm not going to second guess administrator INeverCry. If you can't take it to the deleting administrator, please take it to COM:UNDEL. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  Done Restored. lNeverCry 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Andrija1ss

Hi Ellin Beltz. You placed a {{End of copyvios}} warning on this user's talk page at User talk:Andrija1ss#Copyright violations, but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down. I just tagged File:Lakhta-Center-St-Petersburg-RMJM-Kettle-Collective-468m-Completion-date-2018.jpg for speedy deletion, and it looks like there are a few other newly uploaded files which should be tagged the same way as well. I see that MKFI has nominated many more of this editor's uploads for deletion, so I am wondering whether these new uploads should be added to the DR or can they just be tagged for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Zap. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC) (if anyone else is waiting for a message - apologies, but it will arrive to you later)
Thank you for taking a look Ellin Beltz. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:


This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Category:Palais des Beaux Arts // Category:Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille // Category:WikiMuseum // Category:Musée // Category:Museum // Category:Museo // Category:Mostra // Category:Exposition // Category:Exhibition // Category:Journal // Category:Newspaper // Category:Giornale // Category:Peintres amériains // Category:American art // Category:Article // Category:Articolo //

For this one, also the information needed will assist with the license. It says "journal Nord-Matin". Why do you think a 1956 journal is out of copyright? Again COM:L or COM:HIRTLE may assist with this. If the photographer is still alive, then COM:OTRS would be the way for permission. This one also has the same problems with too many general categories, and not enough specific ones. Also, any "redlinks" show that the category you typed does not exist! As they are all too general, they can be removed.
Please read those pages: COM:L, COM:HIRTLE, and... everything you need to know is in the handy box, like this one, that I'm going to put on each of your talk pages!

Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletions about PBA

Hello (sorry for my bad English, I can write it in French if you prefer...) You have noticed problems about several files :

They were uploaded thanks to a partnership between the Museum and the newspaper, owner of most of these photos, inside of a wiki-project named WikiMuseum, maybe we should have scheduled something with OTRS to anticipate these problems. Certainly there are mistakes about the "own work" or about the licenses but it takes time to teach the rules to our partners in this adventure ! And between the announce of the probable deletion (15:23, 14 November 2016) and the deletion by Jcb (16:48), there was no time enough for us to correct that. I asked this admin if it was possible that he restores these files and let us a few days so that we correct all the mistakes and explain to the partners. And my other request is also for you : for the further mistakes you will probably notice in this project, could you tell it to User:Lamiot and/or to me before you delete ? We try to make pedagogy towards the conservators and the journalists who discover the wiki-rules (and sometimes a lack of patience...). Thanks ! Best regards. --Cbyd (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I add that for many or those contributors, it was their first upload on commons (not so easy for a beginner.) --F. Lamiot (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC).
@Cbyd: While you are at it, any chance of giving them some lessons about categories? I've been spending hours and hours cleaning up after them, not my preferred work. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
ok.--Cbyd (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

long reply

Hi Cbyd and Lamiot: I am glad to hear from you and very glad that you will work on the licenses of the rest of the pictures. Let me look at these three first. File:Portrait de Maurice Masson, un donateur.jpg -- still active

File:Portrait de Maurice Masson, un donateur.jpg -- Please follow the notifications at the top of your logged in page to the "Deletion Nomination" Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait de Maurice Masson, un donateur.jpg to see the first step in this process.

File:Le personnel du musée en 1934.jpg -- 1934 Photograph:

File:Le personnel du musée en 1934.jpg -- When uploaded, the template read...

Français : Photographie du personnel du musée en 1934 lors des grands travaux de rénovation qui se sont déroulés de 1932 à 1935.
English: Photography of the museum's staff in 1934 during the big restoration works that took place from 1932 to 1935.
Italiano: Una fotografia del personale del museo nel 1934 durante il grande cantiere di restauro che ha avuto luogo da 1932 a 1935.
Source Own work
Author PBA Lille


I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:


This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Category:Palais des Beaux Arts // Category:Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille // Category:WikiMuseum // Category:Musée // Category:Museo // Category:Museum // Category:Photographie // Category:Fotografia // Category:Photography // Category:Personnel // Category:Staff //

For this one the information needed will assist with the license. Please read COM:HIRTLE and see if you can find a reason that this one would be out of copyright. Common reasons include: (a) The author is known and has been dead more than 70 years. This cannot be assumed for 1934. (b) Specific copyright reasons in a particular nation where the picture was made put the picture into public domain. and (c) Other exceptions exist. COM:EVID says it's up to the uploader to provide enough information to get a proper license.
Second thing with this one... Categories are from smallest to largest. In this case, you would keep one of the two Palais des Beaux Arts... whichever one is more specific... and remove everything else as "too general a category".

File:Coupure du journal Nord-Matin.jpg -- newspaper

File:Coupure du journal Nord-Matin.jpg -- When uploaded, the template read...

Français : Coupure du journal Nord-Matin du 23 septembre 1956 décrivant l'exposition d'œuvres de peintres américains au musée.
English: Newspaper clipping from the Nord-Matin (23th september 1956) that describes the exhibitions of American painters in the museum.
Italiano: Ritaglio dal giornale Nord-Matin (23 settembre 1956) che parla della mostra sui pittori americani.
Date 23/09/1956
Source Own work
Author PBA Lille
For this one, also the information needed will assist with the license. It says "journal Nord-Matin". Why do you think a 1956 journal is out of copyright? Again COM:L or COM:HIRTLE may assist with this. If the photographer is still alive, then COM:OTRS would be the way for permission. This one also has the same problems with too many general categories, and not enough specific ones. Also, any "redlinks" show that the category you typed does not exist! As they are all too general, they can be removed.
Please read those pages: COM:L, COM:HIRTLE, and... everything you need to know is in the handy box, like this one, that I'm going to put on each of your talk pages!

Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • NOTE: This section was restored from history since person who wrote next section down edited out this part for no apparent reason.

Multiple deletion nominations

Please combine all the deletion nominations you made today, all of which appear to be based on the same reasons, into a single nomination or the convenience of community discussion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken Thank you for your opinion, but others have opinioned the exact opposite. I do what I do and don't have a lot of time to go back and edit. Besides, I am still finding more, I am not planning to wait until whenever I find the last one to nominate any. There is absolutely no reason to combine dozens of "personal image, unused, uncategorized" nominations into one, there's multiple authors and they wouldn't get notified. BTW, that's a "no" I'm not planning to rearrange everything I just did to suit you in case the foregoing was not clear. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What others? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm telling you "no", and I am not interested in playing games. TYSVM. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm telling you your refusal to do so is saying "screw you" to the community, and is not behavior behooving an admin and 'crat. You're making anyone interested in voting on your nominations make many repeated comments, when one comment would suffice if you combined them together. In doing so, you're making it much more likely that your deletion nom will be the only comment, leading to a pro forma deletion, so who's the one playing games? Not me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me see if I can make it more clear for you. I have nominated images for "personal, unused, uncategorized" from multiple authors. If those were combined to a single one, the notifications to the uploaders would be incorrect. That would be a far more difficult and unfair situation than putting in separate nominations for different nomination reasons on different images. I'm sorry if you don't understand it, but this is how it is done so that the uploaders get the notification boxes on their talk pages which are best practice. You don't get to tell me what to do anymore than you do Storkk, nor do you get to put words in my mouth. I am not going to lump every single nomination for today into a single nomination. That's just not how it works. Sorry if you're having a bad day, but that's not my fault either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You can drop the condescending attitude to a 11-year editor at and Commons with over 200,000 combined edits. Please respond to the community at here. This is not best practice in any way, and the only misunderstanding here is yours. The reasons given for nomination are similar and repetitive "another picture of peoplel holding t-shirts", "more promotional clean-coal images" (paraphrasing). I'm done talking to you here, since, unlike what is required of an admin, you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong and correct your error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Beyond My Ken, as a 9-year editor with over 210 thousand contributions (see what I did here?) and as someone interested in Deletion Request discussions (indeed often voting against Ellin Beltz’s nominations and votes), I would like to add that I fully disagree with your statements above and that I find that Ellin Beltz is fully correct in this regard. -- Tuválkin 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, an admin hung a Sword of Damocles over my head, so I really am not disposed to discuss this anymore. (Oh, and watch this... nothing up my sleeve: I didn't feel like looking up the actual figures so I used one that I knew would be safe, but my combined contributions across all the 'pedias and Commons is 256,674, and I've been editing since 26 June 2005, so it's 11 5/12 years.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Saw that you ran into a lump in the road and thought I would brighten your day. I am sure this will help. Enjoy:

Dana Point aerial video to brighten your morning.

Have a wonderful weekend! Hugs and a fun video for you to start your weekend off right......--Just Another Don (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, crazy coool... thankies Just Another Don!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

fr:Négar Djavadi

Bonjour, J'organise des Ateliers de contribution à Nantes. Samedi 19 novembre, une nouvelle contributrice a uploader deux images File:Negar-Djvadi-2.jpg File:Negar-Djavadi-1.jpg de Negar Djavadi. Ces photos ont été prises avec l'accord de Négar Djvadi, lors d'une dédicace de son ouvrage à la librairie Coiffard. Merci de me dire de qu'il convient de faire, pour conserver ces 2 photos. Merci --DeuxPlusQuatre (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi DeuxPlusQuatre: OK! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry to explain the origin of pictures in frenh langage. Do you remove the template {{delete...}} or can I do it? --DeuxPlusQuatre (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi DeuxPlusQuatre: I read enough French to understand what you wrote without using the Google Translator! So on the files, now we both wait for the closing administrator who will remove tags and "keep" it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted pictures from Warner wiki

Hi: I have send request for permission to put the deleted photos into commons like months ago, and I still do not have the response - I guess that is the reason you have deleted them. They are Bill Warner's work (in English) and we've translated them into Polish, so I have both permissions (original author and myself - I help in his foundation Center for the Study of Political Islam). What should I do now to put them back? They are on our Polish webpage Should I wait more, but it is really quite some time ago? And I want to finish this wiki page and have it done:-) Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubiacus (talk • contribs)

Hi Cubiacus: You have a note on the bottom of your talk page which reads "Hi Cubiacus, the website is labeled as "All rights reserved". So, if you want to upload content from that website, you need to obtain a permission from the rightsholder(s) and forward it to . --Túrelio 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)" Your answer wouldn't have changed since 2 November to now.
I would also point out that "Bill Warner" is a made-up name for a person by the name of "Bill French"[22][23], so that the process of permission of a photograph of "Mr. Warner" which is obviously not a selfie is complicated by who is actually the photographer of that image, please? There is no "Bill Warner" other than on the cover of a book "Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (2010; under the pen name Bill Warner)" As far as I can tell the rest of your stuff which was deleted are some POV diagrams. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your monthly dose of weirdness

Have a look at this...   lNeverCry 04:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry: Yup wierd... I don't see useful metadata either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I just come up with the weirdness. Metadata is not required for monthly doses of weirdness, cuteness, or any other monthly dose entries.   lNeverCry 20:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that is really weird. Note the "Cat:Fashions of Slovenia" - this really looks like someone setting up the foundation for a Wiki "marketing scheme". --WPPilot (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:Dongabay2016.jpg.jpg

Hi, Ellin Beltz. Does "FBMD" in the metadata of a file indicate that the image originates from Facebook? If so, File:Dongthegreat.jpg is of the same provenance as as File:Dongabay2016.jpg.jpg. Should it be DRed as well?

Thanks for that useful bit of info! --Rrburke (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke: Yup "FBMD" is the acronym for "FaceBook Member Data" appended to many/most and perhaps all Facebook images during the upload process. Metadata is visible at bottom of Commons file, also you may find the Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer here linked for example. Notice the size at 960 px; older ones were smaller. The FBMD is also apparently missing from some older Facebook uploads (back around 9.25 years and earlier). In the earliest days the images were all squares now they can be rectangular and some are larger than 750 or 960.
If you're ever looking for pictures to practice on, CAT:UNCAT can always use help, especially the ones at the top from Category:All media needing categories as of 2013. Go down in the alphabet - someone else is always poking at the B's - since they've gotten rid of the A's. I got rid of the Q's entirely... working on other odd letters and when you get bored there's always 2014, 2015 and 2016 to go. Do you have Cat-a-lot turned on in your prefs>gadgets? If not it makes categorizing those 22 images of some village in some country much easier than doing it by hand. Also in those to be categorized are plenty of personal images, no sources and even D.N.'s waiting to be found! Thanks for asking, never hesitate to ask, and thanks also to Taivo who zapped the file. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do; thanks! --Rrburke (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of "File:Mata gujri ji and Chote sahebzade at thanda burj in Gurudwara Fatehgarh saheb, Punjab.png"

Hi Ellin,

My name is Pushpinder Singh. I would like to inform you that the digital painting 'File:Mata gujri ji and Chote sahebzade at thanda burj in Gurudwara Fatehgarh saheb, Punjab.png' was created by myself as digital art and copy righted by me only. Please do not remove that from 'Mata Gujri' wikipedia page as it is totally related to the topic and my own copy right.

Also I uploaded the similar image at "File:Baba moti ram mehra" page an year ago which is also my copy right and remaining at there. Please cooperate and retain both digital paintings at Wikipedia.

You can visit my website to check my complete bio:

I am again uploading the same.

Thanks Pushpinder singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitesman (talk • contribs) 09:10, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kitesman: Please fill in the simple form at COM:OTRS and the volunteer over there can restore removed images after you verify that "Kitesman" and Pushpinder Singh are the same person. All Commons account are essentially anonymous without this additional step. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Images


Wikipedia deleted 2 images from my article. I got these pictures to make a wikipedia article out of them. Should i ask them to send me an authorization to use te pictures? What kind of documents i need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GL Brandenburg (talk • contribs) 12:03, 05 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GL Brandenburg: Which one of your deleted uploads are you talking about? Here's your list:
07:43, 21 November 2016 . . File:Ten-T Map.jpg (User created page with UploadWizard)
07:36, 21 November 2016 . . File:TEN-T Map.pdf (User created page with UploadWizard)
07:10, 21 November 2016 . . File:SchematicA0 EUcorridor map zugeschnitten2.0.pdf (User created page with UploadWizard)
07:05, 21 November 2016 . . File:SchematicA0 EUcorridor map zugeschnitten.pdf (User created page with UploadWizard)
06:42, 21 November 2016 . . File:Scandra-korridor Karte augeschnitten.png (User created page with UploadWizard)
06:18, 21 November 2016 . . File:SchematicA0 EUcorridor map.pdf (User created page with UploadWizard)
06:09, 21 November 2016 . . File:ScandriaCorridor map S3 Orca 05082016 Broschure gross.pdf (User created page with UploadWizard)
15:42, 10 November 2016 . . File:SchematicA0 EUcorridor map(1).jpg (Cross-wiki upload from
15:40, 10 November 2016 . . File:ScandriaCorridor map S3 Orca 05082016 Broschure gross.jpg (Cross-wiki upload from
For that last one, I looked at the deletion nomination and discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScandriaCorridor map S3 Orca 05082016 Broschure gross.jpg. All this is linked on your talk page, all the file names and the links to what became of them. If the actual rights holders wish to release them, please have the rights holders follow the process described at COM:OTRS.
Usually pdf format is not encouraged, please read more about this at COM:SCOPE.
By the way, you don't have to have a picture to make a Wikipedia article. Many articles still don't have one. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files!

Hello, There is no reason for my images to be deleted! Just because it was nominated by someone who has his OWN reasons and wants that image deleted for personal reasons, doesn't mean it should be deleted! I doubt you speak Arabic. So how come you delete the image without even knowing what it says or contains? Thanks! --Rita saber1 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The file had been removed several times previously. Re-uploading removed images just ends up with them being removed again. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:C1115.jpg which was formerly linked on your talk page, until you removed the notice. The document removed is summarized as معلومات موثقة عن الفنانة سعاد حسني "شهادة ميلاد" / "substantiated information on the artist Souad Hosni" birth certificate Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files!

Hello, Ellin Beltz. All I am saying is just because someone nominates a file for deletion, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Please note that since the file you deleted is written in Arabic, it should have been reviewed by an admin/editor who speaks Arabic. It's a copy of the original Birth Certificate of the late Egyptian actress Souad Hosni; it was issued by the Egyptian Government in 1943 and is sealed by the seal of the Egyptian Ministry of interior. That document serves as a reliable source that confirms her place of birth and birthdate. The person who single-handedly nominated it for deletion has his own biases and agenda, and he has been banned from editing many times before. Anyway, I asked for the file to be restored, and I'm waiting for the outcome. I would really appreciate it if you could help me have it restored. Thanks in advance. --Rita saber1 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rita saber1: Note that these were originally deleted by Jameslwoodward under the rationale that birth certificates are almost never in scope. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suad_Hosny_BC3.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suad_Hosny_BC2.jpg. Simply re-uploading files that were previously deleted because you disagree with the outcome is forbidden and is grounds for a block. The correct procedure if you think a mistake was made, is to request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. However, please note that a photograph or scan of a photocopy of a document that you claim is a birth certificate is indeed almost certainly out of scope and is definitely not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Storkk (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Storkk, you've answered the situation perfectly. What Jameslwoodward, the closing administrator, added to the discussion when he closed it is the cogent point, "Deleted: With a very few exceptions (e.g. Barack Obama) birth certificates are out of scope. Commons is not a repository for public records. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 8 November 2016". As Storkk said and linked COM:SCOPE are the limitations of what the project can contain; some files are not within the scope of the project and are removed. Birth certificates, death certificates, resumes, and other personal documents are not within the scope of Commons. Reuploading files after they've been removed in deletion nominations is grounds for a block and blanking your talk page of anything you find inconvenient makes it harder for anyone to help you. I realize Special:Contributions/Hawajez seems to have only existed to argue with you; that is unfortunately a common experience on the internet and while unpleasant, nothing he said made any difference to the process - the decision to remove was made by Jim for scope reasons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite the whole story. Aside from uploading this file five times, Rita saber1 has also used three different accounts on Commons in the last 45 days and made untrue ad hominem remarks against User:Hawajez, including the one above. Hawajez is far from a special purpose account -- he or she has about 10,000 edits on WMF projects, mostly on WP:AR. Rita saber1's three accounts have about 75, mostly related to this image. See the current UnDR for more details. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Elin. You Nominated this: picture for deletion. It was indeed posted by me, but it was on the behalf of the artist, Milica Raicevic. If you have any questions, you may ask her in person. Her email is: Best regards! M. R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randjic (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Try this

Great remedy for colds!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion notices for 'Advertising Subsidized Space Exploration'

Base images are all Public Domain CC0, found in NASA and SpaceX photostreams, such as this please do not delete...I am unsure of how to be certain these files are not deleted. It has taken a lot of work to upload them to Wiki Commons and they will be referenced in upcoming articles. I'm linking to the base image CC0 pictures on the image pages as best I know how in the next few minutes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmachmer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

contacted OTRS to clarify ownership of these composite images...instances of them on the web were taken from my blogs and and their base images are CC0 as per NASA and SpaceX policy. Please do not delete them as they will be used in forthcoming Wikipedia articles on advertising subsidized space exploration etc, thanksEricmachmer (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ohh my

Just noticed all the "stuff". If you need a little more then tasty looking chicken soup... Please join me for a Winter Sunset on the Water --WPPilot (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WPPilot utterly gorgeous as usual. Lovely film!! I really liked watching the water sparkle and the shadows of the boats at the end. It's those tiny details that just make it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Legolas Greenleaf.png


American Ginseng, the creator and copyright holder of this illustration, published it under the right license.

Could I please be told why you selected this file for speedy deletion ? Have you attempted to contact American Ginseng before ?

Regards. --Guise (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guise: Since nothing we say on talk pages can enter into deletion discussion, I replied to your questions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Legolas Greenleaf.png. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird pic of the week

Here you go: File:Bradberries.jpg. I got a little chuckle out of that one. BTW, now you'll have no competition at COM:DR except Jcb since I turned in my badge. It was getting dull and shabby anyways...   lNeverCry 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Exposition Palace

Hello! Recently you nominated this file: for delection. I found it on Wikipédia and I have used all the sources I have found about it, because I wasn't my picture. At my University, I have a work to do, and my teacher said that she would like to see an illustration about our subject. This is why I would really like to use it. What can I do to repost it, and is it at least possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolat0697 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chocolat0697, you don't need to repost it; Commons already had a much larger and properly sourced copy of the exact same image, click File:EXPO Bruxelles 1935-B.jpg on the file name to go straight to it! We don't usually keep duplicates, especially when they're smaller size. When you want to know if we have something, go up to the search box and look for it, try in both English and French because you never know what was the original language of the uploader! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a file

The only reasons to delete an image are copyvio or duplication. Unused or uncategorization are not criterias. Pierre cb (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pierre cb: With all due respect you seem to have missed the page on COM:SCOPE, particularly please see COM:NOTUSED. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but nothing that you point says that an unused image must be deleted. It just offers guidelines to what images should be judged worthy. Most images in Commons are without any use in Wikipedia, WikiMedia or other related projects and should therefore by your interpretation be deleted? Why then invite people to uploading photo contests in Commons (a very frequent feature) if it is just to have them deleted because they are not used in articles? What about the ones you don't like for personal reasons, or the ones a bit of of focus? Etc... Pierre cb (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The basic policy that governs what we keep and what we delete is COM:EDUSE. Is the image of something or some place or some person that's notable? Is the quality of the image sufficient, is it blurry, badly tilted, etc? Files must be considered educationally useful to remain on Commons. This may lead to some disagreement, but from my experience a mistaken deletion of a file with educational value is pretty rare, and I deleted nearly 400,000 files. The two main things you can do if you think a file has been nomonated for deletion or deleted mistakenly is to make a convincing keep vote at the deletion request explaining why the file is in scope, or you can post at COM:UDEL or the deleting admins page if the file has already been deleted; in both cases you need to give a convincing reason why/how the file is educationally useful. lNeverCry 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

More than nothing

I am quite surprised you state on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katie-cassidy-entertainment-weekly-party-at-comic-con-in-san-diego-july-2015 2.jpg.jpg that "To use speedy requires more than nothing", and I am sorry my work patrolling new files, including monitoring users whose files I have tagged previously, seemingly is worthless. Savhñ 00:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Savh: To be speedied, you have to provide some proof. It can't just be "I think this is a copyvio." You have to provide a link or something so that the deleting administrator knows why you thought it was a copyright violations. Thus, to use speedy - to send a photo to speedy with the assumption of a copyright violation - requires more proof than the no proof which was provided. If you had provided proof, the image would likely have been deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, 16 of the user's previous uploads had been deleted. I believe there's something as the precautionary principle for that sort of cases. I personally consider a history of uploading copyrighted files as evidence, in any case not as nothing, though proof is something I can't provide - it could obviously be that Getty is using these files that have just been uploaded. Savhñ 01:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Savh We can't use suspicion to speedy, we have to have proof. Links to the source webpages are good proofs. We do not do COM:PRP via speedy, only through Deletion Nomination where more than 2 people have their eyes on it. This is part of the checks and balances of the system! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not suspicion. It's unwillingness to proof something that is evident. Those files are, based on the users uploading history, evidently not his own work. That was the "nothing" I pointed out. Savhñ 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see COM:CV: "The speedy deletion tag {{Copyvio}} is for obvious copyright violations. Use {{copyvio|1=Reason}} or {{copyvio|source=URL}} to explain why it's a copyright violation. Note that if a media file or article is a suspected but not clear copyright violation (including all copyrighted works in public spaces), it should be placed on Commons:Deletion requests." In both examples a "reason" or a "source=URL" is required. Note that if it's not clear copyright violation it goes to Deletion Requests. Now smile, and check out this picture [24]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to smile, but not after this not-so-nice encounter with your absurdistic proof requirements, and will repeat, once again, that I did provide a reason, which might have been cryptic but certainly wasn't nothing. Savhñ 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

pictures for deletion by shotgun pete

Editors: My name is Robin Glover and I am known on soccer message boards and my own web page as Rocket Robin. My web page is named Rocket Robin's Soccer in Toronto. It's address is I have over 185 links with Wikipedia for facts related to teams and players who mostly plied their soccer careers in Southern Ontario Canada thanks to the work of poster 'Shotgun pete'. He would now like to include pictures from my site to Wikipedia but has been told by your editors that he needs my permission. Thank you.


Robin Glover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Glover (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robin Glover: Please send your permissions email to the address and in the format on the page COM:OTRS. Only the OTRS editors can match you and your permissions, I'm sorry, but I can't. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Marcus Paige Last Shot at UNC (25988355950).jpg

Hi, I noticed that you've closed the DR for File:Marcus Paige Last Shot at UNC (25988355950).jpg as Delete but the image is still viewable (at least for me). Wasn't sure if that was intentional but thought I should let you know. Thanks, cheers. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done Thanks Ytoyoda, It's been zapped now.   Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Advertising subsidized space exploration photos

How difficult would it have been to respond to the discussion on deletions you initiated before allowing them to be deleted? Your unprofessional administration has cost time and effort. Perhaps you conducted a basic elementary reverse image google search to discover my personal images are also on my personal blog -- and that the base images to their composites are found throughout the web. They are NASA and SpaceX images which are CC0 as per their policy. (All NASA and SpaceX images are public domain.) You suggested they were from the BBC and ArsTechnica? This was unprofessional. Working through your deletion tags has been an extremely unpleasant, utterly unprofessional, unnecessary time-consuming experience. If you were evidently unaware that NASA and SpaceX images are in the public domain or whatever your rationale was you could have simply contacted me directly, prior to adding deletion tags, to ask for a clarification. As things stand now the images are deleted, they were a chore to find on my hard drive and upload, and will require additional time to contact volunteers at OTIS (?) via email for undeletion. Obviously the base images were not created by the BBC or ArsTechnica or wherever else they may be on the web...if you were uncertain of the origin of the base images in the composites, rather than post ridiculous links to the first reverse image google searches that came up -- why not ask?? And, once I point out on the individual photo's discussion pages the CC0 nature of NASA and SpaceX imagery, why not respond? Especially, why not rescind the deletion tag? Why did you not defend your reason for deleting the images at all? As it stands I am still awaiting an email from Wiki Commons volunteers and faced with spending additional hours accomplishing nothing as a result of your unprofessional elementary misadministration. You should have responded. Ericmachmer (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ericmachmer I am afraid that asking the person that nominated them, as you are here is simply not the way this works, that is like being upset with the mail man for receipt of a eviction notice... The files were removed for being "Out of Scope" by James Woodward, not Ellin. Yes often the learning curve for the site can be "extremely unpleasant, utterly unprofessional, unnecessary time-consuming experience" but looking back one day you will see that you just did not follow the requirments wee all have to follow, that is how it works. I too have in the past been upset when things become unpleasant take it as a learning experience.
In regard to SpaceX, (I have a LOT of friends that work there) it DOES release SOME OF its images, under cc 2.0 on FLICKER, but that is for the images on Flickr. If you look at its website you will see: © 2016 Space Exploration Technologies Corp. that is a clear copyright and frankly speaking that means that SpaceX does NOT give ALL its IMAGES away, just the images posted on that "Media Gallery & Flickr.. This is just a Wiki, not the end of the world, why not revisit the rules and follow protocol, much easier then being mad & venting at a Admin for calling you out...... Cheers! --Don (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Don and I see that Ericmachmer and Jim have settled all this at Jim's talk page [25]. As for a "total waste of time" if you can't participate in that concept, don't ever consider administrating here on Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
(Don)Thanks for the response -- the first I have received before these images were deleted. Ellin tagged these images for deletion, not Jim. She must have conducted a very basic reverse image search to find the underlying base photos on the BBC, Ars Technica, and my blogs, then she took the time to comment on all of the images, tag each of them, and comment on my user page, actually making an effort to claim the images were used elsewhere -- such as, lo, my personal blogs. Alternatively it would have been much, much more efficient to "educate a new user" by asking for copyright clarification of the underlying images through a single simple quick email "hey please note the copyright of base images". And it would of course also had been more efficient to respond to my clarifications -- before they were deleted. It was naive to apparently assume images were "created by the BBC" (what??) and Ars Technica -- or for that matter, to just glance at the blogs on which they were also found without determining quickly that I am their author. It was unprofessional not to respond -- at all -- to simple polite straightforward clarifications both on her user page here and the discussion pages for each image. I don't expect admins to take much time to contact new users, or follow through with every comment, or even for OTRS to respond before images are deleted -- but basic competency, efficiency and a degree of professional courtesy would have spared now nearly a dozen people valuable time. The time it took Ellin to look up and link other instances of the images is far in excess of a simple wiki email query. Admins have learning experiences too -- this is what useful feedback looks like. (As a matter of fact, she should respond here, not you. She was the first person to initiate the deletion process. [Edit: apparently she responded -- to you, lol -- while I was writing this])
As for the underlying SpaceX images -- as noted in the relevant images' discussion pages, which was not responded too -- the images are from SpaceX's Flickr stream and in the public domain. I specifically provided links to the images in their Flickr stream after Ellin raised the issue -- which she did by suggesting they were from Ars Technica and the BBC (??? really hard to understand that one). Again, no response. No retraction. No indication that her amateurish misattribution had been corrected. That was unprofessional. If someone takes on the responsibility of an admin they ought to respond -- someone, ought to respond -- at least to indicate they've taken into account the copyright correction, but still feel the images are "Out of Scope". (It's kinda comical that you are defending her on her discussion page, rather than her responding, or not responding, yet again...)
As for the "scope" of the concept is to be used in a forthcoming wikipedia article on "Advertising subsidized space exploration" -- a rough draft of which would have already been written by this point if Ellin had simply asked in a single simple quick email for clarification of the copyright for the underlying images, before attributing their origin to (my blog, lol...kinda odd again) or the BBC etc. This does not remotely seem like the competent, professional way to have handled such a simple misunderstanding -- especially -- for an understaffed volunteer organization. What kills me is that I'll have to waste more time reading her eventual response here when she finally does respond. [Edit: actually it was not settled on Jim discussion page, as I have not yet had the time to respond to him there. That Don, and Jim, and OTRS and several others are even involved in this is staggering. Why didn't you respond to my clarification of the copyright of the underlying images in the first place? Why take the time to link to their instances on BBC sites rather than ask me?? After I specifically linked to the images in SpaceX's Flickr stream, you did not respond or retract your misattribution. It would have been much, much more efficient to have simply asked their origin rather than tagging and linking -- to the BBC?? -- with the cascading waste of time by a number of admins. It would also have been professional and efficient to have responded to my clarification of the copyrights on the individual image pages, your page here, and on their deletion pages. Was this not a ridiculous waste of time??Ericmachmer (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ericmachmer: The fact that there has been a ridiculous waste of time here is not down to anything Ellin has done wrong, but entirely to your refusal to adhere to procedures put in place to streamline this process. Since we have no way of verifying on-wiki that you (the Commons user User:Ericmachmer) are the actual copyright holder, if the images have previously been published elsewhere, you must follow the procedures at OTRS to allow us to verify that you are the copyright holder. This is regardless of whether you as wiki user claim to own whatever blogs or intellectual property elsewhere. Finally, to address the scope concerns, you claim you have been hindered in writing a draft of an article that would render them in-scope. You are free to write that draft, of course (and could easily write it without images), but it is unlikely to pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, since (though I could be mistaken) it seems to be a phenomenon that does not in fact exist at the moment. See WP:NOR and WP:BALL. Storkk (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk:The previous publication of these images occurred on my blog, my personal blog, published in my name, the same name I use here. Ellin might have checked the author of those blogs, if she's taking the time to link back to them. The source of the underlying images on SpaceX's Flickr stream are of course also public domain, which I clarified with links after the images were tagged for deletion. To no avail. The history of space-themed advertising -- if the scope of these images had originally been called into question -- should have been raised on the discussion pages to the images prior to their deletion -- rather than here, on an admin's talk page, after their removal.
This is the article on advertising subsidized space exploration to which they would be added, as the article itself needs to be updated to include new advertising techniques and vehicles. It is though not solely your place to determine the relevancy of such an article or these images to it. The wikipedia community will do so. I clarified copyright on the images' discussion pages as should have been acknowledged by the admin who tagged them prior to their deletion. Their scope at that time was not an issue. And again, rather than take time to link to Ars Technica and the BBC following a weird amateurish reverse image search, it would have been much, much more efficient to have simply sent me a wiki message asking for quick clarification of the base image copyrights. I provided these, still without acknowledgment, less than an hour after the images were laboriously tagged, both on their discussion pages and here on Ellin's talk page. In a very polite professional manner -- I expected such information to be taken into account before or at least discussed prior to the deletion of these images. It is extremely unprofessional that these images were deleted as the result of such an odd amateurish reverse image search, and, even more bizarre that Ellin would take the time to post links back to my own blog as instances of their prior use -- when my name is noted as the author of both those blogs and the individual images found there. Clearly it would have saved time to have simply asked the origin of the underlying images via wiki mail...or to have responded to discussion pages. These are the first composite images I've uploaded...I didn't "refuse to adhere to procedures", I just didn't see a place on the upload form to note copyright for underlying public domain of course if I upload composite concepts in the future I will provide links to their underlying CC0 images, but, it still seems a basic expectation for professional competency to anticipate a response to clarifications of copyright on the image discussion pages an admin tags prior to their deletion. No discussion took place. Not by anyone. The discussion sections wiki commons provides for both the images and their nomination for deletion pages were useless. Ellin did not respond to these discussions. Originally I was polite and constructive, but If you think this has been a professional, competent, positive experience with wiki commons you are mistaken. Ericmachmer (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You are still missing the point vis-a-vis the copyright concern. You could sign up with the username "Donald Trump" and we wouldn't let you upload his speeches until that user contacted OTRS to confirm that the user is actually the copyright holder. The fact that you have chosen a username similar to the username of a blog where the images were previously published is simply not relevant. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I did contact OTRS and am still awaiting a response. I noted in a polite, professional discussion on this admin's talk page -- which has since been deleted -- that I had done so. I understand of course that admins are volunteers -- we all are. Discussion sections were started on the images and their corresponding nomination no avail. No one responded to my clarifications posted on discussion sections. It seems a minimal expectation from admins who are taking it upon themselves to post deletion notices that a response to their comments should at least be acknowledged before images are deleted. Why would images need to be so rapidly deleted? I've waited a week and a half for either a reply on the image discussion sections or a reply form OTRS...and I anticipated waiting longer...why were they suddenly deleted, without discussion? Did the person deleting images even bother to read my clarifications of copyright? I posted links to base images in SpaceX's Flickr stream -- was that seen? How is this a constructive, positive, professional approach?? Now some guy thinks the images are for an article about a music album titled Space Advertising...sheesh...shouldn't this amazing misunderstanding have been clarified and archived on the discussion pages for the images? (Also, perhaps it would be useful if wiki commons noted on image pages that the images are under consideration by OTRS, backlogged, so admins could either delay final deletion until OTRS had at least contacted the uploader or actually just read the discussion sections themselves...just a thought.) Anyhow, it seems unprofessional and inefficient that discussion sections were ignored. Ericmachmer (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That said, I concede that one or more could be in scope for Space advertising, possibly in the "Criticism" or "Popular culture" sections. Storkk (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
That is for the wikipedia community to determine, primarily through the article's page, it is certainly not solely your purview. Scope was not even raised as an issue by Ellin when she laboriously misattributed these images to the BBC, Ars Technica, etc...and, lol, my blog. Ridiculous, amateurish, waste of time. Wiki commons is worse as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmachmer (talk • contribs)
Ericmachmer, Ellin handled this in a perfectly routine and standard way which is designed to protect your copyright. We have no way of knowing who User:Ericmachmer actually is -- we often get vandals and fans who create accounts here with names from Web sites and blogs from whom they wish to steal. In fact, your continued bluster and time wasting here suggests that you are probably not the actual blogger.
As I told you on my talk page, if we had many more volunteers, we could give you personal service. As it is, if you follow the rules, your case will be handled smoothly and easily for all concerned, but not necessarily in a timely fashion. Sorry about that -- but timely would require tripling the active volunteer staff.
If you continue with your attacks on Ellin or other volunteers, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion pages exist for a reason. They should be used by admins. Clarifications posted on 'nomination for deletion' pages went unread. You and she ought to have replied to my polite professional comments on either the image discussion pages or their nomination pages before the images were deleted. I was respectful of the admin who deleted one of the images tagged for immediate deletion. He directed me to OTRS and I had no problem waiting resolution. But if images are misattributed through amateurish reverse image results or scope somehow related to a music album entitled "Space advertising" it would seem reasonable to suggest admins read discussions. This has been an absurd experience. Read discussion sections before deleting images. Simple, professional expectation.Ericmachmer (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I am replying only so you don't say I'm ignoring your complaints. In this thread, you've been told by several others your complaints are baseless. You've now written several times longer and more words than the nominations which have caused you such angst as to continue to hammer away on points which are not relevant to the issue. I am unaware of any way a volunteer can execute a "professional reverse Google search" so I am afraid you are going to have to deal with the fact that a reverse google search was made. The base image of one of your personal artworks was found on the BBC, attributed to NASA. The BBC is a reliable source, therefore, we can believe that image of the lady astronaut looking out the window belongs to NASA. But we do not know the source of the Saturn image, or the other images which were included in that artwork. I wrote what I saw and what I found on the web which was that not only were the base images from NASA and SpaceX without attribution, but I found the images previously published on other websites which requires COM:OTRS permission for the protection of the actual copyright holder. That might be you or it might not. OTRS is the way to find out. Usually the actual copyright holders are appreciative of our efforts to protect their copyrights from the never-ending pile of people who upload the works of others claimed as own work. Everything we've done in this situation is part of standard methods and processes here at Commons. Please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE before making more uploads, and seriously work on your COM:MELLOW. Having said all that, I feel this discussion is closed and respectfully request that you leave no more messages here - please feel free to chat with your deleting administrator, Jameslwoodward. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
"found on the BBC, attributed to NASA" other words, public domain. All NASA images are public domain, as I noted in the discussion sections which you and the deleting admin ignored. I also provided links to the exact underlying images in SpaceX's CC0 photo stream and contacted OTRS explaining the origin of the composites on my blogs, as was also noted in discussion sections. A professional reverse image search would have determined the blogs to which you are linking so many of the images I uploaded are actually published by a person with the same name as my username, perhaps leading you to mention OTRS or to contact me via wiki mail before so laboriously tagging such images for deletion/immediate deletion. You did not note for other admins that the blogs may be the uploader's and you did not mention OTRS as a method to resolve this, which could have been done either on the image discussion pages or in the original polite discussion on this talk page (which you've since deleted). I had to learn of OTRS through a polite discussion with another admin who deleted an image you for some reason tagged 'for immediate deletion'.
These issues -- from scope to origin -- could have been dealt with through OTRS and especially the discussion sections of 'nomination for deletion' pages which wiki commons provides for that purpose. As it stands now, Jim has not disputed copyvio but scope -- which is not his purview, and, Storkk has "conceded that one or more could be in scope". Scope ought to be determined by the wikipedia community when the wikipedia page as been significantly updated and expanded with images which are now unavailable...scope is not the sole prerogative of a wiki commons admin. Scope could also be discussed on the image discussion pages provided for that purpose...none of which are now open to public debate since the images have been deleted along with the links back to SpaceX's and NASA's photo streams, which makes the process with OTRS less efficient. The images were deleted without discussion. Misattribution to the BBC was corrected without acknowledgment and the process of dealing with OTRS has been complicated by not having easy access to links I provided on the image pages. Discussion sections on 'nomination for deletion' pages should have been used prior to their deletion. That would have been professional, considerate, and efficient. Ericmachmer (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
For the second time "I feel this discussion is closed and respectfully request that you leave no more messages here - please feel free to chat with your deleting administrator, Jameslwoodward. Cheers." Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The above wall of boring drivel has reached it's maximum height, the extremely long-winded builder is blocked, so this bullshit can officially be archived. If you disagree...too fucking bad...   lNeverCry 02:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Photos of historical markers deleted

The copyright in the US has expired for everything published before 1923 and for everything published before 1978 without a copyright notice. These historical markers don't have copyright notices and they are from before 1978. Bubba73 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bubba73: I totally agree with you about your first sentence. Unfortunately, the markers covered by
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Historical markers in McIntosh County, Georgia
And the others which were also nominated:
have visually printed in the metal of the markers dates which fall out of this range. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, except for the first one. At high magnification, the second and third numbers in the date do not look the same. I think it is either 1962 or, possibly, 1952. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward: We are now going to get you new reading glasses with rhino hide frames and crystals.... The "first image" ... File:Methodists at Darien, GA, USA, historical marker.JPG printed in metal "1992" .. and :*File:GA Darien Vernon-Columbus Square HD Methodist marker01.jpg printed in metal "1992" are identical. The bigger one clearly shows 1992, so the smaller one will as well, they are the exact same marker, read the text on it!   And the only other one which ends in "2" is File:Gully Hole Creek, St. Simons, Georgia, USA.JPG which is also clearly 1992. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that -- I looked only at File:GA Darien Vernon-Columbus Square HD Methodist marker01.jpg and at the pixel level the second nine looks open at the top right. The other image makes it obvious, as you say. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Look up the Georgia Open Records Act, Anything produced by the state government or agencies is open to the public and there are no restrictions on its use. Bubba73 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bubba73: Sorry but I'm not going to make a unilateral change to how these images are dealt with based on your suggested reading, but you could put the question up on COM:VPC for discussion. Depending on how that discussion goes... Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I posted at VPC. I also contacted the Georgia Historical Society, who is now in charge of the State of Georgia historical markers and their own (since 1999) and they gave permission for photos of the signs to be uploaded and published. Bubba73 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that the Georgia Public Records Act covers only documents, not necessarily signs. And, it certainly does not cover signs erected by the Methodist Church. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
For the state of Georgia signs, somewhere some state employee wrote the words before they went onto the sign. Bubba73 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking this to VPC, this discussion is now closed on my talk page as you have an OTRS admin now. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Happy Christmas!

Just to let you know I was aware of your question in the RAMC DR. As I was accused of having a conflict of interest even though I was doing no more than OTRS volunteers do every week, and had made the policy based case for deletion several times, I thought it was better to stay quiet. I disagree with the closure as it fails PRP. The outcome probably has damaged any future relationship with the Wellcome Library, but it seems most long term volunteers have a problem with shifting their focus from the literal, no doubt I'm just the same in some areas.

Thanks -- (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, This comment is really not polite (at the very least). I would even say it is contemptuous and disrespectful. Please retract it. Amitie 10g is talking about license review, so being a OTRS volunteer is not necessary. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yann: Thank you for freely expressing your opinion about what I wrote, but perhaps you misread me.
There are two comments addressed in mine: (a) "Could you please send a permission to COM:OTRS instead" and (b) "I already reviewed the files from Mr. Yoga." What I said is to a statement of fact (that commenter b is not in a position to OTRS review the file) intended to be useful to the closing admin. I am sorry you have a problem with that. Were I of the "drama-of-the-week" club, I might claim offense at your remarks above, but I do not subscribe and therefore will assume your COM:AGF and as well apply it to me and my actions. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ellin,
You wrote Since Amitie 10g is not an OTRS volunteer, see Category:Commons OTRS volunteers, please disregard any comments about what they may or may not have reviewed.
I don't understand why you said that, because it is useful to know that the files have been license reviewed by Amitie 10g. Therefore the permission in File:Mr - yoga - creative commons.jpg is redondant, and the file is out of scope. Since you had disagreements with Amitie 10g, I think it is best to avoid comments which may be seen as contemptuous and disrespectful. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Yann: The image has been deleted, but I noticed on its history, that no license review tag was placed on that file. Therefore there was no obvious license review, and comment could not apply to OTRS. That is the same observation I made a few days ago, and I don't see why you think the file was license reviewed since it hasn't got the tag. Your comments have been read and replied to both times politely. You can continue to repeat "contemptuous and disrespectful" in all of your postings on my talk page, but I would request that you stop repeating yourself with the former communication and let's get back to working on the project, not on putting each other down. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to repeat myself, but it seems you still didn't understand what I mean. The issue is not the license review of this file, but on all files by this user. This file was supposed to be a permission for all files by this user. I think this is quite clear from my deletion rationale and Amitie's comment. And I still think that your comment was not appropriate, and that you should retract it. It is very sad that I have to say that so many times, and that you still do not understand, inspite you being a native English speaker. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand you perfectly. You think I said something rude, and I don't. I do not see any reason to apologize or retract a statement of fact. Deletion nominations are about the picture/s being nominated. There was one image on that nomination. What anyone did to license review all their other stuff was immaterial, that particular image was not reviewed. I am now requesting that this discussion cease for the second time, politely. I think there is no reason to continue it, you have stated your belief and I have stated mine. I do not think you needed to say it any amount of times, and that you can stop saying it now because it's irrelevant. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade

Hi Ellin, I have something really fun for you ;) I filmed a little 360 video last night in the 2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade that you are sure to enjoy. Stay warm & Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WPPilot: Gorgeous as always, it's like Burning Man with boats! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Ellin Beltz!
Hi Ellin Beltz, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.  
    Poké95 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

  Happy Holidays!
Here's my holidays template from 2012. There's nothing special about it, I'm just that damned lazy.   Anyways though, I hope you and all the people you love and care about have happy holidays and a good new year. I know we both deserve it, though the idea of "deserving" is just a human concept that the universe has a good chuckle at. Hugs! lNeverCry 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2017! ;)

  * * * * * * * Happy Holidays 2017 ! * * * * * * *
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
* Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
* Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
* Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!
* Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!
-- George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)   

Best Wishes!

Best Wishes, Ellin Beltz!
Hi Ellin Beltz, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017.   Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy new year!
View from observation tower of highest mountain of Estonia. Taivo (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ellin Beltz!

Hat collector of the month

Yours truly of course. Have a gander at this collection...   lNeverCry 00:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Here's what you need now!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC) → → → →

Hat Rack
Perfect! I had a good laugh at that. If I put 4 or 5 hats on each peg they should all fit. The ones I like the most are my autoeditor and rollbacker rights on If I get my ass in gear I may even rise to editor and closer over there (or, dare I say it, admin)...   lNeverCry 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you become admin on ruwiki you'll create a major international incident. They probably cut the phone line or something. Or fill New York Harbour with w:en:Borscht.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll just tell 'em I'm a big fan of Steven Seagal and Gérard Depardieu...I'll be a Russian citizen in no time...   lNeverCry 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, thanks guys for a great laugh this a.m. -- much needed among the tinsel, the traffic and the general holiday zoom! And before I read what led to the section below. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your weekly dose of heart-warming

One of the sweetest things I've seen in a long time. I just had to show you this: File:Arrival of residents of Al-Fu'ah and Kfrya to Aleppo by tasnimnews.com01.jpg. lNeverCry 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another nice one: File:Arrival of residents of Al-Fu'ah and Kfrya to Aleppo by tasnimnews.com18.jpg. lNeverCry 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Those are lovely photos, thank you for sharing. I keep hoping the whole world could just settle down for a while, there's so much unhappiness in the world, and so much potential for joy and love - it's all in what we make of it. Hugs 2 you INeverCry...   Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ellin Beltz/Archive 5".