User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

About the Images I uploaded

First, I´m deeply sorry about any inconvenience that I've made you go trough, all of the copyrighted material I uploaded should be deleted as fast as possible, I didn't knew stuff like seals and flags from districts could have copyright since I though everything related to that had free use, Stuff like flags without any copyrighted material or SVG maps should still be kept since they are 100% mine, again sorry for any inconvenience.- Jequetepeque

Somewhatroadsignperson (talk · contribs)

Thank you for blocking this account. Please also delete their uploads. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done per previous handling. Эlcobbola talk 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Soft Girl Article

I need your help with my article everytime I keep giving the original author credit, you keep denying my uploads for no reason whatsoever. If you have any better ideas, please let me know asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandavisionvixen101 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons have been provided in the numerous warnings you've received; you might try reading them, rather than deleting them, although I do rather think a prohibition on false authorship claims would have been intuitive even in their absence. Эlcobbola talk 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socking uploader

User:Dibosh Chakma appears to have created a new account as User:M. Ishmam Abdullah. He has re-uploaded File:C-130J Super Hercules of Bangladesh Air Force.jpg. They appear to have the same modus operandi. Can you confirm? Schierbecker (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Gry1987 (talk · contribs)

Thank you for blocking this sockpuppet. I would ask that you delete their uploads as well. The following can be kept, since I have verified them, but the others must go.

Fry1989 eh? 15:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L'empereur

Hi Elcobbola, you blocked Napoleon I, Emperor of the French. Another account, EmperorNapoleonIofFrance is making the exact same reverts on the same files and has not yet been blocked. GPinkerton (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Thanks for the note. Эlcobbola talk 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use the other one instead?

Hi, I just uploaded an image on Commons for use on WP, but you immediately deleted it on copyright grounds and that Commons is for copyright-free files and videos. I wanted to use the file upload wizard module on WP for that, but coming across numerous articles of living persons on WP, I was linked here to their pages on Commons. So now, with this, it's only the file upload wizard that I can use in my opinion. What do you think? Polygork (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the question. You believed falsely claiming this photo to have a cc-by-sa license would be acceptable because other images of other persons had been uploaded to the Commons? (FWIW, the second largest button at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard is "Upload a non-free file".) The Commons only accepts free content. En.wiki accepts certain non-free content under very limited conditions, which almost always preclude images of living persons. Эlcobbola talk 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

Dear Elcobbola why did you block User:AngeredJawico he was once a troll but he realized it was not good to troll (he said that in Help desk ) so i am wondering why you blocked he or her please tell me the reasonYahoot7 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the block log. I did not block AngeredJawico; I merely updated the rationale as this is an LTA sock. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I understand. Yahoot7 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait does that mean AngeredJawico is a sockpuppet?! Yahoot7 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA 257

Hi Elcobbola, a user told me that they were trapped by AF 257 when uploading a image named "China Village Road YXXX". I wonder if this is a false positive and if rules in this AF need some amendment. Thanks! Stang★ 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a false positive. I will look into creating a condition to exempt this particular user. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be done. Let me know if they continue to have issues. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock: User:Juan90264

I ask you to please reconsider this block. It is an undeniable fact that this user is highly reliable, just look at his edits in other projects, it is also an undeniable fact that the user is sorry for the very serious mistakes he made and that he will never do that again. I believe that the user can contribute a lot to Commons with his own works. Blocks are not punitive, but rather pedagogical, and currently, this block of the user in question, is very punitive, because the user clearly demonstrates that during this time blocked he stopped to reflect on what he did and that he intends to follow the policies of this project. I see no reason to keep this user blocked. Note: I communicate with this user and I can tell that he genuinely regrets it. Perfektsionist (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy can be found here; you might consider reading it. Эlcobbola talk 21:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say at any point that his block was not based on the blocking policy, the fact is that the user is sorry for his mistakes, it is also worth noting that the user was newbie in 2020 and did not know the rules of this project. Perfektsionist (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not say you did. Your comment only implies you have not read COM:BP. You also appear not to have read the block log(s). Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice president grave sites

I'm not angry just confused as those are my pictures taken by me with the exception of the Nelson rockefeller one Journey896 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The william wheeler adlai stevenson and alben barkley are mine the rest I got permission from Journey896 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I am pat of Pat's presidential palaces so the ones found on there are mine Journey896 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a question here, but I agree you are confused.
  • At upload, you claimed each and every one to be yours, which you now acknowledge to have been untrue.
  • You used the UploadWizard, in which the very first selection after uploading the file is the binary "This file is my own work" and "This file is not my own work". You managed to get that wrong, if we believe you here, at least four times (!!!)(of the eight, you purport to be the author of only "the Nelson rockefeller one," "william wheeler", "adlai stevenson," and "alben barkley"). No knowledge of copyright or of the Commons is required to answer this question correctly.
  • You contradict yourself even here: first you said "those are my pictures taken by me with the exception of the Nelson rockefeller one"--one is singular; then you said "The william wheeler adlai stevenson and alben barkley are mine"--are is plural.
  • As only some examples: the "Nelson rockefeller one," which you purport to be yours, is apparently by "Bobby Kelly" (04.2018); the "Adlai Stevenson [one]," which you purport to be yours, is apparently by "Matt F." (04.2017); you did not include File:Charles Dawes grave.jpg as an exception, yet it is here; you did not include File:James Sherman grave.jpg as an exception, yet it is here; etc.
Note also that you breached the purported cc-by-sa licenses, as the "by" means attribution of the copyright holder is required; falsely attributing yourself is, of course, not acceptable. Эlcobbola talk 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman and dawes and curtis were not mine and I will admit that. also I said with the exception of Nelson rockefeller meaning after I originally said it was mine I am confessing it wasn't but I can say for certain william wheeler and alben Barkley are mine from Pat's presidential sites and the adlai stevenson one I mixed up as it looks really similar to the one found on my site Journey896 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing but respect to you as you are just doing your job Journey896 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Images

Hi, The images deleted are public domain from offial government websites. Do I need to add more information somewhere to show this? Michaeolson (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in the public domain. You even erroneously purported them to have cc-by-sa licenses, which are mutually exclusive with being free of copyright (public domain). Эlcobbola talk 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hello. Unsure if there's any data left but would you mind checking FBenjr123 against Judgefloro? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, duckish enough to block. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSPAN

Hello! I see you deleted my photo within a couple of minutes from it being uploaded. I was wondering if CSPAN is considered a work of the United States Federal Government, or would be allowed on Wikipedia in any kind of way under any license due to CSPAN's special status. I want to make sure I'm understanding these things correctly. GeorgeBailey (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN is an NPO, not a federal entity. As per {{PD-USGov}} itself, and 17 U.S.C. § 105 on which it is based, only works of federal authorship are applicable. C-SPAN's copyright policy is here, and our template identifying their (limited) PD works--which would not include the Hoffman images--is here. Эlcobbola talk 17:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to upload a new article picture

Hi, Эlcobbola I am Bianca Andrade's older brother and I would like to represent her public person on requesting the upload of a new photo for her name's Wikipedia article. Referenced article here:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Rosa

The current photo was posted by Jin-gook as in the following link.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Rosa#/media/Ficheiro:Bianca_Andrade_during_%22A_Elimina%C3%A7%C3%A3o%22_on_February_27,_2020_01.png

We would like to grant all rights to the publication of another photo that we would like to send to you, or upload ourselves. Without understanding all the mechanics of the platform, in February, I tried to upload a photo of her property, but it was refused by the WikiMedia Commons system, including getting banned by you for a while. Without oars, I understood that I was doing it wrong way. I am sorry about that and I would like to try to do it the right way.

How could we accomplish this task? Can I count on your help?

Delete image due to vandalism

Hello. I found out that your vandalism deleted all the images I uploaded. Some of the images I uploaded have been granted the right to use by the copyright holder and correspond to my Adaptation Right. First, I request you to restore the following image corresponding to my Adaptation Right.

File:The components of KSTAM-II.jpg

File:The process of forming the Explosively formed penetrator of KSTAM-II.jpg

File:Gun barrel of the CN08.jpg

Thank you. Gasiseda (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "adaption right" appears a confused reference to derivative works. While original contributions to an existing work may enjoy their own copyright, they do not remove the existing copyright on the underlying work. Taking only the first in the list, File:The components of KSTAM-II.jpg, you took an existing image (e.g., here, p. 84) and changed Korean text to English. These "adaptions" would be unlikely even to generate a new copyright, and certainly do not impact the preexisting missile image. This is, of course, to say nothing of the blatant lies that constitute the majority of your uploads, which is far closer to vandalism than an admin applying policy. Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright appeal.

Hello, dear Elcobbola!

I'm building one mid range runners page on the Estonian Wikipedia. I added 1 picture and 2 gifs that are free use + I cited them according to the form. What to do? I am clearly in the right and don't want to get banned/blocked for false copyright claims.

Please help me solve this issue. NB: I'm talking about this page: https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olavi_Allase — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightiestCat (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 May 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

All of your images have been unambiguous copyright violations. Please review the notices that have been left for you, as well as gratis versus libre. That an work is available to you on the internet does not mean it is free, nor does the mere act of citing it ("I cited them according to the form"). Эlcobbola talk 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on finding an appropriate image for Tanner Novlan

Thank you for leaving me a message on my user talk, informing me in regards to the file deletion and warning me about the issues in regards to licensing when it comes to uploading images. I really appreciate it all. My intention was never to disregard the rules outlined by Wikipedia. You mentioned if I have further questions, I could reach out. For that reason, I would like to express how I am in dire need of some help. As you can tell, I find it essential to upload a picture of Tanner Novlan for his page, and subsequent other articles in order to enhance and inform readers of the content of those pages. I find it that without an image of the actor, these pages are lacking and do not serve to inform the readers properly what the pages are about. I wonder if you could please help me find an image of the actor that adheres to licensing and copyright policy? I want to avoid being blocked, thus, I wonder if I can receive any aid on that matter? If you cannot specifically help me, I completely understand, but can I be directed to someone else who can help me find a proper image to upload? Thank you so much again! AwardShowFan123 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider making a request w:Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Эlcobbola talk 20:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response! I was able to check out the page! I was wondering when I place the template of Template:Photo requested on the talk page (which I just did); does it alert anyone (Wikipedia users), or is it only those who visit the talk page of the article that would be able to see it? I am just wondering how I could see get more people to see the request, and get an image of the actor uploaded soon! I appreciate all the help! AwardShowFan123 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the template adds the page to w:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States, which is watched by users active in that area of maintenance. While this is not an "active" alert, it does mean it has a wider audience than merely those who happen across the talk page. Эlcobbola talk 21:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted my photos for Togg vehicles

@User:Elcobbola Hi why did you deleted my photos for Togg vehicles? I wanted to add them to show some future models of this car manufacturer. SSHTALBI (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the notices that were left for you on your talk page? Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Canadian file

I see you have been nominating dubious military files for deletion.

I am concerned about the copyright status of File:RoyalCanadianArtillery.jpg. It has been declared as Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal PD, but actually as you will see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LordHood2552#Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria, the uploader named the original source as https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/1116, where a banner says "The contents of this Register are intended for research purposes only. The heraldic emblems found in the Register may not be reproduced in any form or in any media without the written consent of the Canadian Heraldic Authority and/or the recipient." Does it need to be deleted? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure which files you're referencing; it's likely you saw the cleanup of files related to one particular uploader rather than military subject matter per se, as the latter is not an area in which I have specific expertise. That said, I agree this is a good candidate for a deletion request. The information on the referenced page suggests this is contemporary (2006/7) and thus ineligible for {{PD-Canada}}, and no evidence for the purported CC-0 status has been provided. Эlcobbola talk 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

I've reported you for user issues at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Elcobbola. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

I uploaded a photo 'labia inspection' which I can assure you is my own work and not a copyright violation. I had downloaded it from my Flickr account because I misplaced the original so I am sorry if this meant that it appeared to be someone else's work. Ermaalthefair (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About LTA 257

Hi Elcobbola, a user told me that they were trapped by AF 257 when uploading a image named "Turkish signs". I wonder if this is a false positive and if rules in this AF need some amendment. Thanks! Jelican9 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jelican9: try it again now. Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah  Thank you.! Jelican9 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your helps! Jelican9 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About a mass deletion request

Hi Elcobbola. First, sorry for my english. Today, I saw this mass deletion request and remembered that I had seen other images that have the same style, drawn by the same author, but uploaded by another user. The images are these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I think these images deserve a mass deletion request as well, but I don't know how to do it. Could you do it, please? Thanks. ZebaX2010 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZebaX2010: I've nominated the images on your behalf here. If you'd like to perform bulk nomimations in the future, the easiest way is to use VisualFileChange; information and instruction are here. Эlcobbola talk 21:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of picture

Hi. I see you deleted this picture due to license laundering. I had uploaded a cropped version of that picture here. Could you delete it, too, please?

-AndSalx95 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 09:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun

Why did my image for Top Gun (franchise) not meet the copyright requirements? Zvig47 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the notices that were left for you on your talk page? Эlcobbola talk 20:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

face

hello, i saw you in recent changes.

in that file there is 2 person which we can see their face directly. is this causing problem? because about "privacy"? but, i took this photo in public area, and it is obeying Wikimedia rules and laws of turkey(i guess?).. but i still have concern about this.


so, what do you think? thanks.... sorry for bad english. Modern primat (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. I'm not familiar with the exceptions noted for Turkey, so you may wish to ask at an appropriate noticeboard at tr.wiki. As a general proposition, however, consent is not needed for images in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Эlcobbola talk 03:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

Danke für die Blocks! User:Bastian40 und User:Bastian67 gehören auch zu der Farm. Gruß, Achim55 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+Bmmederos3333; +Bastianseso. Danke! Эlcobbola talk 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mea Motu title.jpg

Can you please see comments I have made regarding this. I have provided a lot of evidence suggesting this should not be deleted. Bennyaha (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boboyev1996

Please, unblock, this user. Umarxon III (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Complaint

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Elcobbola. Due to lack of communication involving the thread Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mea Motu title.jpg.

Bennyaha (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users

Hi, I noticed you're one of the admins who update the list of bad Flickr account. What's the procedure to ask to add one to the list? I'm talking about 16133272@N00. Some DR are currently open because we found out this Flickr account does flickr washing. QTHCCAN (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no formal procedure. As one must have an image reviewer (or admin) flag to access the widget, it seems to follow that contacting such a user or posting at an appropriate admin noticeboard would be all that is needed. Эlcobbola talk 21:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks QTHCCAN (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, could you add it? I had already asked once on the noticeboard before posting here and I asked another time after that and both time, the query got archived without being treated. QTHCCAN (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add it at your initial query as you've not told me what the "some DRs" are. What images are at issue? What is the basis for the belief they're laundered? Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, I forgot to mentions the DRs. So, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atone Movie Still 5 (12058602695).jpg, the contributer noticed on Flickr it was written "Photo courtesy: DC Media Group". The exif also identifies the copyright holder as "DANIEL CAVALLINI". The same contributor then found out there were other pictures uploades by this account with an exif crediting "Brenda Staples Photography".Commons:Deletion requests/File:Britanny Kelly LPGA Futures Tour (6889832409).jpg QTHCCAN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although addition to COM:QFI is not a particularly big deal, as all it does is prompt FlickreviewR 2 to ask for manual review, the Flickr stream is the official account for Towne Post Network, Inc., a magazine publisher. This is a plausible basis for disparate authorship, and indeed the Flickr account appears to license images on individual (i.e., not a blanket application of one license) basis--for example, the image at the linked DR is cc-by 2.0, whereas this is all rights reserved, this is cc-by-nc-nd 2.0, etc. This apparent attentiveness is suggestive of reliability. I am of the belief that multi-author Flickr accounts, like magazine publishers, should be subject to manual review, so I don't disagree with your desire; given the above, however, I don't think unilateral addition to QFI is best. I don't know what noticeboard you previously tried, but perhaps consider raising the issue at Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for everything! QTHCCAN (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksaray 1989

Why u deleting the logo bro? Göktürk Gmc (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the notices that were left for you on your talk page? Эlcobbola talk 21:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Elcobbola. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello @Elcobbola, you delete the image Leia Sfez Walking to chanel runway 2022.jpg on the wiki Leia SFEZ by refering your delete from a Vogue article. But, in this article you will see, a the bottom left of the picture, that "©LEIA SFEZ/INSTAGRAM", witch is the copyright of the owner, NOT THE VOGUE. Can you please republish the image ? Thanks a lot! LFranken01 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it to be authored by vogue. Vogue is the source you gave ("pour le Vogue Espagne"). There is no evidence of the purported cc license at Vogue. Further, you'd also claimed yourself to be the author, which you acknowledge here to have been a lie ("©LEIA SFEZ/INSTAGRAM", witch (sic) is the copyright of the owner"). Эlcobbola talk 22:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the owner of this picture... and Vogue used it. They don't know who's the owner so they put the "LEIA SFEZ/INSTAGRAM" Copyrights on it because Leia Sfez used it on her instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/CZMRjI0gAo_/?hl=fr)... LFranken01 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello @Elcobbola I understand that I will no longer download files that have copyrights. Squeezo (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses

Hi Elcobbola, since you are one of the admins updating the list of bad Flickr accounts, what about this Flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/194644392@N04/? Because I see that 194644392@N04 is not on that list. Does that Flickr account also do the flickr wash? OliverDF (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OliverDF, yes, as examples: File:Escudo de Gabriel Bernardo Barba.jpg was uploaded to that Flickr account 18 December 2021, and uploaded here 18 December 2021. (this is not expected to be serendipity); this image is from here; this image is from here; many appear video screenshots; etc. I've added 194644392@N04 to the QFI list. Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Bot tripping AbuseFilter 259

I've found that some of the early edits of Usage Bot have triggered abuse filter 259. I think the bot is constructive, and its task is approved, so I am contacting an administrator as instructed. I chose you because you edited the filter today. The bot was trying to create a gallery of 1000 files so that their use on OpenStreetMap would be visible on Commons. If there's something it should be doing differently so as to avoid tripping the filter, please let me know. --bjh21 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: This should be fixed; let me know if you're still having issues. Эlcobbola talk 03:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That seems to be working much better now. --bjh21 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Berta Castane image copyvio vandal/sock

See File:Berta C. García (19786354208) (cropped).jpg --Denniss (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Эlcobbola talk 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr COM:LL

Hi, see this please. Thanks! MiguelAlanCS (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leicester City crest.svg

Hello, I'm Manchesterunited1234 (talk), I think this file is possibly a copyright violation. Please check that. Thanks Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leicester City crest.svg. Эlcobbola talk 18:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! + Question

Treasure World - it's bypass of blocking Русское Просвещение ([26]), isn't it? May You check it as Checkuser? Thank You! Lesless (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Confirmed. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Hello, why did you delete my Floppa file, it's my own work because I made the image in my EDITOR PHOTOSHOP CC 2019 and don't steal anything. It is also an image for me, of My USER! Floppa Historico (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the notice that was left for you? Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read, just, i want one way Uploading that file, I put a lot of work into it. Also, I have another picture of floppa and was not deleted, I want to upload that image, how do I do it? Floppa Historico (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The United States, where WMF servers are located and whose laws always apply to images on the Commons, rejects sweat of the brow ("I put a lot of work into it.") No amount of work eliminates the underlying copyright, and you may not upload images that copy expression without explicit permission from the original author. Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing EXIF of deleted files

You quoted the EXIF for File:Marcin Drag08.jpg at UnDR. Question -- is there an easy way to see the EXIF of a deleted file -- the only way I know is to temporarily undelete it, but you didn't do that? Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases I just download the image and view the EXIF on my device or through fotoforensics. I'm not sure whether that's easier than temporary undeletion per se, but I try not to create unnecessary log entries. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hmm. On one level, I agree that minimizing log entries is good, but I wonder if it is not more transparent to actually show the entries (restored - "Temporary to inspect EXIF" and deleted - "Temporary restoration") rather than having one's action hidden. The down load certainly takes longer and more steps. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I don't follow the transparency reasoning. If one can see an image in the first place, moving from a server to your eyes as it has, it has necessarily been downloaded. My aforementioned method is thus merely either a redundant download or use of an alternative destination folder (download vs cache). There are extensions that allow one to view EXIF (e.g., EXIF Viewer Pro for Chrome) in only two clicks without even leaving the browser. Those are highly efficient--and what, in retrospect, I ought to adopt--but equally hidden. Of what benefit are extra log entries? Why would we want logs of use of the viewdeleted function? Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm over reacting, but it shows that an Admin actually looked at the EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A file is merely data--visual data (image) and technical data (EXIF). There's no log for viewing deleted images (visual data)--and one hopes every admin commenting at UDR does this--so what is surreptitious about viewing technical data? If, for example, I'd said there's a watermark that credits a certain author, would there be a concern? How is saying the EXIF credits a certain author different? In either example, the file is there for all other admins to inspect and to assess the accuracy of the comment. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wikler headshot

Hello, I just saw your message about the Ben Wikler headshot. Is there anything else you need from me other than to make a case for keeping it, or to improve the photo in use? Thanks, Wiscipidier (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your comments to the DR. This is not an issue of quality; you may not upload the work of others' without their permission and you may not misrepresent authorship. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RamaGaspar

I have some suspicion with this user, RamaGaspar (talk · contribs). Their replies/responses to derivative work-related deletion requests (for example, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RamaGaspar) closely resemble replies of Judgefloro (talk · contribs), JFVelasquez Floro (talk · contribs), and FBenjr123 (talk · contribs). Very long replies, using judicial jargons, and ignorance of architects' and artists' economic rights. Is the user account the same judge? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelling my suspicion further is the similarity of RamaGaspar's uploads to uploads by FBenjr123 and Judgefloro, treating Commons as his cloud storage. Also ping @Minorax: who once caught his undesirable behavior at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. Although the OOS files can be made in scope by uses on-wiki and off-wiki, his continued uploads of no FOP violations and derivative works is problematic. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Blocked as duck. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: what does that mean? Blocked as duck has no real meaning so please use real English and speak it in a way that everyone can understand.
@JWilz12345: This is a valid issue that needs to be solved. However, not all issues can be solved because Admins or anyone with special privileges are rarely on here preventing continuous progression of the community and making it difficult for those that just want to use Wikipedia without any issues. I am on here daily and roam around here seeing if anyone needs help with anything, I tried applying to be an admin but the way they explain it is not very helpful at all. I want to make a difference and make everyone that uses Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project happy. Vanny Gaming (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanney Gaming: the infamous Philippine judge and long-term block evader (by using alternate accounts) has been indefinitely blocked so nothing follows for your concern. Re: "duck," see w:en:WP:DUCK, which is applicable here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this file

Recently you deleted a file that was not against any terms or conditions in the Wikipedia guideline, it was a file called: ODST from Halo.png

Also, all the files except one had been deleted and I never had the chance to explain why I uploaded them here because I was super busy. I tried sending an email to you explaining why I uploaded them, and I even replied to your comment on my uploads explaining my process. Vanny Gaming (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is not Wikpedia; 2) The relevant "terms or conditions" where provided in the UploadWizard, deletion log, and the notices left for you--if you'd actually read any them, you'd understand that you cannot upload images derived from someone else's work; and 3) images that meet the speedy deletion criteria are deleted on sight and no "chance to explain" is required. Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) does it matter? 2) I read them and still don't give a shit because they are invalid 3) everyone should be able to explain no matter what 4) the fact that admins are going after the petty shit is annoying if you guys would go after the bigger stuff you could actually improve Wikimedia sites Vanny Gaming (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info

You may wish to look here. The image uploaded is the giveaway if nothing else. Regards Herby talk thyme 09:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While understanding your comment I personally have no proof of puppetry. Herby talk thyme 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson pollock

Hello Elcobbola, please, could you review these images of the painter Jackson Pollock?

Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 16:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aurelio de Sandoval, "publication" is a legal term of art meaning "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" ((17 U.S.C. § 101)) and is not to be conflated with the colloquial meaning of publication. As a passport is not distributed (or offered) to the public by sale transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending, an image therein would not be considered published on that basis and {{PD-US-no notice}} would not apply. This is a case of “limited publication," which is when a work is distributed "to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale ... [and is] restricted both as to persons and purpose.” (White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952)) A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication. Unless this image was published in another venue (i.e., not only the passport), it is unpublished and would be expected to have a term expiring 2026 (1955 + 70 + 1) if the author is known, or 2076 (1955 + 120 + 1) if unknown/anonymous. Эlcobbola talk 18:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying point: I above meant "term expiring 2026 (1955 + 70 + 1) if the author is known" to be earliest possible and in the extremely unlikely event that the photographer died the year of creation. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying there is no evidence it is published (appearance in a passport alone is not publication) and that {{PD-US-no notice}} is thus unsupported and inappropriate. If the image is PD for some other reason, there is not evidence of that on offer. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beeveevee

Hello Elcobbola. Is Beeveevee (talk · contribs) another alter ego account of Judgefloro (talk · contribs)? Looking at their uploads (Special:Listfiles/Beeveevee), the uploads are too similar to RamaGaspar (talk · contribs) and FBenjr123 (talk · contribs)'s way of uploads, using Commons as a cloud storage platform. Also ping @Minorax: for request of further verification. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Could you please review these images?

.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elcobbola, I have uploaded the logo of the TikTok social network, I have removed as far as I could the geometric figures that exceed the threshold of originality of China, which of these 3 versions of the logo could be in Wikimedia Commons?

I also asked the user Taivo this, I await his response Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 19:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from your requests and (lack of) actions related to the Jackson pollock images above that you are looking for a rubber stamp rather than genuine review or consideration. I do not provide the former. Эlcobbola talk 19:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: But tell me which image could be in commons.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 20:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review this ticket?

I'd appreciate if you would look at article 4 in Ticket:2022120310005907. You can post in the ticket or reply to it if you wish. Ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ww2censor: I've added a note there. See also this, which hopefully will move things along on the xwiki front. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely minor point

Second bullet point in User talk:Elcobbola/THeader goes: a)... c)... c)... . Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged--glad to know that some read the fine print. Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Would these be good to put on Wikipedia instead or no? Because I made them, but the copyrighted part is probably that it's from a game, right? RapperT$Tyler (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, even if you designed the jersey ornamentation, the player figures, textures (e.g., faces), background, etc. are all assets of the video game and thus non-free derivative works. En.wiki does allow fair use under certain conditions, but these images would not meet them. Frankly, both they and their related draft are a violation of the first pillar and would be deleted if the en.wiki community were aware of their existence--WMF platforms are not a webhost for personal video game teams. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete it then, thank you. RapperT$Tyler (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_15&oldid=722568953"