User talk:Elcobbola

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you've received notices or warnings from me, please ensure you've read them and the guidance and policies referenced therein before asking questions here. While I am genuinely happy to provide elaboration or clarification, a question suggesting guidance has not first been consulted, may not receive a response. Alternatively stated: questions from users who appear not to have read guidance already provided to them may not be answered--this is most often COM:L and COM:VRT. Please read them closely and critically.
Please also note the following:
  • Please include links to the pertinent page(s) and/or file(s);
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page.
  • Comments that denigrate or otherwise are discourteous, fail to be civil, or to assume good faith may not receive a response.
  • Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages on this page.


Special:CentralAuth/Nawazprincehai's local attachment request

w:en:User talk:Nawazprincehai has requested to have a local account on Commons, but their IP range is checkuserblock-ed by you. Mind taking a look and actioning as appropriate? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this process. Do I have the ability to attach accounts to the Commons? I currently have no reason to object to their attachment, but I have no intention of changing the range block per my comments at User talk:2401:4900:2EE4:3AF3:0:5A:2F:7301. Эlcobbola talk 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you do. The special page is Special:CreateLocalAccount. (All admins have the technical ability to, but given that it's a checkuser block I wouldn't without your approval.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be done. Thanks for explaining--old dog, new tricks. Эlcobbola talk 18:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Don’t you think there’s something wrong with the IPs here…? RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And hereRodRabelo7 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes. The 2603:7000:B8F0:960::::/64 is already blocked and the 2600:1017:B027:C884::::/64 hasn't edited in 3 days, so I'm unsure why you're asking. Эlcobbola talk 17:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi @Elcobbola. I'm unsure if I should file an SPI or not. I noticed spam from Gepind2024, who appears to be Gepind, a spammer blocked on en-wiki several years ago for spam. I deleted two of their uploads today at: File:Gepind Panganiban Requierme.jpg and File:Gepind P. Requierme.jpg pretty much for the same reason. They re-uploaded one (which I couldn't delete again? not sure why) They have been blocked on en-wiki per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gepind2024. I'm not much into SPIs so I really don't want to waste a CUs time. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @TheAafi Please do not file a duplicative RFCU here, the result there can justify blocks here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @TheAafi: Jeff is correct. Because SUL accounts are consistent across projects, CU findings are valid across projects and do not require additional checks absent some special circumstance. Even if there were not an x-wiki CU finding (which was actually itself a {{Duck}} finding--indeed per the following), additional things to note: 1) Gepind has not edited the Commons since 10 June 2019 and would thus be Stale (there would be no Gepind data to which to compare Gepind2024) and 2) even if not stale, this would be a case where a CU is not needed ({{Duck}})), as "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases." (COM:RFCU) Name similarity (Gepind v Gepind2024), highly esoteric topic, and effective recreation of content ([1][2]), in the aggregate, make the connection obvious (i.e., not a "difficult case" requiring CU tools to establish a connection.) Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elcobbola, this helps. Thanks for the detailed note. I was able to clear a lot of doubts. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I saw that you blocked the first as a sock, and the second seems to be acting in the same space as the first, and has a knowledge of Italian. I don't know enough of the scenario to do more than I have currently done, which is 2 hr block and ask to follow instruction. Thanks if you can have a look.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undelete request

Can you please undelete Category:Anand Vihar Terminal–Dehradun Vande Bharat Express. There are images in Category:Anand Vihar Terminal - Dehradun Vande Bharat Express that need to be moved there. Thanks. --R'n'B (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories deleted as empty (C2) can be recreated at any time by good faith users when there are images to be so categorised; no additional process or permission from the deleting admin is needed. In this case, I'm not inclined to restore given a username issue and that the sock's choice of subcategories may or may not have been appropriate, so please simply recreate the category as desired. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overlapping SPI cases

Hi Elcobbola, I found your recent closure on Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jurisdrew. I heavily suspect (and others do too looking at the page) that this is the same case as Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hom Ling Zum. Should these be combined? Best, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I would not be inclined to do anything. If they are both Jurisdrew, combination expends additional community resources for no gained insight. If they are distinct LTAs, combination may obscure relevant history. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy to blame ...

... when you are the only one who sees the full image. I cannot see images before they are restored, so I could not see that the photo with the .jpg-extension was actually the right one. And the admin you blamed has no insight into the ticket. We both tried to do our best under the given circumstances. :-/

Concerning the file description you reverted: According to the ticket, the license is cc-by-sa-4.0, not cc-0. And the author should be Louise Carrin, unless you have evidence that she is identical to the user Adelfilm.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall blaming anyone for anything, and you are welcome to make (and should) whatever license updates are needed. Эlcobbola talk 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask for files restoration

Hello, can you restore these two files (File:Buste de Madame Pommery.jpg, File:Dressoir Chemin d'automne.jpg) ? There is a subtlety in the display of the Musée de Reims. The copyright symbol is only used to give the name of the photographer (in any case, it has no legal value in France). The image is clearly marked as being in the public domain ("Domaine public" in [3] and [4]) unlike this example where this is not the case : [5] where a copyright owner is noted, and you can find the sentence « Cette œuvre est soumise à droits et son visuel ne peut pas être diffusé librement. » (This artwork have copyright and can’t be freely shared). Thank you ! Lucas Lévêque (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not evident that "Domaine public" refers to the photograph rather than the subject/work. In fact, it is contradicted by the photographer credit of "© Christian Devleeschauwer" where "©" means "copyright" (copyright and public domain are, of course, mutually exclusive). Could you point me to something that reconciles this contradiction? Alternatively, do you have a source that establishes Christian Devleeschauwer to be an employee of the museum? Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I know that it’s not evident. You can find in the EULA page here this phrase : « Les images des œuvres dans le domaine public sont libres de droit et d’utilisation, la mention de l’auteur du cliché est mentionnée » (Images of artworks in the public domain are free of rights and use, the author of the photo is mentioned.) So it’s just a mention, not copyright recognition. On the blog of the photograph he said « j’intègre la fonction publique » (I am joining the public service), who is the museum and the City of Reims (who owned the museum). Is that enought ? Thank you ! Lyokoï (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the terms "Les images des œuvres dans le domaine public sont libres de droit et d’utilisation, la mention de l’auteur du cliché est mentionnée" are not adequate. For example: 1) we do not know that their understanding of "free of use" is the same as ours (as one very common example, the Pexels license is described by Pexels to be free, but contains restrictions on derivatives that render it insufficiently free for our purposes; 2) relatedly, it is not a license (COM:L requires specific license); and 3) it does not address perpetual duration, which it explicitly must. As I'm sure you've noted, our hope is "Les prises de vue réalisées par Les Musées de la Ville de Reims sont libres de droits", which is why we want to establish Devleeschauwer as a museum employee. I might be persuaded by that link if there is supporting context, so perhaps you can help me: why would "©" (copyright) be used if employee works are public domain (mutually exclusive of copyright)? Why would Devleeschauwer as a person be credited instead of the museum/employer as here, for example? Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblocking the IP address

Hello, I hope you're well. We're hosting a photography contest called Wiki Loves Vizag 2024. We received a message on Instagram informing us that the IP address 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 was disabled by Elcobbola. Could you kindly look into this matter? --iMahesh (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi iMahesh, this range has experienced significant disruption by multiple LTAs. As an example and reasonableness test, has also blocked this /32 range until April 2026 and removed talk page access. The user will need to wait until the block expires or create an account on a sister project. Эlcobbola talk 08:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the revert, I requested him to created an account via Mobile data and it worked. --iMahesh (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]