User talk:Elvey

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
03:03 [update]
approx. 03:03 (or 15:03) displayed on clock/watch
Commons clock - made from this set [update]
Sunset at Huntington Beach.jpg
User sick of an uncollegial, epically innumerate admin with dismal judgement, and inappropriate dictatorial demands is taking a short break and will be back at Commons in three weeks from ASAP.
My goal

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This template should be deprecated and then deleted; it's rude, IMO:

Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Users of this template are, in my experience, typically being dishonest:

Sunset at Huntington Beach.jpg
Elvey is taking a short break and will be back at Commons soon.

Posting on this page constitutes consent to edits to your post by Elvey that are in-line replies to, indentation or numbering fixes, if Elvey judges they are needed.

Image:RomaVillaMedici.JPG and Image:Villa Medicis.jpg[edit]

Hi! I'm the author of the second picture, so I'm not exactly NPOV, but the two pictures do seem different to me. The point of view differs and the first one is slighly overexposed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though they are similar, I didn't actually make request that either be deleted by an admin. (I did do that for Image:Berlioz-painting.jpeg - and thanks for doing so.) --Elvey 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Patroller permissions vote[edit]

Hello, thank you for your participating in the discussion about if the patroller permissions should be enabled or not. You have opposed for the reason that there's currently no documentation about what the patrol right actually is and what it should be used for. This page has now been created at Commons:Patrol. If you still have any questions what this is, feel free to ask me. If you think the page should be improved, please let me know. As the desired page has now been created, I would be happy if you could reconsider your vote in order to find a solution that makes us all happy. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Progress! I've made some constructive edits to the policy. As noted: boldly changing; please revert if I'm mistaken. I use the patrol feature heavily to maintain another wiki, and it's very helpful, so I think it can work here, so I'm helping with the policy, and expect to be able to withdraw opposition soon.--Elvey (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Godwin on paranoia : Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan.

OTRS noticeboard post[edit]

Hi! I've moved your request for clarification to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (the Commons: prefix was missing). Where did you see the link to that page? There's probably a prefix missing in some template somewhere that should be fixed. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token b39ec6be23a42037248834136c0ec9ca[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:LA_County_DA_Seal.gif & File:EncinitasCitySeal.JPG[edit]

The images were only uploaded to the English Wikipedia, not the Commons. See and Because of that, there was nothing for us to undelete or review. You will have to go to the English Wikipedia to ask for undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw you said so when you closed this. Thanks; I will. --Elvey (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So it is nothing against the images, just nothing for us to do. Anyways, I looked what happened is that the images were tagged {{coatofarms}} and not the California PD tag (because of the back and forth before the court ruling); that license was deleted and replaced with nothing. So it was deleted after a week. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Your research makes me think my undeletion request will sail through. P.S.: So much for "Please do not make any edits to this archive." - I happened to just see this violation. --Elvey (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a hard and fast rule and I personally do not enforce it (or block folks for it). The most it does is sets the archiving back by 24 hours. As for the undeletion, the only thing that could be an issue is if someone already reuploaded the logo under a new name. Either way, while you and I disagree about the wording of the PD-Cali template, I forsee the images being restored and used in some way under some license at the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a problem with the edit of a closed discussion, other than that I've felt the rule treated (via repeated reversion and strident warnings) as a hard and fast rule - no exceptions even where they made sense. I recall we have worked well together before. --Elvey (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, they were both undeleted.  :-) --Elvey (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


You have new messages on Commons talk:Project scope/Precautionary principle.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded.--Elvey (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill Ingalls[edit]

Hi I saw your image File:Bill Ingalls, Your license tag is illegal. Copyright note-I just sent to NASA photographer Flickr account--Screen shot.png. You may be interested in this Commons:Deletion requests/NASA images of User:Huntster. Ingalls is the name of a commercial photography studio who does contract work for NASA. They have the right to non-commercial restriction on their images from what I can make out. More info in the above link. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You could still post an image here like the one of mine you reference.
Here you say it's not always the case that "NASA-created images are without copyright". Please, prove it, if you can - provide an example of a work that a court has ruled was copyrighted, and NASA-created.
The owner of the flickr account has not responded to my FlickrMail. Would you please post a screen shot of the exchange on FlickrMail that you had with the owner - as I did in the image you referenced in your initial post here (or give me the access you offered to your Flickr account? Also, if you can quote the WMC staffer's email you mentioned, that would be helpful too. An 18-year employee does not an independent contractor make. If you've been working for the same organization for 18 years as a photographer, its very unlikely a court would consider you an Wikipedia:independent contractor. (That article has the cited statement, "In the United States employer misclassification of employees as "independent contractors" to avoid employment taxation and regulation is widespread.[4]" I still think the images were "work made for hire", and so work by NASA, and hence PD; "If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work;" see here and here. It's as sensible to assume that the owner of the flickr account is telling The Truth as it is to assume that an uploader has accurately tagged his uploads; has the flickr account owner provided any evidence, such as his employment agreement with NASA? The evidence I've seen presented points to an employee relationship. It seems to me that your DR led Fastily to reach the wrong conclusion. I readily concede that you are right when you say "there is reasonable doubt that these particular images are allowed on Commons." It is contrary to policy to delete just because there is Wikipedia:reasonable doubt that an image is allowed.--Elvey (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you ignored my request. Well, the images have been undeleted, at my request, for the reason that he's an employee, not a true independent contractor, as I said above.--Elvey (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Interjecting comments[edit]

Re this edit - it is very rarely necessary to interject comments into someone else's, and this is not one of those times. Please do not redo this - the meaning is clear enough in the new location, and you can clarify it further with reference to the numbering I used if you wish. Rd232 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You claim not to understand most of what I post. And now you're making what I said less comprehensible. They're my words. Interjecting comments into someone else's is perfectly acceptable, common practice. It is EXTREMELY rare that it's appropriate to move around someone else's words (do I really need to cite policy on this one?) and this is not one of those times. Undo your edit, provide evidence I'm wrong, or I will undo your edit of my comment on the talk page myself.--Elvey (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
If you redo your edit of my post, I will ask for you to be blocked. Moving your comment out of mine is fixing a problem you shouldn't have caused in the first place. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I tried to edit to this "provide evidence I'm wrong, or I will undo your edit of my comment on the talk page myself." [Update; I went ahead and made the edit, as Rd232 found this too confusing.] On what basis would you ask me to be blocked? Cite policy!--Elvey (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what your first sentence is about. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
[Update; I went ahead and made the edit to my post above, as Rd232 found the sentence he referenced too confusing.]--Elvey (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the second: it really looks like you spend too much time on English Wikipedia. It's made you think in literal policy terms instead of in terms of "what's the sensible and helpful thing to do? How can we resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction?" etc. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
My last edit was obviously an attempt to do exactly that - answer "How can we resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction?" - Would you not agree, Rd232?- -Elvey (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No, because I gave no indication that the indentation was an issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Where did you give an explicit indication as to what the issue was? You feel it's not necessary that it be where I put it, but why is it in your view necessary that it not split your words? Seriously. I've reread your comments here and sure, there are reasons why it doesn't have to go where I put it, but none that indicate why in your view its not sensible to put it after the part of what you wrote that it responds to. You've made my comment harder for others to follow, and you say you feel it's as comprehensible where I last put it as where you put it.--Elvey (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(i) the issue is interjection itself. How have you not understood this yet? (ii) for the third or fourth time, if you think some mysterious third party is interested enough to read your comment to me but not interested enough to read it in context, well then add an explicit reference to the numbering. To spell it out for you, using your favoured style: PUT "RE POINT 2" AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR COMMENT. Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And the comment is no or more less comprehensible to me in the new location. It's perfectly clear from context what you're talking about, and as I said in the opening of this thread, if you add a reference to the numbering I used, you can remove any trace of doubt. There is an obvious and easy alternative to what you did here, and refusing to it when asked is ample demonstration of ...something. Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Elvey, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | +/−

INeverCry 17:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NJ Copyright[edit]

Elvey, I got your message about New Jersey government documents, and their use on Wikimedia. Section F of this link indicates that documents issued by the executive branch of the state of New Jersey are in the public domain unless the document specifically has a copyright notice. The {{PD-NJGov}} tag that I create reflects that information. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.
I had already read and felt that Section F was inadequate, which is why I contacted you. However I just noticed that there's this at the top of the page:
The following notices apply to all web sites of state agencies listed at in the executive branch of state government other than independent state agencies.
Let's tweak the tag to be more clear.
For one thing, it doesn't explicitly mention derivative works. So is it more like a license? Well, the "without obligation" clause to my mind does imply that permission for derivative works is given - wanting to bug not making or agreeing not to make derivative works would be fulfilling obligations to the state. Likewise, it doesn't mention or require attribution. So, indeed the release does appear to be into the public domain.
On the other hand, it does clearly seem to apply only to the works ON WEBSITES. Works NOT on agency websites or of independent state agencies are not applicable. --Elvey (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Elvey, I agree with the modifications that you made to the {{PD-NJGov}} tag. Per a state supreme court decision in 2009, public records obtained via the state's Open Public Records Act are likewise in the public domain. I modified the tag to reflect that. There are currently 12 files with the {{PD-NJGov}} tag. Eleven of the twelve are okay, but File:Dennis elwell.jpg doesn't qualify for the tag. The picture was obtained from the town of Secaucus' website. Towns are not part of the state's executive branch, and so the image in not in the public domain. Additionally, there is an "all rights reserved" notice on the web page that the image was obtained from. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Public domain government works[edit]

This edit says "most works by many governments around the world" are PD. Do you have a source for that? IMO the situation is almost the opposite with the US being alone in this regard. Also your wikilink isn't right. What did you mean to link to? -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I meant to use the en shortcut: WP:PD. (W:WP:PD not W:PD) Do you like the changes I've now made? (Indeed, I may have overstated the case. With hundreds of countries in existence, it doesn't take a large fraction to end up with 'many' making most of their works PD, but we should remove or make the language more precise. Most governments place their edicts in the public domain - but most of their works aren't edicts. The (now corrected) shortcut leads to, Most other countries’ governments do hold copyrights, and their works are copyright protected. At the same time, many countries declare their edicts, as well as those of other countries, such as laws and court decisions, to be exempt from copyright. Such exemptions are typically narrowly defined and cannot be construed to mean “any publication by a government office”.)--Elvey (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record[edit]

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Great. I predict someone will deny that we can conclude from the report that LCA sees no reason for this template to be be deleted. Even though it's obvious to me that we can conclude from the report that LCA sees no reason for this template to be be deleted. Then we'll need a clarification like what we got that last time we got a message from LCA like this that I felt was already perfectly clear.
Now if only Stefan[24] was willing to stop flaunting policy in order to do what he wants. I'd love it if someone took the necessary steps to get administrators to enforce the rule on PUF at en requiring notification on pages using the file. Since I don't recall previous discussion on his talk page I posted this. His flagrant flouting of the rule exemplifies his problematic attitude seen in his attempts to get the template and the files that rely on it deleted. --Elvey (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Elvey,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Elvey, I made this small edit on your common.js. Due to the templates used on this page, it came in different categories. That is fixed now. I hope you don't mind. JurgenNL (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

JurgenNL (talk · contribs)I appreciate the notification and don't mind. OTOH, I do mind when PD files I've uploaded are deleted and I'm given no notice whatsoever! --Elvey (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Original1965AcidTestFlyerPrint.uncolored,unmodified.jpg[edit]

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

hey there, check this out [1]; and this law review survey article. doubt it will change any minds. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, User:Jarekt, how about an apology? No license, you say? I say your detection methods are lousy. The file has 2! It has a belt and suspenders. --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an uncolored,unmodified version. Makes all the difference, when it comes to copyright monopoly laws. I haven't read beyond the survey article's intro yet, but it looks to be an excellent read. --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RFID Solution Photo in 2008 Leisure Taiwan (File:2008LeisureTaiwan Day1 FRTRI RFID Solution.jpg)[edit]

D**n! Thanks for your notification.

But This photo is originally photoed by me, How to do it?

I think the PCI didn't ask me about this issue to use any of my photos.

Do someone have contact information about PCI? Rico Shen contact... 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:NSA ANT FOXACID.jpg[edit]


I removed the Category:NSA ANT category from File:NSA ANT FOXACID.jpg, as that image was not part of the ANT Catalog, it was part of a leaked NSA slideshow that disclosed the QUANTUM attack suite. You might consider asking that the file be renamed, as the "ANT" in "NSA ANT FOXACID" is not correct (or I can rename it for you if you like). A better name might be "NSA_FOXACID_spam.jpg". —RP88 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can rename it, but before I do: We don't really know whether it was part of the NSA ANT catalog or not. The catalog is reportedly 50 pages and we only have the content of 48 pages of it... I guess since we don't have good evidence that it was in the catalog, best not to assume it is. --Elvey (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bill Nye, Barack Obama and Neil deGrasse Tyson selfie 2014.jpg[edit]

Hey there, Elvey, how are you?

I agree with you that the image File:Bill Nye, Barack Obama and Neil deGrasse Tyson selfie 2014.jpg cannot be both non-commercial and public domain.

It's just public domain.

Commonly the blurb text used for example at by the current White House Administration account with Flickr is wrong.

They both license their stuff as Public Domain as a Product of a Federal Employee of the United States Government, and then also try to control the images by putting some sort of disclaimer rejoinder on there on Flickr, which simply doesn't work.

Simply put, if they use the "PD-USGov" tag on Flickr (which was verified), then it's "PD-USGov" here, too.

And per our wording on Wikimedia Commons from the template {{PD-USGov}}, This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.

I hope that explanation is helpful to you and removes the confusion you had.

The best way to remedy this is not to include the disclaimer text from Flickr from that account, and simply include the "PD-USGov" tag, as that's the official copyright license for those images.

I hope you are well,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Elvey/common.js[edit]

Kudos to the botmaster of the CommonsMaintenanceBot; those alerts really helped me out!--Elvey (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Black mark on Commons / Badge of shame - prominent Holocaust photographs deleted on extremely spurious grounds.[edit]

this is disgusting! The USHMM says on its website that it owns the copyright. Some admin, on evidence of his/her own POV, decides to delete the files anyway, implying that the USHMM must be lying. That reeks of antisemitism. AGF doesn't apply to the USHMM. It's OK for admins to assume the USHMM is lying? Am I missing something here? The USHMM site clearly indicates it claims ownership of the copyright. Who is this admin to insist the USHMM is lying? Looks like an EX-admin. Perhaps a DR isn't futile... --Elvey (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)