User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 6

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


2010 Summer Youth Olympics.JPG

Whoops, you were too fast for me. Would you mind e-mailing me "File:2010 Summer Youth Olympics.JPG" which you deleted? I was going to move it back to the English Wikipedia so that it can be used under a fair-use justification. Also, when was the image taken? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. You've got mail. The image summary had a date of 2010/7/14. Эlcobbola talk 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello Elcobbola, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fountain of Time

Hi, I saw you adding a PD-old template to File:Panorama of the Fountain of Time.JPG. I had earlier included one myself but removed it because I thought it confusing since {{PD-old}} only talks about "This image (or other media file)", not a work. Unfortunately no notice as on Wikipedia is available, so I thought the death year given should be enough. And the current licensing section is potentially confusing too I think. Do you believe the description of {{PD-old}} should be changed to use "work"? Should the two templates on the file page be given headings for intent like I did earlier or should the Wiki template be imported here? Or am I too instruction-creepy in this? Best regards Hekerui (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point, and I think the lack of clarity is something we ought to seek to rectify. I've posed the question at Commons talk:Licensing, so let's see what others think (and please do weigh in there yourself). Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PD-art and sourcing

Hello. I think you are fundamentally in error regarding what a "source" is for a PD-art image. Crediting some random reusing website is worse than meaningless; it's not entirely unlike crediting the person who scanned an image of an engraving from of a public domain book as the "author" of that image. A museum may not have any legal rights over the reuse of pd images, but neither does a random website. It is (a) simply common courtesy and (b) potentially useful to reusers who may wish to obtain a better quality image to state the ultimate provenance. I am less inclined to dispute the matter where auction catalogues are concerned since knowledge of a work being sold at auction, and when, and where, may be useful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with giving a particular site credit; the purpose is to connect the image with the author. Per COM:L: "All description pages on Commons ... should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status (source link) even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws.". The license says the author died more than 70 years ago, so we must provide a source to support that assertion. COM:L also says "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible." Sure seems possible to me. I can't assist you if you aren't willing to read and understand policy. Эlcobbola talk
Which would be all well and good, but the authors were Landseer and (for the sake of simplicity) Rubens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely my last word: you may like to look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:RT-2 possible launch facility configuration.PNG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realised deletion requests were always closed correctly and in line with policy. Will you be nominating Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎ for deletion, then? It's apparently unnecessary. Yet again, I can't assist you if you aren't willing to read and understand policy. Эlcobbola talk 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Canadian militiamen and British soldiers repulse the American assault at Sault-au-Matelot.jpg

Agreed that COM:L requires that an image also be PD in the U.S. However, this is an image created by a Canadian artist and published in Canada in a Canadian history book. Therefore, the proper tag to indicate public domain status for pre-1923 non-U.S. materials is PD-1923, not PD-US (the use of which is supposed to be restricted to U.S. materials, which this is not). I know that American copyright law "has different considerations", but I am not sure what that has to do with using the correct tag to indicate public domain status in the U.S. Further, I have no idea why you are objecting to the use of the PD-Art tag (for an artwork!) or to the inclusion of another link to the text version of the book (so as to help facilitate public domain verification if the other link ever fails). An explanation would be helpful. regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That a given work is public domain in one country does not mean it is public domain in another. See COM:L#Material_in_the_public_domain. {{PD-Canada}} tells us the work is public domain in Canada only; it does not indicate its status in the United States (it says "This Canadian work is in the public domain in Canada"). The US has different criteria than Canada, and US law makes its own determination whether a foreign work is PD. I'd be quite curious to know why you believe "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923" to be an incorrect statement, but as long as there is a tag (e.g. your for-some-reason prefered {{PD-1923}}) with the US status, I don't have a problem. Эlcobbola talk 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't disagree with that. Of course, PD-Canada only refers to PD status in Canada. Nobody has disputed that, and that's not the point in issue. And, yes, the U.S. has different criteria. Again, nobody has disputed that, and again that's not the point. The question is why you are deleting the applicable tags and other information in the image description. PD-1923 is used for non-U.S. works, and PD-US is used for U.S. works. This is a non-U.S. work. PD-US refers to U.S. works (which this is not), and PD-1923 refers to the requirement of having a tag indicating PD in the source country (which is Canada here, which is why we are using PD-Canada).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
PD-Art is an unnecessary (i.e. optional) nest when a conditional license is used. I didn't catch that you'd also added {{PD-1923}}. If the superfluous templating is your preference, you're welcome to it. Эlcobbola talk 13:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is difficult because your rationale for your edits is a moving target. Now it's PD-Art. I am not aware of any policy, guideline or direction which indicates what you are saying. If you could point it out to me, that would be great. Arguably, it should be PD-Scan, rather than PD-Art, but that's not the point you are raising. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You questioned the removal of PD-Art, I explained it. How exactly is "PD-Art is an unnecessary (i.e. optional) nest when a conditional license is used" unclear? I can't show you a policy that says it's optional any more than you can show me a policy that says it isn't. The only difference between {{PD-Art|PD-Canada}} and {{PD-Canada}} is nesting explaining that Commons/Wikimedia believes Bridgeman applies to works from all countries. That is implicit by our very hosting, and thus optional (note the thousands of images that merely use {{PD-Old}} - the {{PD-Art}} default). Эlcobbola talk 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, I questioned a bunch of things you deleted, including PD-1923 which you deleted twice, and you danced around a bunch of issues, many of which didn't seem particularly relevant, and you have now landed on PD-Art. In terms of PD-Art, I look at the actual text of the template and the accompanying documentation to indicate appropriate usage, and there is nothing there to support the theories about this template that you have expressed up above. And this latest rationale you have in your last post, that the message of PD-Art is implied, is not necessarily true because many of the faithful reproductions on Commons are created by uploaders themselves, so there is no risk of a "sweat of the brow" argument. Where the reproduction is taken for a third source, however, we have a handy template that is widely used. That's fine if you have decided for your own use that the template is not necessary, but that doesn't justify your edits on this particular image. Thank you for taking the time for this discussion. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you've not read my responses critically. If you don't want questions answered, you might wish to consider not asking them. I've edited the image twice ([1] [2]), yet I see only one removal of PD-1923 - a removal which I've explained to you. I'm particularly uninterested in discussion if you're going to misrepresent edits and engage in pejoratives (e.g. "theories"). Эlcobbola talk 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Elcobbola -

Novice, here. I have no idea if I am submitting appropriately, or not. Your picture of the Statue of Liberty has both the CC license and a pre-1923 citation. Judging by the tourists in t-shirts, I am guessing that the pre-1923 license does not actually apply.

There are actually two potential copyrights here: 1) my photograph of the statue and 2) the statue itself (see Commons:Derivative works for more information). That is the reason for the two tags. The statue of liberty is public domain (pre-1923), my photo thereof is CC. The templates unfortunately aren't well phrased and don't make this distinction clear. Hope this helps. Эlcobbola talk 17:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Hola, recibí tu mensaje, pero yo pienso que el archivo File:Mkrx.gif no viola los derechos de autor ya que le hice modificaciones mayores. Entonces quito el mensaje de borrado. Si es violación, por favor te pido que me expliques. Saludos.--SuperReSuper (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lea, por favor, Commons:Trabajos_derivados. Эlcobbola talk 20:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No FoP for sculpture in Argentina

Dear Elcobbola, your contribution is appreciated. However, the sculpture was made by public subscription and located in public space on a site prepared by the local government inside the territory of Argentine Repúblic. Ley 11.723 - Régimen legal de la propiedad intelectual en Argentina.

Files marked are:

  • Junín Monumento a Sandro 20120430 09.jpg
  • Junín Monumento a Sandro 20120430 08.jpg
  • Junín Monumento a Sandro 20120430 07.jpg
  • Junín Monumento a Sandro 20120430 05.jpg
  • Junín Monumento a Sandro 20120430 04.jpg

Thank you! --Germanramos (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Germanramos, could you let me know which article (artículo) you are referring to? Эlcobbola talk 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elcobbola. It's the other way round: I can not find any article saying that it isn't allow the non profit reproduction of a photograph with a sculpture in a public place in Argentina. If you find a rule that says that, please inform me about it in order to be aware for future uploads. Thank you very much. --Germanramos (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


What kind of proof is required at File:Prometheus Bound by Scott Eaton c1996.jpg? I recently moved this image to the top of the page at the Prometheus article and became concerned about its licensing, given its recent date. I visited Scott Eaton's website (which is given on the file) and sent him an email saying I was just double-checking that he himself had intended to release the image to Wikipedia. He replied, saying that he had, but asked me to update the license to 3.0. He wanted a non-commerical-use license, but I in turn replied that I didn't think WP could accommodate a nc license, but I could place the license that seemed nearest to what he wanted. I asked him to let me know if that wasn't OK, and that was the end of it. I didn't upload the image, and I'm not well-versed in Commons procedures. Please let me know on my talk page if I can be of any assistance, but other than forwarding the emails to someone, I don't really know what further proof I can offer. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. Эlcobbola talk 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. As I understand it, this is actually a digital sculpture. Not sure how that affects anything. I forwarded the existing correspondence as you suggested, but I would rather have someone with more expertise follow up. I don't really like to deal with technical and legal issues on Wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to keep an eye on the file, to make sure it isn't deleted before this can be straightened out? Although I've been doing some categorizing recently, I don't spend that much time on Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes things easier, as a computer generated image would be expected to have only a single copyright. I see you've sent the email to OTRS and received a response (ticket 2012070510001294, for my reference). Unfortunately, the non-commercial requirement is not sufficiently free to retain the image. If Eaton is able to respond allowing commercial usage, however, I'd be happy to restore the image if it is deleted in the meantime (and not restored by the OTRS member who handles the ticket - I can be the one to handle it if you inform me that the email has been sent). Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
On further consideration, I'm going to delete the image for the timing being. This is to prevent commons/ visitors from obtaining and using the image with the incorrect belief that it is cc-by-sa. I've watched the ticket, and will gladly restore the image and handle its tagging/licensing if/when a free license is approved. If a "new" email comes (i.e., is not a reply to the OTRS email), let me know so I can take a look. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to ask this, but would it perhaps be less complicated if you were to inquire at Scott Eaton's website directly? The file was originally licensed without an NC provision. When I told him that wasn't possible, I did say he should let me know if that was a problem. Since he responded promptly to my first inquiry, I'm assuming there's no problem. I understand that you need a confirmation, not mere silence. But since I don't really know my way around licensing terminology, I'm not comfortable with trying to pursue this to the point of legal exactitude. The Prometheus article got over a million visitors last month, thanks to the movie. I got involved in this because the article was a bit of a shambles, and I did a hasty restructuring of it. When a professional is willing to give us an image of that quality, it seems like a good thing to try to make use of it.Cynwolfe (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand that legal terminology can be intimidating. You can remove yourself from that aspect, however, by simply emailing Eaton a link to the OTRS page ( and asking that, if the terms are acceptable, he copy and paste the verbiage from the black box (here) into an email, fill out the blank fields, and then email it to the address there. I'm apprehensive about contacting him myself, as he has now received emails from you and the OTRS member who handled the ticket and I'm concerned about the perception of yet a third unfamiliar voice asking for what is essentially a very generous donation. Эlcobbola talk 17:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Not knowing what the OTRS email was, I'm wondering why that didn't give him the opportunity to respond as you direct. I don't want to badger him further, especially since I can't explain the various licenses competently and he's a professional. If I were in his shoes, it would just be annoying (and make Wikipedia look bumbling) to be contacted again by someone who can't actually expedite the matter. I volunteer at Wikipedia as an amateur scholar with an interest in certain content areas, and while I genuinely appreciate your patience and guidance, I really can't afford to take the time to acquire competence in this for the sake of one image, even though I would be sorry to lose what I agree is a generous donation that contributes to our overall quality. I really think in dealing with a professional it's better that any other email come from a Wikimedia email address. I shouldn't have contacted him in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Alfredo Saenz.jpg

Hola, me acabas de borrar un archivo con licencia de copyright solicitada al creador del mismo y con el OK por e-mail de Wikipedia por falta de fuentes cuando estaba especificado que era Banco Santander. Querría saber ¿por qué?.

Gracias, Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa N (talk • contribs) 09:50:33 (UTC)

The provided information was insufficient. File:Maqueta del Centro Botín.jpg, for example, is available here with clear indication of "© Renzo Piano". If you have received approval for a CC-by-SA 3.0 license from Renzo Piano, that needs to be forwarded to OTRS. Similarly, for File:Alfredo Saenz.jpg, permission from Banco Santander needs to be provided. Apologies, I see OTRS did receive a ticket for File:Alfredo Saenz.jpg and I have restored and tagged the image accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hola, para File:Maqueta del Centro Botín.jpg tengo OTRS licensed por parte de la Fundación Botín, la propietaria de las imágenes en su web:
Un saludo
The volunteer who processes the ticket will address the image. Let me know if they do not. Эlcobbola talk 18:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Français : (missing text)

Pourquoi vous voulez supprimer ces photos? C'est le musée de Qobét Ennhas à Mannouba - Tunisie et ces photos représente des habits qu'on porterait avant à l'aire beylicale. Le maître du musée en a fait une collection et chaque pièce vestimentaire est mise dans un box de verre puis exposée - Sorte de musée vestimentaire alors je vois pas la violation du copyright ici !!!!

Why you want to delete these pictures. This is the museum of Qobét Ennhas Mannouba - Tunisia and these photos represent the clothes of the abeylicale area. The master of the museum has a collection and each article of clothing is put into a box of glass and exposed - sort of dress museum so I see no copyright infringement here!!(traduction with google traduction)

Français : (missing text)

Ces images ne violent pas le droit d'auteur parce que les objets photographiés font partis d'une exposition d'un musé donc on a le droit de les photographiés

These images do not violate copyright because the photographed objects are part of an exhibit of a museum so we have the right of the photographed. --Ghabara (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why you want to delete these pictures. I have provided a rationale in my nomination. Please read Commons:Liberté_de_panorama#Tunisie and Commons:Œuvre_dérivée to familiarise yourself with the related concepts. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures Museum Riegel

Hello, these photos I ulpoaded at last, are on my own copyright and I would like them to be free to all wiki users. Also the fotos on the webseite are my own ones. So how can we continue in a way that do no violate any wiki regulations?

Sincerely, Twinastir

--Twinastir (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see COM:OTRS. An email, for example, from the museum verifying ownership/copyright of these images would be necessary. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


can you stop please nominating my work! Yes I am making mistakes, no reason for deletion, you are making me cry, please STOP if you do care a little about my feelings. I really take care to not uploading copyrighted work :-(, Elly (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating uploads I believe to be copyright violations. Copyright violations need to be removed; feelings are quite irrelevant to the issue. Please familiarise yourself with COM:DW and discontinue uploading and licensing the work of others. Эlcobbola talk 14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:General der Panzertruppe Traugott Herr.jpg

Can I ask something, why you suggest to delete the photo? I have just transfer it from the Ukrainian Wikimedia Commons. Admittedly I used another picture, but I don't think this is a reason for deletion. Greetings! -- Le DanGereux (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings; the photo requires a source which verifies the PD claim. "Ukrainian Wikimedia" is not a valid source; see COM:L and Commons:Essential information for more information. Эlcobbola talk 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that! When I tried to transfer the picture through this program click, which didn't show me any errors or obstacles I decide to upload it. But now I understand! Greetings! -- Le DanGereux (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately the automation doesn't have the ability to verify sourcing adequacy. But the template isn't strictly a deletion request, just a notice that it will be deleted if a source isn't provided within 7 days. However, I very much doubt this photograph was taken by the US government, as is currently claimed. Cheers, Эlcobbola talk 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this will be founded, for the simple reason that there are no any witnesses or sources. It's best to wait until the picture turned 70 years from WWII. Cheers! -- Le DanGereux (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Inside Africa - Copertina DVD.jpg

Dear Elcobbola, I am new in Wikipedia. I just uploaded a file (a creation of mine) but it was deleted. How can I demonstrate that it is mine? Thank you Domenico — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:SETph (talk • contribs)

Domenico, the poster indicated the film is a production of Terra di Cinema and SphET (perhaps stylized SETph); presumably one or both of these organizations holds the copyright. Accordingly, we would need to receive permission from an agent of whichever organization indeed holds the copyright. Instructions for the form of this communication and the address to which it should be sent are available here: COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Borrado de una fotografía

Un saludo. Ayer me borraste la imagen alojada en:

Por incumplir alguna norma de licencia. Me gustaría volver a subirla y seguir utilizandola en los articulos de los que formaba parte. ¿Es posible ponerla aquí aunque esté también en panoramio cambiando el tipo de licencia de esta página? Si no es posible la borraré de panoramio, pero me gustaría mantenerla también allí.

Muchas gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HabibiAyllón (talk • contribs)

Hi HabibiAyllón, if you could change the license on the Panoramio page from its current "all rights reserved" to one compatible with the Wiki Commons -- for example, a Creative Commons (CC) license allowing both commercial usage and derivative works (e.g., "CC-by" or "CC-by-SA") -- then that would resolve the issue and I'd be happy to restore the image. If it is not possible to change the license on Panoramio, however, let me know and I'll inquire about how to proceed. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hola Elcobbola. He puesto la licencia más abierta de las que me permite Panoramio. Te pego su descripción:
Mira la licencia estándar para tus fotos: Algunos derechos reservados. Mantienes los derechos de autor, pero puedes permitir algunos usos para tus fotos. Escógelos:
Allow commercial use? Sí Allow modifications? Si, mientras se compartan del mismo modo.
¿Crees que es suficiente? HabibiAyllón (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Panaromio image still says "all rights reserved". If you're unable to update the Panoramio page, you could instead email indictating that you are the author who uploaded the image to Panaromio and that you indeed authorize and release the image with the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Эlcobbola talk 18:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tibet images

Hey, thanks for closing the discussion and deleting the copyvio images. The discussion also concerned a third image File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg, which was also nominated for deletion for the same reasons as the other two. Can you delete that one too?--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Norman Rockwell, Triple Self Portrait, Wax Museum, San Francisco.JPG

You guys kill me. With marking things for speedy deletion because it doesn't fit your license agreements. You better tag every single one from a Wax Museum then and not be picking on my photos. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about "your license agreements". It's about whether your image violates the copyright of the sculptor. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong disagreement

I am in complete and strong disagreement over your senseless deletion of my image [[3]] and the arguments you put forth. While I understand and respect copyright principles from the perspective of a creator, I cannot understand censorship carried out in this manner, where the threshold is in the hands of unqualified people. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And one more question: The deletion debate was closed, #REDIRECT[[4]]and you reverted a closed discussion. Is that legal? Ethical? Or do you censors just make up the rules along the way to suit your fancy? The top of the file clearly says: This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted. Why do you play along with the detractors and not follow the rules? Are admins above the rules??? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Angel Hernandez Morales

Hola me has borrado dos fotos de Angel Hernadez Morales, conocido arquitecto de Santander, una de su imagen y otra de uno de los libros que escribió , la primera aparecida en la prensa y cedida por la familia y la segunda hecha por mi. Por favor explica como tengo que hacer para que sea correcto. Un saludo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhighlander (talk • contribs)

Unhighlander, it looks like you only have two deleted files, and I was involved with only one, File:La Cripta de la catedral de Santander. Iglesia del Santisimo Cristo..JPG. This is a photograph of a book. Owning a book (physical property rights) is not sufficient to license photographs of the dust jacket (intellectual property rights); please see COM:DW. As for File:Angel Hernández Morales. Arquitecto.jpg, the other file with which I was not involved, the actual photographer (not merely the owner or subject of the image) must grant permission for the free license. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on how this permission may be provided. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Le Dernier Chemin.jpg

Vous avez supprimé une image récemment uploadée sur Commons. Cette image ne viole aucunement les droits d'auteur, bien que présente sur internet. Je fais partie de la maison d'édition qui publie cette oeuvre et agit donc en connaissance de cause. Merci d'y remédier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OFantasy2013 (talk • contribs)

Hi OFantasy2013, if your publishing house owns the copyright and is willing to release the poster under a free license, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to get us the permission necessary to host the image. The volunteer who processes your ticket will restore the image if everything checks out. Эlcobbola talk 12:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Jules Benoit-Lévy. "Pelant des pommes de terre".JPG

All rights to this work belong to me. The rights of private property. --Tatesic (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating physical property and intellectual property. Just as you may own a book, a DVD, or a CD, ownership of that item (physical rights) does not allow you to license the content (intellectual property rights); the same thing applies to paintings. Your comment does not address the concern related to copyright status in France. Эlcobbola talk 12:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
--You are confusing the right to the original and a copy. I have a right to the original (for paintings). --Tatesic (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No, my comments refer only to the original. Copies would be derivative works whose copyright status would flow from the original, so the latter is all that need be considered in this instance. Эlcobbola talk 13:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What I need to make?--Tatesic (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you have a document from Benoit-Lévy or his estate that explicitly conveys to you copyrights on this painting, you may forward that document to OTRS and that should resolve the issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for consultation, I so will make.--Tatesic (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg אַז איר שיקט אַ נאַר צו עפֿענען די לאָדנס, װעט ער זײ עפֿענען אין דער גאַנצער שטאָט


Tatesic (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Elcobbola, contact your doctor... [6] --Tatesic (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Statua Di Celmo.jpg

I don't know very much about copyright rules but i can assure you that I was the one who take that picture. Can you explain me something more about that deletion? thanx in advance --Nrykko (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nrykko, yes, there's no doubt that you took the picture. The problem, however, is it was a picture of a sculpture (wax figure). In this case, the sculptor still has copyrights on the statue, so we would need his/her permission to license the picture freely (i.e., there are actually two copyrights in the photo -- yours and the sculptor's -- and only yours is free). See COM:DW for more on the concept. Эlcobbola talk 18:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Real WWE Championship.jpg

Could you give me a copy of the picture to be used as FU on en.wikipedia? I seem to have lost my original one. Feedback (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you just want to shoot me an email, I'll respond with the image. Эlcobbola talk 14:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for cleaning up my nominations at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Peter S. N Ayanga. I apparently clicked just slightly later than you did :) --moogsi (blah) 15:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to bifurcate the non-slogan ones into a separate discussion, so this actually ended up saving me that headache. :) Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Datei: Dzień Nowotomysko-Grodziski

Ich verstehe nicht wo liegt das Problem? Ich habe einfach die Titelseite der Zeitschriften fotografiert. Gruss Bialo-zielony (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Bialo-zielony, siehe bitte Commons:Bearbeitungen. Es existiert noch eine urheberrechtliche Schutz an der Zeitschrift. Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Verifying permissions

Hi, I thought you might be interested in Commons:Verifying permissions, something I drafted with the intention of merging Commons:Permission / Commons:Project scope/Evidence / Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (plus now the new COM:GRANDFATHER). I still think it's a good idea, but I don't have time/energy to pursue it now - not by myself, anyway. Rd232 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That Boutique-y Whisky Company

Hi Elcobbola,

I had a bunch of images deleted recently, an example of which is "File:That Boutique-y Whisky Company - Macallan.jpg".

I have full permission from Atom Supplies LTD (trades as That Boutique-y Whisky Company) to add these images. Can you please let me know what I need to do comply.

Many Thanks, Tom --Tom mcguinness (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, just follow the instructions at COM:OTRS -- or, simply put, just email that permission to and the volunteer who handles the ticket will restore the images for you if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello! I apologize that didn't write earlier. I had no access to the computer, because I was in other country. One more my problem - I badly speak and badly understand in English. I changed types of licenses to files which you want to remove. Prompt, please, that it is possible to make still that these files didn't remove? [[7]] --Tatiana Matlina (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Привет Татьяна! Не беспокойся, в английском легко запутаться. Я плохо говорю по-русски. :) Есть фактически две работы здесь: монеты и фотографии их. Действительно, эти монеты не защищены авторским правом. Тем не менее, их фотографии защищены авторским правом. см. Производные произведения. Эlcobbola talk 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

upload file Selfportrait Hubertine Heijermans

Hello Elcobbola,

This problem is not new, but you will understand at once, I hope, with the following explanation. I am a user and contributor with other articles in different languages, always with my user name Kalaharih.

While I am in ordinary life called Hubertine Heijermans, and as the rules of Wikipedia do not accept things like publicity (of course), the person, that uploaded the Selfportrait I made of myself is user Paldopaldino.

Of course he did have to obtain the copyright which I allowed him and only this person Paldopaldino knows and has seen my artwork for many years, living in the same Swiss (french speaking) village.

Therefore I could not have been more honest and you can verify that the same painting of the selfportrait is called 'Autoportrait' - which Paldopaldino uses in french as title for my selfportrait.

As he can not make changes and I corrected the image where some parts were too dark, I introduced the slightly lighter image of my own face with my user's name Kalaharih.

I hope that my explanation solves the problem, that is not a problem really, but maybe you need confirmation of Paldopaldino ? Thanks a lot for reading me and I hope for a good result, as I did never made another selfportrait at such a young age. (1959)

Yours sincerely, --Kalaharih (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kalaharih, forgive me, but your message is not entirely clear to me. Do you mean to say that you are Hubertine Heijermans? Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A question ?

Just curious. Why did you nominate File:Martin Tranmæl, minnetavle.JPG for deletion at that particular time ? (on 22 February 2013) --Ezzex (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't recall 3 months hence. I suspect I came across it in an article or category. I do occasionally cycle through the random function, so it could have come up there. Эlcobbola talk 18:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have my doubts, since you nominated it while there where a heated debate going on between me an another admin.--Ezzex (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
You then imply that I was scrutinizing your uploads out of spite or vengeance, to “protect” an admin. If I had been doing that, why did I not also nominate File:Jarlshola (5).JPG, File:Jarlshola (4).JPG and File:Steinen ved Skjerdingstad på Melhus (3).JPG, which have the same issue? Kindly keep your bad faith piffle to yourself. Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this meant to be a new threat ?--Ezzex (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think those examples are a copyright-violation, then you should them nominate them for deletion (Or maybe they where meant to be used on an later occasion) ?--Ezzex (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


Dear administrator can you please delete some of the images that I've regretted to upload them?. --Giggette (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oklahoma House of Representatives images

Does the OTRS ticket you refer to in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Okhmedia only cover the specific files already uploaded to commons, or does it also cover other images of Oklahoma House Representatives from the same web site that have not yet been uploaded? --GRuban (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The ticket applies to "the State of Oklahoma’s Legislative Service Bureau, Photo Division images" without limitation to images already uploaded. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Help re: excessive deletion requests

Hi, as you have opposed User:Eleassar already, I am asking for your support also in the following cases: User_talk:INeverCry#File:Rajko_Koro.C5.A1ec.jpg --Hladnikm (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

File selfportrait Hubertine Heijermans

Goodafternoon Elcobbola, It is only right now I saw your answer and you are quite right and hopefully it is clear to everyone, I cannot describe myself better as being Hubertine Heijermans as by means of a selfportrait of my own hand. I have been adding articles on en.wikipedia, and there is no other way to log in than under my name of Kalaharih. Now I had already a discussion with IneverCry, since our contact, and therefore I explain this now also to you, and hope that you also forgive me, I am first of all in my seventies and I have very little experience with wikipedia, but I have been an artistpainter and printmaker all my life, for about 65 years. Therefore, at a certain moment I considered it a nice idea to let go of my copyright and then added a small choice of my work on Wikimedia Commons. And of course I considered that a 'Selfportait' or 'Autoportrait' of my own face and painted by myself explains things clearly.

If I would have been a photographer and I put work of myself on Commons, than I do not need a pseudonym. But writing articles for Wikipedia it needed my name Kalaharih. I had already a discussion about the first half of the deleted images, and got a nice reply and permission to upload the same images again. But now the list of the other images has been deleted, for the same reasons, which is that my copyright is experienced as doubtful. And of course my copyright is as honest as can be. But what complicates things, is that in the past the right to write an article about me and/or publish a few images I gave to a person of the village where I live, called Paldopaldino. But this person has other occupations and very little time for doing the same thing now. Therefore when I improved the selfportrait and gave it an english title instead of using french, it caused a problem, now restored.

But on the other hand I did recently write to another user A.Savin, but did not receive an answer yet. But in the meantime a whole list of images has been deleted, all of my hand for which I own the copyright, and by giving it away, people now look at the empty pictures. I am also discouraged and tired, as what I meant as a gift or contribution of my part, Wikimedia Commons makes it very time consuming for me to explain an start again reloading. Thanks for reading me and with my regards, --Kalaharih (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kalaharih/Hubertine, thank you kindly for the explanation. I'm sorry the experience hasn't gone smoothly, and I hope you'll understand that the scrutiny thus far has resulted from the aforementioned name discrepancy and the atypical circumstance of an artist donating a large portion of previously published, non-photographic works. I might recommend following the instructions at COM:OTRS to submit a confirmation of your identity and permission to resolve current and preempt future issues. Эlcobbola talk 19:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

License question

Hi Elcobbola, I have found a large number of historic photographs of covered bridges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at a university website - see here. The website says these were taken by one of the university's biology professors in 1936-7 and first put online in 2009. The university's biography of the professor shows that he died in 1939 - see here. My question is, this seems to me to meet the criteria to use Template:PD-US-unpublished - photos by a known photographer who died before 1943, with first publication after 2003. Some of these are bridges I have written FAs on and I have never seen these photos in any other sources. The university claims copyright of the bridge photos on the webpage it has made for the bridge photos, but says here that it made the bridges website to make the photos publically available, which to me implies they were unpublished before 2009. I wanted to check with someone much more knowledgeable than I on copyright issues and saw that you were editing here recently. I hope all is well with you and thank you in advance for any advice on these photos. Yours, Ruhrfisch (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked User:Nikkimaria on en (who has been doing image reviews at FAC there). Thanks anyway, Ruhrfisch (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries - Mikkimaria was very helpful and I kind of figured you might be on vacation. I am going to check with the university and see if the photos have been published and if they were donated with special conditions. There are a few that qualify for Fair Use, showing major changes. Thanks and glad to see you around, Ruhrfisch (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sinterklaas do you know what it is?

you might wanna deepen more into the Sinterklaas festivities in The Netherlands and or Belgium. this is a picture from me as being a "black jack" I know it's diifficult to expain this in english as others might not know this festivity in the Netherlands and or Belgium around the 5th of december this total festivity runs ussually 4 weeks before the 5th december. not to be mistaken by christmas and santa claus, here by a dutch page about the sinterkaas festivity's: [8] so I myself don't see the problem It seems that you either maid this request because you either don't understand what Sinterklaas is or feel like something else is up with the pictures, I did ask that before anything is happening to these pictures to please first ask what is not understandable about my explanation about myself as zwartepiet (Blackjack this is a direct translation in English which is difficult to explain) if you read the sinterkaas page you might understand it better, if not I do urge you to ask what is not understandable. then to be ignorent and not ask it and think you just can delete it. Ricodol74 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"It seems that you either maid this request because you either don't understand what Sinterklaas is or feel like something else is up with the pictures". Indeed, it is the latter. I am familiar with Sinterklaas, and the existence and notability thereof are not the issue. Painting of one's body is common for a great many events, be they festivals like this, sporting events, etc. This practice, however, is not a carte blanche for any painted person to upload a personal image. Commons has a limited scope. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Another license question

Hi Elcobbola, a question on the inclusion of the original frame of the w:Dresden Triptych in photos of it has arisen in its FAC. If you are able to comment on it, would you mind doing so here? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for your comments, Ruhrfisch (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Any time! Good catch on the frame issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Una actitud muy miserable

Supongo que esta es tu venganza:

Por haber molestado a tu amiguit@:

Prades (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative works

I see that you've reverted my tagging of the sentence as 'citation needed'. I think there must be a way of marking that it is disputed as factually incorrect. What do you propose? --Eleassar (t/p) 21:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of what you were trying to do, and would suggest removing the contested language and then creating a new section at the relevant notice board (in this case, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright) explaining that you've done so and the reasons for your concern. Going forward, it just needs to be understood that the Commons is its own project and it is fundamentally improper to apply polices/guidelines proprietary to other projects. For example, Commons editors, as a community, did not have input to the creation of Wikipedia:Citation needed and use of guidelines disenfranchises the,, etc. analogues. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for having provided an alternative. As you have suggested, I'll remove the disputed sentence and will open a discussion at Village pump/Copyright. I've provided some arguments at the talk page of the guideline. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten this part of COM:UA (diff) and posted a request for comment at COM:VPC. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 08:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello :) I gave an answer to your questions HERE, and I did as required to dissolve your concerns, if you are now convinced please change your opinion about the restoration of images. Hello :) thanks --Pava (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Trijnsteltalk 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Von Luxburg

estimado usuario, explique los motivos por los cuales a emprendido una casería de brujas contra mi trabajo, y contra los archivos que e subido. primer caso el archivo File:Ruinas del castillo de la Casa Real Schoenacich-Carolath.png (el castillo fue destruido por los alemanes y no dejaron que se recostrullera por los sovieticos el castillo moral mente sigue siendo de la Casa Real Schoenacich-Carolath)el cual usted borro es de dominio publico o es que usted pertenece por linea de sangre a la familia que no lo creo puesto que seamos familia y no lo somos . 2 el escudo de los conde de von luxburg que es un escudo familiar yo lo edite y recree y subí, le pido que quite la objeciones que tiene sobre todas las imágenes que e subido, es cierto e cometido errores de novato y le pido escusas por problemas que causado por mi ignorancia. --Von Luxburg (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Von Luxburg, the reasons for the concerns have been presented at the deletion request. If you believe certain images are in the public domain, I encourage you to read Commons:Project_scope/Evidence/es and Commons:Licensing/es. You need to supply third-party sourcing to support and substantiate such claims. For works purported to belong to your family, you should consult Commons:OTRS/es. Continuing to vandalize, sock puppet and impugn other editors ("emprendido una casería de brujas" - wage a witch hunt) will lead to a revocation of your editing privileges. Эlcobbola talk 16:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
entiendo lo que me estad diciendo y como haría para que me quiten todas la etiquetas que colocaron en las imagen que publique y difundí para el uso de las misma en wikipedia, y en especial para recuperar el escudo de los condes de luxburg que fue eliminado para colocarlo con la permiso logia pertinente, disculpa como hable al principio es que alguien a tratado de destruir, borrar los artículos y no se como protegerlos o notificar a alguien que me indique que hacer.--Von Luxburg (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Elcobbola, as you will see from the above, I only undid the removal from User:Stefan4, was this wrong from me? Lotje (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, look at the bottom of the diff (ca. line 127); you removed about 535 bytes of text. Эlcobbola talk 17:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oo, that was really a mistake of mine, I should have looked further down the page, but on the other hand what's the point in changing words like prohibit any into pany. Lotje (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that was also a simple mistake. It would of course be perfectly fine to correct it; just be careful not to remove other comments in the process. Эlcobbola talk 17:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Elcobbola Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Once Again (film).jpg

Hello may I know what gives you the authority to delete this file? How can you just delete something which I own? This should be restored Ryder212 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not delete this file. Secondly, the image appears here and various other sites. The poster appears itself to be a still frame from the related film and, accordingly, the copyright would be expected to belong to the production company, Sanjay Arora, or a similar legal entity. Because this image has been published before upload to the Commons, we require confirmation that you are the rights holder or an authorized representative of the rights holder - see COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:The Good Road-Film Poster.jpg

Why would you delete this?Ryder212 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete this file. Read above. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Elcobbola, thank you for the review of the block and for having started the discussion about it. I appreciate you for your sense of justice and that you have deemed it worthy to step forward. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Martina Filjak

Dear Wiki-colleague Elcobbola!
Romano Grozić - the author of all three photos of Martina Filjak (which I uploaded recently) - will tomorrow or at latest in a few days send an eMail-permission to Wikimedia Commons. Please, do not delete these photos! Thank you for understanding. Sincerely,--Maestro Ivanković (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you received the eMail-permission from Romano (he sent it yesterday to Wikimedia OTRS...)? Sincerely,--Maestro Ivanković (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maestro Ivanković, I do see an email from Romano Grozić in the queue. The queue can be very long at times (up to and beyond several weeks); the OTRS member who handles the ticket will contact you when it has been processed and will handle the related images accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Elcobbola, regarding the three recently uploaded and deleted photos of Martina Filjak on Wikimedia Commons, I just want to inform you that the autor of these photos, Mr. Romano Grozić, has sent a new eMail to the Wikimedia with his permission confirmation. I hope that his eMail will this time be a sufficient reason for OTRS administrators to accept these photos... If you need anything else regarding this issue, please let me know about it on my user page. Best regards, --Maestro Ivanković (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Shannon Valentine.JPG

Can you help me restore the Shannon Valentine.JPG that was removed? I tried to find our conversation where you said a handwritten note would be sufficent to prove copyright ownership of the file but I couldn't. I'm new to wikipedia/wikimedia and wasn't sure about the undelete request either. I couldn't figure out how to upload the scanned note so here is the link:

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristymadimike (talk • contribs)

Kristymadimike, you may have had a conversation with someone else as I wouldn't generally recommend handwritten permission. As the image appears on, you should follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to provide us with an emailed permission. Note that the email should come from an or another "non-public" domain (,, etc. domains are not generally helpful as they can be created by anyone). Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Elcobbola. I sent the email from admin to the address provided through your link using the email template they suggest to grant permission. How long do you think it will take for them to reply and will the photo automagically reappear on Wikipedia or will I need to re-upload it to Wikimedia?

I've processed the ticket and restored the image for you. The image will need to be manually re-added to articles, however. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 16:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and patience.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ultra7

Since people are now opposing 'per Elcobbola', it would be helpful if you could address my further objections with your analysis. Specifically your claim that the features in the deleted image are all visible in those supposed replacements and therefore they don't contain anything educationally distinct to what we already have - a claim which I don't think stands up to any scrutiny at all given what the respective images actually contain. Ultra7 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Restauração fotos de Bandeirantes

Obrigado pela restauração das fotos de Bandeirantes. (Thank you for the restoration of the photos of Bandeirantes (PR).)Reynaldo Avaré Msg 16:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Elcobbola. It would be nice if you could accept. :) Good luck! Trijnsteltalk 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted product photography of Schneider lens

Thank you for deleting my photography from wiki. It cause that i don't want to add any other photography to wikipedia from my own work anymore. (thanks for it)

But one more thing, my other photographs added to wiki:

are published in other web too:

so thanks that you will delete them too when wiki doesn't want my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisifer (talk • contribs)

Firstly, I did not delete your image (log). Secondly, per COM:OTRS, previously published images require additional permission at the Commons, especially when usernames do not match (λambáda ≠ Luisifer). Эlcobbola talk 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Hope that i find the way to add these links to each photography without adding some (to me) unknown permission. Especially when more important is nick than some "materials" for wiki. Hope that now it is all clear. And ... ok, you only initiated deleting, who cares, result is the same (for wiki only the the best). Luisifer talk a lot of months ago (of course that UTC)
Hey, whats up? First initiation of deleting and deleting was so fast that there were no discusion before it (like middle finger act to me). And now, several months pass with permission breaking jpegs and still no activity with initiation? Are you kidding me? Wake up: Luisifer talk today (again UTC)

No, I rather think you're kidding me. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
ok bot, close to half year ago i added links to the rest of my own amateur work that i published on some amateur web too. Thank you for the initiation, at least now.
Luisifer talk 16:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Congrats on being trusted by the community with its most sensitive tool. Please make sure you update Commons:List of checkusers once the right is actually assigned. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

My congratulations too! Ruhrfisch (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

and congratulations ;) Trijnsteltalk 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We still haven't received your identification. Could you please send it in? (If you've already done that, please say so; I'll contact the staff then.) Trijnsteltalk 13:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Trijnstel, it's in the (snail) mail. I'm old fashioned. :) Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Spambots, etc

Hi Elcobbola. There's still a steady influx of 20 or 30 spambot accounts per day. I'm still blocking some of the obvious ones, but some require checks. Also, I can't get the IPs. I had a collection of links at User:INeverCry/CU if you want to copy/past any. Filter #85 is the most active. I personally used only the user creation log 95% of the time, as Herby did. I still do, and I see the pattern accounts constantly. For me it was kind of a challenge of getting them before they spammed and/or hit the filters. If you have any questions about pattern accounts, feel free to ask. If you didn't already know, is your best tool for checking spambot IPs. Also, our most active current sockmaster looks to be Messina, so you may want to get familiar with him. Trijnstel and I blocked 11 socks of his today, and there'll be more. Wikinger is still active too. Have fun. INeverCry 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a CU again. Plenty of work for all of us still though. Let me know if you need any help getting started with CU. I respond to CU-L emails and personal emails pretty quickly. INeverCry 18:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: Elcobbola doesn't have the CU rights yet as he send in his identification via snail mail. :) We just need to wait a little. Trijnsteltalk 18:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for gumming up the works. :-) It should actually arrive today, so we'll see how busy Phillipe is. Эlcobbola talk 18:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. We'll wait and see. :) Trijnsteltalk 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Philippe is out of office this week, but he instructed a few others to process your identification as soon as it comes in. I assume you used the address as mentioned here? (If so, that's indeed the right one.) If your ID hasn't come in by the end of the week or so, are you willing to send it in via email as well maybe? Trijnsteltalk 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the address. Let me consider the email option; I'll email you. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, you now have the rights. :) I've also subscribed you to cu-l, +I gave you access to the cu wiki. Trijnsteltalk 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Trijnstel! Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Ich habe die Bilder am meistens über viele Jahren selbst versammelt. Sie sind alle frei und haben kein Verlagsrecht in US. Schmaus (talk)

Siehe bitte Commons:Lizenzen und Commons:Projektrahmen/Beweispflicht. Sowas musst du beweisen. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, ich werde sofort machen, was Sie vorschlagen. Unbewußt habe ich Fehler gemacht. Es tut mir leid. Schmaus (talk)

Driussigualtiero_3.jpg etc. etc.

Hello, excuse my English. I didn't know much about copyright when I uploaded those files, but today I studied and now I know somthing more. I took the original photo of Driussigualtiero.jpg, but I wasn't able to use any scanner; now I have it and I'm going to scan and upload the original photo. Thank you very much and tell me if there are other problems, please. --Udine2812 (talk)

Do you think it is ok now? --Udine2812 (talk)
Hi Udine2812, the concern actually isn't about quality, but about ownership of the photograph being copied/scanned. If you are indeed the original photographer, then there is no problem. It would just be helpful if you could comment explicitly to that effect on the image's description. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Bonjour, pourquoi vouloir supprimer mes téléchargements ? Les auteurs des images sont morts depuis plus de 70 ans, alors où est le problème ? Merci, Vanoot59 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Parfois c'est carrément de la suppression abusive car les images sont issus d'une autre, elle-même présente sur wikimédia commons... Vanoot59 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read COM:L and COM:EVID. It is incumbent on you to substantiate licenses with adequate sourcing. I will not be responding to further nonsense (Parfois c'est carrément de la suppression abusive car les images sont issus d'une autre, elle-même présente sur wikimédia commons). Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Vous souhaitez supprimer des images dont le droit à l'utilisation sur commons est tout à fait justifié... J'ai bien l'impression que c'est plus personnel qu'autre chose... Vanoot59 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Why you requested deletion of "jytim131219 - 3.jpg"? (It's a picture of a doll.) A picture of a doll dosen't seem illegal. I don't think the copyright matters. -- Jytim (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolls, stuffed animals ("plush toys") and the like are all toys, which are indeed eligible for copyright. It is a common misconception that copyright applies solely to "art" when it in fact applies broadly to original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. These plush toys are original (i.e., not a copy of an existing work), have authors, and are fixed in a tangible medium (cloth, fluff, etc.) Please see COM:DW, COM:TOYS and COM:CB for additional information on the concept(s). Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Image:Bonne année !.jpg

Image:Bonne année !.jpg - Image:Bonne année 2014.jpg - Image:Happy new year 1.jpg - Image:Happy new year 2014.jpg Suppression abusive : à ma connaissance le bonhomme de neige n'est pas une figure déposée. D'ailleurs l'image est présente depuis des années sur Wikimedia et renouvelée chaque année sans discussion sur les droits d'auteur (Image:Happy new year 2007.png). En plus procédure d'urgence ridiculePRA (talk)

See COM:DW. Image:Happy new year 2007.png itself is derivative of a non-free sculpture and thus all images derived therefrom are problematic. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Alors heureux ? Qui vous dit que l'objet photographié n'est pas libre de droit (figure populaire) ? «Il est plus facile de détruire que de construire», écrivait Alphonse de Lamartine...PRA (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Christmas Belles at Crown - 11366677816.jpg Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)