User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 11

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

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on this wiki. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on this wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

  • I apologize for posting in English.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request File:Paises con mayoría cristiana.svg

In File:Paises con mayoría cristiana.svg, could you correct Azerbaijan because it is erroneously shown as a Christian majority country? The percentage of Christians in Azerbaijan is below 5% according to various academic sources and research companies. (It is shown as a nominally Muslim Shiite majority country in these sources, but it ranks among the least religious/most irreligious countries in the world according to these same sources as well.)

Sources: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/table-christian-population-as-percentages-of-total-population-by-country/ and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/aj.html

Thank you. Artoxx (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that I have ever edited this file. I have no knowledge of it, its content matter, or its sources and, frankly, have no interest. You will need to ask for assistance elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request File:Christian States.svg and File:State Religions.svg

In File:Christian States.svg and File:State Religions.svg can you remove Argentina, Moldova, Slovakia and Cyprus because they do not have state religions?

Sources:

Section 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution of Moldova: http://www.presedinte.md/eng/constitution

Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Slovakia: https://www.prezident.sk/upload-files/46422.pdf

Article 18 of the Constitution of Cyprus: http://www.presidency.gov.cy/presidency/presidency.nsf/all/1003AEDD83EED9C7C225756F0023C6AD/$file/CY_Constitution.pdf

Argentina does not have a state religion. According to Section 2 of the Constitution of Argentina,"The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion." but does not stipulate an official state religion, nor a separation of church and state: http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/argentina-constitution.pdf

Thank you. Artoxx (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that I have ever edited these files. I have no knowledge of them, their content matter, or their sources and, frankly, have no interest. You will need to ask for assistance elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elcobbola !

So, "File:Carte des sites du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle.jpg" was one of my maps on [1] (the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle was my workplace). I have not upload this map on Commons, but I improve it on Commons. I do for Commons another map here [2].
It is not necessary to advertise me when someone as Túrelio delete my uploads, for two reasons : a.- when I receive the advertising, the image is already deleted and the discussion is closed ; b.- I'm retired.
I take this message to ask you, please, to look here [3] to see that the people who share the IP 86.241.208.119 are real persons, our little team, and not "sockpuppets". Thank you.
Good continuation, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just making a comment, (received a mail by this user saying there was some issue), having met this user a few years ago, he is probably telling the truth, despite his poor history of uploads. Now I don't have neither the will nor the time to sort things out... Esby (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esby, yes, I am very much aware that the accounts are operated by distinct individuals rather than a single person. We do not have specific templates for meat-puppetry (as opposed to sock-puppetry), so templates may give a false impression. This is, however, a distinction without a difference; abusive use of multiple accounts, whether technically operated by a single person (sock-puppetry) or multiple people (meat-puppetry), is not allowed, and sanctions are identical. Indeed, in this instance, the accounts are unambiguously being operated in coordination, and in a disruptive manner (recreation of copyright violating content); for example:
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Portrait de Roger Heim (dessin).jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Roger Heim.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Pr. Francois Doumenge.jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Francois Doumenge.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
Spiridon Ion Cepleanu uploads c:File:Jacques_Fabries.jpg, deleted as copyvio.
Mélomène uploads c:File:Jacques Fabriès.jpg, a photo-manipulated version of the Spiridon Ion Cepleanu image, deleted as copyvio.
The disregard of copyright law by this group of people is, frankly, reprehensible. That multiple individuals are involved is no excuse; in fact, it makes it all that much worse. Эlcobbola talk 02:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, are those files exact copyvios ? (I am not admin anymore) are those coming from their work place archive with a 'grey' status (photograph taken by a co worker or an unknown photographier years ago etc.) ? (I assume they are old teachers not knowing or applying copyright laws to the letter. Esby (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of problematic (copyvio) images, so particular issues are varied and certainly not confined to your example. For example, taking images from Google Streetview is rather blatantly unacceptable in my estimation, so this is not an issue of "'grey' status" or pedantry ("laws to the letter"). Regarding the former, as I presume you know, our requirement of evidence and prohibition of reasoning along the line lines of "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" and "The file is obviously common property" means the grey is ultimately no better than the black and white. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I send the user an e-mail explaining they (people at his workplace who are banned) should put the content they's want to transfer on Commons on their website, with appropriate documentation proving it is free content, so people who wish to transfer some material can do it after verifying it. Esby (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wharf Dilemma

Hi, is the list o linked accounts public somewhere? And if it is not, can it be? Ankry (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged known related accounts and created Category:Sockpuppets_of_Thepoliticsexpert. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essays

Hi. I like your essays. Would you be opposed to making them draft guidelines to avoid the potent counter-argument "That's just an essay"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a consideration when I wrote the models essay (and I believe there is related discussion on its talk page); however, I ultimately decided not to take that route for a variety of reasons. As only one example, I think the referenced counter argument is quite the opposite of potent. A good (potent) argument succeeds on its merits, not on its label (essay, guideline, policy). In fact, someone saying "that's just an essay" has fallen into something of a trap; arguing labels immediately betrays the position as weak and not engaged with the issue. In a sense, status as a "mere" essay can serve as a honey pot. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Nuf said.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. I received an e-mail like this: "Someone (probably you, from IP address 66.87.153.88) requested a reset of your password for MediaWiki (<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki>). The following user account is associated with this email address:

Username: E4024

Temporary password: (I erased it.)

This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password."

I just saw this. It is two weeks old. The IP looks like in the USA. I have not been there since long. Can this be an address used in Turkey? What? I really do not remember the last time I changed my password, but it's a "strong" one and I see no suspicious edits, AFAICS. Should I do anything? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not need to do anything if you did not make the request. Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @E4024: Just someone who is bullying you. Anyone in the world can go to Special:PasswordReset and enter your username. - Alexis Jazz 01:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I asked it to Elcobbola also -other than to learn what to do- to see if they could discover who did that. --E4024 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, CU policy does not allow us to run such a check (it would be fishing), as we require some evidence of a relationship between accounts, be they users or IPs. In the case of a bogus password reset, for example, we could check if there were multiple IPs involved, as then there would be a behavioural relationship. One IP, however, is not at the threshold for CU involvement; checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. FWIW, this does not appear related to the Eaglezero case, which is recent, and indeed you note the request is some weeks old. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I never thought Eaglezero was in the States. I thought more of a relation between them and an IP with similar attitude from Germany; but frankly, since I myself have suffered from blocks and this kind of checks in the past, as a principle I do not ask anything (blocks, etc) against people even when they insult me. I was a bit angry at Eaglezero because they did not act honestly (I would prefer them to come and tell me what was wrong with my files or edits that they needed to attack me) and also for they have no useful edits in Commons (I mean under this name. :) I take things with humour... Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misread something.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=297096033&oldid=297095422

It just dawned on me that when you said "This is a lazy, ill-informed report and deserves a trouting." you may have been referring to the deletion reports, not my user problem report.

If this is the case I'm sorry. - Alexis Jazz 21:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Alexis Jazz: It may help you both to know that PR was banned from French Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio sock farm

Hi, there's a copyvio sock farm here that only uses IPs on en.wiki to place pictures. Romeliawiki (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) and Rachellwiki (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) are the latest two, I don't know the earlier ones as the images are deleted but the ips used to spam these copyvios on en.wiki are in a /18 range around 112.134.6.229, I think that's too much collateral damage for a rangeblock (at least on en.wiki), but could you take a look here please? As it's getting tiresome having to tag individual copyvios from this farm. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged, blocked, and nuked the uploads of these accounts--see Category:Sockpuppets of Shajeevanwiki--and added a range block. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could Mittalwiki be part of that farm as well? Copyvio image uploads related in Indian films/television. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, both as a technical matter and Mittalwiki's uploads are promotional in nature (e.g., official ads, etc.) whereas Shajeevanwiki socks generally upload random pictures of actors with disparate contexts. I suspect the name similarity is just a coincidence. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciate the check. The coincidence seemed pretty odd, but sometimes it is what it is! Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is way more than I expected! —SpacemanSpiff 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, blocked and nuked. Much obliged. Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Deletion

Hey just saw the deletion request and the reason why. I totally understand about the overload of pictures on that category but I request one picture remain and that would be the one titled Semi-erect Uncircumcised Penis and my reasoning is I have looked through the pictures available on that subject and many are not available that truly depicts that and I think it would definitely be beneficial to keep it and use it on pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomymaster1017 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Anatomymaster1017: Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anatomymaster1017 instead.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caricatures in art

Hi. I think other than categorization mistakes, there is a red user farm around this and similar files. I avoid reverting them again, because one of your colleagues warned me for edit waring (sic) which I was not making (see my TP :). I could show edit warring to anybody who wishes to see real edit warring, but that is another story. (BTW can I make caricatures of one or two admins without fear of anything? No, no I won't. :-) Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "red user farm" or disruptive editing related to this file. The majority of this message seems to be dancing around a grudge with other admins; perhaps the composition time would have been better spent detailing the farm, because I'm not entirely sure what the issue here is. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any grudge with admins; but it is a fact that lately a couple of them -in my case- confused their own edits with their administrative functions. Whatever, I have not spent any time in composition, because I generally write very quickly, and as I feel. I wish everybody was as transparent as me. As regards red users, I'm kind of "receptive" to probable "sleepers" since some time; but of course just like anybody else I may be mistaken. Thanks for your time and kind reply. --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo d'Albert Fleury

Hi Elcobbola,
You've deleted Photo_d'Albert_Fleury.jpg uploaded by @Koakoa: . I knew Koakoa, I met her during a Wikipedia workshop I conducted in Moulins' library (France) last January and we kept in touch. Koakoa do not understand english so she was unable to give her arguments in the delation process page. She is closed to Albert Fleury family and the photo she uploaded was given by one of the Fleury's family member with free licence to illustrate the French Wikipedia article. What do you need to restore the photo (more complete information, OTRS mail) ? Thanks.
TCY (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCY, we would require evidence that the photographer has released this image under a free license. Although a family member ("the photo she uploaded was given by one of the Fleury's family member") may own the physical property (a photo), that is distinct from owning the intellectual property (a copyright). We need permission from the owner of the actual copyright, which would be 1) the photographer him/herself or 2) the Albert Fleury family iff they have a written conveyance from the photographer transferring copyrights to them. Either would need to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanimation15

I plan to unblock this user per AGF. Of course I will provide another warning about OTRS. While the sockpuppetry is problematic, new and especially non-technical users are often overwhelmed by the process and make poor decisions.

Please let me know if you have any objection. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: As I indicated on the user's talk, Wanimation15 relates to Wizart Animation and is thus a violation of COM:IU. If you wish to unblock the Ormsnow account, however, I would not object if there is an indication that they have now read and understand the appropriate policies. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ragnarkhorrangoren

Hi Elcobbola. It's possible that Arthur Brum is back as Ragnarkhorrangor and is trying to upload more questionable images of en:Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza. Another editor (DrKay) has tagged the account with {{Sock}}, but I'm wordering if a formal SPI needs to be started. FWIW, DrKay is an Wikipedia admin and en:User:Ragnarkhorrangor has been checkuser confirmed to be a scok of Arthur Brum on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'd figured I ask you sine you have been previously involved with dealing with Arthur Brum socks and have indef'd a few which have been previously found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've commented at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Brum. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Asperger deletion

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Asperger ca 1940.tif

So would {{PD-Germany-§134}} apply? This seems to have been closed very speedily, preventing proper discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. COM:L and COM:EVID, among others, require appropriate information to support the claimed license. That license relies on date of publication, which is not date of creation; at best we know the latter. (Indeed, that this image was described as "from his personnel file, ca. 1940," strongly suggests it was in fact not published in 1940, but at a later, perhaps posthumous, date.) If, for the sake of argument, we were to assume a 1940 publication date and the validity of {{PD-Germany-§134}}, the image would have become PD in Germany 01.01.2011 (1940 + 70 + 1). Works on the Commons, however, are required to be free in both their country of origin and the United States, if different (COM:L). Per COM:HIRTLE, foreign works solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date (01.01.1996) have a copyright term of 95 years from publication; accordingly, even if {{PD-Germany-§134}} were valid, this would not be PD (free) in the US until 01.01.2036 (1940 + 95 + 1). As an aside: I spent a great deal of time searching for a free image of Asperger related to this discussion and am likely more familiar than most with this particular image's lack of support for a PD claim.
As for your comment, the file was uploaded with an unambiguously inappropriate/incorrect license claim - a belief you and the uploader share. Such cases are explicitly allowed to be closed earlier than seven days (COM:DR). If you wish to discuss PD options, you have the village pump, UDR (for if/when you have actual support for a PD claim) and indeed my above comments on this very page. The purport that the closure somehow "prevent[ed] proper discussion" is disingenuous hyperbole. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Chyah

Hello.
Sorry to break into your userspace, but first just a little wish. If you are unwilling to have involvement with the stuff specified below, then please, say soon that you won’t do the thing. In such a case I will press Trijnstel into doing the job, although it is less preferable to me – not only due to her demeanor, but also because I have a good estimate for your admin skills, seeing you to unblock accounts wrongly identified as puppets.

During the last 14 hours Chyah (Sonia Sevilla) surrendered three puppets: one due to a tantrum on Commons and two directly to me via an off-wiki channel. Of these three puppets none were blocked or tagged by you. Those caught by you did promotion of one male singer from Iran. Wikipedians deem that Sonia is the sockmaster for those spam accounts, but who of responsible admins did see the raw data? We know, e.g. from the story with Solomon203 or Thecreativejanet–Gotole incident, that Wikipedians may not be trusted blindly, without verification. It is known that government of the Islamic Republic of Iran restricts a regular Internet access to many Wikimedia pages. It causes users to evade censorship via proxies, and the use of proxies can lead to occasional IP intersections of unrelated users.

Can you please look at the data available on Commons and do your best to determine whether the accounts constitute two distinct clusters? You know, the SPI case is already underway. If two clusters can be delimited, then the category should be split to the socks of Chyah proper and the Iranian singer’s spammers. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the present I will not be having further involvement, no. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Wikipedian “masters” will discern and appreciate this furious show of loyalty to their groupthink, but I received the signal. Have no idea which wonderfully “strong” evidence against Solomon203 they mined (and presumably presented at checkuser.wikimedia and/or in the mail list) or whose ideas about the “clueless contributor Incnis Mrsi” do you reiterate. But you certainly see a very skewed picture of me – beware poorly founded conclusions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Village pump #To_make_checkusers_work_for_Commons. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Serbia

Hi. I need a favor. I noticed that the Flag of Serbia has been converted from cdr with low drawing precision and because of that there are jugged lines if you zoom at the crown (zoom in completely). I have converted a cdr to svg with better drawing precision and better optimized from here http://www.parlament.gov.rs/narodna-skupstina-/vazna-dokumenta.935.html to save you the trouble. You can find the svg here https://www.mediafire.com/file/3xe8704xslzeg0m/Sebia-State-Flag.svg (I've upload it on mediafire because there is no svg vector on the website), can you replace it with the current one IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT!!! ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo turns you down, then Ankry turns you down, and now you come to me, who knows nothing of vexillology or of Serbia. I truly don't know why you've contacted me about this--you've not even bothered to provide a file name--but it's an area about which I have no knowledge or interest. If you need assistance from an admin, a noticeboard is here, as Ankry already advised you. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Amanbisauri

Hello friend you are saying that I had copied images but my friend those are my own creations (File:SGRPG College (B.com faculty) 02.jpg File:SGRPG College (B.com faculty) 01.jpg and some other like this)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbisauri (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

These images were previously published on the the SGRPG College Facebook page and, as such, require COM:OTRS permission. (I understand you know how to use section headers, link files, and sign posts; please extend me that courtesy going forward.) Эlcobbola talk 20:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That facebook post was mine. Anyone click pictures of it will look like same. Even this was also mine (File:Aman Singh Raghuvanshi .jpg)

Comment from Monika Kocięba

Elcobbola Dear Sir, the photos I loaded were legal. I have written permission from the author for their publication in Wikimedia with the appropriate license.

Sincerely, Monika Kocięba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika Kocięba (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kocięba, if you have permission, it will need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Note that being in someone's collection ("those pictures are private pictures of composer Ryszard Szeremeta who gave me them" [4]) is not adequate. Permission must come from the party (usually author) who holds the intellectual property rights, not the mere physical property rights. (I understand you know how to use section headers and sign posts; please extend me that courtesy going forward.) Эlcobbola talk 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logótipo OE com Fundo.png

Hi Elcobbola, wäre es für dich o.k., wenn ich die o.g. Datei wiederherstelle, weil der Hochlader - nach meiner Aufforderung (User_talk:Túrelio#File:Logótipo_OE_com_Fundo.png) - inzwischen eine Genehmigung an OTRS erwirkt hat[5] ? Da deren Warteschlange derzeit bei 99 Tagen liegt, müsste er andernfalls ewig warten bis die Datei wiederhergestellt wird. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. von mir aus! Эlcobbola talk 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you removal mistaken entry to Wikipedia Commons Page

"Hello! I noticed that you tried to create a Wikipedia article on Commons. Please note that Commons is not Wikipedia, and does not host encyclopedia content - Commons only hosts media (photographs, videos, etc). "

Thank you for removing the page I accidentally created under Wikipedia Commons. My apologies, it was my mistake placing in the wrong section, i thought I was editing in the regular Wikipedia page.

Noticed you moved my reply to proper location of newest at the bottom. My apologies again, no need for a reply.

--CRTGAMER (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC) CRTGAMWER[reply]

Victor Gibby

Hi, Elcobbola, I'd like to personally thank you your understanding about Victor. I firmly believe that he's one of many that simply do not understand well the rules and need help. Most of the times, there're not enough hands to help and it's simply not possibly to cope with them but with a block. Hopefully we can add a fruitful contributor. Best regards --Discasto talk 12:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Putting this here to avoid attention. (feel free to revdel this edit)

[6] [7]

Note the tags. I have more if needed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologizes for posting in English.

Deleted images

Hi Elcobbola,

There are some images you deleted as copyright violations asked for undeletion by the author. It would be greatfull if you take some time from your schedule and have a look at ticket:2018081710007753. The request seems to be sended by @Okiehistory: to OTRS team. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiven2240, a couple of things: the OTRS queue, as I'm sure you know, is quite backlogged; as we've only just received this ticket 17 August, it would be unfair to the others who have been waiting patiently to process it out-of-turn. Second, even if it were to be processed now, it is not a valid ticket. Permission must come from the copyright holder (e.g., photographer), not the mere subject. For us to accept permission from the subject, they must provide evidence (e.g., written conveyance) that the author transferred rights to them. Эlcobbola talk 10:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with COM:UA

Hello Elcobboba, I take the freedom to trouble you about your closure yesterday of some DR on design furniture. For example, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Butaca Vallvidrera.jpg considering it was "likely a useful article". There are two aspects of concern to me.

  1. According to Commons:Licensing, "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work". As you probably know, the utilitarian approach to copyright is foreign to European copyright law, particularly in Spain [8] and even in the UK, since the repeal of section 52 of the CDPA [9].
  2. Notwithstanding the above, in the US, "an artistic feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article" per Mazer v. Stein and more recently Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.. In particular for design furniture, this has been confirmed by Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Collezione Europa, USA, Inc [10].

I am concerned that the wording of COM:UA could be misleading in that respect, as it might lead some closing admins to assume design furniture is not copyrightable on the sheer basis of the utility function, despite non US origin or eligibility in the US in view of aesthetic features. What do you think? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that COM:UA is not well written, which is the case with nearly all copyright guidance on the Commons, which is why I occasionally write essays in particularly underdeveloped and misunderstood areas. I am admittedly not well-versed in Spanish copyright law; your cites, however, were not presented in the DR, which seems a material omission.
Speaking to United States law, I would disagree that Star Athletica would apply, as this particular piece does not have imprinted designs and thus would not be subject to the same (germane) consideration of conceptual separability. Similarly, Mazer dealt with lamps whose bases were statuettes. In both cases, those works (graphic designs in Star Athletica and statuettes Mazer) were not necessary for or fundamental to the utilitarian function of the greater object (overly simplified: a uniform need not be decorated to function as clothing; ergo, the decoration is conceptually separable. A lamp need not have a statuette base to light a room; ergo, the statuette is conceptually separable.) Further, the subject in Universal Furniture was decorative sculptural designs on the furniture, not the furniture itself ("Universal sought copyright protection in the '[o]riginal decorative designs appearing on suites of furniture'"). Turning now to the piece in question: I do not see any conceptually separability elements to this chair. You may wish to read this section of my awards essay. The Kieselstein-Cord case mentioned there is probably your "best bet" in this circumstance, but you would need to establish that this chair's utility as furniture is subordinate to a decorative role; that is, however, not a notion I currently find persuasive. Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your considerate answer is very appreciated. I do not claim to own a truth on the appropriate way to apply the US doctrine of conceptual separability to any of the pieces of furniture for which you closed DRs recently. My concerns are the followings:
  • These pieces are coming from Spain, exhibited in Spain in a design museum, with related articles on the Catalan Wikipedia and existing litterature on their originality, all of which create a presumption of entitlement to copyright in Spain. I do not think you need to be an expert in Spanish copyright law to realize such creations are copyrighted in Europe. Per Commons:Licensing, as quoted above, their copyrightability should be analysed first in Spain, in view of Spanish and European copyright laws (Directive 98/71 and European Court of Justice jurisprudence). I am sure you are familiar with the European notion of cumulative protectability by design law and copyright law.
  • If US copyright alone should have been considered, which was not the case, I suggest your rationale should have been a failure to pass the separability test and not the sheer fact these are useful objects.
Thanks, — Racconish 💬 06:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggest your rationale should have been a failure to pass the separability test and not the sheer fact these are useful objects." This seems a non sequitur. When a work "fails" the test, the components, by definition, cannot be separated and thus, in this context, the entire work is considered utilitarian. Accordingly, to say "failure to pass the separability test" is preferable to "this is a useful object" (which, in fact, I did not say: "likely a useful article" is very much a different assertion) is to make a distinction without a difference (indeed all furniture is sculptural and inherently a separability failure - this is germane). On the topic of Spain, if I was not explicit before: if you are aware of a unique or uncommon legal treatment in the instant jurisdiction, and fail to make any reference to it, there is no fault in the closing admin not referencing what was not presented. Эlcobbola talk 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree I should have been more explicit about European copyright. — Racconish 💬 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny84

Nur zur Kenntnisnahme: de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme/Problem mit Srittau und Elcobbola auf Commons (und dazugehörige talk page). Wurde bereits von den dewiki-Admins als off topic abgewiesen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaum zu glauben... Эlcobbola talk 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Нужна помощь

Здравствуйте. Я новичок и никак не могу разобраться с вопросом загрузки изображений. Мной создавалась страничка "Чудо-Юдо" (мультфильм). Постер загружала с сайта "Кинопоиск", ссылку на источник указала, а файл все равно удалили. Обосновали, что это не свободный файл - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Puancetia Как загрузить файл и где прописать, что он не свободный, чтобы его не удалили? В мастере загрузки не нашла ничего похожего, не понимаю как добавить постер к описанию :( Буду очень благодарна за помощь! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puancetia (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you've since gotten guidance elsewhere. You may also want to consider posting questions to Commons:Форум in the future. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Adm.nnov.ru

Alexey Trefilov answered you, can we leave? Панн (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josh Hawley Official Attorney General Portrait.png

Hi Elcobbola. You deleted this image recently as a copyvio, but assuming it was the same as the image on this page (I'm not a Commons admin, so can't check), would {{PD-USGov}} or one of its derivatives not be applicable? There's a OTRS ticket complaining that its deletion is some nefarious plot to turn voters against him; it would be nice to be able to go back to them with a definitive answer as to why it was deleted (or restore it, if PD does actually apply). Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC) PS. please ping me when you respond, as I don't visit Commons all that often. Thanks![reply]

@Yunshui: 1) {{PD-USGov}} is for works of the federal government (created by federal employees in the normal course of their duties). It is not applicable to state works (Josh Hawley is the AG of Missouri, although there isn't even evidence this is a Missouri work, let alone CC-by-SA-4.0 as claimed by the uploader); 2) The uploader is a globally blocked serial copyvio uploader and sockpuppeteer (I don't see the ticket, so it must be in a queue to which I don't have access; presuming the sender is the uploader, the OTRS ticket is trolling); and 3) If it helps ease their delusion: I am not an American, have never been to Missouri, have no knowledge of Hawley or his politics, and thus have no plot against him (but do sincerely wonder about the implication that Missouri voters are so fickle as to base important civic duties on the presence of images in en.wiki articles). COM:AGF may well be yet another policy the uploader is violating. Эlcobbola talk 13:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. I'm a Brit, so not especially familiar with the way US government agencies operate - wasn't aware of the federal/state distinction. Thanks for the explanation, it's much appreciated. Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 13:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: I'm not sure how closely you're following this, but I understand you're an en.wiki CU. You may wish to look at Natureofthought there. Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 (who's pretty good at what he does, and is familiar with the case to boot) has already run a check earlier today; given that he hasn't taken any action I think it's fair to assume that there's nothing obvious in the results. I'm therefore not planning to run another check unless there's some clearer evidence, though I'll keep an eye open... Thanks for the heads-up nonetheless. Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: Ah, that's consistent with my Commons check. The account has more edits on en.wiki, a bigger sample set, so just curious whether there was anything there. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zozr

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zozr789&diff=324144837&oldid=324034417

Why no indefblock? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that link was not information provided and I am, in fact, not omniscient. Эlcobbola talk 19:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappoint! Actually I thought most admins kept track of ANU/ANV/etc. The socking info only became available after my last edit on the talk page, I didn't think I had to add it as the case was already on ANU. Thanks for dealing with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNODC definition of homicide.png

Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNODC definition of homicide.png

Hello. I am assuming you looked at page 102 of the NC (no commercial use) copyrighted PDF where this chart image was directly copied from:

Are you saying I can copy any chart from that document and claim it is in the public domain?

I thought that facts could not be copyrighted, but presentation of those facts could be copyrighted.

So that has meant one had to change a copyrighted chart by moving around its columns and rows, changing column head wording, deleting and/or adding columns and rows. And so on. Something has to be changed in its presentation.

Then I could upload the chart to the Commons with a Commons-appropriate free copyright. Am I wrong?

It is a flow chart or diagram. It is not a simple logo as described in Commons:Threshold of originality. And it is not a trademark.

And Template:PD-shape does not apply, because it is not even a shape. It is a flow chart or diagram, with text. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verily, facts are not eligible for copyright protection; a presentation of facts can potentially be eligible for copyright protection iff it is sufficiently original. This presentation is not. For example, the copyright office identifies as "designs not subject to protection" those that are “staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary.” This presentation is a mere drop-line chart--common, prevalent, and ordinary, especially in genealogy. Further, "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work" (17 U.S.C. § 102(b)) A mere simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements does not demonstrate the level of creativity necessary to warrant protection. I do not see, and you have not identified, a "creative spark" (Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) or anything beyond "mere trivial variation" (Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. , 191 F.2d 99, 102-03 (2d Cir. 1951)) of a drop-line chart. Although not authoritative like my previous references, you may find this page has more specific germane examples than COM:TOO. Эlcobbola talk 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing things up. This is a great page that needs to be copied to the Commons if we can get the owners to release it under CC-BY:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120801211652/https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook
The non-free images could be uploaded under Fair Use just for use on that page.
I will try to link to that page from some chart resource pages on the Commons. For example:
Commons:Chart and graph resources
There are many charts that could be uploaded to the Commons right now instead of waiting on someone to create one specifically for the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons does not allow fair use for any purpose (see COM:FU). Even en.wiki, which generally allows fair use, does not allow non-free images to be used for guidance pages (which was a hurdle illustrating my guide to reviewing non-free images there). That said, there's no need for fair use. "Copyleft" images on the Commons are still copyrighted (they've merely relinquished some, not all, of those rights) and thus are able to demonstrate threshold distinctions (e.g., for a hypothetical Commons version, the mouse in this chart could be replaced by this mouse--and the same done for the other copyrightable elements--and the result would still demonstrate an example of a chart that is above the TOO). Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of the need for en:WP:Ignore all rules. This illustrated, easier-to-understand, help page needs to exist on the Commons:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120801211652/https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook
Or at least some of that page. I tried pasting the charts and graphs sections into a couple sandboxes with visual editors to see what I could retrieve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timeshifter/Sandbox80
https://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/User:Timeshifter/Sandbox27
I may use Fair Use to put the images also on the Wikia page. I wish I had higher resolution images.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IAR may be invoked when a rule prevents one from improving or maintaining a project, not for avoiding inconvenience. As I just explained above, the charts and diagrams can be recreated as free versions still above the TOO without the need for fair use. The COM:FU and WP:NFCC policies are not preventing improvement, merely requiring you to make an effort to create rather than copy. Although thus moot, it also bears mentioning that the prohibition on fair use on the Commons is a foundation mandate ("It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project"), not a community-derived policy (e.g., it is a "law" rather than a "rule," and IAL is not a thing). Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just another example of how the WMF can be clueless at times. But that is another discussion.
Feel free to create what you discussed. I don't have that skill. I am very good at some things. That is not one of them, and I have less time nowadays to learn in new areas. I have so much to learn further in areas I already know about, and use more often. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). I started a section here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Hi Elcobbola, could you help me with this Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WhyHellWhy? Am I requesting it properly?--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Які фото можна завантажувати?

Допоможіть, будь ласка, які файли можна завантаувати? (UA)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_11&oldid=381080148"