User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 7

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

File:2002 flood service medal.jpg

What exactly is the problem? Fdutil (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See COM:DW. There are two copyrights: 1) the medal and 2) the photo of the medal. You may have taken the photo, and you may own the medal (mere physical property rights), but the medal's creator retains the intellectual property rights and thus his/her permission would be required to license this image freely. Эlcobbola talk 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

contesting that you want every single photograph deleted of babies that are wearing hemuts that correct a problem the babies are born with - you want every photo deleted

this is for the children and not my personal photo album

i have enclosed the gallery we use in spanish and the text

thanks for your compassion for the children

Desde 2009 el hospital cuenta con una Unidad de Remodelación Craneal Infantil. El casco de remodelación craneal es contraindicado para casos de Craneosinostosis, hidrocefalia y para bebés menores a tres meses de edad. Para estos casos es importante contar con especialistas que deberán diagnosticar adecuadamente al paciente. En primer lugar se debe descartar un cierre prematuro de suturas por medio de exámenes especiales con Tomografía axial computarizada. Algunos bebés nacen con deformaciones craneales, otros desarrollan las mismas debido a mal posicionamiento en sus primeros meses de vida. Estas deformaciones llevan varios nombres dependiendo de la asimetría del cráneo, entre ellas las más comunes son Plagiocefalia, Braquiocefalia, Escafocefalia.

Since 2009, Hospital del los Valles in Quito, Ecuador has in place an Infant Cranial Remodeling Unit that assists babies with cases of craniosynostosis and hydrocephalus. These strains carry various names depending on the asymmetry of the skull, including the most common are Plagiocephaly, Braquiocefalia, Scaphocephaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that this is responsive to the issue or what feedback you would like from me. That a hospital provides services to children is admirable, but the Commons is not to be used as that hospital's web host. The volume, poor technical quality (e.g., blurriness), and the promotional tone here and in the article (which you've created) suggest a violation of COM:NOT. Please use the deletion request for responses. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
why you want to delete all the photos Babies (who are wearing helmuts) - you personally asked for every photo to be deleted.....babies who are born with cranial deformities are able to have a scan at the Hospital del los Valles and the this file is set to the United States where a helmut is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Is my Work

User:Lovevoetbal Hey the pictures from curacao national fotball team is my work no is the posible violation thanks for your attention, no delette my work please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovevoetbal (talk • contribs)

Please see COM:OTRS. Previously published images require additional permission. Further, you have uploaded images such as File:Cvv republic curazao first team.jpg claiming to be the author, which seems decidedly untrue. Эlcobbola talk 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There are two files that are mine friend, Im scan of a history book of Fotball Curacao
more information for the book [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovevoetbal (talk • contribs)
Please see COM:DW. You cannot license images that you have not personally created; copying someone else's image does not remove their copyright. Whether you know a person pictured has no bearing on the copyright status of the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request

ElC: I understand that you are a person of some import here. Could you move Category:HMS Calliope (ship, 1887) to Category:HMS Calliope (ship, 1884)? Ships are distinguished by, and dated from, their launch year, not year of completion. I proposed the move on talk page last year and got no reply. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi KB, I've given it a go. Let me know if anything is incorrect or, by all means, fix any issue you find (I'm not sure how category moves work on, but categories have to be manually moved on the Commons -- a known bug -- so you actually ought to have the same capabilities as I). Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Alles gut. Vielen dank. I did not know I could do it. Kablammo (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


The license of the photo in Flickr clearly says Creative Commons 2.0. I don't know what did you doubt about it. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made no comment related to the Flickr license. Please read the rationale critically and see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If there's a problem because is a character from a franchise, why exists this [2]? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that you are putting that message in all the images that I mentioned, why don't see this too [3]? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see es:WP:OTRA. The category was created by a serial copyvio uploader and its existence has no relevance to acceptability of the images therein. Further, you received a notice about File:Darth-Vader-Legoland.jpg because I tagged all the images in that category; I did not tag them after you mentioned it here. What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, files in Category:Star Wars - The Exhibition appear to have copyright issues. Jespinos (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


For FoP related reasons we use a regular DR. We discussed this recently at the administrators noticeboard. There are two main reasons to use a regular DR for this. One reason is that FoP issues are too complicated for speedy deletion. Laws differ from country to country, in some case a (lack of) copyright notice at the statue makes a difference, etc. The other reason is that a lot of uploaders are totally unaware of the issue. A regular DR is far more friendly then and gives a better opportunity to the uploader to ask questions and to the community to answer those questions. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you find copyright too complex, an ethical stance would be to abstain from related nominations or to resign your tools. I sincerely hope you will do both. Эlcobbola talk 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not the answer I hoped to read from an administrator :-( - Jcb (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Images GLOWINTHEDARK and Willy Monfret

Dear Elcobbola, You've marked my uploaded images as possible copyright violation. The photos are made by the management of the guys, where I work. We have all rights on the images and decided to release those rights since these are their official pressphotos. Can you remove the warning? Or is there someplace I can defend this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosaenv (talk • contribs)

Hi Rosaenv, works that have been published prior to upload to the Commons require additional permission. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on how to provide this. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

About deletions

Hi, the only deletion request I don't understand is the one about the lego sculptures. It is just lego bricks. There are a lot of images about it here: Category:Lego sculptures and Category:Lego sets. Thank you for your attention.--SunOfErat (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SunOfErat, copyright is afforded to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (emphasis mine)(17 U.S.C. § 102) The law does not care whether the material is wood, stone, or little plastic building blocks. A sculpture is a sculpture regardless of how it is constructed. If an analogy would help: a single word, like a single Lego block, is not eligible for copyright. However, an original/creative arrangement of many words into a poem or novel, like many Lego blocks into a sculpture, is eligible for copyright. There are millions of images on the Commons, and of them hundreds of thousands of copyvios. That other users have not understood the scope of copyright and/or the concept of derivative works and thus created those categories is not a meaningful point (see w:WP:OTHERSTUFF). Эlcobbola talk 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Since a lot of the files I uploaded from Flickr have some problems, I would ask you a favor. If I write down a list of links of CC-By and CC-By-SA photos I found interesting, would you please tell me before I upload them on commons if I can do it whitout deletions? --SunOfErat (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Kürtősh Kalách family.jpg and other files uploaded by me

Pleasw write me what am I doing wrong? I don't understand why are you setting my images as copyright violations. I am the webmaster of I uploaded the images and set the copyright to "". On the bottom of this webpage we put "CC-BY-SA-3.0" What else we have to do, so we can upload our pictures to commons? --Vszhuba (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Vszhuba, the primary issue is that the CC license on the website appears to be license laundering. For example, a scanned page from a cookbook, which you have here is a derivative work. The copyright belongs to the book's author; you, as the mere scanner or website host, cannot legitimately apply a CC license without the author's permission. Similarly, this image is clearly credited to ArtDelineo, this image has a "BL" watermark, this image also appears to have a watermark, etc. - all pointing to disparate authors. In short, the CC claim on the website is not reliable. If you are actually the author of certain images, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to submit permission. An OTRS volunteer will restore images if/when we receive acceptable permission. Do not recreate the images yourself. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)



Photo File: Rudy Perez-1a-04-29-13.jpg was deleted on the grounds that it had no proper license. It is the first picture I get on Wikipedia but the picture does not violate any copyright. You can find a message from the owner of the rights to the photo in Wikimedia Commons, in which he states that allows it to rise Wikimedia and its use by any person for whatever they want. The message is stored on Wikimedia Commons. If you do not consider that the license is adequate having it, change it yourself and tell me which is the best license and how to change it. Again it is the first photo I upload to Wikimedia, but does not infringe any copyright right. You can not do it if the author allowed the photo uploaded to Wikimedia. Just be a infringement of copyright if any uploaded without your consent. That photo has text web page photograph means nothing. The photo should be put back.

Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The file was not deleted "on the grounds that it had no proper license"; it was deleted because there was not adequate evidence or permission for the license provided. The statement you reference, but fail to link, is not sufficient - see COM:L for the explicitness and conditions required. Further, COM:OTRS requires additional permission for images published prior to upload to the Commons. If the author submits permission to OTRS using an address with a domain, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The author sent the permission through your email staff ( He sent a copy of permission to Commons, to me and the journalist working with him on the website where I found the photo).--Isinbill (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You've made a request at COM:UD. Please keep discussions in one place. Эlcobbola talk 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

{{delh}} at COM:UD

Hi Elcobbola, hope you're well. Not sure if you know about it, but on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, the archive headers and footers are {{udelh}} & {{udelf}} respectively. The bot will not archive sections closed with anything other than the aforementioned templates. Regards, FASTILY 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I did not. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 01:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png A beer to say thank you for your help navigating through commons. I have much to learn but I will get there. Thanks again Vergiotisa (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Daft admin"

I've been called worse, but wouldn't it be more helpful for you to just delete the bloody thing instead if it's so unambiguous rather than tag and then insult any admin who happens to take a different view? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)