Open main menu

Sunset at Huntington Beach.jpg

User sick of an uncollegial, epically innumerate admin with dismal judgement, and inappropriate dictatorial demands is taking a short break and will be back at Commons in three weeks from ASAP.

My goal

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This template should be deprecated and then deleted; it's rude, IMO:

Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Rômană | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Users of this template are, in my experience, typically being dishonest:

Sunset at Huntington Beach.jpg

Elvey is taking a short break and will be back at Commons soon.

Posting on this page constitutes consent to edits to your post by Elvey that are in-line replies to, indentation or numbering fixes, if Elvey judges they are needed.


Image:RomaVillaMedici.JPG and Image:Villa Medicis.jpgEdit

Hi! I'm the author of the second picture, so I'm not exactly NPOV, but the two pictures do seem different to me. The point of view differs and the first one is slighly overexposed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though they are similar, I didn't actually make request that either be deleted by an admin. (I did do that for Image:Berlioz-painting.jpeg - and thanks for doing so.) --Elvey 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


OTRS noticeboard postEdit

Hi! I've moved your request for clarification to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (the Commons: prefix was missing). Where did you see the link to that page? There's probably a prefix missing in some template somewhere that should be fixed. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:LA_County_DA_Seal.gif & File:EncinitasCitySeal.JPGEdit

The images were only uploaded to the English Wikipedia, not the Commons. See and Because of that, there was nothing for us to undelete or review. You will have to go to the English Wikipedia to ask for undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw you said so when you closed this. Thanks; I will. --Elvey (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So it is nothing against the images, just nothing for us to do. Anyways, I looked what happened is that the images were tagged {{coatofarms}} and not the California PD tag (because of the back and forth before the court ruling); that license was deleted and replaced with nothing. So it was deleted after a week. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Your research makes me think my undeletion request will sail through. P.S.: So much for "Please do not make any edits to this archive." - I happened to just see this violation. --Elvey (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a hard and fast rule and I personally do not enforce it (or block folks for it). The most it does is sets the archiving back by 24 hours. As for the undeletion, the only thing that could be an issue is if someone already reuploaded the logo under a new name. Either way, while you and I disagree about the wording of the PD-Cali template, I forsee the images being restored and used in some way under some license at the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a problem with the edit of a closed discussion, other than that I've felt the rule treated (via repeated reversion and strident warnings) as a hard and fast rule - no exceptions even where they made sense. I recall we have worked well together before. --Elvey (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, they were both undeleted. :-) --Elvey (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


You have new messages on Commons talk:Project scope/Precautionary principle.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded.--Elvey (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill IngallsEdit

Hi I saw your image File:Bill Ingalls, Your license tag is illegal. Copyright note-I just sent to NASA photographer Flickr account--Screen shot.png. You may be interested in this Commons:Deletion requests/NASA images of User:Huntster. Ingalls is the name of a commercial photography studio who does contract work for NASA. They have the right to non-commercial restriction on their images from what I can make out. More info in the above link. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You could still post an image here like the one of mine you reference.
Here you say it's not always the case that "NASA-created images are without copyright". Please, prove it, if you can - provide an example of a work that a court has ruled was copyrighted, and NASA-created.
The owner of the flickr account has not responded to my FlickrMail. Would you please post a screen shot of the exchange on FlickrMail that you had with the owner - as I did in the image you referenced in your initial post here (or give me the access you offered to your Flickr account? Also, if you can quote the WMC staffer's email you mentioned, that would be helpful too. An 18-year employee does not an independent contractor make. If you've been working for the same organization for 18 years as a photographer, its very unlikely a court would consider you an Wikipedia:independent contractor. (That article has the cited statement, "In the United States employer misclassification of employees as "independent contractors" to avoid employment taxation and regulation is widespread.[4]" I still think the images were "work made for hire", and so work by NASA, and hence PD; "If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work;" see here and here. It's as sensible to assume that the owner of the flickr account is telling The Truth as it is to assume that an uploader has accurately tagged his uploads; has the flickr account owner provided any evidence, such as his employment agreement with NASA? The evidence I've seen presented points to an employee relationship. It seems to me that your DR led Fastily to reach the wrong conclusion. I readily concede that you are right when you say "there is reasonable doubt that these particular images are allowed on Commons." It is contrary to policy to delete just because there is Wikipedia:reasonable doubt that an image is allowed.--Elvey (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you ignored my request. Well, the images have been undeleted, at my request, for the reason that he's an employee, not a true independent contractor, as I said above.--Elvey (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Interjecting commentsEdit

Re this edit - it is very rarely necessary to interject comments into someone else's, and this is not one of those times. Please do not redo this - the meaning is clear enough in the new location, and you can clarify it further with reference to the numbering I used if you wish. Rd232 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You claim not to understand most of what I post. And now you're making what I said less comprehensible. They're my words. Interjecting comments into someone else's is perfectly acceptable, common practice. It is EXTREMELY rare that it's appropriate to move around someone else's words (do I really need to cite policy on this one?) and this is not one of those times. Undo your edit, provide evidence I'm wrong, or I will undo your edit of my comment on the talk page myself.--Elvey (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
If you redo your edit of my post, I will ask for you to be blocked. Moving your comment out of mine is fixing a problem you shouldn't have caused in the first place. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I tried to edit to this "provide evidence I'm wrong, or I will undo your edit of my comment on the talk page myself." [Update; I went ahead and made the edit, as Rd232 found this too confusing.] On what basis would you ask me to be blocked? Cite policy!--Elvey (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what your first sentence is about. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
[Update; I went ahead and made the edit to my post above, as Rd232 found the sentence he referenced too confusing.]--Elvey (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the second: it really looks like you spend too much time on English Wikipedia. It's made you think in literal policy terms instead of in terms of "what's the sensible and helpful thing to do? How can we resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction?" etc. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
My last edit was obviously an attempt to do exactly that - answer "How can we resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction?" - Would you not agree, Rd232?- -Elvey (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No, because I gave no indication that the indentation was an issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Where did you give an explicit indication as to what the issue was? You feel it's not necessary that it be where I put it, but why is it in your view necessary that it not split your words? Seriously. I've reread your comments here and sure, there are reasons why it doesn't have to go where I put it, but none that indicate why in your view its not sensible to put it after the part of what you wrote that it responds to. You've made my comment harder for others to follow, and you say you feel it's as comprehensible where I last put it as where you put it.--Elvey (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(i) the issue is interjection itself. How have you not understood this yet? (ii) for the third or fourth time, if you think some mysterious third party is interested enough to read your comment to me but not interested enough to read it in context, well then add an explicit reference to the numbering. To spell it out for you, using your favoured style: PUT "RE POINT 2" AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR COMMENT. Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And the comment is no or more less comprehensible to me in the new location. It's perfectly clear from context what you're talking about, and as I said in the opening of this thread, if you add a reference to the numbering I used, you can remove any trace of doubt. There is an obvious and easy alternative to what you did here, and refusing to it when asked is ample demonstration of ...something. Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

NJ CopyrightEdit

Elvey, I got your message about New Jersey government documents, and their use on Wikimedia. Section F of this link indicates that documents issued by the executive branch of the state of New Jersey are in the public domain unless the document specifically has a copyright notice. The {{PD-NJGov}} tag that I create reflects that information. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.
I had already read and felt that Section F was inadequate, which is why I contacted you. However I just noticed that there's this at the top of the page:
The following notices apply to all web sites of state agencies listed at in the executive branch of state government other than independent state agencies.
Let's tweak the tag to be more clear.
For one thing, it doesn't explicitly mention derivative works. So is it more like a license? Well, the "without obligation" clause to my mind does imply that permission for derivative works is given - wanting to bug not making or agreeing not to make derivative works would be fulfilling obligations to the state. Likewise, it doesn't mention or require attribution. So, indeed the release does appear to be into the public domain.
On the other hand, it does clearly seem to apply only to the works ON WEBSITES. Works NOT on agency websites or of independent state agencies are not applicable. --Elvey (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Elvey, I agree with the modifications that you made to the {{PD-NJGov}} tag. Per a state supreme court decision in 2009, public records obtained via the state's Open Public Records Act are likewise in the public domain. I modified the tag to reflect that. There are currently 12 files with the {{PD-NJGov}} tag. Eleven of the twelve are okay, but File:Dennis elwell.jpg doesn't qualify for the tag. The picture was obtained from the town of Secaucus' website. Towns are not part of the state's executive branch, and so the image in not in the public domain. Additionally, there is an "all rights reserved" notice on the web page that the image was obtained from. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-recordEdit

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Great. I predict someone will deny that we can conclude from the report that LCA sees no reason for this template to be be deleted. Even though it's obvious to me that we can conclude from the report that LCA sees no reason for this template to be be deleted. Then we'll need a clarification like what we got that last time we got a message from LCA like this that I felt was already perfectly clear.
Now if only Stefan[24] was willing to stop flaunting policy in order to do what he wants. I'd love it if someone took the necessary steps to get administrators to enforce the rule on PUF at en requiring notification on pages using the file. Since I don't recall previous discussion on his talk page I posted this. His flagrant flouting of the rule exemplifies his problematic attitude seen in his attempts to get the template and the files that rely on it deleted. --Elvey (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Elvey, I made this small edit on your common.js. Due to the templates used on this page, it came in different categories. That is fixed now. I hope you don't mind. JurgenNL (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

JurgenNL (talk · contribs)I appreciate the notification and don't mind. OTOH, I do mind when PD files I've uploaded are deleted and I'm given no notice whatsoever! --Elvey (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Original1965AcidTestFlyerPrint.uncolored,unmodified.jpgEdit

Extended content
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Original1965AcidTestFlyerPrint.uncolored,unmodified.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

hey there, check this out [1]; and this law review survey article. doubt it will change any minds. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, User:Jarekt, how about an apology? No license, you say? I say your detection methods are lousy. The file has 2! It has a belt and suspenders. --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept. This is an uncolored,unmodified version. Makes all the difference, when it comes to copyright monopoly laws. I haven't read beyond the survey article's intro yet, but it looks to be an excellent read. --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RFID Solution Photo in 2008 Leisure Taiwan (File:2008LeisureTaiwan Day1 FRTRI RFID Solution.jpg)Edit

D**n! Thanks for your notification.

But This photo is originally photoed by me, How to do it?

I think the PCI didn't ask me about this issue to use any of my photos.

Do someone have contact information about PCI? Rico Shen contact... 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Rico Shen! Did the PCI folks stop infringing on your copyright or apologize? Did you reach out or hear back at all?--Elvey (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Bill Nye, Barack Obama and Neil deGrasse Tyson selfie 2014.jpgEdit

Hey there, Elvey, how are you?

I agree with you that the image File:Bill Nye, Barack Obama and Neil deGrasse Tyson selfie 2014.jpg cannot be both non-commercial and public domain.

It's just public domain.

Commonly the blurb text used for example at by the current White House Administration account with Flickr is wrong.

They both license their stuff as Public Domain as a Product of a Federal Employee of the United States Government, and then also try to control the images by putting some sort of disclaimer rejoinder on there on Flickr, which simply doesn't work.

Simply put, if they use the "PD-USGov" tag on Flickr (which was verified), then it's "PD-USGov" here, too.

And per our wording on Wikimedia Commons from the template {{PD-USGov}}, This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.

I hope that explanation is helpful to you and removes the confusion you had.

The best way to remedy this is not to include the disclaimer text from Flickr from that account, and simply include the "PD-USGov" tag, as that's the official copyright license for those images.

I hope you are well,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Elvey/common.jsEdit

Kudos to the botmaster of the CommonsMaintenanceBot; those alerts really helped me out!--Elvey (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Black mark on Commons / Badge of shame - prominent Holocaust photographs deleted on extremely spurious grounds.Edit

this is disgusting! The USHMM says on its website that it owns the copyright (on 12/16 or says they're PD: 2/16). Some admin, on evidence of his/her own POV, decides to delete the files anyway, implying that the USHMM must be lying. That reeks of antisemitism. AGF doesn't apply to the USHMM. It's OK for admins to assume the USHMM is lying? Am I missing something here? The USHMM site clearly indicates it claims ownership of the copyright. Who is this admin to insist the USHMM is lying? Looks like an EX-admin. Perhaps a DR isn't futile... --Elvey (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

An image that you have uploaded requires updatingEdit

Hi Elvey,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed one of your uploads is out of date. Could you update it? Thanks again. ɱ (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied here.--Elvey (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

CC iconsEdit

Thanks for catching that, I was editing them 'in masse', and quite likely missed a few details in the process. Revent (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for being the administrator who finally resolved that massive copyfraud problem, Revent. It took over a year and a half to get it addressed. I faced threats, libel, reverts and hostility from multiple other admins, despite my raising my concern clearly and civilly and very publicly. It was madness.
I was specifically instructed to nominate these files for deletion. By an admin! Specifically: User:Jarekt told me, "If license is wrong please nominate for deletion." The license was wrong. So I nominated it for deletion, using the "Nominate for deletion" button. And I got shit for it from sundry. Lame.
Evidence: diff with edit summary: "Undo revision 173812846 by Elvey (talk) Please do not remove a license unless you replace it with a corrected one. If license is wrong please nominate for deletion.)" Messed up, y'all. What uncivil madness! --Elvey (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Elvey, I guess I missed the saga of this deletion, and I am sorry to hear you had a bad experience here with "threats, libel, reverts and hostility". My revert was purely based on the procedure. Removal of the only license is a form of setting it for the path for deletion without much scrutiny and is not how we do things. Deletion request is where everybody can have their say and were large number of users can decide. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate the 'sorry'. ....And you say that's not the way we do things, but a deletion request where everybody can have their say and were large number of users can decide is too often NOT how I've seen things done. Sadly. What happened to my May, 2014 upload of   is a good bad example how I've seen things done. It was deleted, IIRC, with no notice (a clear policy violation) - not even that of a speedy and no discussion ; see my old and new comments here for more.] And User:Jarekt - That there are bots and processes and such in place that ensure that those deletions get performed without much scrutiny doesn't make my removal of the license wrong. There were many options available to you other than reverting me and thereby restoring the invalid license. You could have put a valid license on it, as Revent eventually did. Or waited, or asked for help... You say "My revert was purely based on the procedure" but there is no procedure that comes anywhere close to saying it's OK to intentionally place an invalid license on a file. To the contrary, doing so was, technically, w:copyfraud. Also you should not have made the blanket statement, "do not remove a license unless you replace it with a corrected one." That was definitely inappropriate, most clearly in the case where there is no corrected one and the file should be deleted. So, what I've just done to File:Hcom NO Logo.jpg with two edits is not what I did with File:Logo ieb ufsc.png or File:Musèu dera Val d'Aran. Segon projecte museogràfic. 01.jpg with multiple edits or File:Musèu dera Val d'Aran. Segon projecte museogràfic. 02.jpg with one edit, for good reason. --Elvey (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Addendum:please understand, Jarekt, that my use of the term copyfraud to describe your action does not imply fraud, bad faith or ill intent at all. It seems people often assume, incorrectly, that copyfraud implies fraud. It does not. Thanks again for your comment.--Elvey (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Stealthy deletion requestsEdit

FYI, User:Rania emad, User:Ravenousfeastband, User:Bewran.fayaq, User:Hhccan2, User:EricLewan, User:Mariuszeq, User:Stefana Petrovic, User:Bstaab22, User:Stasiuk1, User:Zmatený, User:JuanCarlosram, your uploads are at risk of deletion and you haven't been notified, though it is required by COM:D policy for all but obvious violations. Discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:First_National_Bank_Field_2.jpg. --Elvey (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. None of these users have more than 22 edits. Suspect.--Elvey (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Jerry Rosenberg 1424049c.jpgEdit

File:Jerry Rosenberg 1424049c.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

~ Rob13Talk 05:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hooey deletion, User:Stifle. It "was one of the most notorious local crimes of the year". Very slim chance his mugshot was not in the papers at the time. Plus, the photo is from the New York Times News Stock, per its metadata - and being for sale in a stock photo collection constitutes "publication" - as of “the earliest date when copies ... were placed on sale" - almost certainly around the time it was taken. And the photograph itself contains the date it was taken. --Elvey (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

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

Return to the user page of "Elvey".