User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 12

ticket:2019010510000551

Hey Elcobbola,

The supposed author has sent an email to OTRS about the image you deleted. -- 1989 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook media

Hi, I just saw your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SVDLT.jpg. The reason I nominated File:SVDLT.jpg is because if you look at the EXIF data, you'll see a string that begins with "FBMD", which is automatically added to photographs when they're oposted to Facebook or Instagram. So link or no link, reverse image results or not, there's little question that File:SVDLT.jpg (and the user's other uplaods) all originated from Facebook or Instagram. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. The issue is that merely appearing on Facebook ceteris paribus does not mean the image is a copyvio. Although uncommon, it does occasionally happen, for example, that Facebook images are accompanied by a license statement or are otherwise able to connect the account to the uploader. What I don't know, however, is how to use the metadata string (FBMD01000a9c0d0000922300000d41000092420000294400006b6100000c980000439e00004ca1000071a40000be090100) to locate the image. If you could tell me how to do that, I would be happy to re-evaluate. Эlcobbola _talk 15:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, User:Bart Versieck is saying he did not have a sockpuppet, that's unlikely, but do you have a log or something that proves it? Now he is using his userpage, while he is blocked. The talk is about the block, so that is not forbidden, but if it's clear, then he has nothing to do at his userpage. See here Thnks and grtz. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There are CU logs, yes. Your concern seemed to be, in essence, that Versieck was harassing you (targeting your images). I'm not entirely sure then why you are still engaging with him. Эlcobbola _talk 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not feeding a troll. B. Versieck did a request to unblock him on the NL-Wikipedia (with restrictions). If I'm sure (I was for 99%, now fully) I can inform people. If there is only a little doubt, I cannot do that. Because the file was found at the NL-Wikipedia (a page he follows) and the file was recently put in that album, it's an example for what can happen if they give him his right to edit back, even if it is with restrictions. PS in the past I always defended him, except the last time (a block-poll). Then I thought "he will never learn it". So I needed the information. Now I don't 'need' him anymore and will not look him up. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Tasnim

Hello, you keep-closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombing of the Syrian army in Hama, Idlib against the Al Nusra Front.jpg. {{Tasnim}} license template states "Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license" (emphasis mine). Actually, Tasnim logo means nothing to me. The Iranian agency has a recorded history of stealing other people's works and adding their logo to the images they do not own (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg as an example). However, attribution to an in-house photographer is a good sign (or proof) of originality for most of their works. I think COM:PCP applies here. Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider your closure, because otherwise it may set a bad precedent for Tasnim works. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've read the discussion several times and the only consensus is related to Stefan2's comment: that the {{Tasnim}} template should be amended to request a license review (for new images) and that existing, non-free images should be nominated separately. The consensus does not include a requirement of specific photographer attribution. (To be clear: this is not a comment on whether it perhaps ought to have, merely that it did not.) I cannot make a closure based on an inaccurate summation/interpretation of the discussion--that would be the bad precedent. Indeed, to the extent the template verbiage you quote requires attribution of a specific photographer (and I don't believe it does as per my closure comments, at least due to its poor, ambiguous wording), the addition of that requirement is without basis in the discussion. It makes no sense to me that, for an agency with "a recorded history of stealing other people's works," we would trust the addition of a watermark and cite, but not the watermark alone. If they are so unscrupulous, what would stop them from adding an erroneous cite as well? Why would that be one step too fraudulent for them? (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg does not support your assessment, as that image does not even have a watermark as this image does.) I would suggest you open a VP discussion to gain clarity on the level of evidence/attribution we require from Tasnim. The Files of Tasnim News Agency DR simply sets a framework for handling images, but does not offer a consensus on the criteria to be used therein. Эlcobbola _talk 12:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the user has cropped File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg before its upload to Commons. See the uncropped version of the image on Tasnim website (the source is also available at the file description page itself). This "unscrupulous" news agency does steal other people's works.

Their logo means nothing. For example, see this set of images on which they have added their logo, while they have cited "Leader.ir" which is a non-free website. This is a well-known and well-established fact among regular Tasnim uploaders and reviewers that the presence of their logo does not matter and the only important factor is whether they cite an individual photographer or not. I really don't think it needs further discussion at the VP, but if you don't reconsider your position, I may start one at the Persian VP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that this is responsive to my points or that notions are being consistently applied or adequately supported; for example:

1. Your basic premise is that the attribution line, rather than the watermark, is what should be relied upon. To this end, you offer a new example of where Tasnim adds their watermark to an image they attribute to "Leader.ir". That's all well and good; that image belongs to Leader.ir because we trust the attribution and ignore the watermark. However, you also offer the deletion of File:Jameh Mosque of Gorgan.jpg as an example I should follow. Yet the uncropped version at the source attributes "Tasnimnews" (!!!). If we are to rely on the attribution, this should in fact be undeleted--the opposite of being a compelling precedent.
2. Alternatively, you would presumably argue "Tasnimnews" is not good enough, because the "only important factor is whether they cite an individual photographer." That they attribute "Leader.ir" above suggests a measure of honest attribution, and that the watermarking is perhaps clueless rather than malevolent. Accordingly, why would we reject "Tasnimnews" because it does not single out a specific photographer? I explain above why this discussion does not present that requirement. I also don't see that you've contested that explanation. You say that requirement is a "well-known and well-established fact." Okay, well where are those discussions? Where are the diffs? Why is the only evidence you offer a discussion which does not say that?
3. Even if it were the case that individual attribution is considered reliable, you haven't answered my question about "what would stop them from adding an erroneous cite as well? Why would that be one step too fraudulent for them?" Why are we cherry-picking what we are willing to believe from a source that systematically steals and falsely attributes the work of others? Эlcobbola _talk 16:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kong_of_Lasers and IExistToHelp

Hello.
Anything to say about these users? You blocked the former. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Known IExistToHelp socks are here, and I understand them to be unrelated to Solomon203/Nipponese Dog Calvero. Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Relation to Solomon203 is only a metaphor about our dumb-shooters who prefer to lock all users sharing an IP than segregate LTA from poor bystanders. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sony Ericsson.svg

Hello.
Bonjour, je ne comprend pas votre interdiction de droits d'auteur car cette image est déjà utilisée sur wiki! Pourquoi autoriser certains droits d'auteurs à certaines personnes plutôt qu'a d'autres ? Cette démarche est plus discriminatoire de part ce qui existe déjà sur wiki! Hello, I do not understand your prohibition of copyright because this image is already used on wiki! Why allow some copyrights to some people over others? This approach is more discriminatory from what already exists on wiki! Nicoc1amour (talk)

I have never edited this image. I did not nominate it for deletion. I did not delete it. Accordingly, I do not understand your question or what you believe my "prohibition of copyright" to be. That said, this is image understood to be the property of Sony Ericsson. You may not upload and license works to which you do not hold copyrights merely because they exist elsewhere ("this image is already used on wiki!"). Please see Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution. Эlcobbola _talk 17:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Add OTRS permission for below photos thanks

File:Vijaymattuk.png File:Vijayrajni.png

I am a photographer and sent email to permissions wikipedia but no response kindly do the needsome. Many thanks Fghjkltyuiop (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Dj-tomekk-tour-america.jpg

Dear Elcobbola

i have the permission from boogie down berlin for both pictures what do you need from me?

Many thanks

User:Emil Ecrivain 13:44, 21 January

Evidence of permission will need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Note that this permission must come directly from the copyright holder, e.g. an authorized agent using an email address from a @boogiedownberlin.com or @boogiedownberlin.de domain. Эlcobbola _talk 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin Request Vote

Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc anymore, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your vote on my admin request. Even though it didn't end the way I wanted, I appreciate your input and your constructive criticism. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Gauido

Hello, ec, are you around? I pinged you here, and would be so grateful if you are able to have a look. Stay warm! SandyGeorgia (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Greetings, Sandy! The image is relying on {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, specifically "[It is PD] because it represents a Flag, a Coat of arms or another ensign of the Republic, of the States or of the Municipalities and, in general, of any Venezuelan entity of public character". The original is "la Bandera, Escudo de Armas u otra insignia de la República, de los Estados o de las Municipalidades y, en general, de cualquier entidad venezolana de carácter público". Thoughts:

1. I read this as applying to flags, coats of arms, and insignia only. The issue at the DR of whether Gauido is an "entity of public character" seems a red herring because, even if he were (and I don't think that's the meaning intended), the exemption applies to flags, et al. of public characters, not to other works (i.e., photos) of them.
2. As a check to the above, if we adopt LuisZ9's premise that this applies to more than flags, et al., we get a bizarre outcome: any government employee--from janitor to president--could be photographed by anyone (including ordinary, private citizens at, say, a campaign event) and no one would be able to hold a copyright on that image. I can't imagine Venezuelan lawmakers intended such a state and, indeed, I don't imagine that interpretation is correct.

If my Spanish fails me, let me know, but I don't think this can be kept. This seems the all too common circumstance of someone finding an image with government subject matter, loosely defined, and carelessly slapping a PD-gov template on it. I'll look around and see whether I can find an alternative. Эlcobbola _talk 13:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ec, you are wonderful; thank you so much! I (we) sure do miss you! Best, SandyGeorgia (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Previously published media

Hello.
By the way, what do you think about that incident? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If File:Tufara.png (uploaded 8 December 2018) is indeed a still from this YouTube video (uploaded 25 November 2018), which appears the case, we do indeed require additional evidence of permission. As an alternative to OTRS, the license on YouTube could be changed to the "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" license, or Siloe Mascolo could note on their profile page that they are Santista1982. Not only is this policy, the uploader has a history of dubious and inconsistent authorship claims (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cunha.jpg claimed "own work," but with author "asilvaju," which is of course neither Santista1982 nor Siloe Mascolo) which suggests confirmation would be especially prudent. Доверяй, но проверяй. Эlcobbola _talk 16:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock contributions

Hi! I see that you've been dealing with this never-ending story – thank you! We've had a great deal of trouble with this user on en.wp, with tens of hours of work going into clean-up. So I wondered, will anyone be nuking the contributions of the various socks, or do you not do that here? On en.wp I'd have speedily deleted this page, for example, as created by a blocked user in violation of a block or ban; here I can't even find the appropriate speedy criterion to make a request. Any advice? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not explicitly have an equivalent to G5. We do have precedent and WMF statements that allow us to nuke contributions of editors subject to global bans (which would then be considered uncontroversial maintenance - COM:GCSD#6), but that would not apply to Alec Smithson. Generally the lack of G5 is not an issue, as the nature of the Commons typically means blocks are related to the upload of copyvios, which can be speedied based on other criteria. It is problematic in the case of Alec Smithson, however, as the uploads are old paintings, which are likely PD. The only real options are cumbersome and bureaucratic: 1) start a discussion to add a DENY-based CSD; 2) nominate sock uploads for deletion with DENY rationale and/or because they violate COM:EVID and COM:L (while true, those are not commonly enforced for images that appear "old enough"); or 3) follow the procedure on Meta to have Alec Smithson globally banned (he indeed meets the criteria), which would allow speedy deletion of his contributions as ban enforcement. The third seems to me the best option. Эlcobbola _talk 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a very helpful answer, thank you! Certainly a global ban seems to be the way to go, and I'll try to initiate that. Meanwhile, Special:Contributions/Eccehomo32 this is unmistakably another one. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed, along with Ester7412, Sandrin121, Julios8932, ArchivesdelaBanquedeFrance and MilanHistory. Эlcobbola _talk 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi.
I see some your comments—even me, Incnis Mrsi!—as unnecessarily vitriolic. It should be noted that Sealle promptly reversed his fault when we confronted him, and doesn’t behave like many other people do in similar conditions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Эlcobbola _talk 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

DW of graphic design on bank cards

Hi

please explain me why you consider that my recent uploads [1] are considered as DW ?

What are the differences with Category:Visa (credit card), Category:Mastercard (credit card), Category:Diners Club International,... ?

Is it the fact that the files are in PNG format? The reason is that I took pictures of my own credit cards, then I used Photopshop to "erase" my name and my card number and convert the JPEG file to a PNG file so that the outline of the card is transparent. Let me know. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

COM:DW was linked in the nomination. Have you read that policy? What about it is unclear in this case? There are two copyrights in the given image; let's take File:Carte bancaire Mastercard - Fnac.png as an example: 1) the bank card (background photo of the raised hands) and 2) your photograph of the bank card. Because you are not the author of the image on the card you cannot license it. We would require COM:OTRS permission. That you possess the physical card ("I took pictures of my own credit cards") is merely ownership of tangible property, not an intangible property right (copyright). Whatever other images we may host is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF; if you have located other problematic images, you are welcome to nominate them as well. Эlcobbola _talk 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read the COM:DW page and I do not see the case of "bank credit card".

On an other hand, regarding the background of File:Carte bancaire Mastercard - Fnac.png, I do not see the "originality" of this background picture.

Regarding the OTRS, I do not see why I have to provide copies of the original photos of the cards with my name and the cards numbers.

Let's wait the decisions on the request. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Abbatiale

J'ai le droit de récupérer mon fichier et d'en avoir les droits. Il m'appartient totalement. J'ai pris la photo et s'est retrouvé sur internet. Je souhaite la récupérer. Elle ma propriété matérielle et privée. Veuillez s'il vous plait cessez de m'empêcher de modifier mes propres fichiers. Personne ne m'a aidé sur cette plateforme et l'on a pris mon bien sans mon accord.--Aavitus (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You uploaded the image using the UploadWizard ([2]); when you clicked the "This file is my own work" radial, you were presented with the line "I, _________, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code)." You disregarded that line, and continued on to upload the file successfully. No one stole the file ("pris mon bien sans mon accord"). You voluntarily released some of your rights; accordingly, you no longer own it totally ("Il m'appartient totalement"). In addition to your speedy requests being declined four times (!!!), which should have given you indication that you are operating under a false premise, you have been explicitly pointed to Commons:License revocation. If you continue to edit the file disruptively, you will be blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hi, you blocked User:Datsofelija yesterday due to some files she uploaded that are not free. However she believes that her recent uploads do satisfy the license, as she was browsing free content on flikr. For instance she ensured me that the license of the "Jeremy Scott" file you deleted is CC BY-SA 2.0. Could you please look into it again? She might have incorrectly filled the upload form, but I don't think it was her intention to upload unfree content.

Also please notice that although she received several warnings, it was due to the fact that she was uploading fair-use content from en.wp. She just did not understand that en.wp has different rules for file uploads, and she stopped once she learned that. Essentially she is not a vandal, she is a new, young editor and she is trying to learn.

Thanks, Binabik (d) 00:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Jeremy Scott.jpg is on Flickr here and is "all rights reserved." Users are responsible for what they upload to Commons, regardless of whether copyvios from the broader Internet or from en.wiki. Datsofelija recieved ten (!!!) warnings, not "several," from 5 different editors, two of whom speak French as a native language. Despite these warnings, she continued to upload more than a dozen copyvios, on six separate days, over a two week period. At some point being new is no longer an excuse for ignoring extensive notices with universal, non-lingual indicators (, ) and the disappearance of one's uploads. Per the extensive notifications and period of time noted above, Datsofelija is well past that point. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and due care, regardless of wiki experience, would realise something was wrong, stop, and seek guidance. Datsofelija did not do that, but continued to upload blatant copyvios; that is why she is blocked. As an admin on a sister project, you are expected to know that blocks are preventive, not punitive. She is not being punished for being new, and no one has called her a vandal ("she is not a vandal"). Эlcobbola _talk 14:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for defending me Binabik.

Datsofelija (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

Blocking

Hey, Thanks for blocking me on Wikipedia Commons ! all the pictures i've uploaded failed. Ive used the right licenses. So if you block me again no worries. It's fine. Datsofelija (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

Requesting to unblock User:Radhatanaya

Hello Elcobbola. Hope you are doing well.
Previously Radhatanaya requested to unblock his account here. I saw your oppossision for that. I understand the reason and I respect your concern also. But the day he requested, I personally met him. He is a wonderful contributor on Kannada Wiki (kn.wikipedia.org). During our meeting I explained him what is Sock puppetry also. I explained him copyright policies. I explained him why it is necessory to reply to the talk page messages. He ensured that he will not edit from his another account Rangakuvara. I ensure that he will correct his misake and I personally observe his contribution too. I kindly request you to unblock Radhatanaya because contributors like him is very important to the movement. Let me know what is your opinion. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Elcobbola: can you please reply? --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is Commons, not kn.wiki; whatever his good contributions there, here he has abused multiple accounts and uploaded significant copyright violations. It's all well and good that you have explained the issues to him, but that is not adequate and does not meet the criteria of COM:BLOCK. I asked multiple questions that need to be answered; they were not rhetorical. Radhatanaya needs to answer them himself and demonstrate the requisite understanding. You cannot speak for him. Эlcobbola _talk 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not doing ppl favors

I know it's fun to pile on me, but I wasn't aware that I needed to release a version of the written permission that I received from image rights holders as a part of uploading previously rights restricted images. It's cause a lot of trouble for me and for the people who used to own the rights, who just wanted to see pictures of themselves in the public domain on wikimedia, and free to use to illustrate wikipedia articles. As far as I can recall nobody has ever complained. ~ Pengolodhlerner March 21, 2019

You were unaware because you ignored the guidance of the UploadWizard. Further, when you upload images you purport to belong to "Genesis Prize Foundation," when Genesis Prize Foundation itself (!!!) credits them to " Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images. All rights reserved," that is your failure of due diligence. It's quaint that someone so obstinate about presenting blatantly false information--a disservice to the actual rights holders and to potential reusers of Common content--sees fit to lecture others about favours. What I find "helpful" is actually not dismissing the rights of others ("nobody has ever complained" - see COM:PRP#5). Эlcobbola _talk 18:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Replace image

Hello, This image contains an adverting banar for "western union" in the background, I use the crop-tool to omit that advertise, and to focus on the person. The cropped version is here. Is it possible to replace the orignal image with the cropped version? Thanks for you. --Dr-Taher (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The only current use of the uncropped version is a bistro discussion on fr.wiki; whether the cropped version should be substituted there is not a matter for the Commons. I don't see an issue with the uncropped version (e.g., the Western Union banner is in all likelihood well below COM:TOO), so the use of either version is at the discretion of reusers. Эlcobbola _talk 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for IP range...

Could you revoke TPA for User:174.16.96.0/19 in line with w:en:WP:DENY, it's an LTA perp - more specifically w:en:WP:LTA/DENVER.

I generally don't believe TPA should be revoked for range blocks, especially ones as broad as /19, as that would disallow productive editors caught as collateral from communicating (e.g., from requesting an IP-exemption). Just revert and tag for COM:GCSD#3, if needed. Эlcobbola _talk 15:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Profsundstrom.jpg

Regarding [[3]] - I note with disappointment this deletion process was closed without anyone interacting with User:HannesLeS's offer to upload a higher-resolution image. Indeed, the original deletion request seemed to refer only to the availability of a higher resolution image, and there was no reference to needing further OTRS evidence. As a casual editor, I wanted to raise this with you here before making an undeletion request, because it's not clear to me what exactly is the procedure here. DWeir (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As I stated, "previously published images require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS." That page has the procedure you will need to follow; an undeletion request would not be successful and, indeed, is unnecessary as the image will be automatically restored by an OTRS volunteer once appropriate permission is received. Эlcobbola _talk 11:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand and accept that, but would it not have been possible for you to ask User:HannesLeS to do this, rather than deleting without engaging with their offer to upload a better image? Again, as casual users we are less familiar with the rules than yourself. DWeir (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you believe "casual user" to mean; we are all equal volunteers subject to the same rules. We have a tremendous backlog (that DR was nearly 6 months old) and such individualized attention, while "possible," is not currently a reasonable expectation. (One also notes that you have not engaged HannesLeS, which is more your duty than mine.) Even if I had "engag[ed] with their offer to upload a better image" (the issue is not image quality), OTRS would still need to process the ticket, something which also has a several month backlog. We cannot knowingly host images that lack proper permission, so we would not retain the image in the mean time anyway (and, again, OTRS would restore it automatically if the permission were in order). Эlcobbola _talk 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have actually been in touch with them off-wiki today and I believe that they will send an OTRS email soon. But I think that they believed that they had done everything they needed to do: they had uploaded an image they owned and offered to upload a better image when that image was nominated for deletion. If someone had said "actually, even though you are the rights holder, because a better image exists online, you need to send an OTRS email" then they would have done so. Closing the deletion process therefore came as a complete surprise to both them and I. DWeir (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I refer to the "higher resolution" issue is that that appears to be the reason on the deletion page. That was, as far as I was aware, the only issue with the image. Again, thank you for getting back to me on this, I genuinely appreciate your help. DWeir (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I understand how such a paltry nomination rationale would not be particularly helpful. What "higher resolution" is meant to convey is merely that the helsinki.fi version cannot possibly have come from the Commons (i.e., it is evidence that the image was previously published.) Because we so frequently have people simply uploading images they have found on the Internet (generally well-intentioned, just unaware of the distinction between gratis and libre), we require the aforementioned additional evidence of permission. In this case, we have found a higher resolution version, hosted by a reliable entity claiming "© University of Helsinki 2019," and with metadata that claim "Copyright: Lotta Sundstrom." Accordingly, a high resolution image from HannesLeS will not be adequate; we would actually need permission from Sundström verifying this statement. Эlcobbola _talk 14:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, thanks for clearing this up. If someone had made this clear to us earlier (bearing in mind IJME!) then this situation could probably have been averted in its entirety, and there wouldn't be a female scientist on wikipedia who currently doesn't have a picture illustrating her article, which is what brought me here in the first place. DWeir (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bobokulova

Hello, Elcobbola. I would like you to summarize the results of discussion here and here. Thanks for advance. Раммон (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I was preparing to close them today, but am no longer willing to do so as this notice would put my closures under the cloud of canvassing. Even if neutrally worded, requests are tainted when specifically targeted to parties with known stances favourable to those of the requestor. Going forward, please endevour to be genuinely neutral and to be cognizant of the optics of even well-intentioned notices. Эlcobbola _talk 15:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user's file

A user that you blocked recently, User:Jacques-Yves Cousteau, that was actually the sock puppet of User:Эльбрус Казбекович, continues to try to upload this file on Wikipedia. The file contains false information, so it can never actually contribute to an encyclopedia, and Эльбрус Казбекович has an agenda of trying to upload this on as many Wikipedias as possible, as you can see on the file's page. I removed the file from some articles, and he created a new sock puppet, Вреж Мегриан. That sock puppet is now banned, but the sock master already has a new account apparently named after me. Since this user continues to add this file to articles by creating new accounts despite being globally locked, and the file itself was uploaded by a sock (Jacques-Yves Cousteau), I think allowing this file to still exist is just rewarding vandalism at this point. Will you delete it? ----Preservedmoose (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock, but I cannot delete a file that is free and in scope. If you're aware of a policy-based reason the file should be deleted, you're welcome to open a DR discussion. Эlcobbola _talk 19:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio from Minecraft

Hello.
IMHO both File:Goldore.png (hist • logs • abuse log) and File:Ironingot.png (hist • logs • abuse log) “obviously” were {{PD-trivial}}. Please, beware of taking ThatBPengineer’s innuendos at face value. You could be much more helpful as a peer reviewer after 1989’s holocaust on Special:Diff/340185323 #I purposely put the images here to see how of many still remains here after one year on 20 Feb 2020 to prove my points rather than bluntly as a guy with delete button. Based on extrapolation of ThatBPengineer’s accuracy from the yesterday case, I estimate that about ten files could be deleted wrongfully. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Related: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎‎ #Sysop 1989 takes ThatBPengineer’s baits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

Thanks for your investigation and deletion of these images. Does that also bring into question items remaining in the category Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign, which is mentioned in the DR. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Gabriel F A Rodriguez, Ligiamendes04, Flanobre, and Fhpatucci are unambiguously related, so I will be deleting the latter three's remaining images (which are all in that category) on that basis. The remaining files would all be uploads of Gmortaia's, which might be best addressed by a Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Gmortaia. Something is different about that account--older (01.2019), non-North Face uploads, etc., yet blocked for SPAM/UPE before this North Face business and a sock of the aforementioned per pt.wiki--but I'm still investigating. Эlcobbola _talk 15:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I case you didn't spot it Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign is the DR. -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Another view on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

Hi, I disagree with the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci (I was actually writing my keep vote at the moment it was closed). I'd like to explain my reasoning here (since that's the first step recommended at Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions). My understanding is that the ultimate reason for the deletion was suspected copyright violation (per COM:PRP). But I think on the balance of evidence, there should not be "significant doubt" about the freedom of the images.

I don't know if you saw the video uploaded by the ad agency that did this (it's available at this AdAge blog post), but I think it's the smoking gun that shows that the agency took these photos - it contains video footage clearly showing them at several of the locations where these photos were taken, with the people shown in the photos (e.g. you can see backpack guy from File:Farol do Mampituba.jpg walking around by the lighthouse).

I can't imagine a plausible scenario under which these images would be copyright violations. The agency took the photos, and they clearly intended them to be released under a free license so they could appear on Wikipedia - The North Face and the agency have never disputed this.

The varied names in the author field (and EXIF metadata) aren't surprising given what we know of the provenance of the photos. It's not unlikely that the agency paid multiple freelance photographers to shoot at different locations (a google search says that Clayton Boyd, Tim Kemple, and Pedro Dimitrow are all photographers who have worked with The North Face). Moreover they could easily have paid someone else to edit them, and had yet other people actually upload them to Commons. Even if the author of each photo is uncertain, it's likely beyond a reasonable doubt that the copyright owner (likely the Leo Burnett agency) consented to release the photos under a free license.

I can understand finding the undisclosed promotion aspect repugnant (I do too). But consider that Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign stands as a monument to their misdeeds. I actually added one of these photos to illustrate the article W:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#The North Face (and someone has since added it to the fr article). Deleting the evidence of what they did is kind of doing them a favour. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Your reading is too narrow. Copyvio (copyright violation), as used on the Commons, does not only or necessarily mean copyrights are being violated, but that there is a violation (of Commons' policy) related to copyrights. (In this case, significant doubt that the purported licencor has the necessary authority to license the images," as "a license can only be granted by the copyright holder" (COM:L).)
2. Verily, it is likely that an advertising agency is somehow involved. Where is the evidence the agency, rather than the North Face (or photographers), owns the copyright? It would actually be far more common for The North Face (VF Corporation) to hold the copyrights, or at least those related to relicensing. In fact, one of the socks even claims the author to be "TNF" (The North Face). If this is were actually an official, sanctioned corporate donation to Wikimedia, are we so credulous as to believe it would be so clumsy? (The "by" in CC-by-SA is attribution--vitally important to get that right, yet Colin M knows better ("the copyright owner (likely the Leo Burnett agency)") than the North Face?)
3. Not only is there no evidence which entity owns the copyright, we also lack evidence that the uploaders were both a) agents of that entity and b) authorized to license intellectual property on its behalf. Merely being an employee is not adequate; authorization must come from an appropriate officer. We do, in fact, not uncommonly have "social media" and PR teams erroneously upload images from press packages because they a) have no IP law training; b) don't understand gratis versus libre, and c) ignore our instructions--just as our notices prohibiting promotion were ignored here.
4. You reference "balance of evidence" but do not actually provide any for retention. Per COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] that any required consent has been obtained.") We do not and cannot accept idle speculation, all that is on offer here, which is precisely why we have COM:OTRS. You link COM:PRP in your first sentence, so I wonder how you reconcile your purports that "they clearly intended them to be released under a free license so they could appear on Wikipedia" and "The North Face and the agency have never disputed this" with PRP#3 and #5. If those purports are true, it would be a small matter for the appropriate entity's general counsel to submit permission. Эlcobbola _talk 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the copyrights are owned by the ad agency, The North Face, or the photographers, I think the copyright holder agreed to freely license the photos. In what plausible scenario is that not true? Are you imagining the agency commissioned the photos, had the copyright of the photos assigned to The North Face, but The North Face didn't agree to freely license the images so they could be uploaded to Commons? The AdAge article has a direct quote from a The North Face executive talking about the campaign (before the fallout), so TNF were clearly aware of the plan.

You reference "balance of evidence" but do not actually provide any for retention I linked to a video that shows them taking the photographs in question (since in your closing statement you speculated the images might have been grabbed from the internet without authorization). I doubt many uploaded photos claimed to be self-authored come with that level of proof. The other evidence is the statements (before and after this became a scandal) from Leo Burnett and TNF, which makes it clear that all parties were on board with the plan to produce these photos, upload them to Commons, and use them on Wikipedia articles. Given that information, Occam's Razor suggests that, yup, these are the photos taken for that ad campaign, the users who were uploading them were working for the campaign, and the people running the campaign arranged to have the photos legitimately released under a free license. Colin M (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Plausible scenario: North Face contracts Agency to create promotional images, works for hire whose copyrights are thereby owned by North Face. North Face then, or additionally, contracts same Agency to use North Face's images in an advertising campaign. (Allowing mere use is not the same as allowing (re)license on North Face's behalf.) Agency decides to use WMF as a vehicle for an advertising campaign, ignorant of the licensing implications. In this not only plausible, but likely, scenario, the agency would not own the copyrights ("a license can only be granted by the copyright holder" (COM:L)) and thus their purports would not be legitimate. Indeed, moving from the hypothetical to the actual: this particular Agency's negligent ("A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act" [4]) conduct on WMF projects only supports its unreliability, as it has demonstrated a failure to consider, respect, and follow legal formality (the aforementioned TOS breach related to promotion) and has, in fact, breached the CC license (to be explained below).
2. Even if we make the assumption that the copyright holder, whoever they are, intends these to have a CC-by-SA license, they are in breach. Works with "copyleft" licenses (like Creative Commons), despite the cutesy name, are still under copyright. A Creative Commons license is legally binding and the rights retained and provisions therein are every bit as enforceable and mandatory as works for which all rights remain reserved. Indeed, there are numerous court cases in which failure to comply with CC license provisions was found to be a breach (e.g., the most recent of which I am aware, Philpot v. Music Times LLC, 1:16-cv-01277 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)). As I previously indicated, the "by" in CC-by-SA means "attribution". The work must be accompanied by attribution. If the copyright holder is the Agency, every file uploaded by Fhpatucci is a license breach (copyright violation) as not one attributed the Agency. If the copyright holder is North Face, every file uploaded by Fhpatucci is a license breach (copyright violation) as not one attributed North Face. Any reuser of these images, if hosted on the Commons, would also breach the license as we do not know the copyright holder. Again, for "real world" and Commons policy reasons, we require evidence, not idle speculation, of what entity owns the copyright (and, of course, that a represented license is legitimate). As yet another example: COM:OTRS explicitly says "If any of the following statements is one you could make, then you must send an email to the OTRS system: [...] I am an employee of the copyright owner." (underline added)). Эlcobbola _talk 17:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with elcobbola's points but suggest that Colin M's post was made in good faith and uncovered some information that was new to me (the names of real photographers likely behind some of the images). So I think "yet Colin M knows better" seems a little unkind, especially given he's not an old hand like you. Just a small point. Otherwise, glad to have your expertise demonstrated here. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (another Colin).

Although not my native language, I'm fairly certain that phrasing in English can also be taken as jocular--the meaning indeed intended. While I would apologize for any perceived unkindness, I would remind another Colin that even old hands are deserving of charitable interpretations. Эlcobbola _talk 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit, I did find that sarcasm a bit pointed. But glad to hear it wasn't intended maliciously. (And glad that Colins are looking out for each other :)) Colin M (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad to know you weren't being deliberately unkind. Yes all sorts of phrases can be used between friends in a jocular manner that are taken in a light heart, but you don't know Colin M, and we can't see the smile on your face when you make it. I wouldn't have been at all concerned if you two were familiar. Anyway, it seems no harm done. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I see your update above. Don't know whether those arguments apply to the remainder in the category, but I think it would be very educational to post some/most of your analysis on the category DR so that Wikipedians can see how Commons goes about deciding that it mustn't host an image. I think that would be better than the current comments which merely argue against certain vote rationales being relevant here. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Wikied commons.jpg‎

What is your opinion: copyvio or stubbornness? Have you any idea where File:Sophora toromiro Skottsb.PNG and File:Sophora toromiro 2.JPG can be stolen? If really copyvio, then I complain to Miraheze as well. If the guy merely doesn’t want to follow Commons procedures, then I drop it altogether. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations and stubbornness need not be mutually exclusive. File:Sophora toromiro Skottsb.PNG and File:Sophora toromiro 2.JPG are unambiguously magazine scans (the page was poorly aligned, so a portion of the scanner bed is visible; the image has halftoning; etc.), but the specific magazine is not known. Эlcobbola _talk 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

About File:MES-3.jpg file

Hello, I noticed you deleted this file from the page "Maria Elvira Salazar" ([5])- Can you tell me what is the problem, please? We sent the required letter signed by this public figure (politician/TV journalist). What can I do to solve this issue? Thanks, --Ernestolake (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If you sent the permission using the process at COM:OTRS, you do not need to do anything; the volunteer who processes the ticket will automatically tend to the restoration of the image if the permission is acceptable. Note, however, that copyright is generally held by the author (photographer) rather than the mere subject (Ms. Salazar). As the letter is "signed by this public figure," we will need to receive either a) a copy of the employment agreement between the photographer and Ms. Salazar indicating that the former is an employee of the latter and that the photo was taken in the former's ordinary course of duty or b) a written conveyance, signed by the photographer, transferring copyright to Ms. Salazar (i.e., we will require evidence Ms. Salazar, rather than the photographer, owns the intellectual property associated with the image.) Эlcobbola _talk 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of photo Sun Yingsha

You deleted File:Sun Yingsha Asian Games 2018 Atlet Tenis Meja Perempuan Rangking 17 Dunia mei 2019 (cropped).png. But:

• this file was not nominated for deletion;
• this file was only one image of Sun Yingsha.

The same situation with File:Wang Manyu Atlet Tenis Meja Perempuan Rangking 5 Dunia mei 2019 (cropped).png. Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realise this was in use (i.e., that the OOS closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dirham Prof should not attach). I've restore the image. Эlcobbola _talk 11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

About photos added to "Minnesota" page

Hello! I have updated the Minnesota page with photos that belong to me. There is no copyright infringement. I would like if they could stay on the page. Let me know if I am still doing something wrong as you say this is my last "warning." Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaminnesota (talk • contribs)

Copyright is generally held by the author (photographer) of a work (photograph). That you were given the photos as assets does not mean that the copyrights were transferred to you. Your uploads have been authored by, at least, Paul Vincent, Paul Stafford, and Leslie Hough. We need either 1) to receive permission directly from these authors or 2) if Explore Minnesota Tourism (EMT) owns the copyright (asserted in certain of the metadata), evidence that the authors transferred their copyrights to EMT and that you are authorized by EMT to license intellectual properties on its behalf (merely being an employee is not adequate; you must be a director, officer, or analogous authority). This evidence needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS.

As you seem unaware, you are purporting to release these images with a CC-by-SA license. The "by" in "CC-by-SA" means attribution is required. If those licenses are genuine, indicating yourself to be the author, as you have, instead of the actual author (Paul Stafford for File:Minneapolis buildings.jpg, for example) could, in fact, be an infringement of Mr. Stafford's copyright. Do your employers actually know that you are applying legally-binding licenses to their assets, and in apparent breach of conditions thereof? Эlcobbola _talk 15:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Biopics case

Hi. Did you deliberately post below the noinclude in this edit?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No - fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Эlcobbola _talk 01:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shince Steve Thomas

Copyright violation after last warning, See talk page. Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 11:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing File:Starship troopers terran ascendancy poster.jpg

Hello! Why you remove that poster? It is original poster of that game. I have permission for using at wikipedia article from internet portal where i take that image. With great wishes K1ll8а̀22a ^{2:56 (MSK) 11 jul 2019 го̀да}

1) Previously published works require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS; 2) that permission must allow use everywhere and for any purpose (permission only "for using at wikipedia article" is not adequate); and 3) that permission must come from the copyright owner (Blue Tongue Entertainment/MicroProse), not a mere news/fan/forum site (permission "from internet portal" would be illegitimate and license laundering). Эlcobbola _talk 15:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for а̀nswer ^{For Эlcobbola , K1ll8а̀22a 1:38 (MSK) 12 jul 2019 го'да}

File:Chile mine oct13 2010 dg.jpg

Hi, This deletion is not OK. It has a validated permission. If you don't agree with it, then create a proper deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, @Yann: , your undeletion was "not OK". @Túrelio: deleted the file, its restoration was requested here, @Ankry: closed it as not done on 4 July, and you restored it anyway on 6 July. If you don't don't agree with it, create a new UDR. Эlcobbola _talk 12:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola and Yann: As i am no longer an OTRS memeber, I have to rely on OTRS people opinions. And I think, that if two OTRS members have different opinions about ticket validity, this should be resolved in a discussion in otrs-wiki rather, than in public. Ankry (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: There is no need for an OTRS-wiki discussion. There is now one on COM:VPC#Joggling deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi

For me this request is abusive. The other have not provieded evidence to prove that I am this user.

This request, written by an opponent, is a form of pressure on me and a misuse of procedure. It's an insult to me and my intelligence. I do not want to miss this abusive action, and I do not blame you, except perhaps for not having asked my opinion (in reality, it was up to the author to have the honesty of write on the request that I am against in principle).

What can I do? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho did provide evidence suggesting a disruptive use of multiple accounts: Drgfrt, an account created more than a decade ago, suddenly emerged to make its first edit to the Commons, the restoration of a version of File:Parliament_of_Turkey_2018_Current.svg favored by you in an edit war. Further, you have been blocked multiple times, on multiple projects for edit-warring ([6], [7]) indicating both a willingness to edit-war and an awareness that edit-warring is disallowed and sanctionable (i.e., that you might attempt to evade new sanctions by socking). In the aggregate, this history and fact pattern was a reasonable basis to suspect Drgfrt was an alternate account. There is no requirement that either Dereck Camacho or I contact you. I exercised my independent judgement (to my knowledge, I have never interacted with you, Drgfrt, or Dereck Camacho and have never edited File:Parliament_of_Turkey_2018_Current.svg or any other content related to Turkish politics or Turkey in a non-trivial way) when considering the request and found the prospect of an abusive use of an alternate account plausible. Эlcobbola _talk 22:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That the other account tested was doubtful did not warrant me be tested. You could have tested it yourself and have the same conclusion. Having an antecedent for "edit warring" (if you look at other Wiki is a common behavior to several contributors) does not prove that I have multiple accounts. In addition, Drgfrt did not commit an edit warring, it updated a file that was outdated for months (he have not restaured my version). It's Dereck Camacho who (after more than 2 month) deleted the stable version for no reason. For the last September warring edit, we two were at fault (not only me and Guanaico have only restaured the stable version). I think I will write to the Wikimedia ombudsman.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not coherent and not responsive to my comments. The evidence available plausibly suggested a connection and formed a reasonable basis for a check. I will not be able to assist you further. Эlcobbola _talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a small thing. The liability (in addition to another site, not even on Commons) on the "edit warring" is off topic about whether or not a person has multiple accounts. Do you have any real clue about me (and not about the other account) that suggests we can be the same person? I'm not asking what the charges are (socketpuppet to impose a POV), just what makes you say that we could have been the same person with reasonable arguments. In English and French WP, same requests are rejected by the checkusers and the authors sometimes blocked. (Why there are differences?) Finally, what recourse can I file if I consider the treatment as abusive?--Panam2014 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Panam2014: Go to COM:AN, cry murder and call for a desysop. Ain't never gonna happen in this case, but you asked what you could do if you consider the treatment as abusive.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Are you admin? If yes, could you respond to me if an user have or not have the right to replace an updated file by an outdated? Is it a vandalism? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

[8] Sorry, Panam2014 hadn't notified you about the AN thread, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IP Range Block

Hello Elcobbola,

Today, we have the training of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in the Flores Island. I see you are blocking IP address in the range 182.1.64.0/18. This IP belongs to Telkomsel, an internet provider which is mainly used in Flores and we have no other internet provider. So, can you lift the block temporarily? The training will finish on 07:00 UTC (or 15:00 Central Indonesian Time).

Thanks Johnstad Di Maria (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnstad Di Maria, I've lifted the block. Please let me know if you have any issues. Эlcobbola _talk 08:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for lifting the block. We also have a task for the training participants to upload some of their own photos to Commons. I will keep watching the participants to make it sure they do not upload photos that not owned by participants (such as from Flickr and other sites) to Commons. --Johnstad ^Почта 12:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Iman.xxx

Please have a look at Iman.xxx (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) as it's uploading images inspite of your warnings.Thank you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Malikxan

Denkst du hierbei auch, was ich denke? 0 global contribs. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Habe ich schon gesehen-- Possible. Jetzt heißt es warten. Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mvcg66b3r

Hi, You didn't answer to my question: should the account CentralTime301 be unblocked? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Publish stuffed animal essay

• User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals

What do you need to publish? The essay is great. Thanks for producing it. You showed it around years ago. Why not share now? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry, thank you for the kind words, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by need to publish. The content does not belong in a policy or guideline, and whether it resides in main space or user space doesn't change the validity of the content. I find the latter even offers certain utility both for identifying those who would argue from authority and for keeping the content US-specific (as a multilingual/national project, main space content should cover all jurisdictions, whereas this essay is purposefully US-only). Is there a particular reason you think it should be moved? Эlcobbola _talk 14:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Threats

Hello Elcobbola, probably need your help in this matter. IPs are making threats saying that users broke the Thai computer law for god knows what reason. It can be seen at GPSLeo's talk page as 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:D52A:C60D:6D0D:FCFD (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). 2405:9800:bc11:bd0d:f4a2:6998:4fad:dd6d (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) is also the same person (see history of File:Sukavich Rangsitpol.jpg).

58.11.162.7 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) made the same threat to me on th.wiki. Wedjet, Sry85, G(x) & probably any editors that revert their edits will be slammed for being a "criminal". Their local checkuser Geonuch said he's discussing the matter with his team. Any comments on how I shall proceed? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 00:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If all of the issues are related to IPs, there's likely nothing to be learned from running a CU (for example, for IPv6, the /64 range is an end-user allocation, so those two, especially with behavioural evidence, would be related.) If the IPs are harassing or otherwise editing disruptively, you should just make a request at COM:AN/B. CUs would only be helpful if logged-in accounts become involved, or to check whether a potential range block would have unacceptable collateral damage. Эlcobbola _talk 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Photos & other

I understand why you flagged the photos I uploaded, but if I may ask why is there no licensing public domain template for the State Government of Georgia? BacktoSchoolForever0700 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright is granted upon the creation of a work (i.e., it is the default condition). Certain states have elected through statute, or functionally elected through interaction of statute/policy with case law, to waive the copyright they would automatically be afforded. Georgia is not such a state, and its works remain copyrighed; thus there is no public domain template. Эlcobbola _talk 17:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

2405:204::/32

I just have noticed that you had lifted the block. Well, just look at the contributions – this range virtually generates nothing but vandalisms (test edits at best). Regarding range blocks, the policy uses words like "encouraged" and "should", i.e. there is no obligation. Anyway, I think that in case of this range my assessment of collateral damages was/is good. The same applies to 2405:205::/32. Unfortunately, vandalism from these ranges will not stop in the foreseeable future as they seem to belong to a mobile operator (Jio). --jdx ^Re: 07:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is not technically obligatory, but that leaves you with deliberately foregoing best practices, and ones considered important enough to codify rather than leave to common sense. As you are not a checkuser, you, by definition, cannot see creation/participation of constructive accounts on that range and thereby have no ability to make an assessment of collateral damages. This is precisely why the policy encourages engagement with a CU. Эlcobbola _talk 10:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But every time it was/is a softblock so potential users were/are able to create an account and contribute. Or use an existing account. --jdx ^Re: 16:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I'd read it as not being soft. A six month block of an ISP/large organization allocation, however, remains excessive. Whether accounts should be required to edit WMF projects is a perennial issue that, to my knowledge, has thus far been rejected. Effectively forcing registration from such a large allocation thus seems an inappropriate circumvention; at the very least, it should be and have been checked with a CU due to the scale. Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

why you deleted my photos ?

I am the producer of this singer and we only have original photos and files., all sites that were indicated as a source, these are all pirate sites, I can present passport photos of even this singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhshizada (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Copyright is generally held by the photographer and would be transferred to another party, like a producer, by a formal written conveyance. Evidence of the same, or permission directly from the actual photographer, needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

An apology

Hi, I just wanted to explain my intentions with regards to my deleted files. I never intended to upload files that were copyright violations. When an earlier image of mine was deleted, I assumed that it was because images from publications were not allowed. Evidently, this was a mistake on my part. However, is it possible to reupload some of the files if I provide proper licensing? – Ghostofakina (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is derivative works. When you're cropping an image you've found on a manufacturer's website, that alternation does not remove the copyright of the underlying image. Even if your alternation were to give rise to a new copyright (and in these cases it wouldn't), it would merely coexist with former. You would thus require permission from the manufacturer to license the image. Similarly, when you photograph (or find a photograph) prominently/deliberately featuring a smartphone UI (including background/wallpaper image), there could be several copyrights: 1) the photograph itself; 2) the UI; and 3) the background/wallpaper. Accordingly, depending on circumstances, you could require permission from all three rights-holders to license the image. Эlcobbola _talk 17:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Elcobbola, just an FYI: meta:Special:PermaLink/19592875#HELP. I have not researched this matter at all. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Defending my works (Verkhovensky 135)

I hope you got my letter of yesterday.Not being sure you did ( I don't totally know the fnctioning of WIKIPEDIA), i will insert it gain at the end of this new message. But now , I would like to add a tfew things to what I wrote yesterday. You say my art is "low quality". But actually, I don't claim to be an artist, I just see myself as an illustrator, and this is quite diffrrent. There exist in the wporld thousands of illustrators whose art is much lower quality than mine. And there is on WIKIPEDIA millions of pics (Phtographs or drawings) that are lower quality than my "art". Actually, i love wikipedfia. But on a work pof that scale , there has to be a percentage of low quality "items", and this is really the case; this can't be negated. But those items do remain on WIKI , whereas mine are singhld out for delation. This is not right; All the more, because my works are technically NOT low quality at all. I know a little about illustration - necessarily- and i do know that as a fact. maybe it can be objected too on a moral ground:offering smut. But i do not offer smut at all. I do not depict intercourse ( why should, by the way, intercourse be sut??), i depict female bodies...where should smut be in the depiction of a female body , even if it is presented in a some at "sexy" way...

What astonishes me, is that WIKIPEDIA is quite forthcoming in its "presentation" of sexuality. With wikipedia, sexual education at school or elsewhere has become obsolete. And in the middle of the gigantic effort of inforation, here come my works as smut, as can be inferred from the motto seen on user Ashfriday's motto " fighting a never nding battle against smut". Actually, this batle seems a little bit suspicfious to me; aren't there more important battles to fight Anyway my art ins NOT smut, I have already said it before). this actually makes me think of the sexuality of Edgar Hoover, ,former chief of the FBI. While figtng for the morals of Ameria, one can wonder if his peronal morals were quite up to the mark. Personally, I hold some distrust against "morals crusaders"... and I think there is some ground todo so ... Salman Rushdie wrote somewhere that we've got to beware of overly mooralistic people ... I think he's right. Because not only can we remmber the case of edgar hoover, but we must also remember the case of televangelists BAKKER and SWAGGART...Preaching morality, fightting the never ending battle against smut and visiting prostitutes...This is Smut. And this is the reason whuy I do object against my work being called smut , when they are just pretty illustratons of things that WIKIPEDIA is concerned with, and when I depict two corsets o waist- cinches on Wiki , I provide real indformation, but in a more playful way than the drap photographies that don't really catch the eye and amuse, while really informing at the same time. You quote Friedrich Schiller: "DIE KUNST IST EINE TOCHTER DER FREIHEIT". (I habe gelesen , dass sie Deutsch und Englisch auf einem Fachniveau können, aber sowas kann ich auch, und andere spachen auch!! Nein Ich bin nicht der Pornocrat, den einige Leute in mich sehen wollen!!!) But to come back to Schiller:Ich auch would like to enjoy a part of tis freedom so necessary to the expression of my art, however minor it might be, instead of being shut out of this huge and magnificent book that wikipedia is. And i'm not going to apologize because i depict sexual things. because I depict them well, and informatively, maybe with a touch of humor, but always with the greatest honesty... And whatever happened of SEEDFEEDER?...

 I don't see why i should be allowed to co-exist beside him, because I too studied Art..

Verkhovensky P.S.I hope I am a less nihilistic person than our good Piotr stepanovitch...)

Photo of Lahna Turner

Hi there! It appears a photo I uploaded has been flagged as copyrighted. The photo was taken by a friend of mine at one of her shows. He has given me permission to use the photo and has also given the photo to Lahna so it may be used elsewhere online. Here's the link to the now deleted photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahna_Turner#/media/File:Lahna_Turner_at_Flappers.jpg

I have also received a notice that I have uploaded multiple copyrighted photos - that is not true. I was originally flagged for uploading a photo of MINI LADD to his wiki page that he shared on his social media as I believed since he shared it himself it could be used on his page.

This is the second time I've been flagged when it is not intentional on my end. What do I need to do to get the photo of Lahna put back up and to have my account restored properly?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJerm (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 December 2019‎ (UTC)

File:Lahna_Turner_at_Flappers.jpg is credited by a reliable third-party source as being the work of "Shaun Lile." 1) Even if Lile gave you permission to use the photo, you violated his copyright. The "by" in the "cc-by-sa-4.0" license you claimed means attribution is required. You did not attribute "Shaun Lile"; instead you attributed "DaJerm". This is a breach of the license (see, for example, Philpot v. Music Times LLC, 1:16-cv-01277 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)); and 2) as you are not the author (which you incorrectly purported) you are required to provide evidence that Shaun Lile wishes to license this as cc-by-sa-4.0. To do this, Lile must provide permission directly (i.e., not through you) using the process at COM:OTRS. I know nothing of your other image(s) but assume the same infirmities were at issue. Эlcobbola _talk 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Luigi Diamante

I hope to write in the right place, about the photos that I added in "Luigi Diamante"; they are just three more photos (mine!) of paintings and drawings by Luigi Diamante (he was my uncle and with him I lived for many many years in my youth) and whose works I inherited at his death; and they are still in my legitime possession. What I'm trying to do is just keeping alive his memory and his art. I hope that my explanations are enough to keep the photos where they are. If not, please, let me know what else to do; but, please, give me easy, simple instructions because I'm not very good with computers.... (for example: where will I be abele to read the answer to my present writing?? Shall I keep this page opened?? Or??) Thank you, whoever you are! Vittorio Vida

Here are some concepts you may find helpful:

• Taking a photograph or making a scan of an existing work merely creates a derivative work. The creation of a derivative work does not remove or allow one to license the underlying copyright.
• Owning tangible property is not the same as owning intangible property. Although you may own a book or a painting (physical object)s, you do not thereby own the related intangible property (e.g., copyrights) to the prose or images therein/thereon.
• Similarly, inheriting a physical object from a copyright holder ("paintings and drawings by Luigi Diamante [...] are still in my legitime possession") does not necessarily mean you have inherited the intellectually property, which is generally an entirely separate asset.

Although I am not familiar with Italian inheritance law, intangible assets (e.g., copyrights) generally require explicit written conveyance. To host the images here on the Commons, you would need to provide evidence (for example, a scan of a will or other conveyance of intellectual property) that demonstrates Luigi Diamante explicitly transferred the copyrights of these works, not just the works themselves, to you. You can provide this using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola _talk 20:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser block

With regard to diff, is it appropriate to remove the additional rights/groups from the account? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI diff. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I advised and solicited input from the other CUs before blocking, so it is what it is. I don't see that COM:BP or COM:RFR reference removal of rights for abuses not related thereto. It seems to me unnecessary, as the block inherently prevents their exercise. Removal thus seems extra work--indeed in hypothetical scenarios of correct and incorrect blocks alike--for mere symbolism. I am, however, not generally a participant at COM:RFR and the like, so if there's a rationale/practise of which I'm ignorant, I've no objection to removing them. Эlcobbola _talk 15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. There's no good reason to prop open this case and no action here. Perhaps we might tidy up exactly how groups and rights are removed at a later point and in a generic way. If nothing else, so that when running queries for who are members of what user groups, we don't have to filter out indef blocked accounts. --Fæ (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that would be useful (I seem too to recall a recent noticeboard posting inquiring about the (lacking) process for removal of the LR flag.) It's good general practise for processes to have symmetry; descriptions of granting/deleting/blocking/etc. ought also to articulate removing/restoring/unblocking/etc. Эlcobbola _talk 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Q

Hello. If I were to come across a file that was previously uploaded under a different file name but can't seem to find the file and the initial uploader. How do I open a CU request for it? It definitely isn't from Nutty pay as he/she has only 1 edit here. Minorax (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this circumstance you would not be able to request a CU as, without evidence, it would be considered fishing. I understand this can be vexing, but there is solace in that copyvios are readily deleted, blocks issued if copyvios continue, and that we've here a memorable note of a user and file should a new account emerge. Эlcobbola _talk 17:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Will keep a look out for any new socks. Regards, Minorax (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An additional CU related question: can you check the RFCU I posted, since you seem to be the only active CU? I try to be succinct. Midnight68 has his files deleted after a request by User:Niabot. File:KodomoNiabot.png shows original artwork by Midnight68, and it's been uploaded and updated by two socks I mention. And it's been credited to "Niabot", who Midnight68 has a feud with. It's a troll who uploads images that may be considered child pornography, and who apparently has a sock network. Something needs to be done. --Pudeo (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, I've now commented there. I've been preoccupied with other CU cases this week and had not stopped by RfCU. All CUs are currently active, so I can't say why another did not take up the case. I would note, however, that evidence that directly relates suspected socks to the master (rather than to other possible socks when they have not been blocked and have sparse, if any, warnings), as you did here but left more ambiguous at the RfCU, greatly increases our ability to investigate cases promptly. Эlcobbola _talk 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Content deletion ?

Hey can I know why you placed This into content deletion ? I'm kinda new to wikipedia and I don't know if I did something wrong, the logo don't exist so I made it and uploaded it I used official sources to make it such as the Official FIFA.COM source and the one visible on kits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardianofsunshine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2019‎ (UTC)

This is a slavish copy of an official logo and is not yours to license. You may only license works for which all content owes its origin to you. We do not accept fair use and wide availability/official use are not relevant considerations. Эlcobbola _talk 15:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)