User talk:Elcobbola

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


Archive

Special:CentralAuth/Nawazprincehai's local attachment request

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

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

Hey…

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

And here… RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. The 2603:7000:B8F0:960::::/64 is already blocked and the 2600:1017:B027:C884::::/64 hasn't edited in 3 days, so I'm unsure why you're asking. Эlcobbola talk 17:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure

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

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

User:Shirogane10 => User:Nanafuji ?

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

Undelete request

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

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

Overlapping SPI cases

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

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I would not be inclined to do anything. If they are both Jurisdrew, combination expends additional community resources for no gained insight. If they are distinct LTAs, combination may obscure relevant history. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: However, any username suspected of belonging to either user can be reported to m:srg for immediate action as global lock evasion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to blame ...

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

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

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

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

Ask for files restoration

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

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

Unblocking the IP address

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

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

User:Tarapriya

Would you be willing to lift the block if the user explicitly promises to only upload photographs taken by himself? Trade (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. COM:BP asks an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. The credibility of such a promise ("if the user explicitly promises") would necessarily be tethered to those considerations, and thus would be meaningless in their absence. This user: 1) has zero unproblematic uploads (i.e., no evidence they have the capacity); 2) has derivate work copyvios (i.e., no evidence they would even understand what "photographs taken by himself" means); 3) despite having what is prohibited explained to them in great detail, nevertheless continued copyvios after the expiration of their previous block; and 4) even after their current block, has demonstrated they continue not to understand the issue. I cannot help those who do not read what is presented directly to them. Эlcobbola talk 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons checkuser icon

Hello, I have noticed that you have reverted my image addition on Commons:Checkusers and that you specified that it was an "inappropriate image addition". Could you please explain why it was removed and when to add these images? Thank you! 2003 LN6 17:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting gov.md materials

Hello!

May I ask you to review the deleted files listed here User talk:Editor1722/Archive 1#Deleted content and undelete the ones that have gov.md as their source? As of today recently, the site has retroactively adopted a free license. Thank you! Gikü (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gikü, I will more specific information. At least some of those files are YouTube screenshots (i.e., not ones sourced to gov.md); please list the specific files you believe are now free, and please provide a link to gov.md site that identifies the same. Эlcobbola talk 14:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I don't think I'd be able to provide such a list, I don't remember remember the source for each of them. But I recall that some of them were official photos screenshotted from gov.md, for example it seems that I have reuploaded File:Rodica Iordanov 2022.png as File:Iordanca-Rodica Iordanov official photo, 2022.jpg. I suspect that other files coming from gov.md are File:Olesea Stamate 2022.png, File:Anatolie Nosatii 2023.png, File:Mircea Buga 2022.png, File:Evghenia Guțul 2023.png. Thank you for looking into it! Gikü (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rodica Iordanov 2022.png is not the same image as File:Iordanca-Rodica Iordanov official photo, 2022.jpg. The former is a screenshot from a YouTube video, not a the portrait you've uploaded. In fact, all the files you've listed are YouTube screenshots. You can see the YouTube sources and "screenshot" deletion rationales for each in the file logs (visible to all, not just admins); for example: File:Olesea Stamate 2022.png log is here. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor memory, then :( Thank you anyway! Sorry for taking your time. Gikü (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piyushghadgep2

Hi, I'm coming to you because of an allegation at en.wiki that the above user is a sock of Faizanalivarya. Faizanalivarya was recently blocked by User:Yann for one week for uploading non-free images. In looking at a couple of the images uploaded by Piyushghadgep2, it looks to me like they are facially copyright violations as well. For example, File:Sahil Khan Wife 01.jpg is copied from Instagram. I was about to tag the image as a copyright violation, but I decided it would be more efficient to ask you to look at not only that image but the others, all of which are similar (and some mislabeled as to the subjects), and at the same time, if you're willing, to run a check of the two users to see if they are related. Also possible of course that they are meat puppets rather than sock puppets. Thanks for your help. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Piyushghadgep2 has exclusively edited, across all projects, in relation to only two subjects: w:Sahil Khan (Indian actor) and w:Negar Khan (Norwegian/Iranian actor in India). Faizanalivarya does not appear to have edited those subjects or topics (Indian showbusiness/Bollywood) and instead appears primarily focused on athletes from disparate countries and Pakistani institutions and people (journalists, politicians, etc. - I did not see actors). Commons uploads also appear quite different in terms of naming convention, information and description provided at upload, etc. The socking allegation on en.wiki appears to based on the purport that Faizanalivarya had a "real life" meeting with Sahil Khan, but the email purporting to evidence the same is in a queue to which I do not have access. In short, unless I've overlooked something, I don't currently see or have access to sufficient evidence. Commons CU @Krd: is very involved in VRT and may have access to that queue and may be able to look at this; if not, I'd be inclined to wait for the en.wiki SPI results and to handle Commons uploads based on copyright in the meantime. Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a detailed explanation, and it all sounds reasonable. Are you going to look at the uploads by Piyushghadgep2 on your own, or do they need to be tagged?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I've deleted them. Эlcobbola talk 13:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Dear Admin I have uploaded 3 images to Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know if there is any mistake. Because I don't want to be blocked again. Siam12367 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading notices instead of blanking them. Please also consider reading critically; I am unable to understand how you reconcile "everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (bold in original), which appeared eight times (!!!) in that blanking, with continuing to upload images taken from social media. Эlcobbola talk 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Claggy

Hi. This active user on Persian and English Wikipedia Special:CentralAuth/Claggy has asked me in Persian Wikipedia whether their access in Commons can be restored so they can contribute to Persian Wikipedia articles with images and they say they use a shared IP with millions others from a cellular network provider they can't control. I don't have any prior knowledge about the user and have seen them for the first time but went to check their deleted uploads in Commons which showed unfamiliarity with Commons rules however given usefulness of their contributions in Persian Wikipedia thought their request perhaps can be considered. Thanks! −ebrahimtalk 13:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even with involvement of a wide shared IP, technical data are always considered with behaviour. Claggy, an only 38-day-old account, for example, just so happened to upload the exact image JRM2018 socks have sought to include (e.g., Royaii, etc.). One image being a coincidence is possible, but more telling is Claggy just so happened also to upload Goodary's "official logo", which, again, had been previously uploaded and groomed by JRM2018 socks (e.g., AriaTess, Miladtayan, etc. for File:Reza Goodary Logo.png and File:Reza Goodary Logo (Horizontal).png). Uploading "official logos" for people, as opposed to organisations, is something that rarely, if ever, occurs--and is not done for purposes other than promotion, which is what JRM2018 (and socks) contributions have been. Claggy also just so happened to recreate the previously (at least thrice, including by DR) deleted w:Reza Goodary, for which the very first edit was little more than medal pomp. The evidence is that Claggy, at best, is involved with JRM2018, Goodary, or those who seek to promote Goodary and thus a meatpuppet. At worst, they are yet another sock. This is, of course, in addition to having made zero appropriate contributions to the Commons. I see no reason to unblock this account; the Commons block in no way prevents "usefulness of their contributions in Persian Wikipedia." Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about any of these and just tried to translate and forward a message I happened to receive that I didn't know anything else about, thanks for the elaborative explanation, it was more comprehensive than I was expected or even needed −ebrahimtalk 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I don't make blocks lightly or without good reason, and it's a particular pet peeve when the disingenuous "without any warning" line is used, so I attempt to take explanation seriously. You might want to look into this editor on fa.wiki--JRM2018 is blocked there and globally. As additional example, genuine new editors do not create common.js pages as their very first edit to a project. :) Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to check

Vovanthuongctn and Vangiangphanbqp. There are very similar naming methods, suspecting the same person. Sử dụng hợp lí (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a request at COM:RFCU. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelöschtes Bild von Meryem Uzerli

Hallo @Elcobbola Ich habe ein Screenshot eines Videos eines Bildes von Meryem Uzerli gemacht. Leider wurde es ohne Löschvorschlag gelöscht. Zuvor wurde ein anderes Bild von mir zu Löschung vorgeschlagen. Allerdings wurde die Schablone mit dem Löschvorschlag nach meinen Nachfragen wieder entfernt. In diesem Fall wurde nicht mal ein Löschvorschlag gemacht und das Bild sofort gelöscht. Das Video enthält auf Youtube eine Creative Commons licence Angabe . Kann man die Löschung des Bildes rückgängig machen? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr60tOgWBQ4 Avestaboy (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nein. Wie erwähnt, siehe Commons:Kriterien für die Schnelllöschung #F6, Commons:Lizenzwäsche, und Commons:Lizenzen (z.B. »Eine Lizenz kann nur vom Urheberrechtsinhaber [...] erteilt werden«). Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola Achso danke für den Hinweis. Ich dachte dieses Bild wäre von Wada7 direkt. Leider werden manchmal Bilder voreilig gelöscht. Selbst ein Bild von Yalda Abbasi was ich selbst mit einem Smartphone aufgenommen habe wurde gelöscht . Weil man dachte ich hätte es vom jemand anderem übernommen. In diesem Fall hast du Recht.Ich wusste nicht das das Bild von jemand anderem stammt. Das zeigt mal wieder das man beim Hochladen von Bildern vorsichtig sein muss. Gruß Avestaboy (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion of user space

Hi Elcobbola,
Could you please delete my user page (User:Ulubatli Hasan)? — Hasan 08:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

Hello,I have seen your Message on my talk page regarding many files for speedy deletation. As you have given me warning about that,i would like to say that all copyvio files that were uploaded earlier were my fault as I was a newbie(currently iam, but now a little bit old). please consider this and also you can delete all earlier copyvio files at once.
thanking
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to identify (tag for deletion) the referenced copyvios. I am not willing, or even necessarily able, to sort through all of your historical uploads to identify issues. Эlcobbola talk 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking LewisFan3393933884

Hello, Elcobbola. Could you please blocking LewisFan3393933884? Because from what i see at edit history, he is long-term abuse and suspected sockpuppet of Jordanene7, which we know that Jordanene7's sockpuppets uploaded poorly-traced SVG file and persistently uploaded PNG file as a SVG, however, it cannot be vectorized whatsoever. They also be long-term abusers. Yayan550 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ara Baghdasaryan.jpg

Hi! The photo I've uploaded to commons was made by me personally, he was my relative - mothers uncle. I'm not commonly visiting Wiki these days, so it appears a year ago you deleted the photo of Ara Baghdasaryan, a prominent Armenian artist. You have a link to another Ara Baghdasaryan's Facebook to his pic, it's funny, but I know him as well, he's a film producer working for Armenia TV where I was the art director for 9 years. They are different people - one artist passed away, my relative (FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004673043250), the other film producer (https://www.facebook.com/ara.baghdasaryan.9). And this is mine just in case: https://www.facebook.com/517design/ I anyway now have no chance to access to my previous photos, so I can't recover the photo at the moment. Just wanting to let you know you deleted a photo of a prominent Armenian artist, chair of Fine Art Academy and type designer, just for fun having no ground. You can say the uploader is informed about deletion requests, but unless you are a Wiki adept, spending hours here weekly, you can't know that. So good luck improving Wiki commons like you did here. Cheers. 517design (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image you uploaded was deleted by Túrelio. I deleted a different image, uploaded by a different user, under the same file name. Unless you were socking as ErikGhukasyanam? While I am unsure how you reconcile this bad faith piffle ("just for fun having no ground"; "So good luck improving Wiki commons like you did here") with the purport of no longer wasting time here, if you stay, consider reviewing COM:AGF. You will be blocked if it continues. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for accusing you then, I've been here for years, but I can't figure out where to see and what out of these endless textual blocks. I'm just a designer and a photographer working for almost three decades, and wishing to share whatever I possess with public and believing in Open source values. But honestly I have no time to read these countless scroll-downs of text with close to legal vocabulary and countless links between countless similar pages. I'm just disappointed to see the photo deleted, which I personally did once, of a person who had a real influence on graphics and dedicated entire life on this. Block me if you wish anyway. Sorry for accusing you again, I saw your nickname, thought it's you. 517design (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SuperSonic337

The reason why I got most of those files from other websites is because I could not find good quality free images of them on Flickr. Please don't deletefilesit was the only way I could get them. Also, the 1923 Louisiana black and gray plate was a photo taken from my phone, I couldn't upload the file from my phone, so I had to post it online and then send it to the website.i les SuperSonic337 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you cannot find free images does not justify uploading unfree images. Эlcobbola talk 12:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cippo Engles Profili Fabriano.jpg

Hi, that was my photo. The website you have linked has a different photo on it, taken on a different time with more flowers and plants. They are two different files. Janik98 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. My apologies; I've restored the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I must also say that the photo of Politicians I have uploaded should be under Commons, because I followed the template:dati.camera.it, which is used for a very large number of similar files, as you can see here: Category:Images from the Chamber of Deputies (Italy). I've done something wrong while uploading those two specific files?--Janik98 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Dati.camera.it}} is for the data explicitly referenced by dati.camera.it. I see no evidence for a claim that it applies to camera.it globally (to the contrary, see below), or that this/these image(s) belong thereto. Verily, your own source says "Camera dei deputati © Tutti i diritti riservati" and has the legal notice that says "L'utilizzo, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, ovvero la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali e degli elementi multimediali disponibili sul sito della Camera dei deputati è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte." (underline added) A cc-by 3.0 claim on dati.camera.it and an explicit non-commercial claim on camera.it cannot simultaneously be true and, in the case of a contradiction, the plain language of the source government site prevails. Эlcobbola talk 17:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term abuse

Hi, Elcobbola, how are you? I see that you indeffed this user as an LTA. I've indeffed the same account on en.wp for block evasion, but wasn't aware of the LTA aspect. Can you give me any pointers to other usernames/related discussions/sockpuppet investigations in case further action is needed? – I'd be grateful! Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: this is Abdo Mitwally. Note that category is highly incomplete, as tagging stopped long ago per DENY and obvious user names. They may well have over 1000 socks; example common username "bases" include:
They primarily edit related to Egyptian actresses and news personalities. The en.wiki SPI is w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdo Mitwally/Archive. Эlcobbola talk 21:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – we live and learn! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Isha.Narain

Is there a criteria like CSD G5 where all the images uploaded by block evading users are deleted? FWIW, the articles where the images have been used will be deleted once the en wiki SPI is clsoed. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Commons, foolishly, does not have G5. I haven't looked at the images, but the process would generally be to nominate them for deletion as out-of-scope or as copyvios, if either is applicable. If this is indeed Y Tension, license laundering is highly likely; they tend to favour YouTube videos that display pre-existing photographs (i.e., the YouTuber is not the photographer) or that are simply reuploads of footage from another source. Эlcobbola talk 14:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elcobbola, could you please check if I have filed this SPI correctly? Its not listed on the main SPI page! Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

I'm in a WP-discussion at [6], and I wondered if you could tell/link me what pic this [7] was. It doesn't matter much, but curious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's this image. Эlcobbola talk 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. It's certainly nicer than the one I uploaded: File:Ewen Ferguson 2023.jpg Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nicer if you're not a vegan. Эlcobbola talk 16:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one was new to me, not bad at all. So, in this analogy, when I told User:Mamadancer on WP "Sorry, vegan only", she brought effing vegan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Jurajko444 has again engaged in adding copyright violation images after getting unblocked/block-expiry.

Thanks in advance. Agent 007 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Blocked again. Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Images

Hello, you gave me a warning on my page for posting multiple photos from Kevin Von Duuglas-Ittu who gave me permission in a private chat on Twitter. I messaged him to use the "Wikimedia VRT release generator", which he apparently did, so please don't remove anything. Briantcraven (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have read the numerous warnings or linked guidance provided to you. We do not accept "permission in a private chat on Twitter"; your uploads will be deleted if appropriate permission is not provided. You will be blocked if you continue to upload images without appropriate evidence. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be so cold. I read them and replied twice (which I never got a reply to) that I was uploading a lot of his work and would get "appropriate permission", which I believe has now been sent via the "Wikipedia VRT release generator", so I was hoping you could confirm. Briantcraven (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:VRT, linked numerous times on your talk page, includes "Each ticket will be reviewed by a volunteer. If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion", which I do not find unclear. You nevertheless approached me saying the author apparently sent permission "so please don't remove anything". I consider my response to be perfectly factual. That you perceive it as "cold" is tone policing, suggestive of illegitimacy, and of no interest to me. Your talk page is where users talk to you; that you received no reply there, especially to comments that demonstrate you've not read information provided ("I believe they'll be protected under fair use"), is not surprising. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured you were considered a "free volunteer" which is why I contacted you. I also said "apparently" because I linked him to the VRT page with all the info he needed, which he acknowledged, but that's all that I can factually say. See stuff like linking to "suggestive of illegitimacy" is exactly what I mean by being "cold" when I never called into question your authority. I'm just trying to help Wikipedia grow, and am still learning how everything works, so I've actually being reading a lot.
I received a reply before for a prior mistake so I figured others would reply to me there too. When I said "I believe they'll be protected under fair use", I was referring to a few pictures of deceased fighters taken decades ago for Thai magazines. There are already images uploaded, such as Saenklai_Sit_Kru_Od_with_Lumpinee_Stadium_belt.jpg, which use a similar argument so, yes, I actually have been doing research and reading information provided. Perhaps there is still a misunderstanding there but I can always learn. Thanks. Briantcraven (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second link didn't work like I intended, like I said still learning, but I took it from his Wiki page so it does exist. Briantcraven (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You came here to provide the idle speculation of "which he apparently did, so please don't remove anything", suggesting you'd not bothered to read COM:VRT. I advised you of the same. You purport all you know is that he acknowledged being advised of COM:VRT--fine, then, again, what is unclear about "If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified"? Did you not bother to read COM:VRT, despite it being linked numerous times on your talk page, before posting here? I don't know what you think a "free volunteer" is, why you made that supposition, or why you apparently think your files deserve special consideration over the thousands of others with uploaders who, despite being equally new, have had no such confusion and who are willing to wait their turn for permission to be processed. I don't know what are you seeking to accomplish here, but suggest your time would be better spent reading the guidance provided to you which, also again, you appear not to have done. Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest your time would be better spent reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Have a good rest of your day, bye. Briantcraven (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol neither of those links work either but you get the point Briantcraven (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an answer to my questions. Your links don't work because this is the Commons, not en.wiki; the latter's provisions do not apply here. Where have I said your intent is to harm the project, the premise of AGF? Do you realise it's more than a title? In short, I don't know what you're talking about, and you appear not to either. Эlcobbola talk 18:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you're still saying stuff like "you appear not to either". What did I do to deserve such disrespect?
The AGF literally says "it is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors" and "when dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law". Even if I didn't read all of what you said I didn't read, which I did, the behavior guidelines clearly don't agree with how you handled this conversation. Always assuming the worst of me. Briantcraven (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining why the links didn't work at least. Briantcraven (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of en.wiki provisions do not apply here was unclear? You want to be characterised as a newbie, yet are both aware of policies and so confident in your knowledge of them that you seek to lecture an admin of 16 years. You claim to be bitten, yet apparently not so maligned to continue coming here to my page over and over and over again--in fact, the only thing you've done for days. If you're so fond of en.wiki, kindly remain there. Maybe read w:WP:AAGF and w:WP:CIR. Эlcobbola talk 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was unclear as I was assuming you were trying to be helpful and explain that the links were hosted elsewhere. I mostly use the app for Wikipedia so "here" looks all the same to me right now and I didn't realize there was any meaningful distinction even when using the web. I joined 26 days ago so, yes, I am a newcomer. Your position doesn't change the fact we're both human and you've been nothing but harsh. I must still be confused because I found "Commons:Assume good faith" and "Commons: Talk page guidelines" with similar points? I'm coming back to your page because you keep replying to me. That list must not account for my multiple smaller edits since you started messaging me. I slowed down because I spent countless hours working on pages prior so I took a little break.
Regarding AAGF, I feel I've pointed out multiple examples of your disrespect. Regarding CIR, I agree we should always remember that "one of our core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith" and I feel I've made many competent decisions which hopefully others will help improve. Obviously I didn't realize the policy regarding images was so strict, as I got the permission I needed morally and thought I had time to upload a lot so I didn't have to repeatedly bother the photographer, but now I understand. Briantcraven (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It accounts for all edits. Stop coming here. Эlcobbola talk 23:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, have a good rest of your day. Briantcraven (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsigned"

My bad, I got the names mixed up. Sorry about that. Bedivere (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jermboy27

Greetings. It looks like we have two new socks; Manydeedsban777 and Monkong627. They're following the same pattern and have uploaded some questionable images, both pertaining to traffic signs in Iran which is a give away that they're related. Fry1989 eh? 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Confirmed (Manydeedsban777 was already globally locked). Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload

Pls How do i upload images found on the net ? Afrowriter (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're already familiar with the UploadWizard. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yea i meant to say how to get images downloaded from instagram or free domain website approved am kinda new Afrowriter (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have received many, many talk page notices--you should actually read them. One notice, for example, said "Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy" and you replied "noted thanks". Despite purporting to note the licensing policy, your latest upload is from a source that says "© All rights reserved". Being "kinda new" is no excuse to ignore information placed directly in front of you. Эlcobbola talk 13:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Elcobbola. I keep uploading photos to my wife, Andrea Deck's, wiki page but they keep getting taken down by you and others. Yes the headshot ones are on IMDB and other places, as she is an actress, but she owns the rights to the photos. After several warnings I decided to not bother with these anymore, so I uploaded a photo I took of her on my phone. You also warned me for this and took it down. I don't understand how my own photo can be a copyright infringement. Pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcondor21 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

There are presently at least four notices on your talk page that link to guidance on this issue. Why have you not read them? Why do you think calling me "dude" and shouting would make me interested in assisting you? Why, when Andrea's husband is named David, and you've uploaded works purported to be yours but in truth by "Adam [Hills]", do you think we would believe your statements? Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Hills is the headshot photographer, and he gives the rights to his clients afterwards to use as their own headshots. I'm sorry I was upset I just am trying to give her a nice profile photo. I thought uploading a personal photo this time would have sorted out the issue and that's why I was mad, I apologize. Ironcondor21 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see I will have to get Adam to explicitly transfer the rights to us in writing. But the latest photo I uploaded is mine as I am the photographer, and I don't see where exactly I violated the "Commons:But it's my own work!" page. Ironcondor21 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:But it's my own work! includes "1. The file is my own work, and it has been previously published on another website, including social media. In that case, you will need to update the posting on that other website to add a free license or email us a license release; please read Commons:Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for details on the procedure." (underline added) This is applicable as your most recent upload was previously published here, as I noted. Note also that the former option (update the posting on that other website) will not be applicable as that Instagram account belongs to the subject, whereas copyright initially vests in the author. You, as the author, will need to email evidence using the VRT process, which could include a high resolution version of the image with intact EXIF. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok yes I see! Thank you for clarifying this for me, I very much appreciate it and I appreciate your patience! Ironcondor21 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass F10 tagging

Hello,

In my most recent DR, you closed with a note to avoid using DR for F10s. The challenge is that we don't have (to my knowledge) an easy way to use VFC (or similar) to tag groups of files for speedy deletion and fulfill notification requirements. I'm unsure if such a tool exists publicly due to abuse potential, but would love to find such a tool. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VFC can do this. Choose "prepend any text, notify uploaders" as the action, and then enter "{{SD|F10}}" or similar as the text. Эlcobbola talk 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Removed Is FreeToUse as stated by the author himself.

Hello Sir, I am unable to understand why my images are being removed, despite the fact that i have all the copyright notices. The images are free to use and are listed on multiple websites and even on the official websites of the person i am referring to. He clearly states that the images are free to use for media and news references. I am new to wikipedia and i fail to use the tools correctly, please guide me through the same. Mainly my motive was to update the information about the places i've been to or people about whom i have had enough information like the sitting members of parliament of my region and the villages or small towns in my region who share good history. Thanks.

links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Praveen_Singh.png&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MachhrehtaWiki_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MachhrehtaWiki_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MachhrehtaWiki_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 Kshitij Vats 001 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues, and remedies, have been communicated to you numerous times on both your talk page and at your UDR request. Your comment here suggests you have not read the guidance provided to you. Эlcobbola talk 12:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Isha.Narain

Hi, I don't think a CU is necessary for Sai Abyabakar (quite a duck), but this needs to be closed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was never opened--no {{Rfcu box}} or transclusion at RFCU--but I've processed it, and agree its a duck. @Jeraxmoira: I apologise for not seeing your comment; in the future, please carefully follow the instructions at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox. Эlcobbola talk 14:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elcobbola!

I am Normalman0903, I have a question that there are a lot of previous photos that are creditted like I did with the sources from the same company. I've carefully creditted all the photos I uploaded but I was warned to violate the rules although I creditted carefully like the others did. For example, I creditted the photos like the one I attached the link here but I can't understand why I was warned to be blocked. I am not intention to be stubborn because I just want upload the newest photos for the artists for people to realize them easily. I apologize for uploading them many times, I've read both the warnings and guidance so I tried to credit them carefully. I can't truly understand the reason so I hope a soon reply from you to understand the reason, thank you! And after the warning from you for the file of Duy Khánh ATVNCG2024.png, I am committed that I won't upload anything else, if you see the others, those are the ones I've uploaded before. Thank you for reading and considering!

File:SOOBIN HOÀNG SƠN 2.png Normalman0903 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was your response to the notice for File:Tự Long.jpg, I'll use that image as an example: when you see the rationale "Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1)", what makes you think it is an issue of attribution? (You've said it no less than five times (!!!) in your brief comment: "there are a lot of previous photos that are creditted like I did"; "I've carefully creditted all the photos"; "I creditted the photos like the one I attached"; "I've read the warnings so I tried to credit them carefully") There's no free license at your source. Why do you think merely giving credit frees you from our core requirement of freeness? The warnings you say you've read include "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (emphasis in original); where is the "noted otherwise" at your source? Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! I am committed for not posting anything else here after your latest warning! Normalman0903 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local blocks of globally blocked IP ranges

Hi,

I noticed a few your IP range blocks that duplicate global blocks; is there any reason for them?

Eg. for this block the corresponding global block is set earlier, expires later, and is even more restrictive.

Is your intention to direct blocked users to our VRT support team instead of stewards? Just wondering.

Ankry (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That block is a year old; it's too dated to recall a specific reason. Generally, having local logs makes tracking LTAs much easier, especially relative to cross-referencing CU data. And of course not: VRT is not an ersatz UTRS. Blocked users should not be using VRT relative to their blocks and VRT volunteers should not be indulging them if they do. Эlcobbola talk 17:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided this block just as an example; no need to know the exact reason. My question was just about blocking policy/practice. AFAIR, the practice was not to duplicate global blocks - so my doubts raised here. UTRS has nothing to do here: it is not a part of Commons block appealing policy. Our block message directs users to VRT. (To be precise as we talk about IP range blocks, "blocked users" means not-logged-in users operating from the blocked network.) Ankry (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that you raised a question about policy, or even a concern ("just wondering") The blocking policy is here, and it does not prohibit local blocks that duplicate global blocks. Accordingly, I have no intention of changing my practice. (That you used a year-old example tells you something about how frequently it occurs.) Эlcobbola talk 01:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says: blocking is designed to be a preventative measure. Duplicate blocks prevent nothing. Ankry (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to that tortured interpretation. If, however, you actually read the whole line, instead of omitting relevant prose and context, "designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one" you would understand it be speaking in relative terms, not a prohibition of "redundancy" (and, as I explained, having local logs makes tracking LTAs much easier, especially relative to cross-referencing CU data, which is absolutely preventative.) Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that we both will stick to our opinions. IMO, using blocks just as specific markers as you mentioned is overinterpretation of the blocking policy. This is not the role of blocks even if they may be useful for this purpose. And as effectively no-op double blocks sometimes mislead innocent users directing them to VRT instead of eg. m:NOP (users see the local block message instead of the global block message), I reserve the right to release them if they are actually misleading a particular IP user. Ankry (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The block is a year old. I told you I don't recall the reason. I might have missed the global lock. It might have been before global locks were displayed locally. I might have had a compelling reason for the local log. I gave you the latter as a possible affirmative example. I am perfectly allowed to block ranges being abused on the Commons without consideration of what meta is doing. You, of course, have failed to produce additional examples ("few your IP range blocks"), have failed to tether your opinion to policy (apparently becoming a habit), and have failed to demonstrate any harm. The blocking policy includes "Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases" (bold in original), so I reserve the right to reinstate out-of-process unblocks. Эlcobbola talk 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:AsYouWish13#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Pinky Monkey.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:AsYouWish13#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Pinky Monkey.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context for LTA blocks

Regarding Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Telepaws, is there a known oldest account name for the two previous accounts that you'd blocked for "long-term abuse"? The user's now socking on enwiki as Telepaws/Saberamir and I'm wondering if there's an existing sock master I should be opening an SPI against. Belbury (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is King.godrat. Эlcobbola talk 11:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks, and thanks for the deleting and blocking. Belbury (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK RFS

how will logo get back and why suddenly deleted Cenderabird (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EU multimedia

Hey there. I asked about this on the Commons:Help desk, but I guess I can also ask someone on their talk page. The following text will just be pasted from the help desk :) "I have been wondering. So, I have been uploading images from the European Commission as I know those images are okay to upload on to Commons. Recently, I have also seen images from the European Parliament being uploaded under the European Union Government license. So my question is if it's also alright to upload these images as well? There are some images like these ones dating back to 2006 for example, and some even way back to 1995. Are each and every one okay to use?" Bakir123 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{European Union Government}} is only applicable "to public documents produced by the Commission or by public and private entities on its behalf" (bold added) [8]. The European Parliament is not The European Commission, and evidence that the former was acting on the latter's behalf for a given document would be required. The European Parliament copyright terms set forth:

"As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." (bold added)

These are not acceptable conditions, as we require commerical useage and unrestricted derivative works ("the entire item is reproduced") As some data have different conditions, works must ultimately be independently evaluated. Эlcobbola talk 14:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering, and sorry for me taking so long to reply. What about, for example, this image, or in general all these images under the {{European Union Government}} license? It has the same license as the images I asked about outlined in the Info section. Bakir123 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an undeletion.

"Creative Commons free for reuse" is an adequate indication of permission, given that it is at the source. Please do not revert an undeletion without a discussion about it first Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" also describes CC-by-NC and CC-by-ND. This is why COM:L requires a specific license. Do not speedy grant UDR requests over clear opposition. Эlcobbola talk 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamegirilite

Hi, Could you please confirm this IP claim? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demande deblocage Compte Newbie

Bonjour @Elcobbola J'ai commence un travail avec de nouveaux utilisateurs parmi lesquels Guieda Anaveri dont le compte ou adresse IP a ete bloque pour proxy ouvert. Il serait interessant svp de me tenir informe du processus pour que cet utilisateur puisse retrouver ses acces afin de travailler sereinement. Bile rene (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlas_Þə_Biologist

On September 15, you warned User:Atlas_Þə_Biologist that they would be blocked if they continued to upload copyright violations. They are continuing to upload images that have licenses incompatible with Commons. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro I didn’t say that I took the pic picture this time I said where I got the image and the person to took the image so it isn’t a copyright violation. Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola&oldid=955768095"