User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 9

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

Happy New Year!

Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
Happy New Year Elcobbola! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 07:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Jnaga

User:Mıııżo may be another sock. --Denniss (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and blocked. 22:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Another Albianmoonlight sock

I see you blocked the one I posted at Magog the Ogre's talk. Another one is Specialtoyoutoyou. Here's the upload from that account: File:Mooddisorder.jpg. It looks like he's done his old bit of putting it on several pages. I don't remember if if there's a cu.wiki page for him, but it might be a good idea to record the change to using a Nikon D3100 for File:20160416- DSC5229.jpg, as he's usually used Canons in the past. INeverCry 17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block Specialtoyoutoyou as a duck, but the account is stale otherwise. I don't see references to Albianmoonlight; I'll make my own note of it. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI User:Elcobbola/IP, i think an speedy delition is possible... but it is "your Site"... best regards --1971markus ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milano Pablo

His latest: Milanopablojg15. INeverCry 01:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. No sleepers. Thanks, INC. Эlcobbola talk 02:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doberman Pinscher

You were very helpful when we were dealing with the Bruce2366 socks on en.wp; as I usually avoid Commons like the plague, I was unsure who to approach (and I know Chris, my usual go to person for images etc, is very busy just now) so have landed here. There is a constant problem with an IP at the en:Doberman Pinscher article so I was recently checking it to discover that the main image in the info box seems odd? It shouldn't be used with the dog's name but it also appears to have a photographers copyright? And the original image has been replaced a couple of times by two different users? Sorry to bother you! Sagaciousphil (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sagaciousphil, Crisco 1492 beat me to reverting the "Billy" image; I've now rev deleted it from the stream as a copyvio. Based soley on behaviour, Trigueiro martins, the user who restored the "Billy" image, is probably a sock of Nicocobas, the initial uploader of "Billy" (and both, in turn, socks of Pit bullpb.) Nicocobas and Pit bullpb, however, have not edited in years, nor been subject to sanctions (e.g. blocks), so there isn't currently a case for a CU. These users' focus on pt.wiki suggests a user other than Bruce2366, as I don't believe the latter had Portuguese contributions. Let me know whether I'm missing anything or if any other issues pop up. Эlcobbola talk 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and Chris) for such a fast response, it's much appreciated. I hadn't thought it was a Bruce sock (thankfully, we can do without coping with that type of thing again), it just seemed a very sneaky and bizarre way of messing about with images as no change showed up in the article edit history. Sagaciousphil (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An aside

To be honest, having looked at that when it came up at the OTRS board, I'm no particularly thrilled with the original ticket either. I was simply trying to be helpful. Reventtalk 17:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, no worries. The corporation issue is just a distraction and ought not to become a focus of discussion; evidence of IP rights is needed, either from a corporation, if existent, or a family member. Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is mine, is not a good practice that anyone who likes can delete, is unfaire

To answer your question -- several reasons -- I had already written the comment, so it was easy enough to add. In cases where we're dealing with an obvious newbie (no sig, no file listed to UnDR), I like to try to be as helpful as possible, partly because I think that's simply a good thing and partly because many people think Commons is an unfriendly place and I like to try to counteract that whenever possible. In order to accomplish the latter, the comment has to be on a widely read page, not on a newbie's talk page which few people will ever see.

Finally, there was a time when the most active UnDR denizens agreed that an UnDR would remain open for 24 hours. While that was never formal policy, I think it's a mistake to close an UnDR three hours after it was opened. UnDR is, after all, the court of last resort, and it ought to act deliberately, not quickly. Regards, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit far fetched, but fair enough. Acting deliberately and quickly are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Эlcobbola talk 15:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, but the point here is that I think we need both to act deliberately and to appear to act deliberately, which are very different things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tuvalkin's block

It seems that despite the block, Tuvalkin is continuing to use his talk page to demonstrate his failure of COM:AGF towards me and others. diff The line "smarmy ejaculations of a poseur who uses 100% of his Commons time to «harass and intimidate»" is particularly offensive and he goes on further to demonstrate why his loss of good faith towards me apparently prevented him from retracting the statement earlier. This user is now abusing their talk page to continue the behavioural issues that got them the block. I request talk page access be removed as a prevention against further attacks on me. Ping User:Nick, User:Revent, User:Christian Ferrer as involved admins/volunteer-mediators. I suggest further engagement with Tuvalkin to help him avoid the behaviour that got him the block be conducted off-wiki, where he won't have the opportunity to further abuse me. However, Christian, I don't think it would be a good idea for you to modify the block -- let's see what other admins do. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the admin who blocked him, imo, and I'm not interested in playing this game. Reventtalk 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reminded Tuvalkin that commenting on Colin in this manner is not appropriate and I have asked them to redact their comment, I have also reminded Tuvalkin that the issue at hand is their behaviour, not Colin's, and that if Tuvalkin has any concerns regarding Colin's behaviour, it should be raised at the appropriate venue. I hope this will resolve the issue, if the comment is not redacted or there is further instances, please do let me know. I would ask that the talk page access is left unchanged initially, but would support it being removed if there are further instances of problematic behaviour. Nick (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Well we shall see. At least you are doing something positive, now, unlike Revent who thinks that this is a game. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this here, in this way, instead of just mentioning it at the open ANU thread, to 'see what other admins do' looks like trolling to me. Reventtalk 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well "trolling" isn't my reason for posting here, but you continue your assume-bad-faith. I posted here, because the AN/U had become derailed, by you. And also because I had no wish to repeat Tuvalkin's insults in front of the larger community. I pinged all relevant parties. The "let's see what other admins do" was simply an appeal Christian not to get further into trouble since he had already been warned not to take further admin action. I had to ping him, since he's involved and applied the block, but nor did I want him to be the one escalating the block. Is that clear? If you wish to show any measure of AGF, Revent, you can retract your accusation of trolling. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I understand there is frustration here, and not necessarily without justification. That said, although it may be of some cathartic value, I hope you would agree that antagonizing each other isn't reasonably expected to promote any sort of progress here. Эlcobbola talk 18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Nick’s reaction to be perfectly sensible. Ultimately, however, I likely align with A. Savin’s comment at ANU. Tuvalkin, with tenure of more than nine years, over 200,000 edits and a healthy block log here and on other projects, is not likely to respond meaningfully to a two week block (of course I hope to be proven wrong.) This seems a repeat of the behaviour of Pieter Kuiper, Mutter Erde, and many other now-indeff'ed users, which is precisely what indefinite blocks are meant to address: entrenched behavioural issues that require genuine resolution and cessation, not periodic interludes. Without change, eventually there will be a realization that the vitriol and uncollegial attitude are unacceptable and override productive contributions, however prolific. We have not reached this point. The ANU conversation is a step (despite its descent to petty squabbling) and an unlocked talk page is, perhaps perversely, a rope. Эlcobbola talk 18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick's response is exactly what I expected, from some admin (though I expected Christian to do it, since he was the blocking admin). And you are right.... as I said at ANU, short cool down or civility blocks are rarely effective.... there are many, many, many cases in the history of the projects that demonstrate that. Reventtalk 18:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I think we can all furiously agree on is that Tuvalkin will be indef blocked at some point. Which is why I think it rather more important that we remember blocks also send out a message to the community, and to the person who was insulted, not just to the person who is blocked. It says to the person insulted, and to those with mental health problems, that Commons will not tolerate this. Period. One thing I can be sure of is that Tuvalkin will think twice before using mental health as a joke insult, and anyone else on Commons reading the discussion might have reconsidered their attitude on this topic. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've accomplished that. There was indeed a block, and the ANU discussion, before its flirtations with uselessness, seemed generally to focus on the mental health insult being the primary thrust therefor. While we'll never achieve "perfection" among culturally and linguistically diverse volunteers, this case now supplements Stemoc's as evidence of evolving awareness and rejection of mental health related insults. Not to allow the goalposts to be shifted, however, the comment that brought the discussion to my talk page was not one related to mental illness. Tuvalkin is not a native speaker of English, so one hopes the phrasing was an unfortunate choice rather than the more graphic alternative; striping that away, then, it's merely a continuing failure of AGF. Strategically, leaving the talk page unblocked and asking for the comment to be stricken seems stronger, as it encourages acknowledgement and disallows "I couldn't respond" excuses. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the term has exactly the same meaning in Portuguese. Given that the word is entirely surrounded in insults, I think it rather naive to assume this is anything other than a deliberate double entendre and a pretty offensive one. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am, perhaps, rightly considered many unenviable things, but I don't think naive is one. I did say "one hopes" which is not a statement of belief or assumption. Indeed, hoping to win the sweepstakes and believing one will win are worlds apart, and only the latter naive. Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I acknowledge your comments on the multiple photos of (mostly Russian) medals you put up for deletion due to incorrect copyright data. I fully recognize I used a shortcut by simply replacing the initial images bearing the Russian government waiver in an effort to save time considering the multiple pages where the photos are used I'd have to amend. You are correct, go right ahead and delete the photos. I'll do it the proper way this time and upload them anew with my personal waiver into the public domain and amend the pertinent articles. Before you ask, yes, I actually have all of the medals seen in my numerous articles on the subject, I have well over 2,500. Should you require further proof of my ownership and hence right to upload to public domain, you can check my personal albums on the web site of the Orders and Medal Society of America at http://www.omsa.org/ or in the forum of the British Gentlemen's Military Interest Club at http://gmic.co.uk/ . Cheers. Fdutil (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and for your efforts. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, me again. I was looking over some of the images you slotted for deletion due to incorrect copyright data. May I invite you to take another look at them, some have the data below which clearly mentions orders, any forms of money, and the like, medal and decorations fall in this category, just look at the coding for its tag. And even after using this tag, I now add my own free license to the free domain in case people claimed I owned the copyright to my own photo blocking others from using it. I'm honestly at a loss to see what more can be done. Do you think this is acceptable and would prevent future problems? I must admit going through this every 6 months or so is a bit discouraging. Fdutil (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC) {{PD-RU-exempt}}[reply]
Check out this particular one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus_Cross_1st_grade.jpg Fdutil (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you photograph a work, there are two copyrights: 1) the work itself (a medal, in this case) and 2) the photograph of the medal. I understand that, at least with respect to Russia, governmental medals are generally in the public domain. That is not the issue. The issue in the images I’ve nominated is that the photographs were sourced to non-free sites. Alternatively stated: the medals may be free, but the photographs are not. If you personally have taken the photograph, there is no issue; you cannot, however, take non-free images you find on the internet, even if the subject medal is not under copyright. If you have published these photographs prior to upload to the Commons, you should use the procedure at COM:OTRS to demonstrate that you are indeed also the photographer. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you. Fdutil (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LPC sock

His newest: LESSisMORE. INeverCry (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and Daker has been busy today too. My cup runneth over. Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember old John. Kay Körner and Jermboy27 have been around lately too. They only have about 20 years of socking between the three of them... INeverCry (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daker

An IP edit from him. lNeverCry 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, INC. No sleepers. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with Vandalism

Thanks again with your help with Lorella800. Now I have a doubt: how do you deal with this kind of vandal, which uploads are all possibly copyviols or unusable files or files which information is not reliable? On itwiki we had to delete more than 100 files that were either copyviols or not helpful for the project (e.g. unreadable maps or pieces of an image taken out of context). Now this vandal has discovered Commons and is uploading his files here to put them back in Wikipedia. Besides blocking him, it is possible to remove also the files? Otherwise he will continue forever... --Ruthven (msg) 15:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't necessarily one right way; if it were me, I would do a mass DR using VisualFileChange and use, essentially, a COM:PRP rationale (e.g., "These images were uploaded by a sock of a user with a significant history of copyright violations and block evasion (20 socks); accordingly there exists significant doubt as to the copyright status of these images. Several/many may also fail COM:SCOPE by virtue of being unreadable or irreparably out of context.") Alternatively, posts at COM:ANU or COM:ANV describing the problem and the uploader's history can also often lead to the images being nuked. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll follow one of those ways. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anitnovic2016

Hi Elcobbola. It looks like you confirmed that Anitnovic2016, IamUrian, and KatorseNiAmang were the same person at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anitnovic2016. What happens now? Does this mean these accounts will be blocked for sockpuppetry? I am not too familiar with how SPIs work on Commons, so I am not sure if there is something else which needs to be done. For reference, all three accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of "Ronald Galope Barniso" on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly: my apologies, I'd meant to block the accounts but allowed myself to become distracted. I've blocked them now. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking another look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Melin

Good day El C Can you take at look at the OTRS ticket for Carly Melin? As I'm sure you know, there is no such entity as the "Minnesota State House of Congress", and I therefore removed the license template. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, KB. The ticket indeed relates to correspondence with the @senate.mn domain, so no need to worry about the source. That said, however, it relates only a single portrait of Michelle Fischbach, not to all Minnesota Senate content. (It's a little convoluted, but an initial question meant to address all such images was ultimately answered by an official Senate Photographer indicating he created the Fischbach portrait, and it is PD. There was no follow up to return focus the broader issue.) Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I edited the description of the "author". Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LPC

Can you have a look at 77.232.172.134? Feel free to adjust that rangeblock. LPC used the IP today on Meta: [1]. INeverCry 04:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here. He's also been using 92.24.x.x on my de.wiki talk page. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should email him through Tor and see if I can reason with him... lNeverCry 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think we wouldn't be having this conversation if reason were in his wheelhouse, and he's already stolen quite enough of your (our, everyone's) time. Эlcobbola talk 15:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm busy enough with his fellow LTA Jhony jhony ha ji anyways. If you have a minute, can you check ~Hunter17 for sleepers? this guy is a real pita, naming his socks after admins, copying their talkpage notices, signatures, etc (this one is a spoof of ~riley)... lNeverCry 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there for now. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hello Elcobbola,

The following accounts are sockpuppets of User:Πρώτη Σερρών:

I can confirm they are the same person.

Regards -- Gobbler (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gobbler, please forgive my belated response. Could you please give a rationale/diffs as to why they are sockpuppets? I'm short on time and can't seek them myself; the above is not adequate evidence (which we require) to run a check. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the violations NIKOWISE

Hi, about the rights violations you are talking about, the photos of "Los Siento Laura" and "comedy Cluj Festival" were taken in the same place, in fact the director of the film sent me the photographs, you can See in the page www.ahorasitv.cl, these are the same ones that have been uploaded to IMDB, please you could explain to me that I have violated the rules since the same person who took them sent me, the director traveled with the actress to Romania and took the photos at the same festival

thumb|Catalina Vera en su rol de Lili en "Lo Siento Laura" (2016) thumb|Catalina durante la gala del Comedy Cluj International Film Festival (2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikowise (talk • contribs)

Nikowise, images may only be licensed by the author (photographer); that the director of the film sent you the images indeed implies you are not the author. As these images were published elsewhere prior to upload to the Commons, the author--not the director, if different--needs to supply evidence of permission using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I need the director to send me a letter authorizing to publish the photographs? Even when he sent them to me? If you look for them you will see that they are only in the page that I sent you and in imdb. nikowise talk 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer, not the director, needs to send evidence of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Эlcobbola talk 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The director is also the producer and pays for those photos to the photographer for which he has the right over them or I am wrong?
On the other hand, I will join the actress and I will take the photos myself, as I can be sure that later they will not say that I have plagiarized them from somewhere? nikowise talk 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is conferred to the author (photographer) at the time of the work's (photograph's) creation; it would generally not transfer to the director, even if the the director paid the photographer, without a written instrument (e.g. an employment contract or a work-for-hire agreement). Accordingly, even if the copyright has been transferred to the director, we would need 1) a copy of the aforementioned instrument and 2) correspondence from the director indicating the free license. You may, of course, personally take a photograph without issue. Note, however, that publishing it elsewhere prior to uploading it here will expose you to the need to submit OTRS correspondence. Эlcobbola talk 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I really did not know that it was so difficult to upload a photograph, I would be grateful if you deleted the warning because I did not do anything in bad faith and thought that only having permission from the director was enough. I will take the photos and upload them first here so as not to have problems.nikowise talk 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and appreciate that you were acting in good faith. Your talk page is yours to do with as you please, so you are welcome to remove or archive the warning at your leisure. Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Gasteyer photo copyvio

We seem to have tagged this photo at about the same time, and I ended up in an edit conflict. The only reason I left my tag on once I realized this is that I think my source, which appears to be Gasteyer's agent, is a slightly better one for showing copyvio. Sorry for any inconvenience, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I reverted only because your version corrupted the template. Both sources are sufficient (I chose one that had an explicit credit), as the threshold is showing publication prior to Commons upload. Эlcobbola talk 22:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mark Pattinson

I have uploaded a number of pictures All taken personally by me so as far as I am aware makes me the copyright owner. I would appreciate if you would explain if I don't own the copyright who does? The pictures can be found on my Official Facebook page. If you can let me know who claims to own the copyright of my pictures can I ask them to pay me? Pictures from https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherMPattinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Mark Pattinson (talk • contribs)

Candidly, I don't believe you. As an easy example, File:Kate Davies.jpg, an image for which you claim to be the author (both in the author field and the statement above: "I have uploaded a number of pictures All taken personally by me"), is the work of Richard Munn, used as an example on his official headshots page. Similarly, you claim to be the author of File:Emily Hawgood.jpg and to have used an iPhone - both patently untrue. The image appears on Ms. Hawgood's modeling agency's official site, where its EXIF data credit the author and copyright holder as "Damian Miranda." If you continue to upload copyright violations and to misrepresent intellectual property rights, you will be blocked from editing. Эlcobbola talk 03:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong the pictures were lifted from my Facebook by the people you mention and both Kate and Emily are friends of mine. I will not be uploading anymore pictures. I would like to however point out s number of Wikapedia pages have picture that have been lifted from my Facebook and listed as owned by someone else. I don't also believe a word you say .plesse also remove all mentions of me as a sock Puppet.____

Bye bye Commons !

Hi ! I'm retired since tonight because :

  • it's forbidden to draw with Photoshop an image derivative since other images (see the notice lower) ;
  • a collective palaeontological model in a public and free entrance scientific Museum, is considered as an art work concerned by the copyright rules ;
  • a palaeontological anonymous drawing in a scientific book, is considered as an art work concerned by the copyright rules.

It's a great misunderstanding about the palaeontological, archaeological or naval reconstitutions which are generally not art works but often anonymous scientific and collective works. A reconstitution or a model is, by definition, in great part conjectural, because even in the rare cases of preservation in amber, tar, peat or ice, the organic material is damaged, particularly concerning its colors. Any reconstitution or model is in order to stay within the limits of what is allowed by researchers at the time it is made, and must necessarily be inspired by other pictures already scientifically proved, for example in the specialized magazines. If one does not understand this process of « conjecturally reconstituted being » (whose most impressive examples are the « real size Dinosaurs » sitting proeminently in the gardens or in the front square of various Museums, or else prehistorical Hominidae presented in dioramas by many Museums), this one will consider as « inaccurate » and/or as a « copyviol », the whole of the artist's views, of the computer-generated images, of the volumic reconstitutions, and Paleontology, Archaeology or Naval history will be deprived of all its iconography intended for general public, apart from the scientific pictures in specialized magazines, that will evade this iconographical « cleaning », possibly concerning even some great masters as Mauricio Antón, Dimitri Bogdanov, Zdeněk Burian, Heinrich Harder or Charles R. Knight. Cheers. --Amélie Pataud (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we see: if a museologic illustrators or model-builders team (as "Amelie Pataud") works anonymously in the scientific public domain, they are quacks (thank you, that's cute) because the art work merchandisig rules must apply indiscriminately to all images without exception. "Down with the derivative works, the PD and the FoP", isn't it ? Congratulations. --Amélie Pataud (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Echevarría deleted

At the bottom of this page http://velvet.wikia.com/wiki/Paula_Echevarría you can find this message: "Wiki Velvet es una comunidad Fandom de TV. El contenido está disponible bajo la licencia CC-BY-SA." translated it means that: "its content is avalible under the CC-BY-SA license". --GFHarris (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you quote is a general site notice. The specific license (Licencia) for that image says "Este archivo tiene copyright y será utilizado de forma legítima (fair use) según las leyes de copyright estadounidenses." This is not a CC claim, and fair use is not allowed on the Commons (COM:FU). Further, that is a wiki site where, like the Commons, anyone can upload anything - see Commons:License laundering. For example, the image was uploaded there 7. March 2014; however, it appeared here in at least 2013, where is it properly attributed to "© Bernardo Doral", which matches the author in the EXIF data. Эlcobbola talk 22:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You are right. I did not see any of that.--GFHarris (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes!

Best Wishes, Elcobbola!
Hi Elcobbola, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I'm afraid your two teddy bears are under copyright...--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, this was taken in Switzerland, so it is fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think about FoP, but about copyvio, per COM:TOYS ! Happy new year everybody !--Jebulon (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock of LouisPhilippeCharles

See Special:Contributions/80.229.42.189. Same Sheffield location, and here's the usual rename request on a file edited in 2015 by his locked sock Simplegoose. lNeverCry 08:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, INC. No sleepers. Эlcobbola talk 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check. I've asked for a long global block at Meta. I would still bet money that IP editing like this is a diversion to keep attention off of one or more active sock accounts. He makes these IPs way too visible and easy to find. This guy is a tricky sockmaster like Chace Watson, Josh Rummage, or RafikiSykes. lNeverCry 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving him far more time and thought than he deserves. Really, either a contribution from an unidentified sock is within policy (no harm to the project) or will be caught eventually; RBI and give your attention to matters actually deserving of it. He's just "another human being"...with "a brain injury." ;) Эlcobbola talk 22:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, that's like tossing a ball and expecting a dog not to go running after it. These sockmasters and their socks are like my favorite chew-toys. And yes, I realize I just compared myself to a dog in two separate analogies... lNeverCry 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Thank you for your recent action. I have left a comment on my talk page on which I would like your views. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive?

Hi, I don't think your comment here is accurate. You disagreeing with my closures don't make them abusive. Even if I am in a minority, and that other admins have another opinions, they are not abusive. I often think that our decisions on copyright matter are much too strict compared with how things are done elsewhere. Even if others disagree with that, I am still entitled to this opinion.

The Bounder's comment here is just nonsense and disrespectful. And yes, reverting closures of DRs are not accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yann, there is no reason to assume bad faith, even if you think the closure is a bad choice. Yann is one of our most productive admins and in general a constructive colleague. And, like all of us, he sometimes will take decisions others disagree with or even bad decisions. That's live. We are all human. Jcb (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "nonsense" in my comment: you ignored policy in coming to a bad decision, then compounded that by leaving misleading statements on my talk page before making an involved block. Such sub-standard activity from a "productive admin" is worrying. Yes, Jcb, we can all make a bad decision, but Yann's interaction at several points fell too far below acceptable standards. And he has walked away completely without censure or black mark against his name. I have a record on my block log as a result of several very poor administrative decisions: he walks away with absolutely no such mark against his name. It really is rather shameful. - The Bounder (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Yann, here you go again with your nasty behaviour. It's New Year, how about a change in your behaviour, huh? ★ Poké95 12:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_9&oldid=250477163"