It appears you deleted my image File:Tri_D_Chess_Starting_Positions.png because of copyright violation. This image is a screen capture from an Android app that I wrote. Can you please help me understand what I should do to post this image properly so it won’t be deleted?
First time this image was uploaded was by GimbalLock314. It was claimed as "own work" and described as part of a "free android game by AwfSoft". The first time this image was deleted the criteria was "software screenshot of unknown copyright status.
The second time this image was uploaded was by "Fred", this time the upload log said the image was "own work" and said it was the starting positions for beginning a Tri-D Chess Game. So the first uploader said "own work" and so did the second uploader. That is not possible. The image was deleted for a second time based on the information provided, and it had been tagged "no source" and "no permission" for all obvious reasons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting deleted photo restored
What do I have to do (contact form, etc.) to get the person who gave me permission to upload the image you deleted File:Burnhamthorpe_road_in_mcc.jpeg to contact you to confirm his permission?
Hi Ellin, Looks like you deleted an image I uploaded some time back File:Jason_Kothari.jpg due to copyright violation. This image came directly from Jason Kothari(Image of the same person), now could you please help me on how to get the image restored? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurator321 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 06 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ellin, I have Levan Songulashvili's permission to upload pictures of his artwork and also I took pictures of some of his drawings I posted. What should I do to prove that I have all rights to upload and post the works on the artist's Wiki Gallery? I can get all the papers as soon as possible, just let me know. Sincerely! GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]
Hi GeorgianArtCenter: Under the upload rules of Commons, the copyright holder (in this case the artist) is the only one who can grant permissions, and thus needs to fill out the simple form at COM:OTRS and return. Only the author of a piece has any rights to that piece, you cannot upload the works of others, and most particularly NOT to claim own work on the works of others as it is not your own work and you do not have the right to upload it without the artist's permission. I would also point out that Commons is not for promotional purposes, so "the artist's Wiki Gallery" is an invalid concept. If you attempt to promote non-notable artists, or create pages for artists just for the purpose of promotion, the images and the text may be removed. The Wiki-projects are not for promotion, self-promotion, getting ahead, making a name for yourself, or showing off. For those, please upload to Twitter, Facebook, and the host of other self-promotional sites. I'm very concerned at the repeated use of the (c) symbol over on the Wikipedia page Levan Songulashvili because over here the images have been marked own work by you on the upload forms. Please continue the discussion over at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GeorgianArtCenter where I've been more brief but address the same points. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sitacuisses I did not find the arguments on the talk pages compelling as the images were copied from "Spyridon Marinatos: Das Schiffsfresko von Akrotiri, Thera. In: Dorothea Gray: Seewesen. (= Archaeologia Homerica, Band I, Kapitel G), Göttingen 1974, S. 140" and were not old images. As for "ignored for many hours"... all admins here are volunteers it's possible that no one was online at that time. We're not machines! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was that the speedy requests were ignored as they were not convincing. Surely the images were taken from a book, but still they are reproductions of old artwork. This is a photograph of the original work. To me it's not obvious that a sketch that's actually a copy of another work reaches the threshold of originality. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sitacuisses : Please read COM:DW about derivative works. We have no way to know what that drawing was based on - could have been something - could have been nothing. There was not sufficient information in the template to tell. Both files had same description despite being visually different, it read "Umzeichnung eines Details des besterhaltenen Schiffs des Schiffsfreskos aus Raum 5 im Obergeschoss des Westhauses der Ausgrabungsstätte in Akrotiri auf Santorin, Kykladen, Griechenland." Renumbering of the best preserved ship of the ship fresco from room 5 upstairs of the West house the archaeological site of Akrotiri on Santorini, Cyclades, Greece And with illustrations from a 1974 book "unknown author" isn't credible. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ellin Beltz, the drawings are copys from this ship (above) on a fresco from archaeological site of Akrotiri. The drawings are published in Das Schiffsfresko von Akrotiri, Thera by Spyridon Marinatos (in Seewesen by Dorothea Gray, Archaeologia Homerica, 1974), the draftsman is unknown (not named). Picture 1 is from page G 140, picture 2 from page G 150. They are copys from a two-dimensional work from the time of the minoan civilization, derivate works or reproductions without threshold of originality by the draftsman. Regards, --Oltau (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph of the original, more than 3000 years old painting
Ellin, the black & white drawings were copied by the uploader from a scientific work from 1974 about paintings from the bronze age. To say that "we have no way to know what that drawing was based on" is an insult of a renowned scientist, and hearing this from an admin is embarrassing. I even linked to a photograph of the original work in my previous post. It was not exactly the correct section of the original frieze, so now I add a better photograph (though Oltau just beat me to it). Please compare the top right ship to the drawings. Also your translation isn't correct. "Umzeichnung" in this context doesn't mean "renumbering", but something like "copy by drawing". The original work that the scientist copied is several thousand years old, that's why the original author is unknown. If you don't understand what this is about, then it would be wise to leave the decision to someone who shows more interest in the facts. Why don't you just restore the pictures for a regular deletion request and let the wisdom of our community play its part? I did read COM:DW, and found the following: "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." It's very questionable if the drawings that were published in the book have enough originality, and without originality, it's not justified to delete the files from commons. BTW the drawings show two differently scaled sections of the old painting, and the large drawing includes the small section that the other one shows in a larger scale. That's why it's perfectly ok if both had the same description. --Sitacuisses (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been online in the last few hours since you asked, I'd have been delighted to make changes, but it would be redundant since you've filed with COM:UNDEL. Thank you for adding sufficient information to clarify the situation. I'm sure you'll get plenty of help at COM:UNDEL. Remember this is not a judgement but a process. I said that "we have no way to know what this drawing is based on" due to the incomplete details which were provided on the upload template and the source given being a book. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HijoDeBarrioObrero: Please do not remove the contents of the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HijoDeBarrioObrero deletion nomination again, nor remove the individual tags on the images pages. It's counterproductive and could be taken as an attempt to game the system. You need to upload only photos you yourself took, not copies of photos from the internet, or copies of other people's pictures. Please reply only at the Deletion request, nothing we discuss on the talk pages will be considered by the closing administrator over there. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warm welcome
Merhaba, Efendim??? What??? Why you want to delete a shit ton of my photos??? They are models and prostitutes I photographed in Berlin over the last 10 years. The reason I did't do the categories now, is just, that I have no time to do it at the moment. I wrote at WikiMedia and want them to help me upload all the 7Tb of my work to their servers. No reaction! Now that... Why should I support MediaWiki, if the whole community treat me like shit? Thanks a lot and happy new year! All the best, Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabuja (talk • contribs) 21:19, 08 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mabuja: The Commons project is not a catch-all, nor a place to promote your own photography. The images you uploaded which are listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mabuja were nominated because they don't contain images of notable people, or events. Please see COM:SCOPE for what images are within the scope of the project. Commons has a focus or scope to the project; some kinds of images are within scope, others aren't. As stated at the deletion nomination, "Commons isn't a place to upload snapshots of friends, family and random people. Those uploads much better go to your Facebook, Deviant art or other social media website. Many of these images are so underexposed that they could not reasonably be used for anything, even if the subjects were notable, which apparently they are not. Out of COM:SCOPE." In the next subheader I added a group of underexposed cars to the nomination, and Tuvalkin pointed out that some from the first batch are credited to others. Please reply over there, instead of here, since nothing we talk about here will be considered by the closing administrator. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! Presumption to guilt ?
Hi ! About the dinosaur Atsinganosaurus, for an artist view of a fossil animal, we're forced to use & follow the precedent sculptures or drawings (if they are accurate) by fidelity to the scientific validation. But I changed some details (derivative work). If you think than it's a copyviol, do for the best, no problem for me. But about the other uploads, the map « Transhumanţă » is mine and if you can find some others about the same theme, you can't find THIS ONE nowhere because I passed some hours to draw it ; so "Copyvio" OF WHAT ? of my sources ? Sorry for the mention of this sources on the map ! About « Paléo-1 », all the images of this composite are extracted from Commons, not only by me, but also by others, until me... About « Leonte Izot de Fântâna Albă.png », this image is uploaded by the user Cezarika1 are also extract by me from the Romanian Commons. If this is a « copy viol », you must delete also this picture in the Romanian Commons. About the butterfly « Lethe corbieri », « no confidence » ? Presumption of guilt ? You must verify ! This is MY drawing (so, Nel & Balme CAN'T have THIS picture in their paper) of a fossil (the butterfly Lethe corbieri) actually exposed in the Natural History Museum of Toulon (France) where I work. Sorry for my cosmetic work on my pictures before upload ! You CAN'T find this image nowhere, in any site or book, but you can call the Natural History Museum of Toulon 00.33.483.954.421, contact the curator François Dusoulier (he speaks perfectly english), and ask to him if he expose this fossil in this moment, and if he know me, Ion Cepleanu. You can also see [1]. About my map of the « Mount Athos » (again some hours to draw it, according with the sources), a historical map isn't only an OLD, very OLD map ! We can today draw numeric and vectorial maps with our PC even of the Neolithic ! But I could also draw maps when I was young, in the 70ties, before the beginning of the personal computers, and I can today scan my backgounds (and also my old argentic pellicula photographies), re-draw all it with Photoshop, translate and cosmetically adapt this old works. « No confidence » ? Presumption of guilt ? You must verify ! I have Skype. You can search and call me. My phone is the _personal info redacted_. I can show by Skype my old works & books ! Would you ? Now, if in your eyes I am a big _(offensive word removed)_ of the copy rights, you have a giant work : you must delete all my photographies (except someones, uploaded without cosmetic changes) and maps (with old backgrounds & who cite sources). But before, please, Mr. prosecutor, have a little talk with my lawyer, the french Wiki administrator [2]. Happy New Year ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please work with us to get sources on your files? As stated in COM:L and COM:EVID it's up to the person uploading the files to provide sources. The historical maps should take less time to source than getting upset and leaving long messages. Some of the information on your files is missing; perhaps you forgot to put it when you are uploading. As for all the other stuff above, none of it matters but getting the sources right on your pictures.
For the dinosaur picture unfortunately you have copied a copyright background from another webpage and the dinosaur art from someone else and stuck the two together. That is called "Derivative Work". You can read more about it at COM:DW. Cheers ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers also. Only the fictional maps are original works, so all my maps are "derivative" because I have a lot of sources (books or other maps). About my drawings, if my dinosaurs or backgrounds aren't enough different, please delete ! but please keep when the scale, colours, details or language are enough different (I trust the administrators for this evaluation). About Dinos, OK, delete Atsinganosaurus, I'm agree. About "Mount Athos 1650" some sources are Νίκος Σβορώνος -Nikolaos Svoronos-, Το Άγιον Όρος,στο: συλλογικό ΄΄Μακεδονία: 4000 χρόνια ελληνικής ιστορίας και πολιτισμού΄΄ (A 4000-year history of Mount Athos) Εκδοτική Αθηνών, 1992, also [3], [4] and more others. About "Transhumanţă", I have also many sources ; I draw this map (format A3) in the 1970 years since some others, showed in a 1961 book (cited as source) and some others, as this one [5] ; some days ago I scan my old work (in some different pieces), actualize it and asembled the pieces with Photoshop. I can show my first old work by Skype. Am I (today) violed __REDACTED OFFENSIVE WORD AGAIN, would you please attempt to be polite ? - Hey ! I didn't want to offence YOU but I found instead of the french word violer the english word raped in the automatic translator ___ the copyright of my work (of the 70-ties) ? For Lethe corbieri I will take a new better photography, not with my phone but with a camera ; my source for the informations is François Dusoulier, entomologist, and curator of this Museum : [6] (I created this article). Technically, I can upload a work as "own" or "PD-old" but not as "derivative work", but I can describe the work as a derivative one. Thanks, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spiridon Ion Cepleanu: You seem to be missing the point entirely. Putting together other people's work (taking photos of their work with your camera), and cutting and pasting photos and illustrations by others, are both "Derivative Works" and as such are not possible to be uploade at Commons. See COM:DW and COM:L, and please never say you were not informed to read the instructions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mrs. Ellin, sorry for my rocky english. I fully agree not to use pictures of other people (even anonymous) as a background for the Dinosaurs. It has happened that the directors of Commons noticed that I was inspired by other illustrations of plants or animals to compose new, different, but scientifically consistent ones with my sources. The publishers of my book : [7] told me that derived works are eligible (you see a lot in other printed books). Since you tell me that it is not possible in the Commons, OK, delete the dinosaurs. But the butterfly fossil Lethe corbieri is another matter. I have not photographed the work of another person but the fossil ITSELF. Nobody has carved this fossil : it is not a work of art, so the problem of FoP does not arise; it is NATURAL, it has released out of the sediments, and it is part of a public collection, not a private one. So I replaced my Commons blurry photo by a better one. I hope this will convince you that I am not a liar and a thief : [8]. I read COM:DW and COM:L, and you can not find "Transhumanţă" other than in my computer ! I recognize that I made a mistake for Dinosaurs, but neither for Lethe corbieri or « Transhumanţă ». Your colleague administrator Esby : [9], came to see me in real life (not in the virtual world) and saw with his own eyes the fossil : [10] that another administrator of Commons wanted to suppress, also thinking I had stolen the photo on the internet. That's all. Thank you very much. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good faith & patience. Yes Esby [11] can help us. I'm agree for respecting the rules but I have some difficulties, principally because I can't upload any image with another licence than 'own' or 'PD-old' (see please [12]) and because the borders of the copyright are blurred (if we take the stricter interpretation, many works of Andy Warhol have violeted some copyrights). Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spiridon Ion Cepleanu Glad to hear that Esby was helpful. I have again removed the offensive language you left now for the third time on my talk page. I would not be chiding you for it except you replaced one of the times where I redacted it. Do not leave offensive language behind you again on my talk page, or actions will be initiated. Please consider reading COM:L which contains all the information you need about licenses for pictures which can be uploaded to Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy, so I actually did not reply.I have little time for Commons for now. Ion is a good guy, he is not into tech so much, so sometimes his camera shots are not the best. The fossils photographs are usually his. (assuming no errors were performed). For the maps, afik, he has been drawing maps and modifying maps since 1970, some are based on supposed protected maps, some might not be. The french publishing companies apparently does not really care if the maps is based on / off another map. I believe this is not handled via copyright claims. Can this be on Commons, I honestly don't know. This looks like grey contents that should not be in Commons, but I won't support deletion of these works since I find that situation idiocratic.... (besides I have not followed the issue in a while, so I might not be in position to comment anything) Esby (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm "upset", I know ! and ? ;-D
Hello. Sorry but I'm "upset" in my brain since my young years : I do a lot of works without salary, I think that a lot of things should be public, etc. I'm that. <:-/ With File:Lethe corbieri, me & my graphic sources.jpg you can see the fossil (please delete this picture now, thank you) as it's exposed is in the exhibition of the Natural History Museum of Toulon. With File:Lethe_corbieri,_Oligocène,_Holotype.jpeg and File:Dactylo+Belemnites.jpg you can see my photographies, modified for an "esthetic" effect (if this word is admissible ? I'm not an artist, not a scientist, only a "scientific mediator" [13] : a storyteller with some scientific & artistic universitary diplomas). In my mind, this transformation is a good thing for the vulgarisation articles (I modified around the fossil, not this one itself), but it seems you're not agree with this. Am I right or wrong ? I have not a strong opinion. In all cases, even if I'm right, you, do for the better regarding the rules and the Wikipedia's best interest. It's not a personal question for me : I uploaded a lot of images into Commons, and if 5% or 10% are not OK with the rules and must be deleted, this is not a problem. Cheers, as you said :-) --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is with the copyrights only, not your job, your hobby or your interests. The ones formerly deleted were cut-and-pastes where you took someone else's dinosaur picture and superimposed it onto a photograph of high quality not taken by you and then made claim to the entire collage (of two people's work) to be your own work on which you had the rights to grant copyright. Please read COM:L before making more uploads. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to point out to you that User:GeorgianArtCenter has uploaded an additional five images[14] of Levan Songulashvili art as "own work" on January 7, after you made the deletion discussion. I don't know the procedures well over here on Commons, whether you can add those to the same deletion discussion or if you would want to create another one for those images.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samuel J. Howard: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GeorgianArtCenter. When new images would fit exactly into a prior nomination which is still open, generally the new would be added to the old. However, if a new request were started, a simple link to the old one (and a reverse link from the old to new) would also work. Or, as you did, a quick note to a friendly admin and problem solved! Thank you for the headsup! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi INeverCry As I squealed in great glee, I realized that this image is more Squee than just your random happy ecstatic remark in this case.... because these look a lot like the furry rodents from Myst III: Exile! (joke follows) Derivative work or convergent evolution ... great minds want to know! Hugs! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Lotsoflogos: You're most welcome. If File:Larson-Hartman-2-1196.jpg had been YOUR photo, we would have never met. However, you typed on the upload log "Phil Hartman posing for a photo taken around 1996||source=newyorker.com|author=Sarah Larson". Commons requires Sarah Larson's permission to retain the image; you cannot upload the work of someone else to Commons, that's called a COM:COPYVIO. On Commons, Copyvios get deleted. Just as we could not accept a gift of a car you removed without permission from the street and said "here have my car," we cannot accept a photo not created by you and without the original creator's permission. So sorry you misunderstood the process, please read COM:L before making more uploads. Thank you for the sarcasm warning. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Max Mosley during a interview.jpg
I don't understand why you closed the COM:AN discussion and told people that they were double dipping and duplicating what was being done elsewhere: I created the DR after seeing the discussion, two hours after the discussion was started. I wasn't planning to contribute further to the discussion, so it's not as if I'm trying to squeeze in the last word; it just doesn't seem fair to tell the other people that they messed up when this discussion predated the DR. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nyttend: Sorry you took it personally, but the discussion belongs on the DN page. I've seen other times when people have done a DN and then a AN (or vice versa) and in all cases, only one place should stay open to avoid double dipping and wasting people's time with duplications. In this case, the argument belongs at the DN. And - of course - you weren't the only one double posting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A DN is a Deletion Notification, in practice the same as the more familiar DR — a Deletion Request. Neither name is accurate when refering to the discussion itself, and to its outcome. -- Tuválkin✉✇02:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Osplace: It looks like two other uploaders uploaded the same files over again. As they were previously deleted, I deleted them over again. Could you also look at the following files, and perhaps create DNs as needed:
When a user is being treated horribly condescendingly, to the point of nearly leaving Wikipedia over the attacks on how his work is credited, it' s probably best not to only ask them to calm down. If I had seen that last night, when the attacks were flying thick and fast from many directions I don't think anything would have got me back on Commons. I stand by my statement: He was incredibly condescending. However, I've deleted the thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with everything Ellin. It was good working with you and a few others, but 7 years is turning out to be more than enough for me. I've overstayed my welcome. When people like Colin can make a coldblooded comment like this, that shows no feeling or consideration for the uploader or photographer whatsoever, it's time for me to find a new home. Yann can nominate any uploads of mine that he wants, but he does so against my wishes in future. I just don't need the stress and confrontations I've found all too much of here anymore, whether started by me or others, especially since my de-sysop. Take care. I'll be scuttling my email, and I won't be back again; you have my word on that. Hugs. INeverCry10:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to see INC leave (again) but rather puzzled at the rationale give. I was pleased to see INC contribute to FPC in recent weeks, particularly as he is someone who did not seem to be afraid to oppose and make critical comments. There are many who shy away from opposing any images, and this makes the forum susceptible to becoming merely a popularity contest rather than a proper review. Although INC uploaded this cat picture, it isn't his photograph and he didn't nominate it, so I'm additionally puzzled as to why he should take negative reviews so personally. Any serious review of creative works is going to leave some people disappointed. But we aren't teachers or parents of a seven-year-old child so we don't have to pretend it's wonderful or sugar the pill. Most of us would find that rather patronising. And Yann should be free to nominate any pictures he thinks are FP-worthy. -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This, coming on top of the deaths of too many close friends in the last weeks, is more than I can handle today. Email me if it's an "emergency". Cheers Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TO HELL WITH DELETION !!
Seems like Wikipdia is hellbent over deleting anything from India!!
I added pictures of several religious festivals, the idols,places and many more...but each time they were flagged and nominated for deletion.
Good Luck !! We Indians don't need Wikipedia to spread our culture.It was just that we felt like sharing it with the world.
How funny is it to be questioned, whether the MANUSMRITI predates the Bible or not ......and you call them Wikipedians !!Lol
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sssxccal (talk • contribs)
Hi Sssxccal, Please read COM:L for a greater understanding of the licenses of images which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is different than what is acceptable at various Wikipedia projects. Also please see COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries for file deletions
Hello, Ellin! I uploaded File:Largo de São Domingos.jpg and shortly after I found out that its author died in 1947 after all, and therefore this photo is not yet PD. I then marked it for deletion, and you did follow up my speedy del. req. and now the photo’s gone till Jan. 1st 2018. Good, but the edit summary says «Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing». I don’t mind a public slap on my wrist, but only good if warrented. Is there a way (and I suppose you close these in a more or less automated fashion) to use a better edit summary, such as «Copyright violation, as reported by User:So&so»? -- Tuválkin✉✇03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Tuválkin: I fixed that one file. You are correct, it's an automated process. I really agonized over that image too and looked myself for the age, it was so sharp and so good. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this! It’s indeed a great photo of an interesting location — modern monument to the 1506 anti-Jew pogrom of Lisbon, a multilingual inlaid-marble mural, and a church that burned in the 1950s whose interior was mostly kept with charring and other fire damage upon restoration. I added it manually to Category:Undelete in 2018, as I think that cats of deleted don’t show up in cat galleries even for admins. -- Tuválkin✉✇22:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naked Music
Naked Music album cover deletion
Hi Ellin, I've just read your information about the correct way to add an album cover to a wiki page. I'm a bit confused so I'd appreciate your help. I used the tag {{Non-free album cover}} and thought that would be the correct way to go. The article is about en:Eleanor McEvoy's upcoming album Naked Music and the cover photo is the one being used on the album. Would you let me know what I need to add beyond the {{Non-free album cover}} tag. I've created the page with complete permission of McEvoy. Thanks for your help, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajeanne (talk • contribs) 2016-01-20T23:52:30 (UTC)
Image Deletion
Hi Ellin, I would appreciate your help in uploading Eleanor McEvoy promo picture.jpg I'm confused about why it was deleted - I used the tag for album cover - and I don't understand what else I need to do. The image is the cover of Eleanor McEvoy album Naked Music and I'm using it with the knowledge and permission of McEvoy. Thanks for your help. AnnaJeanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajeanne (talk • contribs) 2016-01-21T00:07:10 (UTC)
Hiya Annajeanne. The problem with both images is there is no "fair use" on Commons. You might be able to upload the album covers under fair use at English Wikipedia, but Commons only accepts free-media. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry I may have added my question twice. I'm also sorry but I'm still confused. For the file Naked Music - what is the correct way to add the album cover - thanks so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajeanne (talk • contribs)
Hi Annajeanne: Please read my reply above. There is no "fair use" on Commons. In order for the file to be retained, the actual copyright holder of the file needs to fill out the form at COM:OTRS and send it in based on instructions on that page. Examples of other album covers where this has been done include:
Those two will show you how the file will look after the COM:OTRS has been received and approved. Please read COM:L for more general information about uploading to Commons, and COM:EVID for a discussion of the responsibilities of the uploaders. I'd also point out that unless Ms. McEvoy is notable, there is no guarantee that the album cover would be retained. As you can imagine, we receive hundreds of album covers a week from various people, some of which really are covers and some are people playing in Photoshop. And, of course COM:SCOPE prevents purely promotional or self-promotional uploads. Those are better sent to Facebook or other social media where promotion is the name of the game. Please do not try to delete my talk page again, that was really an unwelcome way to wake up today. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that someone tried to contact you but that the user created a deletion request for your talk page instead. You might wish to comment (and move the text somewhere else). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stefan2 for your note. Move which text where? The person who nominated my talk page has already left notes about the album covers she tried to upload with someone else's permission (not via COM:OTRS), under "fair use". See above. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the discussions on this talk page. I closed the deletion request as invalid with a request to keep discussions on this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naked Music album cover deletion
Hi Ellin, I'm writing about the deletion of Naked_Music.jpg. I posted the picture of the album to accompany the wiki page for Naked Music (Eleanor McEvoy album). I used the tag for album covers and I'm confused about the correct way to tag the photo. I used it with the full knowledge and permission of Eleanor McEvoy. Could you please tell me what the correct tags for album covers so I can get the photo of the album on the Naked Music Page. Thanks for your help, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajeanne (talk • contribs)
Hi there! You closed this deletion request earlier. The user who submitted the request uploaded this photo since then and I am curious whether this is allowed or not. I don't want to start another request unnecessarily. It seems to me that this is a derivative work and it shows the same logo clearly and with a high resolution, next to a depiction of Mickey Mouse. Would this not a copyright violation on the same grounds?–Totie (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwasura : It looks like a difference of opinion, not necessarily a right or wrong action by you that started the problem, but by not stopping when the first questions were raised, the renaming flag became at risk. Meanwhile, it has to be done one by one anyway, but there are thousands of images without source if you're looking for something to do that would really benefit the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kindness Ellin. I am committed to do my best to properly attribute, describe and categorize Ukrainian Symbols. I do hope you will not find my recent work harmful for the project or disrespectful for the fellow users. But as you probably know flag was removed from me, and I am trying to find out what is it did I do in violation to Language or File Renaming policy so I can learn from my mistakes. Sincerely --Kwasura (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwasura : Probably best to ask the editors who complained to you about the changes and who were involved in the discussion rather than me. I've gotten told "no you can't rename 'a' to 'b'". I didn't then say "I know better" and change it right back. I'm not 100% sure why this problem started, but the place to ask is the folks who said it was a problem. I don't find any work really harmful to the project when done with a good heart and COM:AGF. Next time someone says "stop and wait" though, would be a very good time to stop and wait. You can always ask them to "help" at that point and get some/most or all of the work done by others. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin. Please, could you explain why keep this image?. In addition to the errors of copyright mentioned, this file has been deleted previously, then was uploaded to Commons by a banned user. Btw, the author of the picture is a clear violation. --The Photographer (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
which are both in use on Coat of arms of Venezuela. I see one historic and one present image. I do not see any argument in the current deletion nomination about "compiled from various sources," is it possible that pertained to the former file of this name which was deleted and not to the present one?
With that said, I would not be adverse to reconsidering the close, but I'd like a succinct description of why (a) would be ok, but (b) would not and also then for any others of the other coats of arms, as shown on the en:wiki page, which you feel are PD and which may not be (if any). Thanks! Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, thanks for your quick response :).
My arguments are based on an earlier version previously deleted and becomes meaningless with the new version as lacking real author and source. Subsequently, the user (blocked in es wiki and commons), rather than request a Undeletion requests, he simply uploaded the same image with the same name, however, attributing to himself authorship.
With respect to my arguments for erasing the image. The blazon (description of the coat of arms) is in public domain, however, the shield design is owned by someone.
Sure Ellin. The original source (info from old version deleted and the same current version with wrong info) was Sigge Kotliar. However, Sigge Kotliar is not really the original author, he only maked a authomatic vectorized version of this Coat of arms (derivated work from someone). In the Readme file from Sigge Kotliar tell "We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case)". Conclusion: The original source is unknown and protected by copyright. BTW, Venezuela government reserves the exclusive use of this Coat of arms, on spanish. Thanks for your question :) --The Photographer (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, I think we should keep this, unless we find the same size elsewhere. Otherwise, with this rationale, you will have to delete quite a number of my files. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir , Wikipedia Commons, I uploaded the photos clicked by the camera, which I own myself and I have a right Why, you delete the copyright photos And also:
Some of these pictures were obviously not taken by you. And newspaper clippings and book covers are derivative works, so you need a permission from the publisher. Please upload the unmodified original files (with EXIF data), or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File still there
Hi Ellin, The user "Jtmoana" uploaded a number of pictures, all with their watermark in it, and has been warned on their talk page already because of copyright infringement issues. There is one file left; you posted that you deleted that one, but I can still see it. Why is that, I wonder? Have a look yourself, please: File:DrWainggai.jpg respectively the article: Dr._Thom_Wainggai By the way: Thanks for all the works and time that you contribute to our project! Regards from Germany, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoTrinity (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, I can't find it in the regulations right now: Is a logo, text, or a watermark in a picture a valid reason to delete it on commons? Thanks for your help in advance. --GeoTrinity (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GeoTrinity: Your question covers several pages of policy and guidelines here at Commons. No, a watermark alone is not valid reason... But if it's watermarked GETTY IMAGES, and claimed own work... it becomes part of a reason. See also Help:Removing watermarks and Template:Watermark. Texts in general are not hosted on Commons. So no homework - with or without dog teeth marks, no resumes (also not allowed under promotion), no copies of scientific or college papers, etc. See COM:FT for discussions of all file types including text. The logos get far more complicated and have a lot more information to read about them, see COM:TOO. Also when you comment on deletion nominations, try not to use cut and paste statements... it's far more helpful to know *what exactly you agree with* than a general "heave ho!" Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Thanks for your really helpful reply! Contributing here on Commons is much more challenging than working in the German Wikipedia project indeed. English as a mean of communication is not a problem for me but things simply work differently here. I tried to read all the linked pages but I guess that I simply need more practice to become nearly half as competent as you are one day. Sometimes, when I take part in deletion nominations, the same reasons apply over and over again. I also was shocked to see how many people obviously misuse Commons for personal reasons (mainly those recent Korean uploads but also others), this isn't facebook or pinterest, is it? The hint to "project scope" doesn't really help ... I talked with a German admin about it, Raymond, a very friendly and also competent photographer who said that we can't really do anything against it. But yes, I will try to provide individual reasons why I cast a "keep it" or "delete it" vote in the future. Today, I nominated this picture because of the logo and there is no proof that the uploader is really the copyright holder (though he claims it to be). Do you think that the logo is a valid reason for deletion? Should I have advised him to send an OTRS form, too? I have understood that text "as texts" are not allowed but what about "text on pictures"? What about this example with Geocaching nicknames on the picture: [[File:Zug_Geocoin_the_Big_One.png]]? Is this acceptable? Don't worry, I will not bother you with further examples but your opinion towards these two would help me learn the rules. Thanks again and cheers, Alex. --GeoTrinity (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Alex. GeoTrinity: It's really late here but I'll be back to you after classes tomorrow with perhaps some hints or help. I find logos some of the more difficult issues here from time to time... my favorites are the "no source" images of which we have over 60,000. I try to find sources for at least a couple dozen a week, at this rate I can never die; they're being added in the hundreds per day. Check it out Category:Images without source - try not to cry!! There are also tons of images to nominate buried in all that as well as dozens to fix and "save" which I think is the most rewarding part. (PS there's several languages after the letter Z.) Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you recently marked this file for deletion and it was removed from the Commons. You cited that the file was a copywrite violation however it is not since it is not a copywrited image. It is in the public domain for free use. I believe you made a mistske. If not, please explain why you deleted this file and if you were mistaken please restore it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKaroll (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EKaroll:Please provide a source other than "own work"? This is the file template from your upload: == {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information|description={{en|1=Logo used by the organization IlliniPAC as of late 2015.}}|date=2015-11-25|source={{own}}|author=[[User:Theillinipac|Theillinipac]]}}== {{int:license-header}} =={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}{{Uncategorized|year=2015|month=December|day=29}} Also, I found the image in use in several places on the Internet prior to your upload. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
possible deletion of files
Dear Ellin Beltz, photo that you selected for possible deletion, except for File:Tonino-drago.jpg (that I selected from internet) are free and shooted from my association (Centro Studi Sereno Regis), that I'm a member, or reposed in our archives (we are a study center for peace and nonviolence). Centro Studi Sereno Regis commissioned to me the construction of pages where photo are hosted. So please don't delete and keep them.--Paolomacina (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, earlier today you had a picture of mine removed from the Commons, and in turn, removed from an article. The lack of copyright was due to it being my first time ever uploading an image to commons. I got the image from the LFL Facebook page, and wasn't sure how to name a copyright for it, if any at all. Again, it was my first time, if you could give me some pointers on how to properly upload, it would be fantastic. The info within the LFL wiki that the image was by makes a lot more sense with the image next to it. Thanks. NateDawg0115:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NateDawg01: Unfortunately Commons only accepts free images. Your upload read ... |source=facebook.com/mylfl |author=Legends Football League ... with no indication that you have permission from the Legends Football League to upload one of their photos from Facebook (incomplete link, btw) to Commons. Please read COM:L and COM:EVID for a better understanding of the fine points license and source, but also please read COM:SCOPE as not every image is considered educational. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just looked at the US copyright database and they have nothing on LFL, Legends or Lingerie. So how does that work then? And how are images on Facebook not free? Isn't it the same as the others pics on the LFL wiki that cam from flickr? NateDawg0116:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the necessary information. I don't know how I overlooked that (it was, of course, transferred from Turkish Wikipedia). The source appears to be a dead link now, which is very unfortunate, considering how many of my articles about Turkish painters make reference to it. WQUlrich (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restored. Ellin, could you please check before deleting 1. who made the request, 2. that the uploader should be warned (he wasn't here). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I just looked for the picture, and didn't see restored, could you put a link please? @Vituzzu, mistakes happen even in a perfect world, that's why we have checks and balances. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm harsh but this was a strong misjudgment instead of mistake. During the last two hours feet feticist vandal tagged other pictures for speedy deletion and, honestly, now I'm afraid of forgetting some of his daily block evasions. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vituzzu, Would it be possible for you to provide links to this alleged action so that I can try to help you? I'm sorry but you're being a bit vague and I'm not as informed as you are on whoever this is who is causing you the trouble. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a long-term abuser, as said: here at commons a bunch of sockpuppets are categorised under the name "fritella".
Anyway that's not the main issue, I can manage it through global block, lock and checkuser, while some local sysop already applied the relevant page protections.
My main trouble is knowing that any image uploaded by anyone reverting him is at risk of being deleted, with a simple meaningless copyvio tag.
Finally what puzzles me is this: you deleted also a picture without any tag, so it wasn't just a mistake (deleting any picture with a copyvio tag, regardless of the meaning) but a serious misjudgment.
Vituzzu: If this has nothing to do with a sockpuppet problem why did you even bring that up? I'm totally confused by this. First you bring it up, then you say it's not important. So I read this sevearl times, and while I really don't see a question in a pile of judgements, if you'd asked one, I think my answer would be to look where you linked here ... it reads "11:25, 27 January 2016 Ellin Beltz deleted page File:Luci di periferia.JPG (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange. " When VFC is open, all the pages which are copyvios show in bright yellow overprinting, and can be handled in batches. So either the image was checked off in VFC incorrectly somehow (don't ask me, I didn't code it), or I missed one in the gallery and took an extra image. I don't usually take extra images as yours is the first mention of this in over a year and a half of using this tool. So I really do not know what exactly happened in this case but it was done with COM:AGF whatever it was. Unfortunately the system doesn't let us go backwards to see which ones were checked, and which unchecked, but this is not something which seems to happen before and thus would be more a mistake than a misjudgement. This particular image is a blurry night view of no particular obvious importance; it shows a crosswalk, some overhead lighting and the blurry and indistinct image of two pedestrian signs and nothing much else. I apologize for any upset created by any actions, and request that discussions stay on the polite, collegial level where we may both benefit from the interaction. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's ofc an useless image (then worth a RfD). But still I wonder: how did it come to be deleted as copyvio with not even a (baseless) copyvio tag? AFAIR VFC hightlights suspected copyvios basing upon copyvio template(s). --Vituzzu (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Help: Renaming of a file
Hi Ellin, a user requested that I rename a file here on Commons ([Link]). He considers it to be really important (just have a look at the way too long discussion on the talk page of the file, Jeeeeez), so could you do me a favor and rename the following file for me, please? I have no clue at all how to it here myself or if I'm even allowed to do it. Thanks in advance! This is the old name: File:Nylon-Garn auf zwei Spulen.jpg and the new name should be: File:2x18m_Nylon-Draht_0.4_mm_Durchmesser_auf_2_Spulen_33x35mm_Loch_8mm.jpg Helium4 thinks that the name should be as accurate as possible ... Thanks again, have a good Sunday. --GeoTrinity (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this deleted? I'm pretty sure I had solved the issue and I didn't get a notification when the image was put in deletion again. Please restore the file description, I'll upload a new version. Nemo08:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nemo: This photo was removed because of the book page which it showed still found to be in copyright "because the Italian text indicates this is a critical edition of the translation by Jean-Yves Tadié, b 1936, so the text is still in copyright." Please don't upload another version of this image because the text of the book itself is copyright. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the picture on this page. I actually own it so I'm wondering how it violates copyright. Is there a way to add a picture so that I don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwinters12345 (talk • contribs)
Hi Toly34, My apologies, I have been away for a few days with the flu. I see taht Ymblanter has given you the answer to the above! Again, my apologies for the delay. Your images would be a welcome addition to the collection, but the COM:OTRS approval process has to happen first. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recieved this email after sending the permission form for the "Burnhamthorpe_road_in_mcc.jpg" image that you deleted. Does the ticket mean permission was granted to restore it? If so, how do I provide the link to the location as shown in bold? I can't find it on Wikimedia Commons.
Permissions - Wikimedia Commons
Re: [Ticket#REDACT]
To: (REDACT)
Please respond to this email, providing a link to the image at the location you have uploaded it to at Wikimedia Commons.
If the image has been deleted or you do not remember the filename, while logged-in click on the "contributions" link in the upper right hand corner of any Wikimedia Commons page, then the "Logs" link under the toolbox on the left side of the page to view your upload log. Find the filename that you uploaded the image under and click on it and give us the link to the resulting page.
Hi Transportfan70 : You need to be replying to their email, not to me. I've bolded the relevant part of the instructions above and redacted other data. The file name is as it always was, and as you have it above. It can be expressed in three ways in wiki code: here are the three raw versions [[:File:Burnhamthorpe_road_in_mcc.jpg]], or Burnhamthorpe_road_in_mcc.jpg or "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burnhamthorpe_road_in_mcc.jpg" . Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm not an experienced user and maybe made some mistake. Сoat of arms FC Tobol Tobolsk.png - this is my job, and the official logo of FC "Tobol" from Tobolsk. As an amateur club - this image or where not recorded. The coat of arms was created fans, the fans used, is used on attributes, literature, etc. The license for the image did this because unscrupulous officials of the local Municipality may usurp logo, present their work, start to prohibit use without their permission (has been pretsident with the emblem of the city), do not care that the image belongs to all people. This is Siberia, hahaha. Therefore, I decided to make the license with the name of the author. Help me understand how to do better? Sorry for the bad language. Thank you!
Герб клуба на шарфе
Hi Tobolsk fan : The problem is that on your upload form you wrote "Герб футбольного клуба "Тобол" из Тобольска, созданный Малыхиным Владимиром Николаевичем в 2010 году (обновлён в 2013 году), являющийся устоявшимся логотипом клуба на всех источниках и изданиях, посвящённых "Тоболу" и произведённых болельщиками "Тобола" - программки, атрибутика, интернет-СМИ. Все иные логотипы являются временными и появляются благодаря несогласованности и непрофессиональности работников Комитета по физкультуре и спорту администрации города Тобольска."En: Coat of arms of football club "Tobol" from Tobolsk created [by] Malihin Vladimir Nikolayevich in 2010 (updated in 2013), is an established club logo on all sources and publications devoted to "Tobol" and produced fans of "Tobol" - applets, paraphernalia, online media. All other logos are temporary and occur due to inconsistent and unprofessional staff of the Committee on Physical Culture and Sports Tobolsk city administration.
Ciao Elilin,
vorrei capire il problema di licenza della foto che ho caricato del Capitano Natale De Grazia, in Italia l'immagine è di dominio pubblico ed è utilizzata da tutti i siti internet per commemorare una persona che è deceduta nello svolgere il suo dovere a difesa dei giusti, combattendo contro la mafia, per noi italiani è importante non dimenticare le persone, troppe volte i giovani di oggi parlano dei defunti senza sapere la verità, la scuola oggi si affida al web per le ricerche degli studenti, wikipedia è uno strumento fondamentale ed è nostro dovere mantenere vivo il ricordo.
Come posso fare ad inserire l'autorizzazione scritta della famiglia?
Non voglio problemi già nessuno mi paga e il tempo dedicato è più di quello che mi immaginavo grazie mille per il tuo tempo e la tua risposta.
--Edorossiwiki (talk)
Ellin Hello, I would like to understand the photo license problem I loaded Captain Natale De Grazia, the image is public domain in Italy and is used by all websites to commemorate a person who died in performing his duty to defense of the righteous, fighting against the Mafia, the truth, the school now relies on the web for research students, wikipedia is a tool for us Italians it is important not to forget the people, too many times the youth of today speak of the dead without knowing fundamental and it is our duty to keep alive the memory. How can I do to put the written permission of the family? I do not want problems already nobody pays me and the time spent is more than what I imagined I thank you so much for your time and your answer.
hello my name is Daniel j Castaneda. I got a message on my page about deletion of a picture of Michael james agency.. he is my agent if you read my page his number is there you are more then welcome to contact him.. as well the other picture I talk to all the directors and producers and I have all the rights to use them to advertise. thank you. for faster response contact me (redacted). thank you again have a blessed day.
hello Im Daniel j Castaneda. I have the rights to the pictures that I posted on the page I am the user put the information on it. the image of the page I have rights to posted them on there I talk to the producers and directors of the project to posted them on here. now as far as the page I was the one that posted all the words and everything that is the best to my knowledge.. but if you want to deleted it is ok.. send me an email or let me know. thank you. Djcastaneda2003
Hi Djcastaneda2003: Please see the discussion at the Discussion page for each picture. Nothing we discuss here will affect that discussion. Usually however, Commons is not here for advertising, promotion or self-promotional reasons, but if you feel the actual creator of the images you uploaded would grant permission, have them contact the project by following the format COM:OTRS. Please refrain from posting private information, emails or phone numbers on any Wiki project page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this as a copyright violation. Why? You cannot imagine that a veteran professional of animation cinema can take his own self portrait? -- Tuválkin✉✇20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, there were multiple problems with this image. One was the promotional nature of the unused upload "Information |Description={{en|1=Dhimant Vyas is a veteran Animation Film Designer. He is currently working with the leading Academy Award winning Animation Studio - Aardaman Animation Ltd U.K. Dhimant Vyas is an alumnus of the National Institute of Desi", etc. It was unused, and user's only upload. We also (without more uploads or discussion from the uploader) do not know if the uploader was indeed the "veteran animation film designer" himself or someone using his name, hence copyvio. The image was nominated for over the usual time, and the uploader never responded. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin,
I know that it is your job, but can you comment my statement which I wrote in discussion of "File:LogoESS190.jpg" 's copyrights? I'd like to know if logo/file is property of ESS and this society wants to use it on its wiki page I can't do it - I wrote that I can confirm that I'm representive of European Society of Surgery and I can send you confirmation form President and General Secretary. How can we proof more that logo is our property?
Hi Chris: The method for sending permission for files uploaded which were not created by you is to use the COM:OTRS system. Follow the instructions on that page, and reference the file removed File:LogoESS190.jpg. There will be a short wait because those admins are are also backlogged, but if the page and the permissions end up all good, the OTRS admins are able to restore the file without a second upload. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Molliever: The file was a rephotograph of a group of people with dogs (Stabyhouns). The following information was provided: |date=1930 |source=very old photograph, pre-WWII |author=unknown. The file was sent to speedy based on "external source, no license, no permission". The logic is this. Not knowing anything more than the date 1930, if the author dropped dead the instant the photo was taken, his/her copyright ran out in 2000, 70 years postmortem. The item was uploaded without any sort of a licence at all. Under COM:PRP if there is doubt about the copyright of an item (and thus it's license and permissions), the reaction is to remove the item to protect the project's ability to freehost images which are without a doubt able to be hosted. Here we don't have an author, a date, or a valid source, no license was provided. I'm sorry but without additional information, that's about the only conclusion that can come from that file. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes, cameras, etc
The dog quote at the bottom of your userpage reminds me of a similar one, "sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield"... I was originally going to just post something that struck me as a bit amusing: Category:Photographs by Ken Lund. I used to work for a photolab that printed property pics for his Reno real estate company Farrari-Lund back in the late 90s/early 2000s. This guy is a multimillionaire, and he continues to use a crappy Canon Powershot camera. I almost feel like asking him on Flickr to get a real camera... INeverCry20:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd like to be doing today...What I will be doing today! I think the quote you mentioned might have influenced the saying at the bottom of that page! I'm pleased to see that he contributes so consistently no matter what his camera. Maybe it's sentimental for him? I wish I had more time to get out and take pictures! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I transferred about 5,000 of his images from Flickr, mostly aerial images, or Nevada stuff. Just imagine what a goldmine those aerial images would be if they were taken with an Olympus OM-D or even a Nikon D3200. When I printed Ferrari Lund, they used some crappy little 35mm point and shoot.
It's ironic that you mention not having time. I have all the time in the world, but I haven't left my house in months, except to go to doctor visits or the ER. I'm the kitten on the right as well, though work is definitely a four-letter word, keyboard or no. It's warming up a bit though, so I'll get out for a walk again one of these days. I hope you'll get some time in April or May to take the camera out; I still remember your area's beauty at that time of year, even though I haven't been up that way in 15 years. INeverCry20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know how to remove them myself. One was posted in error, the other I don't want on Wiki.
However, the other 3 should stay. Ownership notice was posted when I uploaded to Wiki. As for size, I had edited the size (and cropped one) prior to posting trying for conformity. I've had these for a long time.
(1)'Wicked'-video screen cap, from my personal video
Let me know they will not be deleted, or what other hoops needed to be jumped through (hopefully none). State as clearly as possible as this is all very complicated to me. Thanks.
Bkstone, 2/26, 2016
Dear Ellin Beltz, thank you for updating the photograph. I have some problems to understand copyright rules and I asked for help to the Italian Bar because my English is very weak. So, I was right, when the image is very old I can upload it? May I ask your help if I'll have other hesitations? May I use the photo in the Wikipedia page, now? Best regards --Bettylella (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya TheFlyingHorse: The templates of the images all said own work. Where it says "source" on the upload form doesn't mean "because I am uploading this picture" that would be redundant since the uploader name appears on all pages. What source means (per COM:L which is recommended reading for all new users not just a pile of text to go TL;TR) is where the image came from. If it was from a website, say so. If it was from a museum say so! If it was copied from a webpage but is really public domain and you give it the right license (see COM:L), it might be ok too. Give the HTTP links wherever possible to show not only the image page, but the license page at source. In other words, for a photograph of Mr. Historic from the Anywhere Museum, you'd need a template that looked something like this... " descriptionn = "Mr. Historic cutting the ribbon in front of the new widget factory at Anywhere, State of Jefferson, 1924." date = 1924 source = Anywhere Museum of History, http;URLofPHOTOatSOURCEplease, link to Museum page which shows their license statement on the image (if they have one). author = did it say who took the photo on the museum page? If so please put his/her name here and life dates when known, otherwise put {{unknown}}" Then for the license. There are multiple choices of license shown on COM:L, there is a cheat sheet to some of the common ones on my user page. You have to have at least one or the file automatically goes to a 'no license' bin and will be removed in 7 days. Which license to use is based on what the museum said and/or the death date of the original creator. But if you had a lot or all the foregoing information, the admins could help you and discuss the proper license for the image without guesswork. Copyright law is not simple, which is one of the reasons I suggested to you that you take some modern photos and let me help you learn the uploading process on images you did take yourself and which would be own work. If you feel that you have the information to fix the templates of the deleted files, please make a list of the file deleted and its real source and put that in a short note at COM:UNDEL. Deleted images are not truly completely gone, they can be restored if you can share the information to show they are Public Domain. Here are a few examples of images with sources that are not own work, but demonstrate providing information and the image:
In most (not all) the foregoing cases, the image was marked for deletion and saved at the last moment by research. While that's possible for a user with one mistake out of 20 uploads, for a user who uploaded a large number of files all with no information, it's not possible. Please see COM:EVID where the guidelines point out it's up to the uploader to provide information and license, not someone to come along and fix it. Even if someone wanted to fix images, if they're utterly barren of information it becomes quite impossible to do anything to save them because there's not enough to go on to sleuth out their real source. And then there's the COM:SCOPE of the project too. Commons is an educational project. Photos with little information about their time, place and subject are not as educational as images which contain a lot of information along with the actual image. The most important parts being: where did it come from, who made it and which license best fits it? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All pics I put under Chaudhary Group have been deleted. I work with the corporate communication of the Group and I know all these images are our own. These have not been "copied from other web pages", but might have been used elsewhere also, such as the company brochures etc. Please help restore the page.
Hi Teemeah: The File was uploaded without any form of OTRS attached. The upload read "=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information|description={{en|1=album cover of single E from Big Bang}}|date=2015-08-04|source=[https://www.facebook.com/BIGBANG# Facebook]
|author=YG Entertainment|permission=|other versions=}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{cc-zero}}[[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]]
{{Uncategorized|year=2015|month=August|day=5}} and it was not in use. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate attack
Your personal attack of an editor is wholly unwelcome. Please try to be more civil and check your facts because the title of the original image is Drumpf not Trump as the other image proposes. We are fact based editors, we do not let personal feeling guide our decisions. --Potguru (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Potguru: Please refrain from uploading copyrighted images which belong to other people, such as the several copied from the Television show/You Tube from which your last images were copied. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked repeatedly for help from people such as yourself but all you want to do is suppress the images of Drumpf. Please consider trying to help people instead of destroy that which the wish to share. Please stop letting your politics get in the way of helping people. You make me feel cold and unwelcome. Not a good quality in a person who choses to "help" others. --Potguru (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I need to waste more of MY time defending your absurd notion that my educational image doesn't meet the scope of the project. Hey, lady.. go pick on someone else. Your kind of "help" is not welcome around here. You are a hater who lets your personal politics guide your judgement. You are NOT a good wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru (talk • contribs)
Actually, you're partially right. The politics is irrelevant (although I enjoyed that comedy routine - which is why I recognized instantly where the images were copied from). This also has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm a Wikimedia Commons administrator and bureaucrat working to keep copyrighted images off the project. Please read COM:L and COM:EVID before making more uploads to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a bit behind hand on these pics. I guess the aerial photos have lulled me into a dense fog, where only cities, towns, counties, mountains, and lakes exist. I figured I'd stop by while I'm still coherent. I finally got an oral surgeon, so Monday I get to go to sleep and wake up four molars lighter. I've been thinking of reading De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater for a while, so maybe the coming week will be a good opportunity, with a bottle of opiates by my side... We had some decent rain yesterday. My car got covered up with little bits of stuff from the near-by Elm trees. I parked too near-by... It's hard to believe I planted these trees 30 years ago, transplanted as tiny little things from the field across the street (which now holds three mobile homes). The Elms are 40 feet tall or so now. INeverCry20:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The foxes are very cute! Thank you for sharing them. Take good care of yourself INeverCry! Isn't it utterly mad how much changes even in the short amount of time we are here? Hugs! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philafrenzy: It failed the Flickrbot review: "3 February 2016 . . FlickreviewR 2 (talk | contribs | block) (480 bytes) (FlickreviewR 2: flickr_not_found)" The file was not found at the source given, and thus the license could not be reviewed. The file was uploaded in January, so one would assume the flickr link would have been findable (even if the photo had been removed), but that was not the case, it simply 404s. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the point is it was there when I uploaded it, I checked the licence and it was CCBYSA (2.0 I think) and once released under that licence it doesn't matter if the page later goes dead. The release of an image under a creative commons licence is permanent. Could you please reinstate it. I said where I got it from and the licence it was under when viewed. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your daily dose of...hydrocodone...
Opiates. Ahhhhhhh...
I wish we were neighbors; you could scan my negs and slides, I could pay you in pills... Welp, the deed is done, the teeth are gone, along with a chunk of bone from my sinus. They told me if it doesn't heal right I may shoot water out my nose when trying to drink. It only took 4 months, 4 ER visits, 2 dentist visits, and about 30 phone calls and a few letters...
The oral surgeon was young, strong, and quick with it all, though he could've taken his time, cuz I was somewhere in orbit laughing. It turns out that Medicaid doesn't cover full general anesthesia, but half wasn't too shabby. It's like the regular visit, except you feel half-drunk. I was cautioned not to use expletives, (about Medicaid of course), but I didn't give a fuck. It was raining when I went down there for 9AM, and it's now 2PM and hailing on and off. Forgive the image quality; I hope it's decent for a 5-year-old Coolpix. And forgive the rambling - I just thought I'd stop by and say привет! Хорошего дня! INeverCry22:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct your mistake, please correct your approach. The image that you deleted was taken by the US Army, and was published in the work s:The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge (1965) by the US Army. The file has been online at Commons since 2006, and after only seven days with a tag it would appear that you have not sufficiently undertaken enough research, nor paid attention to the information on the work. Your deletion reason was completely insufficient for any appeal to be undertaken except by someone with advanced rights. To delete it outright as copyright without alerting the enWS community to this matter is a short-sighted and an inconsiderate approach by you to the community using that image. As a bare minimum you should have turned this request into a deletion request and alerted the enWS community to this request. As a bare minimum your should be providing sufficient information to allow for a review of your decision. I look forward to this being quickly resolved by undeletion, and if still uncertain then your opening a deletion discussion. — billinghurstsDrewth10:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi billinghurst: This image was nominated for speedy by Diannaa. I do not know who took this photograph but without more information, such as is provided on http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/76982359, I have to assume that it is now represented by Getty. The permission on our copy was |Permission={{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH}} Published by U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized (RG 242) and no URL. If this were a "Foreign Record Seized", then it's not a US Army photograph. Obviously, every item in the National Archives not free of copyright. Google search led to the Getty page which says it cannot be used for commercial purposes making the license obviously incompatible.
I'm sorry to fail your expectations. I would have given your request at least as much consideration - if not more - without your personal attacks. Following them, I have to recuse from additional decisions on this image as they might be seen to have been made under duress and bullying. Please take this to COM:UNDEL where you will receive a second look and possible/probable overturn of the deletion. As Jim wrote recently: Paraphrase Admins here are not necessarily right all the time, but we are open to the process of determining the best outcome for all cases. I'm sure you will receive adequate assistance at COM:UNDEL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give up with Commons admins. Pointing out to you what you should have done, and what you need to do is not bullying; it is not duress; and it is not a personal attack. Requesting that you undelete and convert to a DR is quite reasonable. I would and have done it without hesitation when challenged. But don't worry about it. I will undelete it and move it to enWS then redelete it. — billinghurstsDrewth09:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
billinghurst: I suggest that discussing the situation in a rational fashion without the negative personal remarks might have resulted in a different outcome and highly recommend it in your future dealings with others. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have handled a number of photographs of German troops in WWII, and as we are all aware that Getty pay no attention to public domain rationales when they can make cash instead, I'll take this to UNDEL. The image has a good footprint on interesting internet sources, so it's fairly easy to trip over more data. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You think the North Coast Inland Trail picture is a copyright violation? When I read the upload form, it said that any image taken from Flickr is automatically not copyrighted. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most of the images you marked for deletion serve as prominent images on the encyclopedia, so by deleting them it is hurting the encyclopedia in a major way. This makes me angry. Isn't there at least some way to ask all these sites for permission to use them here or something? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you add a lot of offensive comments. You do think extremely hard about how to find pictures to delete, but you don't think for a second about how to keep from offending people on the site! Philmonte101 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better off reviewing COM:FLICKR, COM:L, and COM:CB. That would be more productive than coming here and trying to bully and berate Ellin for enforcing copyright rules. It's up to you to be sure your uploads conform to Commons policies, not Ellin. She's not your mom. INeverCry01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever bullying anyone. I just came here saying I was offended by many of the things she said in the deletion tags, such as the degrading of art that took me 30 minutes to an hour or more to make. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I was using many of those Wikipedia screenshots for my own personal website, which is a reason that they're not completely useless. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your above post is pretty confrontational. You accuse her of making "a lot of offensive comments", and you proceed to tell her what she's thinking, which is a bad faith assumption. We get a huge amount of out of COM:SCOPE personal drawings and images here, as well as copyright violations. Ellin's not the kind of person who goes around being gratuitously insulting. She's just trying to do some clean-up work, which can be difficult. If your claims have merit, she'll give you a fair shake, if you give her a chance. INeverCry01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lois Simpson (1927-2008).jpg
This photo was supplied to me by the subject's (Lois Simpson) husband (John Painter) with his permission for it to be used. He is the copyright holder. I have asked him to send an email clarifying this, with a CC BY-SA license. I am new to uploading images here for Wikipedia so please let me know how I can best resolve this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlendson (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, thank you for your reminding. frankly speaking, we have all of the copyright of these pictures but do not know how to prove it? could you discuss with us about the way to prove the copy right? or we may give the link as reference for these pictures i uploaded. thanks a lot :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinleowong (talk • contribs)
Hi Kevinleowong: Copyright confirmation on the images can be sent to COM:OTRS. Please be aware that it's out of COM:SCOPE to advertise a business on Commons. Might I suggest that since we all have cameras now, you take a few photos which are your own work and upload them as well? That will help you work through the process with images with the advantage of actually being your own work. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudva: The closing admin pingChristian Ferrer is the one to consider changing the transaction, but in a situation like this, I'd personally recommend (a) Don't fill in the form claiming own work when the photograph is not your own work and (b) now that it's been deleted, you may have to write COM:OTRS for confirmation not only for this photo but also for the rest in the series:
First, to be the main subject of a photo, old or modern, don't make you the copyright owner of this photo. Without evidence we must assume the photographer is the copyright owner, not your step father neither your mother. Secondly, and I agree with Ellin, if your mother is now indeed the copyright owner, that must be considered with a mail from her via OTRS. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)17:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To do things on OTRS page is too difficult with my English knowledge. My mother dosen't know in English either, so she can't send any email. Nobody knows who took the photos 4 or 5 decades previous, they have never been published, they are our properties, but you can do what you want with them. --Dudva (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Commandant Xavier de Montbron.jpg is a scan from a pictures which is in the dining room of a 7 years friend's grand mother in Correze. I can prove it by asking him to take a picture of it with the living room or I don't know how.
Cadastres napoléoniens are screenshots I made from the french public archives, they are free of rights.
Forsac, vu du ciel is a screenshot I made from Maps.
File:Vieux Forsac face Nord.jpg is a scan I made from a "gravure" a friend of mine owns. So you won't find it anywhere and it is also my own work.
others are postcards I own or pictures I made myself or a friend did.
File:Setter Ecossais de Forsac.jpg are a scan from a painting someone sent me by mail. Even so, this painting had been also used to product some postcards and I own one of them.
etc...
If you want me to prove it tell me how and I'll do it immediately.
Hi Pmsef: I am glad you put the same note on the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pmsef where it belongs. As for having files on your computer and that making you the owner, please read COM:L. "Scan from dining room" and "scan from painting someone sent" and etc. all require original author information. It is not sufficient to take a print or a book and copy it to claim it's your own work. If you didn't create the book, the painting, the photo or the art, it's not yours and you need to read COM:L and put the correct licenses on the pieces. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says at the bottom of Template:Copyvio: "...Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page...". We've done that. And I really thought admins were supposed to read the talk and respond before deleting if they see that it is blue.
This is the second time this file has been deleted. It would be great if it could remain long enough for someone to add the OTRS pending template to it. Would you please consider restoring the file? If I have to ask the uploader to upload it a third time, I think that he may feel bitten and frustrated, then give up and leave. Many thanks for your consideration. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anna Frodesiak: Yes, I read that page, but there is no apparent OTRS permission on this file yet. When/if you get the COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder, the admins at OTRS are able to restore the file. Please do not upload any more copies on top of the one which is not free of copyright. You don't have to ask the uploader to do anything other than get permission for the file. No frustration required. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. I left a comment at Érico's talk page as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amitie 10g: Try waiting longer than 11 minutes when I'm logged off next time before filing a formal complaint. I would have been happy to work on this at lunch, but now someone at UNDEL can deal with it. I have to go back to class now, have a nice day. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely, I don't want to insult you again and I don't want to got blocked again, but I really want to request your De-adminship. The Deletion Policy is clear and you violated it several times; your repeated mistakes are serious and should not be allowed anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, but I finally opened a thread in the AN. The deletion of File:Rtextdoc editor example.png was the straw that broke the camel. I tried to stay mellow and fix my previous behaviour, but you still made problematic actions that should not be allowed anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it considered a violation of copyright by using both these cars' images for articles directly related to them?? The Mustang is physically a Ford Mustang car, therefore it can be referred to in any article relating to the Ford Mustang and the film. The Ferrari is a heavily modified camera vehicle used for filming Need For Speed (film), therefore it is directly related to the film. Copyright protection is only valid when the property was stolen and used for a completely different purpose, which will directly affect the original owner negatively. --Nelatti (talk)
Hi Nelatti: It has nothing to do with "relevance to the article" and everything to do with "who owns the image." Because you did not create the photographs, you do not have the rights to release them to the public domain, any more than you could take your neighbor's automobile and give it away to a charity. Property is property, whether it is pixels or material objects. Here is your list so far:
I notice that you uploaded two more copyright violations (the last two files named above) after receiving multiple warnings on your talk page. Continuing to upload copyrighted material will result in your account being blocked. Do please read COM:L before making any more uploads to Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Las Vegas Montages
Hi Ellin, I have been away for a week and just now received your message. The montages are entirely my own work and I will cite them accordingly. Can they be re-instated? I saw someone deleted them, which I am very upset about as again, I just got back from vacation. I can cite them if they are resurrected. Thanks!
Hiya User:Bporter28: The problem is that each image in a collage needs to have an appropriate license and source prior to being collaged. So restoring the images will not bring them into compliance with COM:L even if the assumption that you have the rights to grant. I'm pinging other users and admins - Steinsplitter (aka "someone"), Ww2censor, and Ytoyoda - because I notice you've received several warnings of a blocks due to the sheer number of your uploads which have been removed. I hope you had a great time on your vacation. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! Each collage is either my own work or work that is already on Commons. The collage has been made in compliance to other city montages and I have now added sources for each photo. Thanks again and let me know if anything else comes up. Bporter28 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't see eye to eye with Bporter28's claims. In this montage: File:LasVegasValleyMontage.jpg, the image "Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health" does not appear to be on the commons and is claimed as his own work but is found on this webpage with no attribution to the editor in question and no evidence of a free licence and is dated 2 months before his first edit here. Perhaps he could upload it at high resolution with appropriate metadata. Another image in that montage File:Photo 3974341-1500x1000-1.jpg has neve had its licence verified as there is no soucre url but was uploaded in 2014 with the statement "Pricey Pads, a public domain site used to market houses under (CC-BY-SA-4.0)" but that website has a clear copyright tag on its main page, so a source url could have been provided to verify the licence; again there is no metadata and it is still found here with no attribution but a copyright notice. A 3rd image File:Lasvegasnewcityhall.jpg does not appear to have ever been uploaded. Besides which the copyright tag is not the highest level of all the image but a completely different low level tag that negates the original author's licences. So that's just issues with 3 images in one montage. Without looking too far File:LasVegasMontage7.jpg has a 2012 sculpture in the Smith Art Center by a living artist Tim Bavington, whose image require the permission of the artist for derivative images.
Here is another one of his earlier uploads File:Berkeley Square 1.jpeg attributed to someone else. It is at low web resolution without metadata, obviously swiped from a web page. This exact image File:Mountain's Edge- Enterprise.jpg is found here and their main website shows a copyright notice. I doubt either of these images are freely licenced. I'm sorry to say that, having provided clear information on his talkpage on what is needed for images we accept, I just don't thrust this editor has done things correctly in the past or even now. Ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about to previous uploads which were copyright. It is difficult for me to find licensing information, but I promise the montages consist of work from Commons and my own work, which was taken on a Nikon D7000 camera. I created the montages a while back, however, and if any photos are questionable to you, please allow me the opportunity to switch them out with photos from Commons before deleting montages. I would like to do right by you. Additionally, the Pricey Pads photo was taken with an aerial drone by a friend of mine in Las Vegas, named Robert Machado, who provides aerial photography for Luxury real estate in the Las Vegas area. He in turn allowed Peicey Pads to use photos of the home for their website, which features numerous photos from across the country of luxury homes. You may find his photography online. I also took the photo of Bavington's work myself. You do not need the artist's permission to take photos of a public sculpture. This has been done numerous times on Commons for sculptures in other cities and around the world. A public sculpture is not copyright and I own the rights to the image as the photographer. Again, these photos have been on Wiki for some time now, and function as the only modern photos for the Las Vegas area. If you want something changed, please give me a chance to switch it out. Thank you! Bporter28 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC
Bporter28 With all due respect, not one statement you've made in the foregoing paragraph about copyright is correct.
It is not difficult to find licensing information for Commons. Please read COM:L before making more uploads.
Montages must be made only of images which are free of copyright and which are of the same license, see the paragraph by Ww2censor above.
Photos are not 'objectionable to me' but violate the rules of upload of Commons.
Pricey Pads photo by Robert Machado... either he would need to upload it or you would need his permission via the COM:OTRS process, in either case, it's not your own work.
Bavington's work... Sculptural works copyrights belong to the sculptor (except in rare cases), there is no COM:FOP in the United States. That sculptures have been uploaded from other cities around the world means that those images have been properly licensed, which did not occur in this instance. You do not have his permission, the sculpture is not your own work.
I own the rights to the image as the photographer. You do not own the copyright to the sculpture depicted and you may not upload images to Commons if they violate COM:L.
switch it out. You had time during your upload to put proper information on the files and plenty of time since to correct any errors. Deletion Nominations are active for at lease week after the nomination.
I am not going to restore your images. You may appeal at COM:UNDEL but it is highly unlikely that any of these images will be restored.
I strongly recommend you read COM:L - and all it's attached pages. If you upload another copyright violation, I will agree that your account needs to be blocked. You have had plenty of warnings and apparently taken none to heart. Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ellin! Here you refer to the nomination to mention the discrepancies in camera types etc. Well, that’s not the same nomination that one can read on that page, all the nominator said was how that person dared to upload all his portraits instead of keeping himself to the kitchen… Maybe you’d like to amend your closing rationale, maybe linking to a different DN of photos by the same user where camera models were actually discussed? (As for my contact, we did exchange e-mails, I lectured him a bit about the difference between material ownership and the right to relicense and adviced him to either publish a clear licensing statement in his website, or to follow the OTRS procedure. To no further reply, sadly.) -- Tuválkin✉✇03:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuválkin: Perhaps you misread something? The nomination is in parts separated by images, here I reproduce only the nominating text:
Here are last remaining contributions of Babudo (talk · contribs) First group. Unused simple logos of non-notable companies are out of project scope. Second group. Babudo has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage and sandbox in en.wiki, and uploading a lot of personal images, which are used nowhere, except on the userpage and sandbox. His other edits in en.wiki were vandalism and reverted. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of scope. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
So the nomination is for out of scope and it can be inferred that this is due to Commons being for educational purposes and not self-promotion. Other commentators noticed notable people, but they missed the different cameras, sizes and white balances which are the hallmarks of culled images. They also didn't see that the images with the notable people were not selfies and therefore not properly licensed. I personally think that anyone not looking at a batch file for long closes misses a lot of the rhythm, pace and flow of the uploads... Did the person start all at 720x720 and graduate to 1,200x 800 and so on as they learned the system or are the sizes all over the place because original images from all over have been combined to a vanity gallery? These are questions I feel can best be answered by a full overview of all the images as well as an examination of each image. Each image in a group nomination is both supported by or failed by the other images in the gallery; one can reveal much about the others. Here every image had this person's face in it, but what they didn't have was proper sources and licensing.
Because there was a lot of discussion I examined every image. When I closed it I added a statement to remind me of what I saw. My close reads: Deleted: As described in the nomination, and also ..." "And also", means additional information. On closes where I don't feel the nomination is sufficient to remind me of the situation, or where discussion or examination has added information to the situation, I add extra text to help my memory and provide information for the uploader and other users. Since notifications/discussions about closes - as this one - usually occur shortly after the actual deletion, it is a way of avoiding opening up over a dozen files to regain the same information which I can summarize as I did:
Deleted: As described in the nomination, and also when there was metadata it was from a multitude of cameras; the styles of photos were not consistent, the white balances were different, the sizes were all over the place. None of this looked like user's own work. 30 days elapsed since last comment on discussion. When/if any of these are properly licensed, they could be restored.
In this case if they were images of the uploader, the ones with the notable people weren't selfies and were not correctly licensed to be kept. I appreciate the efforts in correspondence you went through, but I doubt the uploader created these files based on the the usual indicators and also the uploader's lack of response to the process for over a month. As you know, once nominated, a file may be found to be fine and kept, may be found to have errors and fixed, or may be found to be nominated for "out of scope" when it's really a "com:copyvio" or vice versa. Part of the process is the gaining of information about the file/s nominated. As long as the closing admin makes clear the actual reasons for the close, I think that's better than (especially in a case so variable as this) using the default Deleted: per nomination.
Hi Ellin, two things?! Well, "Quuen" must be altered to "Queen". What's the other point though? Actually, it's not Her Majesty herself, sigh, although I've seen her once in person in 2003. It's Becky, a British actress visiting me in Hamburg back then and we spend the morning in the audio studios kidding around with me speaking some Nazi-style roles and her doing Elizabeth II. Best, Alex --GeoTrinity (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just perfect, thank you so much! Yes, I usuallly mark my uploads with my initials; it's not for copyright reasons but files with rather usual names need some distinction marker. Thanks again! --GeoTrinity (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ellin
File:Portrait of Spanish artist Blas Gallego.jpg was just deleted. I said in its Talk page that the owner was about to send his authorization. After convincing him, he did it and he received an automated OK response from Wikipedia. But the photo was already deleted, or was deleted shortly thereafter. What should we do now? Should I upload it again? Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Ellin. Thanks for your quick answer. As I said, the letter was already sent and automatically answered by Wikipedia, so how long could it take until the photo is restored? Thanks again. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ExperiencedArticleFixer: Due to the present backlogs in all admin areas of Commons, I am unable to give you any estimate at this time. Basically every hour we spend explaining things already explained in COM:L and COM:OTRS is time we can't spend cleaning out the backlogs. So sorry not to be able to give you even a ballpark estimate. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I work for Major League Fishing (MLF) and started creating a Wiki page yesterday. I am very new to this, and still trying to learn everything! The logo I uploaded for MLF is actually our logo and owned by us. How do I go about posting it again without it being deleted since I'm not copywriting it?
Hi Aly.a.akers: The image was deleted because it was found at http://www.majorleaguefishing.com/ marked (c). That makes it a copyrighted image and only the copyright holder can upload it without having a COM:OTRS approval of the copyright holder. Go to the COM:OTRS page and follow the instructions. When their process is finished, their administrators can restore the image with no further effort on your part. The image was attached to Major League Fishing which is having notability issues. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin-
Thank you for the information. I am still trying to learn how Wiki works exactly, and am continuing to read articles. I also quickly learning that I am a COI on the MLF wiki page, which after reading, I completely understand.
yesterday you deleted the file Japec and Jernej Jakopin.jpg which I published on Wikimedia Commons about a week ago. The subject of the picture are my two brothers (64 and 58), I am the eldest of the three (66). They are of interest to the media and had no picture on Wikimedia Commons. So I, versed in photography, also in fractal art, was asked to help. I took a photo of the two but time is merciless, weight is a problem, and none is good looking. The picture, to the best of my abilities, was useless. The picture they like very much is about 8 years old: http://www.sloveniapartner.eu/images/story-e2c283b8c7.jpg, they know who the author is and I suggested to ask him to publish the picture on Wikimedia Commons. And here the problems began. The author has in the past decade amassed considerable wealth through inheritance and changed his scope from general photography to art photography. He does not want his name to appear on wikipedia, wikimedia or anywhere else in connection with some photograph which he does not consider art. And the above picture, so he says, would mar his artistic opus. He still wanted to help and so he wrote me that he is ready to abandon the authorship of the picture and that I can publish it on Wikimedia Commons, its origin labeled as "From the archive of J&J Design" (the company of my brothers). Which I of course cannot do. So I took the picture, changed its
gamma to 0.5 (made it lighter), cropped it, retouched off all distracting
details and blurred the backgrounds by adding names of J&J designs as a
very slight watermark. And published it on Wikimedia Commons labeled
as my work: Collage after a 2007 photo of abandoned authorship.
From your reaction it is clear to me that I made a mistake, my approach obviously was a clumsy one. As I would have a problem living with a mark of a thief/copyright violator, all my life I was very careful about these issues, I hope there is some other way to tackle the above described problem, a way in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policies. Here I would be very glad of your advice.
The immediate course of action that I see is to ask the photo author again, very humbly and politely, to reconsider his stance and to publish the photo on Wikimedia Commons. Which may work or may not.
Hi PJakopin: I'm really sorry about any issues regarding the professional photographer, but just as you couldn't go to his driveway, take his car (claiming he doesn't like it), change the numbers on his license plates and drive off expecting everyone else to think it's your vehicle; no more can you do that to one of his pictures. The only recourse is for him to file COM:OTRS permission for this photograph, but he would still need to be acknowledged as the author of the image. Otherwise, the image is his, without permission and can't be free hosted here. Additionally should it actually be COM:OTRS approved, the image would need to be the original without all the watermarking you added. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?
Que cara malicioso! Você é um crápula, mal intencionado. Acha que é dono do site. Sabe de uma cansei de ser bonzinho, então lá vai: Você é burro, cara, muito burro!!! Sua atitude foi reprovada e ainda assim insiste em fazer essas coisas. Pena que você é tão burro que não entende português e vai no vácuo dos outros. Imbecil, vai procurar o que fazer.
164.132.49.5218:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google translation... ?
Malicious guy! You're a jerk, bitchy. Do you think owns the site. You know I'm tired of being nice, so here goes: You're stupid, man, pretty dumb !!! His attitude was reproved and still insist on doing these things. Too bad you're so dumb he does not understand Portuguese and will vacuum of others. Imbecile, will find something to do. 164.132.49.52 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Minha opinião sobre você é a mesma: Você é um mané, idiota autoritário, despeitado. Você merece toda estupidez do mundo! O sítio é seu? Seu administrador de bosta!! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.132.104.83 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google translation... My opinion of you is the same: You are a loser, authoritarian idiot, spiteful. You deserve all stupidity in the world! The site is yours? Your shit administrator !! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.132.104.83 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ellin, I wanted to thank you for you detailed replay here; I was not fast enough for the archiving bot, though, as I am now more involved again in an old project (and will probably drift away from Commons).
As for this matter, I still feel that your closing rationale, as it seems to support the wording and spirit of the original DN text (even if due mostly to the use of a boilerplate formula) not only do not make justice to the amount of work you put in assessing the this case but with it you risk to be seen as echoing borderline problematic statement.
After all what we have is an actor, whose vitae includes work with directors and producers all across Africa (and maybe also elsewhere) who grabbed his vanity portfolio and uploaded it to Commons (including in the process shots including at least 3 notable people, which found use, now undone, in several Wikipedia articles), under the naive assumption that hired photographers waive or transfer their relicensing rights. And then Taivo comes and files a DN complaining this person did nothing for Wikipedia — as if this was yet another case of a newbie editor abusing their sefie quota.
Too bad this guy decided to let the matter go this way and stopped exchanging e-mails with me (neither contacted OTRS, apparently). The loss of our only photo of Flora Gomes especially saddens me.
Hi Tuválkin: I am really sorry, but I didn't have any way to know if the uploader was the actor, someone using the actor's name or someone with the same name but not the actor. And the photos, as you point out were from "hired photographers" or "others taking photos who were not the uploader." I can't help that he stopped corresponding and as much as I wish we could save every image of every person who ever uploads a happy snap to Commons, by the guidelines, there are some which can't be kept. Foremost among those are copyright violations; and since the uploader didn't take the photos, and didn't have OTRS permission, that's unfortunately all that was left. We unfortunately have to go through this all the time because the uploaders don't read the directions. Same thing happens on other media: e.g. Facebook "only use your real name" is a big rule; and yet FB tosses out hundreds of people a day for false accounts. It's like a Basketball team showing up and demanding to play with an American football instead of just playing the game with the rules and tools which apply. Again, I wish that this had worked out differently, but after such a very long time on the nominations list, sooner or later, each of those has to close. I hope you do well in whatever your new project is; I - for one - will miss you here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jcb: Please read upward to see the continuing use of abusive language and behavior on my talk page. I redid the block (although for no extra time) because the same ISP blanked the user's talk page and left an extremely abusive message above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled, I do not see an abusive message above. Do you understand Portuguese? As far as I can see, the mayor problem with this user seems to be his lack of understanding of English. His portuguese comments give me the indication that this is a good willing user, with problems understanding the system. As far as I know, Wikimedia Commons is an international project rather than an English project, lots of users do not understand English. Jcb (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B
Todas as fotos são verdadeiras, exceto Alto do Xangô, que pertence a meu primo e tenho cópias, mas não vou me preocupar em pedi a ele que mande uma autorização, porque não vale a pena, mas posso fazer uma foto minha e oostar. A foto da Fazenda Condado é de minha autoria e todas as outras com meta dados CCE. A foto da Fazenda foi tirada de um mesmo ângulo, o ângulo que todos se postam, porque lá é uma área restrita e praticamente todo mundo tiram fotos deste ângulo, por isso é tão parecido. Mas você e aquele outo são muito bu...s
Alessandro Sil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.175.146.112 (talk • contribs)
Attention Talk Page Stalkers & users... I am taking about 48 hours away from the project. If you need help during that time, please contact the Village Pump or other help areas. Please don't leave any more abusive Portuguese messages, I'm really tired of being called names for doing nothing more than the process which is Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Falta de vivilidade
Eu nunca agi com falta de civilidade, você que foi intolerante e compactuou com outro editor em marcar minhas fotos, de minha autoria para ELIMINAÇÃO RÁPIDA; depois fugiu do diálogo. Eu retirei tags antes de você cometer a besteira de bloquear minha conta e vou continuar retirando se as fotos forem de minha autoria. Você não pode intimidar ninguém com esse mal uso das ferramentas, você não é dono do Commons. Você me acusou de fazer branqueio de página, coisa que não fiz. O que eu costumo fazer é mover as mensagens antigas para um arquivo e vou continuar fazendo e por favor, não proteje minha página de discussão sem necessidade. Vou carregar uma foto agora e muitas depois dela; por favor preste atenção para não marcar indevidamente. As fotos que foram eliminadas não era violação de direitos autorais, elas pertencem ao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e estatísticas (IBGE) e o site libera as fotos, porém é necessário envio de e-mail para permissão e informação do uso das fotos. Agora dou o caso por encerrado, pelo menos da minha parte.
Google translate: Lack of civility - I never acted with a lack of civility, you that was intolerant and compactuou with another editor tag my pictures, of my own to QUICK DISPOSAL; then fled the dialogue. I removed tags before you make the mistake to block my account and I will continue taking if the photos are of my own. You can not intimidate anyone with this misuse of tools, you do not own the Commons. You accused me of doing page bleaching, something that did not. What I usually do is move old messages to a file and I will continue doing and please, does not protect my talk page without. I'll upload a photo now and many after it; please pay attention not to mark improperly. The photos that have been deleted was not copyright infringement, they belong to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and the site releases photos, but you must send e-mail to permição information and the use of the photos. Now I give the case closed, at least on my part. − Alessandro SILmanda 15h23min. de 2 de abril de 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, I just got an edit conflict trying to answer questions left at my talk page, and noticed that you have rev-delleted quite a few edits made to it, and redacted a discussion (which caused that edit conflict). Would you mind telling me why you did that? I haven't read that discussion in detail yet, so I'd like to understand what personal information was included in those page revisions as well as why you created User_talk:Odder/Archive_1. There already is a User talk:Odder/Archive 001, and your page doesn't link anywhere, so perhaps you'd consider deleting it? Personally, I am quite happy with people discussing things on my talk page, even if I only discover it after a few days and don't get involved myself. Thanks, odder (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi odder: There were: personal names & information, personal remarks about various anatomy parts (size thereof and comparisons), remarks about other editors, and so on from several IPs of a WMF-globally banned user (self-identifying). I am sorry about the edit conflict, I'd be happy to delete the archive page in error, all I did was press your Archive button, I didn't realize it would send it to the wrong place. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. You can read the replies by the other editors on their diffs.[reply]
I've now skimmed through that discussion and I can't see any non-public personal information in there that would warrant a revision deletion. If you think that names or other non-public personal information has been revealed in that discussion, please contact Commons oversighters at oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org as under the global oversight policy such information should be suppressed rather than merely deleted. As for, as you put it, remarks about other editors or sizes of various anatomy parts, as far as I am aware, there is no Commons policy that would require deleting such edits; moreover, as far as I recall, we haven't got a policy that would require deleting all edits made by WMF-banned users (or, indeed, community-banned users, either). I know you are acting in good faith here, but unless you can point me precisely to which policy requires that all those revisions be deleted (remembering that we've had hundreds of heated discussions before), then I really think you are acting outside of policy and would ask that you consider undoing your actions. odder (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi odder : I was acting in what I felt was good faith. I'm sorry if it displeased you. If you still wish me to revert the, I'll be delighted to do so. Please confirm you still desire this, as someone has posted an archive of the convo - making any reversion moot. I will be away from keyboard/wifi for most of the next two days, and I would not object if you were to revert those edits in my absence, should you still desire them changed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone has posted the conversation again is not really the point here, as that edit can be undone at any time and we'll be back to square one. Aside from the fact that I don't really mind that people discuss issues on my talk page, even if that discussion turns out to be a bit heated, the issue that I'm having with your revision deletions is the reasoning that you used—"hidden to protect personal information".
I have reviewed those edits very carefully since contacting you, and I can't really see any (non-public) personal information that would warrant a revision deletion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is personal information in there that I can't see that should not have been revealed, in which case I would ask that you let me know what it is so I can improve my understanding of the situation and my understanding of the nature (and examples) of non-public information. I have suppressed hundreds of revisions that revealed non-public personal information in my role as a Commons oversighter, but it's not impossible that I'm mistaken here. If I'm not, then well… the alternative is that those revisions be undeleted. I'd rather not do it myself, I'd rather let you do it so that we can at least agree on a shared understanding of what non-public information is—I think that learning from this situation moving forward will be a good outcome for everyone. odder (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a moment to reflect on what Commons:Revision deletion actually says, though the tool should be used sparingly, it's an extremely open-ended policy. This makes it almost impossible to say whether an admin action to revdel would be appropriate or not, so long as some vague good faith interpretation could be made. It's hard to imagine an admin getting sanctioned for misuse, apart from say, going on a mass revdel rampage with no possible explanation for it. If you were to put on the hat of a low-edit count user, they would find it extremely hard to challenge a revdel, such as the one made by Ellin Beltz, especially if they had no access to the deleted text and would probably be counter-accused of bad faith allegations if they were not extremely careful about the wording of their challenge. I suspect these are the real-life reasons that we have hardly ever seen revdels being publicly challenged once made, and as a result almost never get reversed.
If the community values a default of project transparency, it is probably worth revisiting the policy to make it a bit more specific, possibly with examples based on most common usage and with more potential to result in sanctions if actively misused. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to acknowledge a thanks and see this discussion. I think Odder is confused with revedel and oversight policies. Unlike oversight, revedel is very loosely defined as Fae pointed. More "Note that this list is in no way exhaustive; the standard reasons are merely provided for convenience, and administrators may provide any reason they wish". In practice, I had seen a lot of revdel just to remove insulting comment or edit notes. Jee01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you quoted m:Oversight policy and advised Ellin Beltz to contact oversight team whereas what Ellin Beltz did is just revedels those any admin have the right to do without contacting OV team. Nowadays the current OV team looks to me like another secret authority more or less like WMF. What the community really require nowadays is more decentralization and higher authorities like OV, CU and Crats start to respect lower end users. Honestly I don't expect a single member in the current OV team keephis/her seat if faced a re-election. ;) Jee11:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, re [15] can I ask you to please state what definition of "private information" you are operating under? It would be useful for me and others, so that we can understand your sentences (including in the section above). Nemo20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you to explain what is the "personal information" there. Also, odder is an oversighter, and if there was personal information, he would have oversighted it already. But he didn't oversighted it, so it means, you should not revdel it. Odder knows what he must oversight and what he musn't. Thanks, ★Poké9506:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone hit a phone pole out on the freeway! Unless I have more internet than I have been told to expect, I will be offline until early morning Thursday, 7th of April, 2016. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion I pointed out that at least two similar nominations had been made, the administrators there concluded the movies were "de minimus".
In the discussion I pointed out that practically every 16 page issue devoted half a page or so to a proprietary promotional image of a movie playing on the base.
Your explanation of your closure does not explain why you reached a different conclusion than that reached in the earlier discussions. Just for the record, you did read and consider the "de minimus" aspect?
In your closure you asserted, "There were multiple uses of other likely copyrighted images throughout the publication as well."
Well, I just went through that issue, looking for significantly genuinely copyright infringing images. I couldn't find any.
I did notice some very small images that weren't explicitly credited, like the image on page 13 of Harley, one of the base's therapy dogs. The chance that this image was a proprietary image, on a base where everyone is a DoD employee is about zero. Even if it wasn't a PD picture, or the other images not explicitly credited, weren't PD, could you explain why you don't think they too should be ignored as "de minimus"?
I am going to offer you a suggestion. I suggest it is important, for the preservation of the project's civility, for the project's administrators to exercise the authority delegated to them in a way that is obviously fair, and obviously transparent. At least so far as practical when bearing in mind liability issues, etc, that genuinely require confidentiality.
In this specific instance your closure seems to be clinched on a new argument, not one previously made by the participants in the discussion. I am not concerned when an administrator's closure is based on an argument no one else introduced in the discussion, when that new argument is firmly based in policy. Bringing a superior knowledge of policy issues to discussions is something we count on from those we entrust with administrator authority.
I do get concerned when the basis of a closure is a novel argument on which experienced good faith contributors can have a genuine good faith difference of opinion. That is what I think you and I have here. It has been my understanding that, in situations where an administrator has a novel argument, one not firmly and unambiguously based on policy, the guidelines for administrators recommend that they make that argument in the discussion itself, as an ordinary contributor, and leave the closure for an uninvolved administrator to evaluate.
Hi Geo Swan: Yes, it was those small images not explicitly sourced, as you mentioned page 13, but also page 2 -- Entertainment -- "Martian", page 9 -- two images from "The Martian", page 10 - advert: "Never let go". Remember that we don't do closes bases on "other stuff exits". The most important part of the close is "Deleted: per nomination." Anything after that is notes, not clinching. Please notice that other admins also do this. They close "per nomination" and then can add a comment either to help themselves remember or to straighten out one or more of the arguments left open by the discussion. I would not be offended in the slightest were you to take this to COM:UNDEL. There's no rule or policy that says "admins are always right" because no one can be "right" all the time. And here, really, "rightness" is not the issue. The issue is the copyright which is one of the most complicated puzzles ever invented. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ellin Beltz again. Have you possibly pressed the wrong button? You said "Kept: Picture was originally Russian." Exactly, it is the same issue like here. Questioning regards. --Ras67 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin! I came by to ask the "opposite" question: did you mean "picture was originally American?"... would you mind clarifying your close, as I agree with Ras67 that keeping because it was Russian is not consistent. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I really can not see the difficulty in showing a sign in a street illustrating the subject. The file you deleted was adequately obviously named, and the description is similarly informative, I believe. No-one, including the 2022 Winter Olympics Organising Committee and the IOC could be confused by the light pole, tree(s), and sign pole, that this was taken in a street. Please explain why this contravened the Commons license, and so can not be used at Yanqing, Beijing as intended. Alternatively, please un-delete it. Thanks, Peter Ellis (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ellis Please explain why you feel this billboard is out of copyright? There's nothing to indicate that it would have a free license based on the file template. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellin Beltz I say that a picture of a billboard in its context (or a picture of almost any item in the modern world) would be a valid record of the situation. That is why I placed the billbaord firmly in a streetscape, rather than editing in the camera or afterwards to remove the context. I could take a photo straight ahead of me in my motel room in Yanqing and have an image of: a flower on a 'vodka' bottle; a box with a biscuit company 'bear' and the biscuit itself; a noodle packet with a company logo and various piece-images of noodles and other food components; an Adidas jacket and its logo (see ADDITION below). Although this image would be deleted as trivial, a similar scene in a street in the shopping zone in this city could have 20-30 product and logo images. I ask: what would be different from showing the streetscape and showing the image that I did? Please explain the difference. Peter Ellis (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC) ADDITION: I failed to mention the obvious, a television with its distinctive design plus name-logo on the front, both no-doubt copyrighted. If I took a picture of the television screen showing the logo or part of an opening sequence of a show, would you object about the show or about the name-logo of the television? I want a 'ruling' on that question, or a link to a WP 'resolution', please.Peter Ellis (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ellis Many countries have no freedom of panorama see COM:FOP; and of course, without exceptions (and of course there are some) most billboards do have copyright. Please explain why you think this billboard has no copyright? It is not de minimus, it is the entire image. That other stuff exists is not a valid reason to say why this particular image should be considered free for you to copyright? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ADDITION, please see Commons:Screenshots and Category:Television. There are way too many cases for any sort of generalization to be made. Some images would be old enough, some might have been licensed PD in the first place and so on. Copyright is complicated which is why I'm asking questions such as "why do you think it's free?" It is a photograph that someone else took which was made into a billboard. Perhaps there are exceptions why it would be free, but you have to help out here, see COM:EVID and COM:FOP (China) and explain why this image is ok to be hosted as freely licensed. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at the deletion request where you also left a message. Please stop wasting time by leaving messages here and there. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz. Did you leave the talk page on purpose? The content might be moved to e.g. the user's talk page. --Leyo21:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this website which appears created post your close. In view of this new situation, I believe that the DR should be relisted so that WMF can prove their copyright (as James Alexander indicated they would) as otherwise it will affect all images uploaded by the WMF's staff photographer. The images already contained EXIF copyright management notices. The present situation seems to imply that WMF was deliberately circulating images with false copyright management information notices and had no right to licence it under CC-BY-SA. Unfitlouie (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very long discussion, so you may want to scroll ahead to the part in boldface text. IMO we got very close to achieving a useful resolution, but it got stalled before it got over the finish line...so we continue running into similar contentious issues. I'd love to see a more decisive resolution, but I think it will have to wait until the appropriate staff find a few minutes to clearly document the policies that (I believe) already exist. That would cover the copyright aspects of that DR (but not the personality rights aspects, which would probably require additional policy-setting). -Pete F (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just realized -- my comment is about the DR itself, not the external web site (which is rather horrible). I don't have any idea what to say about that one, except that the creators are likely in violation of some Wordpress.com policy, and maybe the site could be taken down, at least from that host, on that basis. Also pinging Jameslwoodward who made an insightful comment on the DR, and who should probably be aware of that discussion for future reference. -Pete F (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the DR in my "insightful comment" (thank you), there were several reasons not to keep these -- most notably invasion of privacy, lack of description and useful file names, and the fact that we hardly need 471 images of one event. If we kept these, it would be because we treat WMF very differently from any other subject. I doubt, for example, that we would keep 471 images of the White House Easter Egg Roll, even if the First Family were in all of them.
Therefore, to some extent, the license is not an issue. However, on the license point, the images were uploaded by GYoung, who was a WMF staff member (but is no longer), but they were taken by Myleen Hollero, and the permission line links to http://myleenhollero.zenfolio.com/wiki-all-hands which comes up with an explicit copyright notice. That would normally require an OTRS license from Hollero.
One of Pete's bold points in the long discussion says:
"As of July 2014, going forward, both the WMF and the author control the copyright for all materials produced by all Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors in the course of their work."
I can't accept that. All contractors? The office cleaning crew? Catering services? Clearly not. While those examples are silly, the point is that ordinarily in the USA a contractor does not make works for hire. The only contractors who should be covered by this are those who have signed a work for hire agreement.
OK, fine, but is Hollero such a person? Has anyone said that?
I found Jim's insightful remarks compelling when making the close. It would be grand if some of the long-term areas of friction between WMF and Commons could be resolved, but after reading the entire discussion linked by Pete above, I don't see how I can fix anything and so am marking this section "done" - not for any action but for the knowledge that the course to resolution does not lie through this discussion.
Recently the images on our page were flagged for deletion. Many of the images were borrowed from other sites on the internet; however, we referenced them multiple times on our page. Some of the images were our own scans of a book of architecture found in our university library, so they are our original images. In order to avoid the deletion of our work, since this site is for a class project, is there a way to use these images for education use and not have them be deleted from the site?
Thank you so much.
Hi SitesofversaillesEmily: As stated on your talk page, the place to talk about the nomination for your images is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sitesofversailles. Nothing we talk about on talk pages will be taken into consideration by the closing editor. FYI, owning a copy of a book does not give you the right to the copyright of the book. "Borrowing" images and claiming as own work would be the same as taking your neighbor's homework and erasing their name and adding yours. Your teachers would not be impressed. "For a class project" is not relevant and there is no "fair use" for swiping images. Please see COM:L for what can and cannot be uploaded. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bi-monthly dose of cute
Relaxing in Bombay
Some chilled-out cats in India, for your viewing pleasure. "I've lived with several Zen Masters," says Eckhart Tolle, "and they've all been cats." (Or something to that effect). The guy in the middle doesn't mind that he's on a dirty sidewalk in a huge city. He's still kicking back. Strange that the mirror effect is slightly foiled by the other cat's clipped left ear; I see plenty of cats around here with the same clip of the left ear. The mamma cat gave birth sometime in the past 24 hrs BTW. She showed up a little bit ago, skinny again and hungry as a @#*$! She was standing in the bowl... Suddenly the big bag of cat food I've got doesn't seem quite so big... INeverCry23:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far it's been only "our" three...and a very sneaky old black cat who probably gets to the bowl successfully one out of every ten tries... Soon we'll see some kittens trotting up to the bowl behind mamma. I don't mind really, I love 'em all. INeverCry18:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry ... I actually managed to get a non-blurry picture of my cat yesterday. It's still not up to Commons quality but she actually sort of held still. I guess she's outgrown kittenhood. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Allen Collection homepage ( http://www.benjidog.co.uk/allen/copyright.html ) says: "The Allen Collection belongs to the Martello Tower Museum at Pembroke Dock which has given permission for the photographs to be made available in the current form for research and educational purposes only. The Museum is unable to provide advice and guidance about copyright." This looks as though it can be used for WP. Arrivisto (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken, but I still don't understand why you deleted the photo of my black TRX; I have uploaded another image (cropped) from WC. I shan't challenge your MidWest deletion proposal, but it now means that there won't be such a photo available again for some years (there are only 3 of these in the whole world). Arrivisto (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove new Idea Bank SA logo? We as a bank agreed to put it on Wikipedia. Not there is no logo at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideabanksa (talk • contribs)
Hi Ideabanksa: First there seems to be a confusion in that "put it on Wikipedia" is not the same thing as "upload to Wikimedia Commons." Local Wikipedia projects may have less strict requirements for uploads that Commons.
Notice that the uploader claims to have created the logo of a bank and licensed it as own work. It was the uploader's only edit, see Special:Contributions/Pan_przedsiebiorczy. There is no indication of any permission from the bank, or anyone other than that of the uploader. Commons has a permissions system, perhaps you could visit COM:OTRS and have the relevant authority fill out and send that simple form. Hence under COM:PRP, the file was nominated as a "non-free text logo" and removed. When/if COM:OTRS permission is received and approved the OTRS editors are able to restore the file. You know that you could also go outside with your cameraphone and take a picture of the front of the bank to illustrate your article, there's no reason to only use a logo. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ideabanksa, I'm not uploading an image for you as "own work" when I just deleted it as "own work" of someone else. The concept that two separate people each created a single image is illogical. It is also would be illogical for me to upload a disputed image (two users both claim own work) and credit it to only one. Where I live we also use the local vernacular to explain: "I'm not your mother, please do it yourself." Thanks. BTW, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that no one has to fish around in the system to autosign your name for you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking only about the new logo - the old one is not my concern.
I've already uploaded this logo and someone deleted it - it's why we have this conversation and why I asked you to do it so it won't be deleted again.
Ideabanksa (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image you uploaded File:Logotyp Idea Bank.svg is still in Commons, but it also appears to be improperly sourced. The other image was removed from Commons and automatically removed from the page on Polish Wikipedia at the same time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I believe a more detailed explanation for deletion of File:Princess Beatrice with Dave Clark.jpg was warranted here. Do you really dismiss the subsequent change of license as impossible? How do you explain other files from the same photographer and the same photostream also being confirmed as free? How do you explain the reviewer Leoboudv manually checking the copyright status of one of those images and confirming it? How do you explain the fact that, despite being confirmed as free at the moment of upload by bots and human reviewers, all those files are now marked as non-free on FlickR? Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Surtsicna: I only handled one file. "Other stuff exists" is not a reason for deletion or non-deletion. I can see no change to the license at flickr; I know there was a lot of flickrreviewbot fail at about the time that image was uploaded. As for what another user did or didn't do I cannot discuss, I am not them and I didn't watch them do or not do anything. COM:PRP in this situation as the license situation is so unclear. You are of course aware that you can request a second opinion at COM:UNDEL but please consider being non-confrontational at that locus. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not "other stuff exists". It's directly related. All of them were uploaded on FlickR by one user, all were part of the same photostream, all were marked as cc-by-2.0 in July 2013 (which has since changed), and all were uploaded by me on Wikipedia at the same time. Either they are all good or they should all be deleted. What is the point of reviewing uploads from FlickR if they can be deleted as soon as the license is changed on FlickR? What weight does Leoboudv's 2013 review hold today, after File:Chelsy Davy.jpg has been marked as non-free on FlickR? Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my tone. I am obviously frustrated that my work on the Commons, specifically the deliberate search for free images and videos on FlickR (using its filters), is being questioned due to a disagreement with an extremely malicious user on another Wikimedia project. I am now going through my uploads and checking for similar cases, and of course there are more files (from other FlickR users) that were confirmed as free at the time of upload (by human reviewers) but which are marked as non-free now. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buhram: I'm sorry I don't understand your question. The draft was not accepted, the pictures were removed. Are you planning on resubmitting a previously rejected article at en:Wiki? Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was nominated as a speedy "23 March 2016 . . Smooth O (talk | contribs | block) (1,010 bytes) (Marking as possible copyvio because This is original photo, uploaded before upload on wikipedia. http://www.lachschon.de/item/11356-/)" and also on it's upload template was written "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it.". Obvious copyvios do not go to Deletion requests. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fotos de Alessandro Sil postas para eliminação
Olá, Ellin Beltz, você colocou fotos de minha autoria para eliminação: Serra das Éguas; Gatos mãe e filho, são fotos tiradas com meu celular. Se você analisar verá que em Serra das Éguas e em O Sobrado do Brejo, tem os metadados iguais. O Sobrado do Brejo, inclusive é uma pintura minha, pois sou artista plástico e tirei a foto do meu próprio quadro, feito em 2003. Gatos, mãe e filho só não têm os mesmos metadados , porque foi feita por mim há algum tempo, por um outro celular. Dou minha palavra: Não irá encontrar em nenhum outro sítio com data anterior. Por isso fico chateado. Chego a pensar que é uma afronta pessoal da sua parte, que insiste em colocar para eliminação, imagens de minha próprio autoria. Espero que reflita, entenda e recue. Saudações. Alessandro Sil (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate: Hello, Ellin Beltz, you put photos of my own for disposal: Serra das Mares; Cats mother and child are photos taken with my cell phone. If you look you will see that in Sierra de Mares and Sobrado's Heath, has the same metadata. Sobrado do Brejo, including a painting is mine, because I am an artist and took the photo of my own picture, made in 2003. Cats, mother and son just do not have the same metadata because it was made for me for some time, another phone. I give you my word: you will not find in any other place with an earlier date. So I get upset. I even think it is a personal affront of you who insists on putting to disposal, images of my own authorship. I hope to reflect, understand and retreat. Greetings. Alessandro Sil (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Alessandro Sil: It's not a metadata issue, it's COM:SCOPE. Commons isn't a site to put LOL-cat pictures or personal paintings. Google translate: Saudações: Não é uma questão de metadados, é COM: SCOPE. Commons não é um local para colocar LOL-cat imagens ou pinturas pessoais. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Por favor, eu já percebi que seus argumentos não são nada sensatos e são fora de logica. Fotos, imagens pessoais? Primeiro o Commons é livre e qualquer foto pode ser carregada, desde que sejam 'sob licença livre' ou de autoria própria, segundo, este é uma pintura minha e eu 'liberei' sob a licença que está na descrição. Seu problema é pessoal. Por acaso, você é dono do Commons, para se apoderar tanto assim com argumentos pessoais? Mesmo que não seja questão de metadados, garanto que as fotos são minhas. Se carreguei fotos com direitos reservados é porque ainda não estava por dentro das politicas. Se seu problema é pessoal, lamento e tenho pena de você, então não há mais o que argumentar. Passar bem. Alessandro Sil (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate: Please, I realized that their arguments are nothing sensible and are out of logic. Photos, personal images? First the Commons is free and any photo can be uploaded, provided they are 'under license free' or own authorship, second, this is a painting of mine and I 'liberated' under the license is in the description. Your problem is personal. By chance, you own the Commons, to seize so much with personal arguments? Even if it is not a question of metadata, I guarantee that the photos are mine. If carried photos with copyright is because there was not inside the policy. If your problem is personal, I'm sorry and I'm sorry for you, then there is more to argue. Good day.
Greetings Alessandro Sil: Please read COM:L, COM:DW and COM:SCOPE before making any more uploads. It is not true that "any photo can be uploaded", there are limits to what is in scope. This situation is not personal despite your imagining it to be so. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably because I accidentally substituted it, I was just wondering why you didn't delete it like the other images, but it's deleted now so it doesn't matter. :) nyuszika7h (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you undelete the picture of me you deleted? It's a picture of me, taken on my behalf by a colleague, given to me, and I'm happy for it to be public domain. I wouldn't have put it on the web otherwise. I cannot comprehend how you thought you knew better than I do who owns that image of me. Regards, Ian Lewis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo two one (talk • contribs)
Bravo two one: Now I'm off to find your talk page, and figure out the details you didn't leave. If I run out of time before my appointment, nothing will happen until tonight. In future, please sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ to have the system autosign and date for you, this helps us go back to your page without additional searching. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|description={{en|1=Portrait image of Ian Lewis at a conference event at Chelsea Football Ground, 2013}}
|date=2013-09-11
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Bravo two one|Ian Lewis]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}== {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
At that time it was claimed as own work, but it's obviously not a selfie. It's too small and too blurry for one thing. Modern cameras held by the subject - or on a tripod - have much sharper lenses and would not produce such a tiny blurry image. That size is fine for LinkedIn (such as you have it) but it's too small even for Facebook and Commons asks for the largest possible version. I'm sure you see that 344x367 is not anywhere near a large version.
I would point out you had quite a string of photos you uploaded that were all taken by different people, yet labeled own work. Perhaps our upload forms are not clear enough on the topic, or perhaps you skipped reading them prior to hitting "upload", but at this point would you be so kind as to thoroughly read COM:L and have an understanding of what is and what is not own work prior to making more uploads? And since everyone has a phone that takes photos, why not take some pictures for us of the University of Cambridge? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a still from a video clip, taken on a DSLR. I'll leave the image deleted as you intended. Not sure how you think you improved the internet. Ian Lewis / Bravo two one (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glaciers and geology
Read you are a geologist so I thought I'd say hello!
Feel free to visit Wikiversity and add some resources, comments, questions, criticism or concerns! They would be most welcome! Best on your recovery - --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marshallsumter: I stay away from editing in my field (geology) as well as in batrachiology (frogs) because I have major publications in both fields and do not wish to appear to be doing COI edits. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have deleted a caricature of Recep Tayyip Erdogan that I recently uploaded. I found it on Google images and thought it was copyright free. As there are some others I want to upload, could you be so kind as to let me know how I can determine if a file on Google images is copyright free or not? Thank you in advance for your help. --Ardhanarishvara (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ardhanarishvara: Please read COM:L for help on learning about the copyright of ANY file, not just those on Google images. Personally, it would be best if you uploaded some of your own photos first to learn the system. If you have specific image for which you wish help, you can leave a message at the Village pump and we will help you determine the copyright status. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shaltut : Sure thing, thank you for the link. Let me know if you have trouble in future, I'll be happy to help. I restored both files, if you only want to use one, just start a deletion nomination on the file you don't want to use. Notice that it was the licensing that got you in trouble, but if {{PD-Libya}} (as placed on both those files) is suitable for your other uploads, just add it where it says "license". Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I cleared up the issue with Davod Solaris. Would it be possible for you to undelete JESSE_WAUGH.jpg and restore it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh
I am new to Wikipedia... I made a page about a finance firm in Chicago a few days ago. From my understanding, I didn't accurately source the logo I used. Why was all the text from my site taken down as well? Will it ever come back? I worked really hard to learn as much as I could about them and now I feel like I lost all my hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagofinance32 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally File:GKC Blue Box Centered.png will be removed unless you provide a source other than own work which it obviously is not.
Both of these files are (c) someone else, you cannot just upload them "because."
To repeat the problem you had with the article "Gerchen Keller article ... Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that it has no citations to sources like news articles and books. That worries me since without proof that this company is notable, meaning covered enough in independent sources like the media to get a Wikipedia article on it, the article may get deleted. (Also, if you have any connection to the company, you need to disclose it - that's a link explaining how you do this.) Are there any reliable sources (ones not written by or for this company) you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know. (user) Blythwood (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)"
Additionally when the page was deleted, another user took the time to leave you a lengthy message which read in part "A tag has been placed on Gerchen Keller Capital requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.gerchenkeller.com/who-we-are/about-us/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences." I do not see that you have replied to either of the people who contacted you on your Wikipedia talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicagofinance32.
So to answer your questions. The images were deleted because they are copyright, the words were deleted because you copied them from a copyrighted website. Might I strongly suggest you read the instructions about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons before more uploads or contributions? For Commons, I'd start reading at COM:L. Also everyone now has cameras in their phones. Is there something preventing you from taking photos yourself? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing because the photo I added of my father, Carlos Piantini, was deleted... as I stated on the "deletion" page, "Yes, it was - from my Facebook page. This is a picture of my father, taken by my mother, that I have on FB. it's from a scan I did some years ago... The photo is accurate. Pls contact me with further questions. fpiantini@me.com."
So I am wondering why the photo was deleted and I was not, at least, contacted about it. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpiantini (talk • contribs)
Hi Fpiantini: You asked the same question on the deletion nomination and received a reply, thus: "If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them, providing evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish the file under a free license. If everything checks out, they will restore the file, if deleted in the meantime. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed and may take several weeks to process the license. Gunnex (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)" It's the only answer any of us can offer. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi, just curious, are you aware of different ways or places to obtain photos of album covers? I want to do so without posting an image that will violate copyrights. Where are the majority of the album artwork sourced from? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariosheats (talk • contribs)
Hi Mariosheats: As far as I know all current album covers would be copyright. But if you have ONE in mind and want an opinion, go to the Village pump and ask about that specific one. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm the random person who wandered into the deletion request that just won't die. In hindsight, it was a mistake for me to add to the discussion there; as you said, "Discussing it at the closed nomination is also not the way to go." Sorry about that.
However, I believe that there are legitimate reasons to revisit the matter, and so even though I wasn't the one nominating it, I'm putting in an appeal of the decision not to delete.
To recap the events as I understand them:
The original file at this name was nominated by The Photographer (talk·contribs), and deleted by admin Ezarate for reasons of unclear licensing: the source said, effectively, "all of these are PD unless they aren't—and we don't know if any of them aren't". This was deemed not good enough for Commons (and rightly so).
User Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk·contribs) was aggrieved by this decision and recommenced discussion on the (closed) nomination. Their objection to the deletion was that it had introduced a lot of redlinks. They also seemed to feel that Venezuela had been singled out: "By the way, many coats of arms don't even have a source. … Go ahead and request the deletion of all coats of arms of every contry. Go ahead."
Incendiary Iconoclasm then uploaded a file to the same name and made the following comment on the above discussion: "There you go, I've reuploaded the coat of arms as {{own}}, just like all other coats of arms. If you delete this one, you have to delete all others as well."
I infer, but I don't know, that the new file was the exact same as the old one. As an admin, I believe you have the power to check?
Admin Yann remarked, "This deletion may be an error, but it would be better than you request undeletion rather than reuploading the file." However, Yann did not take further action, such as deleting the reuploaded file.
The Photographer opened a second (improperly located) deletion request. You closed that deletion request with a decision to keep, and the remark, "Per Fry. It would be better if discussions could be limited to the points, not personalities."
While not the main goal of this appeal, I would like this clarified; the only comment from Fry1989 (talk·contribs), or the only one still on the page, is "Keep Close this nonsense", which is not really a reason.
The Photographer opened another deletion request on the same page. The only comment was from Fry1989. You closed this with a decision to keep, remarking "no valid reason for deletion". The Photographer objected (on that page), saying that the file needed to go to undeletion. You replied, saying that as you had kept, not deleted, the file, there was no need to go to COM:UNDEL.
What The Photographer evidently meant to say was that Incendiary Iconoclasm should have taken it to COM:UNDEL. As they did not, and simply reuploaded the deleted file, it should be deleted again, not kept.
The Photographer renominated it, again, still on the same page. I wandered in from a similar deletion request and added a vote to delete, along with remarks about the confusing process that had gone before. (Again, I apologise for jumping on the "let's edit a closed nomination page, again" bandwagon.) You closed this with a decision to keep.
And that brings us down to the present and this appeal. The reasons for deletion are there, but have gotten obscured in the wall of text. Always assuming that Incendiary Iconoclasm's upload is identical to the original, deleted image (which I can't verify, but I believe you can), its source information is false and it should be (re-)deleted. (Incendiary Iconoclasm's arguments about redlinks are irrelevant; a free replacement is urgently needed, but we can't postpone deleting an improperly licensed file until one is sourced.)
Hi Perey. I re-read the entire thread just now. I reviewed over a dozen pages. I've read talk pages and I don't see any reason to take any action other than to keep the file. The bandera is described on page two of http://www.inpsasel.gob.ve/moo_doc/gaceta_bandera.pdf. I see a lot of "I think" and "I believe" in the comments on the various deletions, what I do not see is any hard evidence, citations, sources, etc. showing that this file needs to be deleted. I also don't see anything which would tip the COM:PRP on this one at this time.
Since the file is not undeleted, going to COM:UNDEL would be appear to be illogical - but if you'd like to do it, please feel free.
Actually "close this non-sense" makes perfect sense in the context in which it was offered. I am not here to figure out what other people meant to say; it is up to them to say it for themselves in a way which is easily understood by others.
Regarding reviewing or verifying a deleted image, there is no file history to show that the image was deleted before, so I am at a loss to know what you'd like me to look for. Besides this image
I didn't research the history of the .gif file, as we are dealing with *.svg's. The last one was uploaded in 2011 and also has no deleted versions. Is it possible you are confused by the file renaming of the latter file? History reads (INeverCry moved page File:Escudo de Venezuela (1871).svg to File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg: File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ...)
Unless you have something else to add to this pile of information, I'm going to have to continue to say kept because I happen to agree with Fry1989's opinion and comment on this bandera. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read, research, and reply.
"The bandera is described..." But the image used does not appear in that PDF. It's generally established (see COM:COA) that with coats of arms, a description and a drawing are two separate (and separately copyrighted) things.
Whoever originally drew this image of the coat of arms needs to be determined, for us to know its licensing status. In the absence of that, this file needs to be deleted because:
Its current license tagging is false.
Its real licensing status is indeterminate.
There are two possible exceptions to this.
Is Venezuela an exception to the above principle? Are faithful drawings of Venezuelan coats of arms not separately copyrightable? COM:COA doesn't list it with other known exceptions, but there is one image bearing licensing text suggesting that it should be.
Is what Incendiary Iconoclasm uploaded in fact different to what Azarate deleted? Could it genuinely be Incendiary Iconoclasm's own work?
On that second point, you're right: this is only what "I believe" (although my belief is grounded on what Incendiary Iconoclasm said). The only way to know for sure is to look at the deleted file. Speaking of...
"...there is no file history to show that the image was deleted before, so I am at a loss to know what you'd like me to look for." That's odd. Ezarate's deletion of the file shows up in the log when I look at it. But I'm not an admin and I don't know what exactly you can and can't see.
And on sundry other points...
"...going to COM:UNDEL would be appear to be illogical..." Yes, it would. Nobody is saying anyone should go to COM:UNDEL, only that it would have been the right action for Incendiary Iconoclasm to take (back in December 2015) instead of uploading the file.
"I am not here to figure out what other people meant to say..." Then I can only hope I have succeeded in being clear where others have failed. :)
"Besides this image [], there are two others..." I can't seem to find the deletion requests for those, and can't (of course) view the images themselves. I did find at least one relevant deletion request, though.
I have a question for you. Analizing the final candidates of Picture of the Year I noted that a photo uploaded during the Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2016 is there on the top 30. Checking the file details, I saw that the file is a copy of the uploaded photo with some corrections. That is a regular practice? Instead of uploading a corrected file like other uploaded by some contributors just create a new file with corrections? The original author was not notified or informed that his photo was promoted or selected for the top 30 pictures of the year. The best option is not to merge both files keeping the original author of the photo?
The question is not regarding the Picture of the year itself, but that practice to copy and create a new file with simple filters/improvements instead of updating the same file, generating a nonsense redundancy Rodrigo Padula (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodrigo Padula: Please feel free to start a Deletion Nomination if you wish. I do not have enough experience with the PotY guidelines and policies to know if there's any special wrinkles or not in their system. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo Padula: Have you communicated with the uploaders of these images? I don't see anything on their talk pages, I have nothing to do with this image, or the Picture of the Year candidates and have suggested that you seek assistance elsewhere. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an attemp to justify your disruptive DR (regardless if the intentions are good or not, the base of AGF, the action of nominating 174 files is disruptive; Assumming Good Faith does not mean Ignore Disrtuptive Actions). Again, please explain your action and take your Admin responsibility (at least, by closing the three mass-DRs that you opened the May 24 and are still opened) rather than justifying it.
And, The entire paragraph was written by you was the result of 3 or 4 hours of research, and is hard to stay mellow when I spent that precious time, while you spent just 30 seconds or less to make the DR (and the false and baseless accusation of Copyvio to Adem20). Several of your DRs are just a waste of time, and some of them are bordering the Deletion Policy. And you're trying to pass the responsibility to others when you're the sole responsible as Admin? Come on! --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tow Mater, deletion of pictures
Hi Ellin,
Earlier this month, you deleted 2 pictures of paper models of the Tow Mater character from the movie Cars, namely File:Paper model, Tow Mater 1.JPG and File:Paper model, Tow Mater 2.JPG. But I can't retrace why you did that. The pictures were my own work (I even constructed that paper model myself) and there are several other pictures of Tow Mater on Commons. So please enlighten me, thanks! Loranchet (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DenesFeri: We have a procedure for verifying authorship of files: COM:OTRS. This procedure is linked to extensively throughout Commons, and has been in place for 10 years. Follow that procedure, and the OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: you will probably have to explain why you originally credited it to a third party (as implied by "kindly granted by...") before claiming you created it yourself. Storkk (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Declaration of consent for all enquiries[16], Emőke Dénes has to fill the declaration, or I? And for all of the pictures all at once, or for ich one separately? And this declaration will comply for the future pictures to? DenesFeri (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder (the actual creator) must fill it out. They can do it once for as many files as you have already uploaded. It just has to be clear for future agents that the copyright holder knew exactly which files they were referring to (so "all files uploaded by XYZ" only makes sense for files before the ticket date). They will have to do it again for future files. Out of curiosity, given that you lied to try to prevent the file's deletion, how do you justify swearing at Ellin above? Storkk (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the answers! Second I didn't lie about preventing the file's deletion; where do I lied? And I sweared at Ellin, because it deleted my picture. I spent time uploading and describing the pictures - in 2 languages -, so I'm mad if someone deleted them. DenesFeri (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the "author" and "source" of the file to your username and {{Own work}} but you said above that you were not the author. We're veered off-topic for Ellin's Talk page, so if you have further questions about what to do, feel free to contact me on my Talk page, but I can't help much more than point you again to COM:OTRS. The next step after OTRS permission submission is for the OTRS agent to request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the "author" and "source" of the file, to save it from deletion. I already sent the Declaration of consent for all enquiries to my sister, Emőke. Now we mut wait a while. DenesFeri (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz. I do not know English well. I use Google translator. So sorry for the poor quality text. Some explanation. There are article - "Ірина Яцура". Relative of Irina Yatsura, wanted to place a photo of Irina Yatsura (hereinafter I.Y.). He asked to do that some people. That people asked me do that. What I wanted to do, is to place scans of photos that gave a relative of I.Y.. I decided do that by filling this photo to "Wikimedia kommons". When I did so, I do not know which license to choose. I chose some license and this led to the fact that this photo was immediately nominated for deletion. And as I understand it because of a license chosen. Then I wanted to remove this picture and fill it again using a different license - completely free license (as far as I understand, the author of photo is agree with the license; as I understand, he want that this photograph became the property of all --but I confess that directly, I did not ask him). To remove it, I posted a request for quick removal. Without waiting for the removal of the first version of the photo, I was able to fill the same picture, but now with a different license (the same file I could fill again, so I make a new export of scan of photos with Gimp). Then I waited when to be removed the first version of the photo (with non-free license). When it happened, I saw that the second fill are nominated for deletion too. I read that in order to image received free license, should be directed to "COM: OTRS". But it can take much time and effort. This is the question. Would you advise the license, under which I could post this photo with the following conditions:
That photo was not nominated for deletion.
To not have to spend any long and difficult process;
That this license was as close as possible to "free license" (CC0).
I had the opportunity (or somebody else) then later, to fill the same picture but with a "free license", after passing appropriate procedures. So the presence in "Wikimedia kommons" photos of this license does not mean that fill it again, but with a free license, is impossible, or extremely difficult.
Perhaps it is good that this was a temporary license until will be possible to go through the normal licensing procedure. Thank you in advance. With all respects--Ivan for wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer Ellin Beltz. Perhaps I'll try to do everything as it should be (ie through a letter to "OTRS"). By the way helped that you said that it should not be difficult. Just have a question. Now I do not have time for this, and I can not manage to do it before the image will be deleted. So, (how do you think) whether will be additional problems, when I then try to fill it again and turn to the "OTRS" in the letter, and that after two deletions? Do I need to hurry up and do it all before removal? With all respects--Ivan for wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ivan for wikipedia: If the image is removed before you send the note (following the instructions at COM:OTRS <<click that link<<... the image may be restored if/when the permission is accepted by the OTRS editors. No additional upload is needed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put together a wiki page in collaboration with the graphic artist Anil CS Rao. Some of the work I think was delete. It is all his work and he gave me permission to post it on the page. I hope you can help.
Hi Fromkrakow: The deletion nomination was posted by Gunnex. The notices placed on your talk page ask you to correspond about the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fromkrakow, but I do not see any messages from you at that place. Please realize two things: Commons is not for promotion or self-promotion and all files need to be properly licensed. If you feel that these uploads are not promotional in nature, you could request that artist Anil CS Rao fill in the simple form at COM:OTRS. If you need any more information, please do not hesitate to contact me again! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uploads of Hockeysoccertennis
Hi again Ellin Beltz. I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Hockeysoccertennis when you get some time. All these photos are licensed under CC 4.0, but I can't find anything verifying this at all on any of their respective source pages. Many of the pages are not in English so I used Google translate to check, so I guess it could be wrong. However, based upon the uploader's user talk page, it seems there's also a good chance the licensing is incorrect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you taking a look. I wasn't aware of the Tasnim discussion and didn't scroll down to see that some of the files had already been removed. So, my bad and sorry if I sent you off on a wild goose chase. Also, it was pretty late my time when I posted the above and my intent wasn't simply dump things on your doorstep. I just wanted another opinion before tagging the files for deletion myself. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that point. Anyway, thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, 6/7, you deleted 2 pictures,(File:lily huang 3.JPG) and (FileLily Huang 2.jpg.JPG) But I can't retrace why you did that. The pictures were my own work and has been authorized to raise at the source. JimChenTwTp (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JimChenTwTp: Looking at the notices on your talk page, it would appear that you didn't provide sources for the images.
File:Lily huang 2.jpg.jpg - was composed of several images, according to COM:L a source has to be provided for every image and it's recommended to upload the images separately - each with their own source.
File:Lily huang 3.jpg - was also composed of several images, and here there was also the difficulty that there were photos of photos (or displays) which would require permission of their creator to be included.
I'm puzzled as well. The nomination to which I intended to object was entirely different: it was a big nomination of a lot of images that had been transferred from en:wp (and perhaps other language project; I'm not sure) without any problems that I noticed when sampling several of them. I don't remember seeing any images such as the ones you've just now nominated; had I seen them, I would not have objected, aside from perhaps suggesting that File:Sidar,Rovirosa,Ortiz Rubio.jpg be split out because it's different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the deletion of File:Esther Passaris.jpg and File:Mrs Esther Passaris.jpg I have been tasked with creating an article on this public figure and the person who uploaded the picture knows her personally and may hold the right to publish the pictures. How can these pictures be uploaded? Should this person upload it herself?
--Reollun (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the file's title is deceiptful with regards to what is being shown. This has been the prime reason it was recommended for deletion as renaming it has been reverted. A file rename was conducted from the old Macedonia borders - mk.png to Macedonian irredentism to make the image useful in this function, adding the respective category (Irredentism). The file got renamed again to Macedonia (region) border -mk.png, this time having the (region) as an assertion that this is about the geographic region and not about the country, and the irredentist category has been removed.
In the policy page (text section) it is mentioned that neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation. So if the file is not to be renamed in order to reflect what the image shows, or the title stays and the image colours change, it is in violation of the policy as it certainly is provocative and a mockery. Furthermore, an extra reason for at least renaming the file as per the Commons:Deletion_policy#Self-promotion_or_vandalism.2Fattack is that designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. In other words it's perfectly fine to host nationalistic, fake, or otherwise POV material as they can be used for this purpose and they are clearly indicated as such. This is not the case here.
Hi Gts-tg: I'm really sorry that of the hundreds of thousands of map files in our collection that this one does not please your for ethnic, social, political or personal reasons. However none of those is grounds for deletion. The file has been Kept twice now by different admins - but the same reason "no valid reason for deletion". Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ellin Beltz, but this type of answer apart from not being helpful, it really is unacceptable and I am surprised to see it coming from an admin. All I did was to make a request for reconsideration citing what I think are good reasons. You could have disagreed with me and provide reasoning as to why you made this decision, but instead you did not elaborate at all on the above and straight off the bat resorted to mock me under the assumption that I am some problem user or maintain a hidden agenda myself, while this is the first time we ever talk. You are a volunteer admin, and you are supposed to be helping people and be courteous, not do as you please and how you please it. Gts-tg (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you do not feel my reply was fast enough or in some other way did not suit you. The Deletion Nomination specifically mentioned "Keep because of official policy. Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view: "Images having particular national, political or religious significance including flags, emblems and maps can arouse strong passions, but Commons is not the place to decide which of various competing versions is the correct or official version. If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is "wrong" in some way, please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead," from COM:NPOV. Have you perhaps put messages on the talk pages where the map is in use to see if they'd rather use one that you created? I'd point out too that there is a similar issue between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one calls that body of water "The Persian Gulf" and the other "The Arabian Gulf" and seriously, no one is ever going to stop them from their own names for that. This issue comes up repeatedly, the only possible solution is consensus and replacement of the image on the various wiki pages where it is in use. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I did not say anything in relation to the speed of your reply, so please stick to the facts. Secondly you seem to insist that the matter is about me, rather than project policy. I have submitted 2 policy links above that you still haven't commented on. Here they are again for your convenience:
* policy page (text section) neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation
* Commons:Deletion_policy#Self-promotion_or_vandalism.2Fattackdesigns and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. Yes this file can be hosted, as long as the title corresponds to what the map is about, namely an irrendentist map.
You're answering your own questions with those quotes! If you'd like to put in a file renaming request, the volunteers who do a lot of that will have an opportunity to assist you. I see you are getting replies to these same questions elsewhere [[17]], therefore this topic is closed on my talk page and will be archived shortly. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, JE suis l'auteur ET la source de ce fichier. Je viens également de le modifier aujourd'hui. MERCI de ne pas supprimer ce fichier.
Cordialement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-Whip (talk • contribs)
Hi, I AM the author AND the source of this file. I just updated it today. Thanks a lot to not delete it. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-Whip (talk • contribs)
Bonjour Ellin Beltz. Je viens de constater non sans regret que vous avez supprimé 2 photos de la page Amel Hamrouni alors qu'il n'y avait aucune raison de les supprimer. Franchement, vous abusez à la fois de vos droits d’administrateur et du handicap linguistique qui m'empêche de me défendre en anglais. Les photos que vous avez supprimées abusivement sous prétexte qu'elles sont soumises à des droits d'auteur sont de moi. Et les informations EXIF l'attestent, de même que des publications personnelles sur mon blog datant d'avril 2015: Amel Hamrouni: retour sur une vie. Par conséquent, je vous prie de bien vouloir remettre les photos supprimées et cesser ce harcèlement pas du tout aimable ni justifié qui cible mes publications. Merci de votre attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webamri (talk • contribs)
Google translate About deleting File: Amel HAMROUNI 2014.jpg I just noticed with regret that you deleted 2 photos of the Amel HAMROUNI when there was no reason to remove them. Frankly, you are abusing both of your administrator rights and language disability that prevents me to defend myself in English. The photos you deleted improperly pretext that they are subject to copyright are of me. And EXIF information attest, as well as personal publications on my blog dated April 2015 html Amel HAMROUNI: return on a life. Therefore, I beg you to recover deleted photos and stop this harassment of any kind nor not justified targeting my publications. Thank you for your attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webamri (talk • contribs)
Hi Webamri: I'm not abusing administrator rights to delete one photo which was found previously published by another, yet which you claim as your own work. The other images you uploaded claimed as your own were removed by others, and you were blocked by Taivo for uploading unfree files after multiple warnings. Here is a list of the files which have been removed, their dates of removal, the administrator involved and the reason.
File:Hamrouni Amel.png - 1 April 2016 Jcb (Copyright violation: Not "Own work". Looks like a screenshot)
File:Mohamed Bhar.jpg - 3 April 2016 Jcb (Copyright violation: can be found in multiple formats on the web)
File:Amel Hamrouni 022.jpg - 1 June 2016 Taivo (Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: small photo without metadata)
File:Amel Hamrouni 01.jpg - 1 June 2016 Taivo (Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: small photo without metadata)
Also the link you gave above leads to a dead site with the following content "Veuillez nous excuser mais cette page a dû migrer vers un autre lien. Pour mieux la dépister, lancez votre moteur de recherches avec deux ou trois mots clés + "amriahmed.blogspot"."
Google translate: Sorry but this page had to move to another link. To better detect, start your search engine with two or three keywords + "amriahmed.blogspot". Thus we are unable to view/verify images from that webpage as it no longer exists. For your language issue, if you would prefer to speak with an administrator in your own language (assuming French), please see the list of French administrators at Commons:List of administrators by language. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing you about the deletion of multiple photos of Aziz Seyidov from the Wikimedia because of the possible copyright violations. However, these pictures belong to the Press Service of the General Prosecutors office of Republic of Azerbaijan and are on the public domain (Anyone can freely take pictures from the general prosecutors office and use them). I am afraid that I took them form the news agency instead and posted source of picture as that agency but the author was the Press Service of General Prosecutors office of Republic of Azerbaijan.
What would you recommend me to do in this instance as I am new in wikipedia and I am the only one in Press service that is assigned for producing pages for the Prosecutors.
14 jun 2016 13:46 Ellin Beltz (Overleg | bijdragen) heeft de pagina File:Cabane des Evadés.jpg verwijderd (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing-- previously deleted) (global usage; delinker log)
Mr. or Mrs. Beltz, can you explain to me why this is Copyright violation. I was asked to give evidence of my own work, more obvious than this I can't provide. Now you delete evidence. How can we explain this action of you? Instead of giving support, you make it worse. Whatever i do or say, it is ignored by "powerful" people like you in a very degrading way. My purpose was to prove I am not a liar as your colleagues say, put the previous, proved self made, pictures back on its place, stop waisting more time with Wikipedia and find myself an other useful hobby. I do not care at all anymore what people like you do with my contributions, delete what you want and have a nice life. Sterz (talk)
Hi Sterz: The image was previously deleted. Uploading images which were previously deleted is against policy. I see a proof sheet and a photo. I didn't remove the image you're documenting as yours, I removed the proof sheet one which had previously been removed. There is a reason for that. The proof sheet contains many images. By Commons rules, images have to be individually licensed. That is most likely why it was removed previously. However, having been removed before, it can't be reuploaded! I do not think you are a liar, nor do I believe I'm powerful or have degraded you in any way by applying the clearly stated rules of the project to your images. Please read COM:L, COM:EVID and COM:PRP before taking any more actions on the project? If you have questions, I'd be happy to help you with them. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sterz: I believe you are trying to show that you own the copyright of the photo by uploading the contact sheet... but you're doing so over the previous photo, and the contact sheet is out of our project scope. We have procedures in place for this sort of thing: please email the contact sheet to COM:OTRS, and explain that it is evidence that you are the copyright holder for the original photo. An OTRS agent will then request the photo's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I offended you Mr. or Mrs. Beltz, you are nice, but I am trying to convince several persons as mr. Storkk) that some particular pictures are mine. Beyond te fact that my effort for it is not appreciated or accepted, I do not care anymore if the pictures are placed back or destroyed. I did what you suggest, and the more I do even more colleagues of you offend me unfairly. It is better i stop this thing and focus myself on other activities. You can help me well by explaining me how to delete all my work here and unregister. Sterz (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sterz: The images you uploaded which you yourself took are fine. The ones at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sterz are of images which you didn't take yourself. I'm sorry that you're upset, but I'm sure you'll see once you read COM:L that Commons cannot free host images which have unclear copyright status. Since the images on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sterz are post 1932, we need more information, such as name of author, country of creation and so on to attempt to keep them. I think perhaps you have misunderstood the system perhaps, but there is no reason to be angry at any of the volunteers here. I hope that you would review your contributions and see that we cannot keep Google maps or images, or images from unknown creators in a date range that makes them likely still copyright. Were you able to provide information about these images it's possible some/many/all might be kept, but there's nothing we can do if you don't help us. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very correct and communicative person. Thank you for that. The last thing I want to say about your colleagues Storkk, Basvb, (Jameslwoodward) etc. is that they make lots of drama to calling me a liar on base of two files I thought they were mine but I mistook. They say "Numerous files" I claimed to be mine. Two were indeed by mistake, two were my own, what I explained clearly and plenty I uploaded without any discussions. Now everything what I claim is mine is false for them. What are they for people? They were so convinced by themselves that I am a swindler that they did not want to listen, help or stimulate and do not believe anything I say. If they did not delete some the history of conversations, you can read for yourself their nonsense and insinualtions. Obviously I am not handy in upload administration, that is clear. But also I immediately replaced the Google maps files with own made, after I knew that it is not aloud, and I told them. I just like to illustrate te lemma's where I am working on and do exactly what is asked when uploading a file. At the moment I do not care about deleting pictures by anybody, however they are unique and sometimes from old albums made in wartime. Some are thanks to me published on other sites and others will be pubished in books, with my name with it and with permission of the families. I would love to share this ones, and pictures i make myself, with people wo are interested in these items at Wikipedia. The pictures give these items a face. But I do not want to frustrate myself with these hungry pedants anymore and these pictures will find their way to the world an in other way, despite of Wikipedia. Thank you sincerely for your offer to help me, which is very friendly. Perhaps I can use it in the future. Sterz (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have very carefully not called Sterz a liar -- I have said that he has claimed that numerous images were "own work" when that was not correct and, that, therefore, he is either a liar or very careless. Given the number of images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sterz for which he agreed to deletion after the problems were called to his attention, I stand by the word "numerous". I do not particularly care whether he is liar or simply careless, but the scope of the incorrect statements he has made and his attitude is such that I see no reason to do other than hope he will take his attention elsewhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting {{Own work}} in the description field of a file that one uploads when it is not ones' own work might be reckless and flippant carelessness (one is, after all, claiming ownership and authorship of something that is not one's own). However, when those files are then questioned in a DR, and one specifically states again (and individually for each file, no less: it's not like one might have missed a file or two out of a bunch) that they are one's own work, then I'm not sure I can be that charitable. Storkk (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Basvb can help to explain that out of a bunch two "own work" were denied as own work but are proved to be own work now. Two were accidentally claimed "own work" my me; I was sure it was own work because I have plenty of identical pictures. After I replaced them by my own. It was a mistake and not on purpose. I have thanked Basvb for his proper investigation. I do not claim ownership of "numerous" or "great many" files who are not self made, as this people affirm. @ Ellin Beltz (and Basvb), maybe you can help retrain these persons, so they are more suited to work for this medium, as you both helped me too. This ballyhoo does not belong on the page of a correct person like you and I hope you can end this flaring polemic. Sterz (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a small number of your "own work" claims were found to be correct is irrelevant. Commons depends on being able to trust the uploader. Whether you are simply extremely careless or a deliberate liar is beside the point -- it is clear that we cannot trust the accuracy of your statements. That means that anything you upload must be inspected carefully, wasting the time of volunteers who have no time to spare. Please just go away and leave Commons alone. If you continue to throw out insults, you will be blocked from editing here. Storkk and I could not do that because we are too much involved, but Ellin or Bas certainly could. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Aubrey arms up. 700X941.jpg
Would you please reconsider your deletion of ?
Your deletion logic does not appear to consider the following statements from the Hollywood Progressive
Copyright Notice
Unless otherwise specified, all articles in the Hollywood Progressive are copyrighted by the respective author. For permission to reprint, post, or redistribute an article, please contact either the author or the editor. If permission is granted, we ask that the Hollywood Progressive be credited as the original source and that a link to the Hollywood Progressive website, http://www.hollywoodprogressive.com, be included.
and
Any article by a contributing writer of the Hollywood Progressive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Additionally, the file was uploaded (to the Commons) by the original photographer and author (Patrick O’Heffernan ), so the file is simply missing an additional attribution to The Hollywood Progressive. Would you mind restoring the link to the file in Aubrey Logan infobox? I'm currently blocked there (WP project). Thank you. 009o9 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 009o9 As uploaded by FRI MUSE the image was claimed "own work"... ({{Information |Description ={{en|1=Aubrey Logan at the Witzend, Venice California 2013.jpg}} |Source ={{own}}Own Work |Author =FRI MUSE |Date =2014-10-29 |Permission = |other_versions = }}) There's nothing on the upload form about Hollywood Progressive, that was pointed out by the person who nominated the file for deletion. I did check the HP page, and found it's marked (c). Additionally there is no indication of who took the pictures on that webpage. Do you have any idea why FRI MUSE claimed this image as own work, and later an anonymous editor also claimed as their own work? There's far too many claims here to sort out without more information. Also Any article by a contributing writer of the Hollywood Progressive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License doesn't say a word about the images in fact it's very strict as to "article" and "writer". Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just discovered that the HP works under CC-BY-SA because of this deletion. I wrote the Aubrey Logan Wikipedia article and contacted the author/owner of the photo. My experience with Commons is that it turns into a complicated mess when I upload a photo and intercede between the Commons administrator and the copyright holder directly, so I asked him to upload. The photo credit is clearly stated here to Patrick O’Heffernan.
I guess I could forward you the email thread, the discussion with Ms Logan, her manager and the copyright owner (Patrick O’Heffernan). Additionally, the nominator, C messier does not appear to be making a copyright claim, just a possible violation, I'm not aware of any anonymous editor making a claim. Finally, the photo did not come from either publication, it came from the copyright owner, I'm not certain that we would have to credit every outlet who republished it, nor would republishing transfer a copyright. Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again 009o9, I can make this even easier than the above. Of course, this isn't the first time something like this has happened! Please send a message to the person you think really took this image, and ask them to send the brief email requested at COM:OTRS. Because the image was previously published, and we have no way to verify that FRI MUSE is the same as Mr. O'Heffernan; if he would be so kind as to follow that very simple, tiny form and send it in (via email), volunteers at OTRS can confirm a relationship between the two individuals and they are able restore the file once that is confirmed. COM:EVID shows that this effort must be made by the uploader and COM:OTRS wouldn't take but 3 to 5 minutes at most even if you re-read the letter five times first. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've had similar OTRS problems before, one subject paid for a shoot with a full copyright release contract and we still had to bring the photographer into the discussion. The OTRS form, from Mr O’Heffernan, has been sent and should be in the queue. Thanks for your attention on this matter. (BTW: New press on Aubrey Logan came across my desk today.[18]) Thanks again! 009o9 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ellen, I understand you wonder if you can delete duplicate photos I uploaded. Yes the ones not being used in the various Wikipedia pages and I do apologise for the duplication upload. I was lightening the photos as appeared to dark. If in doubt can you just e-mail me at (my email) as I am too rusty on figuring out how to talk to you on Wiki. I own copyright of all the photos and am making them available to Wikipedia Commons as in my upload info. The ones that should not be deleted from Wikipedia Commons are the ones i have used in the information box of Stevenson Macadam lighter image of two used) and William Ivison Macadam Wikipedia pages and the one of Caroline Ladd Corbett Macadam (lighter image of the same darker image) inserted in the Ivison Macadam page (his wife).
For Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GlennMandagi595, it appears that the first two images have not been deleted, or at least not completely deleted. In particular, the following two pages still have file information and thumbnail images:
Hi, I think is inessesary images, I must change the map, Hidalgo State don't have got a flag, Quintana Roo State flag is diferent and a need more space by my images.--Marrovi (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in contact with the representative from Hidden Beach Recordings who has been uploading this image. She was not aware of our confirmation protocols, and I have explained them in a return email. I'm giving you the heads-up as the deleting admin since I've instructed her to go ahead and upload it (or another image, if she chooses) again and to immediately thereafter send an email from her official account to Permissions. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to make sure the process goes smoothly. 🖖ATS/Talk21:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, just saw your note on Chris's talk page, that was unconditionally one of the nicest things anyone has ever said on Wikipedia regarding my efforts. You are my number 1 fan and that really means the world to me, thank you so much. I have, in large part due to your kind words, and continued admiration of my efforts, decided to withdraw retirement, and continue to try to make Wikipedia a better place with my visual creations and just stick to that.
I am quite lucky to have the ability tools and the access to share things that many never will know. I know just how fortunate I really am.
That is why I donate my artistic efforts to the site in the first place. It thrills me to think that the Liberty picture will be the featured photo, on the 4th of July. I reached out today to Arb and I hope that perhaps I can convince them to let me start placing some of the new work on the EN site again, if not well I have no one to blame but myself. Your the best, basking in the moment, thank you again!! BTW: According to my log file's my fans are back too... --WPPilot (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WPPilot: I'm so glad you're back on board! Your photos are stunning and your access to places that most of us will never go is a great benefit to the project! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Today is enough to deal with for me. The May DRs are all gone. We'll get started with June here in a bit. One note: if you get down to 1 or 2 very complex DRs left for a certain day, you can always relist it on the newest day's DR page. I did that twice with the May stuff. It may get renewed attention...or it may sit around again...it'll get closed sooner or later though. INeverCry19:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A defense for Colin
Hi Ellin,
As you probably know Colin asked to be indef blocked the other day. Yesterday he asked by email if I would defend him, as he apparently believes I am good at resolving conflict situations.
Well, he is my friend here on Commons, and who says no to defending a friend? You may ask why he does not ask for his self-imposed block to be lifted and defend himself using his own words?
Well, Colin has provided me a lengthy explanation of how he sees the situation. He has stated to me that I can freely quote from what he has written, paraphrase his words, or hint from it. He has also stated that he has no wish that I act as his "meatpuppet", and I can guarantee I will not be his meatpuppet, as I form my own opinion from available sources. So, if I use some of his material I will clearly refer to it as "Colin has written to me that:" or similar.
In our correspondence, Colin has explained to me why he does not wish to continue editing on Commons right now. It is primarily due to the elaborated explanation you have provided for the three day block you imposed on him. Here you explicitly mentioned
Harassment, unnecessary non-mellow anger, accusations of lying, and anti-AGF against another user. As well as repeated comments about the other user's gender/sexuality. The other user particularly asked to be left alone and the harassment did not stop despite requests.
as the block reason (which differed from you original block reason, I might get back to that). Colin has expressed to me that there are several aspects in this elaborated explanation for your rationale and for how you believe to have followed a proper blocking process which he disagrees with or lacks a better explanation of.
Of special concern to Colin is that you state that he has "harassed... another user". Harassment is possible trigger for a WMF global ban, and it is a criminal offense in the UK, where Colin is living. Thus, Colin feels this is damaging to his reputation. He takes this very serious. As it has not been clear for him exactly what it is he has written, which is perceived as harassment by you, he will not ask to be unblocked until this is clarified.
In your elaborated explanation you refer to this diff for the rationale: [19]. I find this diff a bit confusing as this is just the diff showing you closing remark to this dispute: [20] and in that closing remark you do not refer to harassment, but to circular arguments, without really being specific about what was circular. I leaves me therefore a little confused when I trying to understand where you believe Colin has harassed Fæ in that discussion. Would you be so kind to try and explain to me specifically what you have in mind, preferably with a quote or a few diffs. I feel pretty confident that you have had the best of intentions in what you have done, I would just like to get a better understanding of what specifically you are referring to when speaking of harassment? I probably have other questions after this, but I believe in seeing things from all sides before dropping to fast conclusions.
Meanwhile, the Photo challenge project already has severe problems as Colin's tools and knowledge is needed.
Hi Slaunger: I do not doubt in any way that you have received email, my concern is not speaking "over someone's head" or "behind their back" when it is not impossible to speak directly. The block I applied was for three days. The block is now over. I answered questions to other users on Colin's talk page which may or may not have been considered in the initial action. I was unaware that I was only to speak of the exact moment at which I applied the block. If that is the which case, then at the exact moment of the block I was thinking of how to do it - which buttons to push. I do not do a lot of blocking and was trying not to make any mistakes. FYI, I have also received email from Colin. I really don't think it's appropriate or ethical to talk about someone in the third person when there's nothing stopping him from speaking for himself to me or to the community. I think that since the block time is over, and he's perfectly able to return and work on the photo challenge, that any additional discussion, 3rd person style, is likely to produce more trouble than it would solve. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin: Thank you for your reply. I agree that the block is over, but your stated block reason stands in clear text on User talk:Colin, and it contains a series of very serious allegations regarding Colin (as quoted above). This is a real problem for Colin. It is also of interest to community members to understand what the threshold is for "harassment" for example? Even after your elaborated block reason, which differs from the original block reason, several other users including a fellow 'crat has stated their disagreement with your block rationale. As a functionary on this project and in your community leading role as a 'crat, I find it is perfectly warranted to ask for more specific reasons for actions, which damage another users reputation.
Unlike you, I find it very natural to discuss Colin in third person here. Colin is of the opinion that I am more capable than himself in pointing out the apparent lack of specific evidence for your block rationale, and he seems to believe that I have a more constructive and mellow approach to discuss the matter with you and ask for a clarification. Defend Each Other is a well known principle in online communities, and that is my objective of being here. And I would actually say shame on me for not beginning this defense without Colin asking me in private for help. I think it is a pretty wise move by Colin, as it shows a will to de-escalate a conflict and seek a resolution and/or clarification in a calm and rational manner. I should have defended him the minute I noticed he had been blocked. I would also like to point out that my objective for being here is not to attack you either. My objective is to bring forth more specific guidance and reasons for why you think Colin has harassed another user. It is not at all clear for me by following the diff you have provided, as it merely refers to your own conclusion, but not how you have reached that conclusion, and what criteria you have applied to reach the conclusion that harassment has taken place.
So, I ask again: Would you be so kind to provide some diff, quotes, elaborated explanation to actual things Colin has written, which you find is harassment of another user? Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger. Sorry, but I'm not going to continue a drama-war by proxy. You're welcome to defend anyone you choose, but I do not have to participate in online gossip. I would point you to the Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators which gives a list. Number four on that list is "Harassment". If you feel the word "harassment" has a different legal use in the U.K., I think that is beyond the ability of any WMF project to control. I read the Wikipedia entry on the U.K. Harassment Law and it would appear that the civil issues begin only if the harassment is continued under wilful control and knowing that the action they are taking constitutes harassment. The unpleasantness of the situation was clearly stated on the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59#Colin which also contains all the relevant diffs and is linked to user's talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Ellin, given your explanation here, I think the block issue has been resolved, thanks. I am sorry you are perceiving a request for a clarification of a block above as "a drama-war by proxy". I will not dwelve about it further though as I cannot change how you perceive our discussion. I can only say that it has most certainly not been my intention by cause drama, and I am sorry if my defense for Colin has caused you any distress. I wish you a good day. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
★ Poké95 05:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
INeverCry 08:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Elisfkc. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment Restored. Ellin, could you please check before deleting 1. who made the request, 2. that the uploader should be warned (he wasn't here). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
INeverCry 20:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![111 File:Карол на снимките на сериала "Луна".jpg](#File:Карол_на_снимките_на_сериала_"Луна".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harta_drumurilor_de_transhuman%C8%9B%C4%83_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lethe_corbieri,_me_%26_my_graphic_sources.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossile#/media/File:Dactylo%2BBelemnites.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Terrasson.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren_Roadster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_4#c-Nyuszika7H-2016-05-03T19:06:00.000Z-File:Карол_на_снимките_на_сериала_"Луна".jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_borders_-_mk.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Oppose Given Sterz's record of rulebreaking on Commons, including uploading this image twice after deletion 
Not done. Thuresson (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
?
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}