User talk:Elcobbola

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • I seldom edit on weekends and generally do not access Wikimedia email during the day (CET/CEST).
  • Transparency is important; I endeavor to act, or to abstain from action, in pursuit of its promotion; for example:
I do not particulate on IRC; I do not respond to emails whose comments could reasonably have been made, or should have been made, on-wiki (i.e., those not of a genuinely private nature); if I enter a discussion as a result of a request (i.e., canvassing, in the pejorative), I will disclose the request that brought me to the discussion.
  • Comments and emails that impugn or otherwise fail to be civil or to assume good faith will not receive a response.
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will generally respond on this page.
  • Please include links to the pertinent page(s).
  • IP editors may leave messages on this page.


Happy New Year, Elcobbola!

About File:BD-Cepleanu-Malaussena.jpg

OK, thanks. I don't presume any bad faith in you, only I'm not agree with the actual rules about copyright (for example, Alexander Granholm can not have drawn the skull of Pompei fresco and write a greek text on my derivative [1] : may be he draw some flags since the same background, but he's not the single graphist who use this background). I have not hostility for you as a person and human being. By the way, thanks for delete this flag because it's not historic, only anecdotic, as [2] and [3]. I have no intentions for the future : I'm retired. If you are a generous person, it's not for me (I'm not important) but for the readers. It's a good thing. About this poster [4], if each one of the both authors (my friend Philippe & me) must send an authorisation to OTRS, please delete, delete ! I'm tired. Have a nice year ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

About File:Jonathan_Cohler.jpg

Thank you for closing the deletion request and keeping the file. However, I spoke with the photographer and he confirmed to me in writing as he did in response to your query that this photograph and the others in the same job were work for hire and that I am the copyright owner. Could you please update your statement to reflect that fact? Currently, your closing entry says "Permission received from Mr. Chomitz" which is inaccurate. Mr. Chomitz has no basis for issuing permission. He simply corroborated the fact that the photograph was work for hire--as I have been stating all along--and that I am therefore the author and copyright holder. I would appreciate you reflecting those important facts accurately on the page. Thank you. --Cohler (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


@elcobbola, How would I be able to be granted permission so that my user account is automatically granted the permission to upload these types of files at all times. I have been granted the permission to use these photos for whatever I so choose to represent Deana Martin, her likeness, and her produced works of art anywhere online as I so choose. Having my client send a photo to WikiPedia at each and every time in which we want to upload one is not feasible for us. Please advise the best course of action as it integrates into the rules and guidelines of WikiPedia and WikiMedia commons. Thank you so much for your work and thank you for taking your time with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdicarlantonio (talk • contribs)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

File:Tranvía eléctrico de Guadalajara 1905-1940.jpg

Danke für die Wiederherstellung. Falls es Dich interessiert, die Zusammenfassung des mexikanischen Urheberrechts auf Commons braucht offenbar eine Generalüberholung. Siehe Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Can you have a look at this? lNeverCry 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive. Machine doesn't match what I have on file (CU wiki is very out of date); uncommonly high number of ranges, especially for a new user (November 2016), but all geolocate to same region - and not LPC's. Эlcobbola talk 02:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to check though. Maybe he's on Hola or another VPN. He's one of our smart sockmasters. I always classed them into 4 classes. 1, Dumb ones; 2, smart ones; 3, ones who don't give a shit; 4, crazy ones. lNeverCry 06:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Phoenix Picture

I am glad that you found that Jetset Magazine was using my photo without giving credit to me as the photographer. Eventhough as it was pointed out your logic was entirely flawed in citing them as the owner of my photos, you will now note that after and email from Ms. Phoenix; which has also been forwarded to Permissions in it's entirety; to the owner of Jetset Magazine, they now correctly credit me as the photographer.

Also, the OTRS email from Nikki from her gmail account to the owner of Jetset Magazine is included in it's entirety in the Permission email, since she, along with every other model I have ever shot, uses gmail, which in fact does not make them "Suspect" because they choose to use it. Since the owner of Jetset Magazine responds to her directly and she references your statements and problems experienced here on Wikipedia, that ends any speculation on her email as well.

Since I have already fowarded the original signed model release, Sanitized ID shots of Ms. Phoenix, and her Lawyer has also emailed permissions validating that I am the owner, rights holder, photographer and can do what I like with this photo, this will end any argument from any pundit here regarding ownership and use.

Thanks again for finding someone who needed to list me for credit on my photos and if you find anyone else, please let me know.

I guess the takeaway from this is:

Never tell the photographer who owns a photo he is not the owner, he will have the documentation, the model, and the industry resources to prove otherwise everytime.

Best, --Art javier (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: template licensed-PD

Re: your revert at File:Statue of Liberty 7.jpg as "The photo is cc, the statue itself is PD", that is exactly the intent of my edit using {{licensed-PD}}. Contrary to your edit which only indicates the license of the photo, AFAIK it is always a better idea to indicate copyright status of both the original art and the photograph, is it not? What are the current best practices? Or should {{licensed-PD}} be deprecated? --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

朝彦, my apologies, you are correct. In the change summary I missed that the CC license had been retained (i.e., I thought you'd changed it to have only the PD template.) I've reverted to your version. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, relieved to know I wasn't doing anything wrong. Cheers! --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Tren Ligero GDL

Hi! You may want to take a look at FranciscoQ001 - pretty sure this is a sock (also see their page on enwiki). --Rschen7754 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed! Much obliged. Эlcobbola talk 18:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock (I'm in the automatic translator.)

I tried to insert a checkuser request but I could not. That's why I'm informing you here. Check this account AHBVP (talk · contribs) With these accounts Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cidade Falcão By having the same behavior and possible blocking outline . O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, O revolucionário aliado, this is Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. Thanks for letting me know! Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the fixes -- I think I never really read the template -- just followed what I had seen others had done. I also note that you used {{Sockpuppeteer}}, which I had never seen before -- it seems better than {{Sockpuppet}} because it expresses just the right amount of uncertainty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Using that template on talk pages was one of INC's pet peeves. There's a practical reason, too: blocked users can edit their talk pages (unless revoked), but not user pages. Using the template on the user page thus prevents its removal by the sock (in case we forget to have them watchlisted), which happens from time to time. Эlcobbola talk 00:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image query

Hi Elcobbola, I have a question about creativity and free images.

I'm writing an article about an academic paper that became controversial, and I'm thinking that I might eventually nominate it for FAC.

I'd like to add, as the lead image, a copy of the journal cover or the article itself. What do I need to do, in terms of added labour and creativity, so that the image is free and can be released? Ideally, I would like to photograph a hard copy of the journal lying open at the article itself, perhaps out-of-focus on the words of the article to avoid copyvio problems.

It's a difficult lead to illustrate unless it's something of that ilk. Any advice would be much appreciated. Best, SarahSV (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV, while it’s difficult to comment accurately without seeing the work in question, as a general proposition, adding “labour and creativity” would probably not be sufficient to extinguish the copyright of the underlying work. As long as the contributions of the original author remain discernible, you would merely have a derivative work. Further, obscuring entirely the original work could raise the specter of original research (or something analogous) in a FAC context. Your idea of a photographing a hard copy of the journal, however, may be workable. As long of the genuine subject of the photograph is the open journal, not the text therein, I would think you could make a legitimate de minimis claim - the more out of focus the words, the better.
Is this for w:Hypatia transracialism controversy, is there to be an article specifically for "In Defense of Transracialism," or is for something else entirely? I'm trying to think of alternatives, but I suppose I need to know alternatives to what. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet


I have noticed that you have blocked Sher Aziz I for abusing multiple accounts. As a global renamer, I would suggest you have a look at "Decordes emis" (I don't want to notify these accounts), as both have filled very similar renaming requests in the past few days. Litlok (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Litlok, Decordes emis has not edited the Commons, so, unfortunately, I don't yet have a basis for a check. I'll watch the account, however, and look into it if edits appear that are similar to Sher Aziz, et al. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

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

Possible sockpuppet

Please check User:WaseCatro-Y as possible sockpuppet of User:Yahadzija. Best regards, --C3r4 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Can you take a look at this? This user has tagged several accounts as socks. Daphne Lantier 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daphne, of the three users tagged, 計猥訂 would be stale, but that キャンサーフリートピア = Gappayah Warabah is Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. ja:LTA:GRIMM confirms the former is a sock (others in Category:Sockpuppets of パッションサタデー are stale, so that page is the evidence linking to the original master), so this tagging seems legitimate. Эlcobbola talk 22:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet farm

Thanks for taking time to treat this request. SashiRolls (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

SashiRolls, as noted at the top of the page, I do not access Wikimedia email during the day (it is ca. 17.40) and, accordingly, will not be able to view the email for at least several hours. If there is a sockpuppet farm, you may wish to contact another CU if the issue requires more urgent attention or, preferably, file a request at COM:RFCU. Indeed, I am not sure why you appear to have contacted only me; if it is because this relates to an RfCU I previously worked on, it would help if you could provide a link. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I've sent the information to Arbcom on en.wp, perhaps they will address it. Thank you for your time. SashiRolls (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser#Arthur Brum

Hi Elcobbola. I think Arthur Brum may be back as User:Red Monarchist since the account was created shortly after the Ignácio account was blocked on both Wikipedia and Commons, and the focus of the editing is articles related to Brazilian royalty. Red Monarchist also uploaded File:Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança.jpg, which is a photo of the same "Prince" as was pictured in all the other files that Arthur Brum and Ignácio were trying to upload as copyvios. The editor Wikipedia's user page is also basically formatted the same way as the other two were only the personal information is different. So, I am wondering if it would be possible to request a checkuser to compare this account to Ignácio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


This so needs its own article. Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

John Mckalie SPI

Hi, the John Mckalie SPI has been stuck in limbo for almost a month now. Is this simply because of the number of socks? Or are they stale? I'm looking to investigate all their uploads and those of any sleepers found as the manipulated maps that they upload were and possibly still are being used quite widely on WP. Please let me know what can be done about this. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. You noted, "Secondly, and relatedly, we require requests to "Show what the disruption to the project is" (COM:CHECK). I don't see that was done here." This was implied in the fact that many (at least three) of the socks listed have uploaded spurious maps to Commons with fabricated sources which are then passed and used on English Wikipedia as legitimate ones and used for POV-pushing. Isn't this considered a violation of Commons policy or a disruption to the project? My objective is to remove all the maps uploaded by these socks and any sleepers. This is not fishing.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is argued that, as the Commons serves as a mere media archive, it ought to be agnostic with respect to content; accordingly, even fictitious/bogus content should be hosted and individual projects or re-users free to use or to decline to use a given file on its own (de)merits. To that end, we indeed host thousands of such maps and flags, just in case Brazil undergoes a Communist revolution. While I absolutely disagree with this position, the consensus, unfortunately, has often been that fabricated maps are not necessarily disruptive. DRs are needed to make that assessment.
Remember also that I was speaking in the context of an RfCU. CUs handle disruptive use of multiple accounts, not disruption in general. As an example of what would have made this case appropriate for a CU:
  1. John Mckalie account 1 uploads fabricated map
  2. Map is nominated for deletion as a fabrication, and indeed deleted.
  3. John Mckalie account 2 uploads another fabricated map, or reuploads the deleted map, or had !voted along with account 1 in the DR, etc...
Without the second step, there was no (relevant) adverse action, sanction or the like on the Commons that the accounts were seeking to circumvent, and thus this had not risen to the level of CU involvement. When the goal is "to remove all the maps," DRs exactly like these need to be pursued and CUs only involved if those DRs do not remedy the issue ("Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." (COM:CHECK)). This is very much fishing due to the temporal aspect (note, for example, my comments and tense: "we require requests to "Show what the disruption to the project is"; "What accounts are still active?"; etc.) Effectively, you indicated you knew of no active accounts, and thus had no evidence of active accounts, but wanted a sleeper check nonetheless. That is more or less the definition of fishing. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation. To me, this reads like one of those CIA-FBI plots where the two agencies don't cooperate with one another while the whole country burns down :| Is there any shortcut or tool that I can use to list all the files uploaded by the socks listed on the SPI? I have thus far only been able to discover two more spurious maps: File:India 18th century.JPG and File:Marathas India (1758).jpg. I had only nominated one of them for deletion until today as I wanted to retain the other for comparison purposes in case the SPI turned up anything. Anyhow, thanks again for looking into this. Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not explaining the issues well if that's the analogy you're drawing, but I think it’s worth refocusing on the timing because it renders all else moot. Even if this were a request valid and warranted in every way, I could press buttons into eternity and get nothing but blank screens because data from 2015 simply do not exist. Even if there were an active user suspected of being John Mckalie, a check wouldn't work because there would be no historical data to which to compare that user's results--we need two data points. The discussion of what constitutes disruption, and the distinct variant of disruptive use of multiple accounts, is more for future reference. I'm not familiar with such a tool, but I'm likely the worst person to ask about bulk handling tools. A positive note, which I mentioned at the RfCU, seems be that many of the accounts here exist only because they were attached by SUL, not because they were actually active. I would imagine you could use the Popups gadget on the RfCU page to identify more quickly which accounts, if any, have indeed uploaded images. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I've just seen you've already blocked him for abusing multiple accounts. See it:Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/MANNAJESU/SP, I'm a checkuser on and Special:Contributions/Danilomenna58 is a SP too, with some contribs. Best regards.--Shivanarayana (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll look into it. Эlcobbola talk 13:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Another sockfarm

Heya, this is a promo sock group that I blocked at en: Kumargargavinash‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user (I've linked a statement on the DR where they confirmed that they don't own rights to the images) and Gopalagarwal11‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user which goes on to do the same thngs as the master (when the master is blocked or has had too many warnings). The latter just uploaded an image that I haven't sent to DR yet. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 23:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)