User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 2

Happy New Year Ellin Beltz!

Ellin Beltz,
Have a great 2015, and thanks for your contributions to Commons! INeverCry 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memória de F. A. Mesmer, doutor em medicina, sobre suas descobertas.png

Caro Ellin Beltz a imagem já domínio público http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75473x observe e analise antes de criticar o trabalho dos outros. Assinatura Mesmer: Acervo pessoal de 1784. não faz isso não só quero deixar a wik. mais informativa.

Hi User:Rodrigo Elias Cardoso: Then http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75473x would be the source, not own work as you have it now. Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eri Ritsou and Yiannis Ritsos.jpg

Hello Ellin Beltz, and happy New Year! Regarding the above file, I don't really think there's a problem. The uploader is a trusted user in el wiki and I guided him at every step of the image donation and upload process (it was extensively explained to the donor what the release for free use means, and she explicitly agreed). Note also that this is one of the most famous poets in Greece, so the whole process was a more formal thingy.

I would close the DR as "Keep", but that wouldn't be totally appropriate of me, since I was involved in the upload process (by guiding the user). So perhaps it would be better if you retracted, since IMO there's no problem - maybe the source field is lacking a more detailed file history, we could work on that. Let me know what you think. Thanks a lot! - Badseed ^talk 02:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badseed: Could you please explain to me how this file should bypass the established OTRS process? I am very sorry but I don't think that the release as stated is sufficient. I mean really, anyone could do that, and then the precedent would be that OTRS is meaningless because anyone can type any license they wish without proof. Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is an upload by a user that's trusted back in the home wiki, who specifically asked for advice long before the upload about exactly what should be discussed with the image donor and what steps to take, in order to have a valid licensing and no copyright problems. I understand that these things don't show in the image info but and even so I don't think this is a shady/"permission from God" upload. It's as simple as having an image donated; it's the same info I would have filled in, if the image were donated to me. Anyway I don't want to take any more of your time as the user decided to go for the OTRS, we'll see how that works out. Kind regards, Badseed ^talk 02:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badseed: Thanks for letting me know. One thing you seem confused on is that "images donated to me" will still require full OTRS permission to be hosted on Commons. Each of the wikiprojects has their own limits and guidelines, so your experience in the "home wiki" might be very different. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not always, I do believe that for an older user things would be easier. Anyway, thanks a lot for taking the time to reply again, let's hope we'll get this right, and for the better. Regards! - Badseed ^talk 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castell de Godmar Pitch Putt.jpg

Ellin Beltz, you removed the {{No license since}} tag from File:Castell de Godmar Pitch Putt.jpg but left the file without a copyright license tag. Why did you remove the tag? As far as I can determine the file has no license since the OTRS received template is not, but itself, any indication of a copyright license. —RP88 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RP88: Looks to me like an OTRS volunteer needs to help out on this one. There was no reason to delete the file since OTRS was received. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS Please give me time to reply to your first note before making more changes.[reply]

Sure, no problem. Note that a possible complicating factor is that the "OTRS permission confirmed" {{PermissionOTRS}} was added by the original uploader, who is not an OTRS volunteer. —RP88 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking INC to take a look here as I think he can see inside OTRS as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For what it is worth, File:Fernandisco.jpg has the identical issue (including same ticket). —RP88 (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: @Green Giant: Can one of you guys take a look at these two files and see if the OTRS ticket is real? INeverCry 06:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have access to that queue. I suspect it is the info-ca queue, so perhaps @KRLS: or @SMP: could look at it? Green Giant (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Jarekt‎ fixed these files. —RP88 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for helping out on this! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esposizione Triennale di Arti Visive a Roma 2014 TiltEstetica Daniele Radini Tedeschi.jpg

Not only a smaller version of File:Esposizione Triennale di Arti Visive a Roma 2014 Tiltestetica Daniele Radini Tedeschi.jpg but, (if you look accurately at the different greatness and style of titles and writings on the coverbooks) a previous version of the art catalog's coverbook. However, if you want to delete the smaller photo, I do not oppose. Unsigned 14:35, 8 January 2015‎ Ugo Bongarzoni

Hi Ugo Bongarzoni: I was unable to tell there was any difference from the descriptions which appear the same. Sometimes people upload slightly different versions of things and with the file names so similar and the descriptions identical there was no way to tell that there was any intended difference between the two. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin. I uploaded the first version thinking it would be the only version. Later the editor sent me the other and I uploaded it with the same name because the title was the same. I had to specify it in the description but I didn't. It's my mistake. Sorry :) --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 01:23, 9 January 201

Hi Ugo Bongarzoni: No worries! That's why they picture admins with mops, dusters & brooms!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:35882_imagen_6.jpg

you have deleted my own work. Unsigned by User:Jontxiwiki

Hi User:Jontxiwiki: There's a process for appeal, go to COM:UNDEL and make a new section, explain why that file was your own work, and don't forget to sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ so the editors over there don't have to go seeking to find you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Raj Chowdhury images uploaded by Sayan999

Hi Ellin, Appreciate your contributions to Wiki as always. The images uploaded do not violate the official policy on Wikimedia Commons. The reason cited by user for deletion "This type of upload is more suitable to Facebook or social media, Commons is not a personal photographic album" is arbitrary and counterproductive. The material does not violate copyrights. I would stress on citing a more firm ground by the user before attempting to remove my own work from being available for use by others. Thank you, 8:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Sayan999

Hi Sayan999: Please comment on the deletion pages as anything you say here doesn't influence the process. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Renan Siqueira Azevedo

Hi, please, read the topic here. Renan Siqueira Azevedo (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Cat

Hi Ellin. Thank you for your comments, she is really missed. I do have a small request, regarding her in fact. Persians have a life span of about 12 years, she lived to a nice 18.5 and I have included a photo of her on the En Wiki, in the section about expected life span. I think that it is notable considering the facts offered in the wiki. The page does not have any photos of "elderly" Persians. A IP editor has decided to stalk and remove any photo I seem to contribute for the last week, and the IP (one with a LONG history of blocks) try's to remove any photo I place on the site. If you would please chime in, on the Persian Talk page on EN project, I would be most grateful. Thank you again for your warm comments and admiration. It has been a really tough two weeks, dealing with something so close to the heart I was a bit scattered for a short while and your post really picked me up. Meow & Cheers..--WPPilot (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WPPilot: I took a look at both the article and the talk page and left a rather lengthy comment with reliable secondary citation on the second one. Your photos are gorgeous, I have really enjoyed looking through your gallery. And when I lost my old girl in October this year, I was scattered for a month... so I totally know what you're going through. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files from the trailer of the movie Le Tatoué.

I don't understand why those files I posted were deleted. All of them were screenshots of the trailer of the movie, a trailer released between 1923 and 1977 in USA : so, these files don't violate the copyrigt !!! - Groupir ! (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupir !: According to Category:Le Tatoué... Le tatoué, also know as The Million dollar tattoo, or The tattoo, or The tattoo man, is a French – Italian comedy movie from 1968, directed by Denys de La Patellière, and starring by Jean Gabin and Louis de Funès.... Please note that the director De La Patellière died on 21 July 2013 at the age of 92. "Mort du réalisateur Denys de La Patellière" (in French). Lemonde.fr. 2013-06-25. Retrieved 2013-07-22. That makes it a 1968 movie, whose creator only died a year and one half ago. Please tell me why you think it has no copyright? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the different rules and licenses before I uploaded these files : I didn't say that the entire movie was under a free license, I have uploaded these files because they come from the trailer of the movie, which is under a free license, because it was published between 1923 and 1977 in USA, like some of these files. I hope that my explanation will convince you to restore the files (and sorry for my bad level in english). - Groupir ! (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupir !: Please comment on the deletion nomination for these files; nothing you write here will help/hurt the process. If they've already been deleted, you'd leave a message at COM:UNDEL, but please be advised that images from a copyright movie do not lose their copyright by being put into an (arguably) non-copyright promotional trailer. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair erased image

Hi ellen, you erased my image from Sucker but that image I do it. I don´t found it on internet. Please, give me back my image -- Adam Files (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi : Actually, the last file deleted was at 17:59, 13 January 2015 by Yann File:Charli XCX - Sucker.png (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing). May I suggest you leave a message including the file name and any other information at COM:UNDEL? Other admins will review your request and assist you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the support and appreciation.

WPPilot (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official Photo - marked for deletion...

The photo you have marked for deletion was provided by the Ohio House (taken for officials) and the rights purchased and provided to the candidates for public use. This was provided to ALL officials and not paid for by a Political Action Committee. Previous unsigned by 12:25, 19 January 2015‎ Runningtotheroar

Hi Runningtotheroar : Please don't forget to sign your name with four ~~~~ tildes... it makes it ever so much easier to figure out who you are... from that... can come what photo. There are two images ( File:Kyle Koehler Official 2.jpg & File:Kyle Koehler Official.jpg on the deletion nomination. Please click on that link ( deletion nomination ) and provide the proper source for the images.

Specific to your two images, the problem arose because you put own work and a self-license on images which are obviously not created with a home digital camera. It makes a lot more sense that they are official portraits, but it is not then possible to say "this official portrait is my own work".

Please put all discussion of this situation on the nomination page, nothing you say here can be assumed to be read by other admins and if no information is provided another admin (not me) may delete those. Thank you for understanding this is a process not a judgement. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You rock, Ellin. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of EnygmaRed.jpg

You nominated this picture for deletion and I don't understand why. Especially since I own the photograph, so there is no possibility of copyright violation. RioKampala (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)RioKampala[reply]

Hi RioKampala: According to the deletion log, " 07:33, 14 January 2015 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:EnygmaRed.jpg (Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our COM:OTRS team to get the file restored)". I'd suggest following Fastily's suggestion! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotrayrain

Hi, I'm contacting you regarding the deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veiw of Hotrayrain..JPG. As you know, if you've read the deletion discussion at w:Articles_for_deletion/Hotrayrain, I believe that this image was taken by the uploader, perhaps a college student on a visit back to his home village. The language of the area is Pahari and it is written in the Devanagari script. This may well be the first time that the name of the village has appeared in Latin characters on the Internet. Despite that, the WP article was deleted on the grounds that name of the village couldn’t be found with Google, and the same argument was made here. I question those arguments.
I am especially concerned with the accusations that the image is a hoax, and the lack of a specific policy reason for deletion. The file was on use on WP in the AfD discussion, on a draft, and on my user page. I thought it was a beautiful image, and I wanted to keep it as a reminder that users from developing countries face language and technical barriers that we in Japan or the United States can hardly imagine. The user is apparently discouraged by the semi-automated wall of rejection that he encountered on WP. But if he does come back, I want to help him with his draft and work with him to see if there is anything we can do to meet our sourcing requirements. I would also like to see it undeleted as indication that Assume Good Faith is still the policy at the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you. Margin1522 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Margin1522: The best thing you can do is to go to COM:UNDEL and give your argument there. Other editors can then take a look and see what can or can't be done with them. Please remember that dozens of images and articles are removed daily which deal with non-real places. In one case a youth had decided his bedroom was a micronation, gotten together a flag and a history - wrote it all up as a very nice WP article - and it was several weeks before it was all discovered and promptly removed. I totally Assume Good Faith; I can't find the name of the town on any map of the Punjab, even some very old maps in my private collection do not show that name - nor the most modern computer maps. So in the interest of COM:PRP, if we're finding nothing and the article was considered unverifiable, I don't know what else to do than what I did. With that said, I won't oppose your note over at UNDEL. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are several lists which do not show this town which one would expect to show. Please see

http://censusindia.gov.in/towns/pb_towns.pdf Census of India - Alphabetical list of towns and their population: Punjab
http://www.fallingrain.com/world/IN/23/a/H Alphabetical listing of Places in State of Punjab, and
http://www.citypopulation.de/php/india-punjab.php City Population: India - Punjab

I hoped that I would find them when no one else had, but unfortunately so far - not. I would assume the Census of India would have a good handle on names of towns and its written in Roman characters. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ellin, thank you very much. In that case I guess I will just leave a message on his talk page and if he comes back we can start over. I suspect that this village may be in northern Pakistan, so it might not appear on an Indian map. But I do appreciate the effort, and taking the time to explain it. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove

that. Gerardus died in 2011. Yours, --4028mdk09 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4028mdk09 : Please comment on the deletion nomination and explain why copyright is open? Usually artists have to be dead for 70 years for their work to become public. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know and honestly I don´t care about the deletion request. My only interest was to tell you that Geradus sites had been protected since he died in 2011. I don´t know why there are edits by admins again and again. Yours, --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion, pls?

Hi ellen. Some of the pics nominated here were deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Nidrac36 Someone had just opined the pictures fell in the scope of pseudoscience. Could you explain why they were removed. It made prefect sense to document lens artifacts that were pseudoscientifically purported to be claims of nibiru (a mythical planet), no? Also there were 3 other images that weren't deleted from that page. Does this mean they can be kept?

And, these two images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&user=Emphatik&ilshowall=1) were derived from the images you deleted. So they dont have a source now. How can I rectify this? thank you. Emphatik (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S.: I just gave this previous message a new title. Because I thought you might not have noticed it. Sorry for the haggle, lol) cheersEmphatik (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Emphatik: Please see the two new deletion nominations I placed on those images with reason "A composite of images deleted as unused. This image is also unused, and thus out of COM:SCOPE." Personally I don't think every lens flare belongs on Commons, please see Help:Improve the quality of your pictures and etc. for help. For deletion policy for these images, a good place to start is COM:SCOPE. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes. I was actually going to use them. But since their parent files had been nominated for deletion, I didnt know what the proper procedure was. Could we please take the two derivates off deletion. Here's what I was going to do - There is an article on a pseudoscientific theory about a mythical planet, nibiru within the solar system. The picture purported to be evidence of this so called planet, in the wiki article, is one of the V838 Monocerotis star. However, this star doesn't fall within the critera of this so-called planet. And moreover, much of what is purported to be Nibiru on the internet is essentially curious lens artifacts (some of which dont act like normal lens artifacts-hence giving fire to this claim).

I was going to use the Nibiru-5 image in the article, to represent what is more frequently passed of on the interwebz as purported claims of Nibiru. And then I was going to link the other composite image to the Nibiru-5 image. That way readers can see it is just one of many other lens artifacts. Only those two pictures left on the commons. Pretty please. Emphatik (talk") 07:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emphatik : While I appreciate your fervor on the subject, I don't think blurry lense flares are educational. So, I suggest you take your request to COM:UNDEL. Please leave a short cogent note why you feel any/all of these images could/should be restored. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ellen. thanks. But I was talking about the 2 pictures that have been nominated. Not the ones that were deleted. Can we get ppl to comment on the nomination then? Is there like a rfc for the two images nominated I can use, before they get deleted? cheers Emphatik (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Oh. As I understand it the COM:UNDEL is the equivalent to a rfc for wikimedia. thanks. Emphatik (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ellen. Sorry to keep bothering you. I went to COM:UNDEL. They told me it was the wrong forum. So I went to the village pump. And they told me to go back to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg. So now I'm back to square one. I left a note on the nomination page detailing why I thought the two pictures are worthwhile. But now I fear, noone else will opine & it will be deleted w/o a discussion. (Thanks for you patience). Emphatik (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced message

(this was on your userpage)

Hallo User Ellin_Beltz (if this is the wrong place to ask you, please help me. All these pages are so confusing - I am not an experienced user of Wikipedia, but want to contribute my knowledge)

There was a picture I uploaded to Wikipedia (Bewegungskontrolle) deleted by you in November. - There were people who messed up the whole article, first the text, then I found two messed up pictures and one deleted. So it took me some time until I found your responsibility for deleting pictures. I wrote a mail to you to ask you why you deleted the picture (Open_closed.JPEG). But I did not get any answer. Now I ask again. I went through the possible reasons, why a picture might has been deleted, but there was nothing that could apply for my picture.

So please give me some information why you deleted the picture and please reinstall it - there was a reason, why I wanted it at that place. --Jakarandatree (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jakarandatree: Sorry for the delay in replying to you; this message was left on my user page and I did not notice the edit.

I see from your user page that you were notified of a couple of images for deletion; however I didn't have anything to do with the images which are listed on your user pages. For [[:File:Bewegung1.JPG - it was deleted 00:27, 3 July 2014 by Fastily. The entire discussion is here. I don't see my name on any of that discussion or those images, so now I'm as confused as you are. I don't see any deletions on your account in November at all, nor do I see any deletions I made on your account. I see an image "Deutsch: Kontrollzentren der Bewegungskontrolle im menschlichen Organismus" but that image is active and undeleted. I looked on the page that the image was attached to and find that the image is still on that page, no deletions of images appear to ever have been made on that page. So I'm drawing a complete blank here. If you can find the file names in question, I'd be happy to try to help you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete File:Sabine Kornbichler 6853.jpg

Dear Ellin, My name is Frieder Kornbichler. I'm the husband of the author Sabine Kornbichler. A few weeks ago I uploaded a photo of my wife, which I shot myself, and included it into her Wikipedia page. This photo was deleted by you.

From your message on my talk page I cannot see the exact reason for this deletion. Did I make a mistake when setting the license? Or was there a misunderstanding about who I am and/or who shot the photo? What must I do to get the file undeleted?

Thanks for your help,

Frieder Kornbichler (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frieder : The person who nominated the image for deletion cited "http://www.amazon.de/Sabine-Kornbichler/e/B00457O672" as a place on the internet where an older version of this file was placed. This caused them to think that the file was being swiped to use here (which is unfortunately quite common). I understand from your note now that you took the image. I have restored the image, and put the Amazon address in the "other versions" box. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your understanding that the process is for the protection of the image creator. In this case, yourself! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source of File:Struktura BPEJ (Bonitovaná půdně ekologická jednotka).png

Hello and thanks for concerning about my work. Can you please help me with the file you marked as a file without souce? It has a source description, it is my own work. What is wrong with this? Thanks for reply --Tarenor (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarenor: What is the source of the information in the diagram? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct research of our research institution where I work. If you are interested, then it is Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, founded by Ministry of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic. Futhermore this diagram or origin of the data is not protected, it is public information. --Tarenor (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarenor: The best thing to do is to put that information on the file and leave a comment on the deletion nomination. If you'll let me know when your changes have been made, I can withdraw the nomination. Cheers! !!!!

Hello Ellin Beltz, I am more and more confused with every new information:

Deletion nomination with this specific file has been if IU understand this situation correctly withdrawn by one of your colleague with comment "rv in this case own work is correct".
When I uploaded documents I carefully read tooltips and basic info about publishing at Commons and I tried to fill all columns as good as possible. Yet it seems that selecting source as my own work is useless: it is nominated for deletion. Every tooltip or description has IMHO meaning: "what is source of the file", but your approach has meaning "what is the source of the information of the file (e.g. where did you get the formula)". I have no problem with that, but then tooltip is wrong, because it refers to file and not it's contain.
Similar problem with description is in the step of uploading a picture: I have a choice to select, that I am the author, or I can say that someone else is. But Tooltip says: "Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication" I admit that meaning of word "publication" is fuzzy for me in this context, but I understand it that I have to fill the column with a URL link, or ISBN of book or other published paper. But some of my files are my work, some have origin in Institute archive, there is no public place to point and verify my statement. It this okay?
The last point is about my two files which has beed deleted about an hour ago after your marking as a possible violation: File:GAEC 2.png and File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg I tried to communicate to your colleague who deleted files. Should I use Undeletion request instead or is direct approach to administrator faster?

Sorry for bothering you, but I would like to understand the process to avoid this situation in the future. Thanks! --Tarenor (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarenor: I'd work with the deleting admin in this case prior to going to UNDEL. In future, don't use Upload Wizard, use the long form upload. When you get to source, explain that the research is being done at your place, why it is considered "open permissions" and if possible a link to something that shows that the research of your institute is open permissions. Tooltip explanation of course is only a brief one, please read COM:L for more information about sourcing and licensing for commons. Does this help? If not leave me another message and what part I can help with and I'll reply as soon as possible. We're having crazy weather right now and no guarantees that the power will stay on all day! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin Beltz thanks for reply. I will try to avoid this sitations in the future by adding as much description as possible. Thanks. --Tarenor (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki PKusGE.jpg + File:Cover neu.jpg

Hi, yesterday you deleted these both files. I took the pictures, I edited them, I created the final pics. And I am the only copyright owner. So why that? Unsigned by User:SiegfriedWhite

Hi User:SiegfriedWhite: Your uploads appear to be promotional in nature as they are of the same band/band leader. There is no "fair use" on WikiCommons. The two which were deleted already were posters / promotional material and/or covers of musical albums, LP or CD. The two of yours which I nominated today, one is from YouTube, the other is trimmed from the band's Facebook page. Are you sure you read COM:L and COM:SCOPE, especially the part where it said "no promotional use"? I hope this helps you understand better why promotional images have and will continue to be nominated and removed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eben Bohan 1489.jpg

Why are you deleting an image, which dates from the year 1489 ??? --GDK (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDK: The file history has two statements: 1) Mine: "Marking as possible copyvio because lower left of image reads (c) Jewish Encyclopedia" & 2) Deleting editor Fastily "Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored." Since Fastily deleted it, I'd suggest discussing it with him. I'm only the suggestor, he's the deletor. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clearly obvious, that a book page from 1489 cannot be copyrighted any more, regardless of any copyright claims in the image. --GDK (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDK : It is also clearly obvious that the process to get image restored is 100% laid out above. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Suppressed files

Hello, I see that my file entitled File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg is still missing since my problems with Biopics, who flagged all my pictures for deletion. I tried to upload it again today and I was told that this file can't be uploaded as it had been deleted... Hence could you please restore it ? I have the valid OTRS licence "{{Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 Bourjon}} for it. Same thing for File:Thalamita coeruleipes, de nuit, accouplement.jpg and File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. Thanks ! FredD (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FredD : Please take the time to put your OTRS tag on each of those three pages which I restored. Good job on the OTRS!! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, cheers ! FredD (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PD-text question

I don't know if you're particularly knowledged in this, but would this qualify as pd-text?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi : The background painting looks like it came from somewhere - and this is a CD cover. It's probably going to need an OTRS or a quick pre-upload review at the Village Pump, which is probably your best bet - get everyone's opinion on it before uploading. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did upload an album cover or two before and it's on the commons. This one isn't yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Original File:Delray Beach Florida 900 block Seagate photo D Ramey Logan.jpg

Hello Ellin, I have a question for you. I nominated a photo of mine for FP on the EN site.

and when I try to pull up the high res original its gone. Lower res version are still here, but it looks to me like the original is missing and I do not think I have it with me now to reload. Any suggestions? --WPPilot (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya WPPilot : I see File:Delray Beach Florida 900 block Seagate photo D Ramey Logan.jpg with a "Original file ‎(4,800 × 3,200 pixels)..." It is still working on loading the large version while I can see all the other sizes, so I think the largest one is still there. The large file is much better quality when I enlarge it to 200% than is the next size down, so that also look like the big one is still there. I'm confused. Let me know, maybe we get someone with more years/edits than me to help you on this one; because I'm sure confuzzled. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have no problem seeing the full 4800 × 3200 pixels here; I downloaded the file to have a closer look, just to be sure. Maybe a stale browser cache, a server hiccup, or a slow connection timing out?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it must have had something to do with the connection, as it works fine now. Thanks all! --WPPilot (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:WIKI Lawrence Trent.jpg Lawrence Trent Photograph

I did not realize that written permission from Mr. Trent to use a photo was not enough for Wiki legal concerns. See my talk page for the history on this. I am not clear how to post the photo once the Creative commons license is in place. Is it a process of simply letting you know the status change, or something more involved? Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User talk:Req: Science Law Chess: The process is to go to COM:UNDEL and put a simple note as to why you think the file should be/could be restored. Please use the linked style of name, so that the UNDEL editors can easily find it, like this [[:File:WIKI Lawrence Trent.jpg]]. It may be as simple as filing an OTRS form, but the editors at UNDEL are the experts, please ask them! You can refer them back to this talk page if you wish, I won't oppose your UNDEL request. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo USAL.jpg & File:Logofuc.png

Those are logos of public domain according to Argentine law!

Argentine Law 11.723--Ralvesgoncalves (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya User talk:Ralvesgoncalves: The problem with these images is the sources, because there aren't any. One says own work and obviously isn't, the other is a logo of some type of Universidad without any link at all to their site, the source of the image and/or their licensing statements. Despite the law of Argentina, the requirements of free hosting at Commons include that images have sources as well as licenses. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armand Coustenoble.jpg‎

Hi, Sylvain the autor of this photo has send the permission,can you verify please ? Thank you Have a good day --Iffrit51 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iffrit51: I'm not an the kind of administrator who can check the OTRS queue. May I suggest you leave a note on COM:UNDEL and ask for help with this? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cute cat

Here's one I know you'll like: File:Cat 2.jpg. I rescued her from the uncategorized pile. INeverCry 06:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya INeverCry: How could she be un-cat... she's so obviously a cat! Thank you for all you do! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atouval

Dear Ellin, I am the owner (and creator) of the following design & picture:

Concerning the following files:

I am the owner of the painting but as I understand I may not be able to publish it. (I just wanted to show its work on his Wiki page) Really sorry for the inconvenience... If I have the right I would like to let the A.L.B pictures. Could you please if possible help me to do so. All the best, thank you for your work, Atouval unsigned by Atouval 10:22, 6 February 2015‎

Hi Atouval: Regarding:

File:Imaginary House Drawing.jpg was marked "Copyright SP Delord" at the source page. Since it was marked copyright, it was then sent to "copyright violations" and has been deleted as have
File:Landscape from the expressionist painter Georges Gimel.jpg and
File:Mountain from the expressionist painter Georges Gimel.jpg which were copyright violations because the copyright remains with the painter (or his heirs) not the owner of even an original painting.

For the watch pictures, please go to the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atouval and leave your message there. The problem to me seems to be that all the images are already published and credited to "SP Delord". Because your screen name bears no apparent similarity; and I am unaware if you have filed an OTRS - a simple email examined by special Commons editors which when accepted can cover permissions for self-created, pre-published images - the deletion question was raised. However, now raised, the best place to speak about it is at the deletion nomination itself as nothing we write here will be incorporated into that discussion. Thank you for understanding this is a process which exists to protect the rights of the original creators. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ellin, thank you for your response. I am indeed SP Delord. I thought it was more simple to add picture on Wiki and I should have perfectly read the tutorials. Thank you for your comments and I am going to see what I can do. Thank you! unsigned by Atouval 10 February 2015‎

Mass deletion proposal

I think Commons could do without these images. Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palosirkka: I think Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mileydi21. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! Palosirkka (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted the File:Richard Walter Darré colored.jpg?

It's is in public domain.

Daniel Steinman (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Daniel Steinman: The discussion was Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Walter Darré colored.jpg at that location. No information was provided to show that the base image was in the public domain. It is not enough to say "this is PD", you have to provide a source. For example: I could draw a picture of Mickey Mouse with girls clothes and a wig, upload it to commons and say "Mickey Mouse is PD" but if I couldn't prove it, my derivative work would be removed speedily. Further, Commons does not accept images which have been altered, manually or digitally; the project requires the base images. Derivative works like painting blue eyes and pink lips on an old photo are more appropriate to a site like deviant art or posting on one's own social media sites. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the imagem is very important, but is better to analyzing Richard Walter Darré. - Daniel Steinman (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC). And his eyes are blue - Daniel Steinman (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Daniel Steinman: Perhaps your arguments would be better placed at COM:UNDEL? I'm not going to undelete this image. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

images generated from NASA data

I have changed the attribution for the image File:W40 (= Sharpless 2-64) in IR and X-ray.jpg to list NASA/Chandra/Spitzer as the author. This image was created using publicly-available Chandra and Spitzer data, and I overlaid the three bands to create the color image.

Please rescind the nomination for deletion if this issue is resolved. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". See Commons:Deletion requests/File:W40 (= Sharpless 2-64) in IR and X-ray.jpg. OtterAM (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OtterAM : I left a reply for you on the DN page, nothing we type here has any relevance to keeping or not keeping the image. Yes, it's obviously a space agency photo, but it still needs a valid source - like where did it come from? You got the base image from somewhere - that needs to be cited as "source" then you add the bit about how you changed it. It ends up with both a Gov tag and a PD tag, and yes I would withdraw the nomination as soon as I see that the source is NASA space agency. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caricatura Williez 2.jpg

Hello Ellin Beltz. I have a problem to upload a file (which is specified in the title), which has been eliminated by having an incorrect license. I would re-upload, but will not let me Commons. I hope you can give me help. Atte. Luisedwin2105 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luisedwin2105: Please make your request at COM:UNDEL where administrators can help you restore the file. You do not want to reupload on top of a deleted file - you need to go through the process and apply at UNDEL for possible restoration of the original file. Please describe to them in detail how the file will be relicensed. It wasn't own work the last time, that's why it was removed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind having a look here?

I see you had tagged some of the Ruby Yadav photos as copyvios earlier on the user's page. I've just tagged a bunch of them. We have no proof this is the person who has the website with a copyright notice at lower left and who has a large photo gallery where many of these have come from. Just wanted to let you know. ;) We hope (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We hope: I had her gallery on my "to go back to" list. In cases like this, I nom the most obvious and see what happens next. Sometimes other admins remove everything, other times there's a valid argument to keep the whole pile. What I'm seeing here is a politician named "Ruby Yadav" who has a personal website with a copyright notice. I do not know if the uploader is same as Ruby Yadav in real life, but regardless I think this entire thing is probably promotional in nature. The website has photographs from dozens of different sources - as noticed by looking at camera, photographic style, sharpness, and so on. That Ms. Yadav is usually front and center of the image suggests that none of them are own work and instead were donated by someone/s unknown. I wouldn't oppose a mass deletion for all the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This was what I thought but wanted someone else's thoughts. I've tagged quite a few that were easily matched to the website photos and we'll need to wait and see. We hope (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We hope:I merged two categories of this user into one into one as there's no reason to have two. There are 241 pictures in that category, I doubt if any of them are own work of uploader but finding the sources and etc. will take time. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: none being own work-there are many photos on the lady's website and I believe also at Facebook. The user doesn't appear to be the person in the photos because if you look at the description, it says "she"--not "I". The whole thing looks promotional; when I first started viewing the photos, I had no idea who the person was and thought she was a film star-not a politician. :) We hope (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo identitie-Said Kouachi.JPG

Hi, Thanks for closing this. Could you add Kept: and a rationale? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Largest.svg

Please, take a look here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Largest.svg. Leogorgon (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done & reply left. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rubyyadav

these all files are my own work and image .i have my own staff as photographer. kindly cancel deletion request "Ruby Yadav" 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rubyyadav : Please leave the information about the images at their respective deletion nominations, as nothing we say here has any influence on the deletion nominations and/or discussions for: File:RUBY YADAV.jpeg, File:Ruby yadav 2014-04-15 08-48.jpg, File:RUBY YADAV 71.jpg, File:RUBY YADAV 72.jpg, File:RUBY YADAV 76.jpg, File:RUBY YADAV 78.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 80.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 77.jpg, File:RUBY YADAV 83.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 84.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 82.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 81.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 85.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 86.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 87.JPG, File:RUBY YADAV 89.jpeg, File:Ruby Yadav 223.jpg, File:Ruby Yadav 216.jpg, File:Ruby Yadav 211.jpg, File:Ruby Yadav 228.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV270BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV272BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV273BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV274BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV276BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV269BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV256BJP.jpg, File:RUBYYADAV252BJP.jpg & File:RUBY YADAV 11.jpg

Several of these images appear to have different photographers, cameras, resolutions and styles, so they were not nominated together. This permits you to address the source and licensing for each image individually. Also, was your personal photographer also the pageant photographer? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beltz , all of these images are own by me. kindly help ."Ruby Yadav" 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to contact OTRS for all of them as you did with File:Ruby yadav 2014-04-15 08-48.jpg this one. Any photos that have been deleted will be restored by OTRS after they hear from you. We hope (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rubyyadav: "Owned" is not the same thing as "I hold copyright". All these photos are published on a website which is marked (c) copyright. The OTRS that was filed on the one image before is for that image ONLY until OTRS can determine which of these photos were taken by which photographer. It is obvious they are not all the work of one person. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We hope: Please do not offer full guarantees of restoration on OTRS "will be restored" as you said above - and especially not on my talk page where it could be misinterpreted as my guarantee. I am not an OTRS editor. I do not know what the OTRS said that was received for a pageant photo of Ms. Yadav. Each image which was nominated will need to be looked at; there are obviously multiple photographers involved in the gallery, all the images are from a (c) website. The uploader has been guided to reply at the individual nominations and so far has not chosen to do so. As I'm certain you already know, what is written on talk pages means nothing to deletion nominations. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies--I did not mean to imply they would all be accepted. We hope (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Could you assist me with this situation? Thank You. 1989 16:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1989 Unfortunately I'm not a file renamer, so I am sorry but I cannot help you with this. Perhaps post your query to the Village pump? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the suggestion. 1989 16:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right-click and open the move function in a new tab, change name to new target, click move_page. It won't move because of the redirect but offers a new selectable option of deleting the target first. Clicking move_page again will perform the deletion and move together. Green Giant (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Green Giant! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multi Viral download card front side.jpg and File:Multi Viral download card back side.jpg

Hi! I've receieved a notificaton that the files File:Multi Viral download card front side.jpg and File:Multi Viral download card back side.jpg have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Both files are photocopies of a plastic card, attached to the entry ticket to the concert of the band Calle 13 at Madrid on 20. Juli 2014. I don't beleive that the usage of these photos would be illegal. The secret code for downloading the music has been shadowed on the photo. A Voszi (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Voszi: regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Multi Viral download card front side.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Multi Viral download card back side.jpg... Did you create the plastic card or only take the photo? Please reply at the deletion nomination pages listed because nothing we discuss on talk pages has bearing on the final decision - which will be made by another administrator. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obraz1 m64.jpg

Dear Elin it was me Piotr Fuglewicz, who took this photo thirty years ago using the camera of Andrzej Białas who is on the photo. There were no selfie-sticks those days, so Andrzej who is on the photo could not do it those days. But he could keep the it in his files.

But you certainly know better that situation like this is impossible. I will not fight.

Similar is about Staszek Wawrykiewicz (I got permission from the author, Andrzej Odyniec he declared it here and it is on Andrzejs page in Polish), Piotr Wierzchoń and Andrzej Horodeński - letters were sent to the addresses you need authors to send them.

I know that what I think about you doesn't matter. But I do think what I think, Wiki is my hobby and I will not loose time to fight with you, but world will be poorer due to your gendarme and unfair activities.

Wish you good luck Fugiel (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fugiel: I replied to your message at the deletion nomination, because nothing that's written here has any influence on the DN. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PaoloRustichelli-portrait.jpg

Regarding 'Paolo Rustichelli' pic. I noticed you promoted to delete my pic, which portraits me and was made by myself. I don't understand any reasonable reason for this request. Can you explain to me why you bothered with my own self-portrait pic? Thanks, Paolo Rustichelli unsigned User:Pablum13

Hi User:Pablum13: Reading the Commons:Deletion requests/File:PaoloRustichelli-portrait.jpg: It reads " Reason for the nomination: Terrible quality, looks like it may be a rephotograph of an older image, unlikely to be user's own work and more likely a COM:COPYVIO. If this user is indeed the subject, they can do better than this. " Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Engineering

Dear Ellin, I did'nt understand how this page really works, but I´m really the author of the images graphic_ce_kiel_earth_institute. Please do not delete them again! We are a german institute and I'm working here as a graphic designer. We will be happy, if the pictures are contributed on wiki commons!

Hi Climart: I'd suggest going to the OTRS page and submitting their form; the OTRS editors are very experienced and can help you. If they give you an OTRS number, then you can use that on your images and they'll be safe from poky-fingered deletion editors. Hope this helps! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anton Giulio Majano e Alberto Lupo.jpg

Hi Ellin, I guess you did a mistake. Pre-1976 non-artistic photographs taken in Italy with no copyright notice are in PD also in the USA per URAA PD-1996 (their copyright expires on 1 January of the 21st year after first publishing in Italy). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 08:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackcat: The image was deleted by INC, perhaps talk to him about an undelete? I only nominated it and yes it's possible to make mistakes in nominations, that's why the nominating editor is not usually the deleting editor as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1955 Photo File:Paul Marstrand.jpg

Dear Ellin Beltz. Here's what I just wrote on the request page in reply to your note on my photo upload. Hope this clarifies things & that you can help:

"The original even dates from 1955, to be exact (subject's 60-year birthday). It's an old family photograph I've inherited (subject is my grandfather; I was surprised a few days ago to find a rather substantial Danish WP article on him).

Here is what I wrote previously about the photo, then deleted not to confuse things:

"Own adaptive work on 1955 photo, the copyright of which expired in 2005 for Denmark (non-artistic photos of persons, 50 years after production) & in 1983 for US (work dating before 1964 = 28 years after production/publication)."

Even the first upload you refer to was already heavily "photoshopped" - background, light, &c. But I'm a novice in all this (photos & Commons, not WP as such), & later the evening improved it further - light, resolution, &c. In any case, as I've understood the copyright rules (very complicated & which I studied for hours before & after upload) photo is long since public domain in both Denmark & US, & yes, as such I do emphatically consider the present upload my own work, & stand by that claim.

Please let me know, however, if I've made a mistake. --Nielspeterqm (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (See also Nielspeterqm)"[reply]

HiNeilspeterqm: You replied at the deletion nomination which is the right thing to do. Now we wait for another administrator to reply and / or react to the nomination. Thank you for understanding this is a process, not a judgement! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to refer to the file in question. It's: File:Paul Marstrand.jpg. Sincerely, --Nielspeterqm (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, hon, by clicking on your talk page link, I got to the automatic notice that the system posts on your talk page! Thank you for coming back to help out!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A process, not a judgement"... As life itself, in other words :-) Thanks for the reply, I'll keep my fingers crossed. Sincerely, --Nielspeterqm (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JC-512Transparent.png Deleted

Hello Ellin, I am new to all of this wiki stuff. and Everything I have done to date has been deleted. Even using the article templates and following the image upload criteria. ughh... so frustrating. The picture that was removed, is mine. It was taken by me, edited by me and uploaded by me. No one but me had the image rights to use or publish until I okayed it to be shared on social media and Wiki. It is in the public domain, too. Am I missing something? JChandanais (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JChandanais : The problem was, that the head-shot you uploaded was cut from some other picture and was sourced

"=={{int:filedesc}}=={{Information|description={{en|1=Headshot of Jeremy 'JC' Chandanais; founder of WBTM ™ Production Network.}}|date=2015/02/20|source={{own}}|author=[[User:JChandanais|JChandanais]]|permission=|other versions=}} Photo Credit: <a href="http://JeremyChandanais.com/jeremy-chandanais">Jeremy Chandanais</a>"

The image however didn't appear on that website. There was no metadata from a camera showing own work. There was no way to find it "in the public domain" without a source, because it's impossible to know if the license is correct. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION REQUEST Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arnoldjohnb

ELLIN; THE PHOTOS WERE ALL TAKEN ON A TIMER ON MY CAMERA, MYSELF BEING A PROFESSIONAL PHOTGRAPHER FOR OVER 20 YEARS. SOME ARE NOT TAKEN BY ME BUT TAKEN AT MY BEHEST WITH MY CAMERA THEREFORE OF MY PERSONAL PROPERTY. I WOULD NOT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL WORK TO PROMOTE MY OWN. TO SEE MY WORK AS A PHOTOGRAPHER YOU CAN VISIT THE LINK BELOW TO MY YOUTUBE PAGE TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS TRUE. THE PHOTOS ARE SOON TO BE A BOOK! SORRY FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIVENESS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J3UWF1cZmA

Hi Arnoldjohnb: "At my behest... therefore personal property" is an argument to leave on the deletion nomination page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arnoldjohnb. Anything you write on this page doesn't have any effect on deletions. Please don't forget to sign your name by typing four tildes ~~~~ when you reply over there. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Marstrand.jpg (again)

Dear Jahoe & Ellin Beltz

I have done further digging (tags & all) which confirm my initial claim: The photo *is* unquestionably public domain, in both DK ({PD-Denmark50) & US ({PD-1996}). Please see the full tags & my reply on the nomination page. As I've said I'm relatively inexperienced with this, but believe the photo should be kept. Naturally I don't care a whit whether it's as "own work-CC" or "PD", as long at it's freely available. I also apologize for any possible error in uploading it under the former status, but this was the first photo I ever uploaded (on WP commons), & I must say I had never imagined it would cause such a stir!

What would you recommend is now the correct (& appropriate) course? Should the photo (now it's going through a nomination process) be deleted, then possibly re-uploaded with the correct tags & text, or would it be sufficient (& correct - I don't want to do anything wrong anymore!!) to edit the file, affix the correct tags, & stop the process/withdraw the nomination?

Thanks infinitely for any help you can bring in this.

Sincerely, --Nielspeterqm (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate to edit a file under discussion, as long as you don’t remove any warning or deletion templates. Just leave a note at the nomination page once you’ve done so. (IMO there’s no problem claiming credit for your retouching & adjusting work, but it doesn’t accrue copyright—at least not under US law or Commons policy—or make the picture your own, which latter seems to me to be the main point at issue. At any rate, please don’t take the criticism personally. There are so many hoaxers and deliberate copyviolators around here that some people get cynical, but good-faith contributions with a collaborative attitude are generally welcomed.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: File:Code Geass Lelouch Of The Rebellion DVD Ita.jpg

(I apologize for my bad english)
Hello, the file in object is a cropped version from this file. I used the template {{PD-textlogo}} because the new file contains only text and japanese characters; in Commons exixt many files similar, and I supposed that I could load this file. If I'm wrong, pleas delete the file. Thank you very much. --Bradipo Lento (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bradipo Lento :

I converted the "no permission tag" to a "deletion nomination" instead. This is not a judgement on what you said, but a way to get consensus from the community on the status of the image. Please leave your reply Commons:Deletion requests/File:Code Geass Lelouch Of The Rebellion DVD Ita.jpg at that nomination as you have it above and we'll see what comes out. Thank you for understanding this is a process, not a reflection on you or your contributions to the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image File:Bernstein_Michail.jpg

Hi, it't scanned fotoportrait from family archive. I'm son of Michail Bernstein. Nobody other person & never can has copyright for this photo. Regards, Viktor Bernstein Vilnius, Lithuania unsigned by User:Vicmic1954

Hi Vicmic1954: Please leave your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernstein Michail.jpg. Owning a print or a copy of a print is not the same thing as owning the copyright to the original image - that belongs to the photographer. This image is labeled own work. Please see COM:L for more information on Commons licensing and copyrights. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image File:MFBTY performing at Kollaboration Star 2013.jpg

How is it a copyright information when I'M THE ONE WHO TOOK THE PHOTO AND I WORK FOR THE ARTIST? I'm seeing a pattern here in your talk of people having their photos removed even though they photographed it themselves. Yes, I already appealed to commons, but there has to be a different way than to blatantly remove photos and accuse us of copyright infringement when in reality we really might have the rights to them! We put work into building these pages, only to have our work wrongfully taken down! --Drunkencamp (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)DrunkenCamp[reply]

Hi Drunkencamp : I handle sometimes over 100 images a day; yes you will see people come here to say that I've made mistakes. Unfortunately it very often is that the biggest complainers have the least copyright rights, but that is just the nature of the internet I suppose.

Back to your specific questions if I understand correctly:

Your file had this original upload information: == Please stop == Please stop nominating things for deletion that are ''in scope'' as being used on a sister website to this project, namely, ''Wikisource''. Thank you, -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 02:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :Hi [[User:Cirt|Cirt]]: Please see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content Commons scope and statement on excluded educational content]. You can upload the images to the relevant project, they are outside of [[COM:SCOPE]]. Thank you! [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 02:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::Hi [[User:Ellin Beltz]]: Please see [[COM:INUSE]], specifically, [[COM:INUSE|''"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."'']] Thank you! -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :Hi [[User:Cirt|Cirt]]:You need to leave your comments at the deletion page, duplicating them here won't help/hurt the nominations. Don't be upset at the process; it only makes all the projects better. [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 03:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::'''Ellin Beltz''' -- Please note that ''Wikisource'' commonly uploads files here to Commons, as a way of verifying the texts located at Wikisource. Your behavior is disruptive to that sister site and to this site. Please stop. Thank you! -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :Hi [[User:Cirt|Cirt]]: Do let the nomination process take place and all the admins will have an opportunity to comment on it. I don't believe that my behavior is disruptive and I would appreciate it if you would take the time to reply to the nominations on those pages and not add more here. There is no need in the project for additional and unnecessary drama. Thank you. [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 03:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::Hi [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]]: Please see [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Disruptive_and_frivolous_deletion_nominations_by_Ellin_Beltz]]. Thank you. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :Sure thing, have fun! [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 03:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::'''Update:''' Both pages were "Speedily Kept". Please be more mindful of [[COM:INUSE]] in the future. Thank you! -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::: {{u|Cirt}} Please cool it with the lecturing. You have made your point...on multiple DRs, noticeboards, user talk pages, and even multiple projects. Enough. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::::{{u|Peteforsyth}} Thank you for acknowledging that I've made my point, to you. I hope that I've also made my point, to {{u|Ellin Beltz}}. Have a great day, -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :::::{{u|Cirt}} Thank you for acknowledging my acknowledgment. I hope that sooner or later, I can stop staring through my fingers at this utterly unnecessary campaign of personal criticism, and get back to work. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::::::{{u|Peteforsyth}} Sorry you feel that way, was not my intent. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :{{u|Peteforsyth}} & {{u|Cirt}}: This reminds me of the classic quote from Dude in {{w|The Big Lebowski }}: Please see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E the original clip]. Please accept the foregoing in the amused spirit in which it is offered {{smiley|wink}}. [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC) :{{tps}} {{u|Cirt}}, you try hard to prove you're right. But does it help to make any good result? [http://www.quoteland.com/author/Dale-Carnegie-Quotes/352/ No; I think]. And it is not a [http://www.quoteland.com/topic/Argument-Debate-Quotes/10/ wise way]. :) [[User:Jkadavoor|J]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|e]][[:Category:User:Jkadavoor|e]] 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC) :: Heh. Well, I'd just like the record to reflect, I've always felt Walter was a rather under-appreciated character, who's made some pretty fine contributions to this crazy world we live in. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) :I do too which is why I love the quote so much! [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 18:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC) == {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |description={{en|1=MFBTY performing at Kollaboration Star 2013}} |date=2009-02-05 07:31:05 |source={{own}} |author=[[User:Drunkencamp|Drunkencamp]] |permission=cc-by-sa-4.0 |other versions= }}

Notice that the "other versions" field is empty and there's no comment that the photo might be found at any other location and why that situation exists.

During license review, the same image was found at [1]. There's no indication of copyright release on that website, so the image was nominated as copyvio and speedied to protect the rights of the artist.

What you do now to get the file restored, is to send the nice editors over at OTRS the email form on that page. OTRS is done to protect the rights of the artist - and as a creator yourself I'm sure you appreciate the attention to copyright rights and being sure that no errors are being made. Sometimes apparent copyvios aren't - and certainly I make as many mistakes as the next admin here - so please provide the simple OTRS email and when/if accepted the image will automagically reappear. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Kiel Insitute infographics on climate Engineering File:Graphic Climate Engineering Geoengineering.jpg

Hi Ellen, you deleted File:Graphic Climate Engineering Geoengineering.jpg according to standard code. Actually the file was uploaded directly from a Kiel Institute member, they maintain the web site http://www.climate-engineering.eu/ where you have found via google a copy of the same file. I have an email thread about this and I sent an OTRS to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Could you do something about it or should I simply wait for OTRS processing which takes time? Thanks --Cmnit (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cmnit: You are right, the editors at OTRS can automagically restore the file after the process is complete, but they do have a bit of a backlog, so please be patient. I'm not an OTRS editor, so I can't check their Queue to find exactly where your image is in process, but as you have sent that email they will get to it as soon as they are able. Thank you for your understanding - the process exists to protect the rights of the original creators. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Cmnit, I have found two emails related to this file, merged them and sent a reply requesting a license. Have a look at COM:ET for a sample license statement that the copyright holder can use. Green Giant (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GG, you rock! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files Deletion

Hi

Nice cat photos. I am adhere of animals rights.

I need your help. May I send you my pictures by email or something and you upload them with appropriate license to prevent them from deletion and not myself to suspension?Shkuru Afshar Shkuru Afshar (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Shkuru Afshar , I can't upload your photos for you. You need to find the correct license for your works at COM:L and then upload. How about do one, and then leave me a message, I'll go take a look at just that one for you? Once we fix the one, all the rest - probably - can be uploaded like that. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:LucyHanna.tif

Hi Ellin Beltz, I requested the File:LucyHanna.tif as this artist is on our list of entries to edit in the upcoming arts+feminism edit-a-thon. I'm new to Wikipedia and the Commons and am a bit unclear as to the reason for the Deletion request. It looks like there is another image of Lucy Hanna already in the Commons that I didn't find, is that correct? Thanks Circa73 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Circa73[reply]

Hi Circa73: I nominated that page because it contains two images of the same person "Two page pdf of same image, out of COM:SCOPE, unused." I find the essentially same image http://luhanna.com/artiststatement on the artist's own website. Is that where you got it? Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin Beltz Aha! So it's too similar to a picture from the website which is listed in the external links? No, I didn't get the image off Lucy Hanna's website. I emailed her to request that she upload an image that I could use to improve her entry, and LucyHanna.tif is the one she uploaded. Hmm...not sure how to proceed. Should I request a different image, specifying that it not be one she used on her website? Or perhaps an image of her work, rather than of her? Circa73 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Circa73[reply]

Hi Circe, The problem is that photo has already been published on a website and Commons has no way to know who the uploader actually is in real life. Fans commonly assume the name of photo subjects and upload. The photo also is a two-page document, there's no reason to have two of same picture. We'd need a better quality (not duplicated) image and an OTRS release if she uploads one which has been previously published. Ellin Beltz (talk)

Thanks for your help Ellin Beltz. I will request that Lucy Hanna upload an unpublished photograph of better quality, that is not a two-page document. Or, if she can only provide a published photograph, that she provide a OTRS release with it.Circa73 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Circa73[reply]

Hi again, Circa73 - I learned something by accident which may be of help to Ms. Hanna. I uploaded a tif image tonight and it did that two page creation without my requesting it - and without the original file being two pages! I solved it by saving the file in PNG format which uploaded in only a single page and very sharp. Who knew? Certainly not me. I will be passing that along to the other two-page tif's that I find. Thank you for your patience and understanding about the system here! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin Beltz Thanks so much for passing on that information! Lucy did upload a new image which I used during Saturday's #artandfeminism event! So far the new image seems to be passing muster, although several other images that I requested from artists have also been nominated for deletion. Ah well, it's a learning process, right? I so much appreciate your helpfulness Circa73 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Circa73[reply]

Hi Circa73: If you could pass me a list of those deletions, I'd go see if I can help out in any way? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MatrixAIr

Hi Ellin, Our intent here is to educate. The images are presented to show the variety of possible building or facade-integrated applications and building types and installation methods for this nascent sustainable energy technology. We may describe various installations that are possible, however, we considered the the images to immediately convey different architectural examples and possibilities to viewers and readers of the site. Solar thermal has historically been synonymous with "solar water heating" and our intent is to show that this is not the case and to clearly present solar (transpired absorber) air heating technology information (performance, efficiency, features, benefits, examples etc.) as best we can. Btw, we are quite new to Wiki and its dogma, procedures etc. even uploading images is not that easy, nor is citing references (which we've yet to figure out) in support of some independent data we'd like to present. unsigned by 15:07, 9 March 2015‎ MatrixAIr

Hi MatrixAIr: Please reply to the link on your talk page and leave your comment on the Deletion Nomination. Nothing we write here has any influence on the nomination. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shock Evader for FEMA.jpg

You speedy deleted with "Copyright violation." This is currently hosted on Wikiversity, under this filename, but was previously here. There is a document on the web with the image,[2] but it cited the Wikiversity page which, at the time, pointed to the image here. The user claims "own work." There is an alternate claim, which would be PD-USGov-NSF, as the user, a professor of earthquake engineering, plausibly claims that this work was done under contract with them. Both claims with the upload by him lead to the conclusion of "free." Please undelete.

The user, who is almost eighty years old, was understandably confused by Commons and other wiki process, but has become fully cooperative on Wikiversity, and I have asked him, and he has agreed, to be extremely careful about any work on Commons. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abd : The reason given for the nomination is The uploader is the subject of these images and therefore cannot be the photographer. The claim of "own work" is clearly not correct. See http://www.ecs.csun.edu/~shustov/LeisureWork.htm for photographs of the uploader. Other images by this uploader have also been deleted for this same reason, claims of own work which contain himself in them. I'm restoring this one, but I request that you personally undertake getting the right license on it and so on. The nominator, Jim is a very careful and accurate administrator. I would like to see a real source and license on this image quickly please? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will handle your request as best I can. There is a generic problem here, claims of "own work" when he asked someone to snap a photo with him in it. This is an unresolved copyright issue, bystander photos, I have seen no test cases. The Ellen selfie, so famous, never became an actual conflict, and almost never would such become that. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Only at Commons would anyone really care about this! A bystander shows up years later, claiming to own the photo? A court would probably throw them out. In any case, he believed that this was his "own work." People use words with the meanings that exist in their world, not the world of others, necessary. Yes, he was misleading. I pointed that out to him, privately. Sorry about James Woodward below, I'm less than impressed. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellin, removing my DR without even a comment to me is outside of our normal working relationship. Shustov is a liar. He has also lied at least once to Commons, when he told us that an image was shot with a self-timer when the actual photographer was visible in a mirror. Also, unproven, but very likely, he has lied at least a dozen other times.

Abd, He is far from being confused by Commons -- he has been playing the system here with three identities for several years.

The image deserves the DR which I gave it -- indeed, given his record of false claims, it deserves a {{Speedy}}. It is clearly not "own work" because Shustov appears in it. Almost all NSF contract work belongs to the contractor, not to the government, so PD-Gov probably would not apply even if Shustov did take it. In this case, it remains to be proven who the actual photographer was, so even if this was an unusual contract and the government owns Shustov's work, that does not make the work of the unknown photographer PD-Gov.

So, in short, with respect to this user the rule is Assume Bad Faith. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am assisting the user on Wikiversity, and I come to this place because of that. The user may upload files to Wikiversity, and they can be used under fair use if needed. Because this image may also be useful on other wikis -- and was apparently in use -- I decided to request restoration here. If Commons is too hard, I'll certainly not keep banging my head against the wall. The issue of bystander photos is far from legally clear, I've seen lawyers give conflicting opinions.

ABF is Bad Policy.

One more point. Normally, speedy deletion is undoable on the request of any user, that is standard wiki policy. If Commons is different, sure, I'd like to know. However, the easy reversal of it is essential to efficiency. I believe I had enough of a basis here to request undeletion and review, and I started here rather than the more formal process, that's my training from many years, because it normally avoids train wreck discussions. I'm worried about a "working relationship," it could indicate impropriety. Ellin, thanks for restoring the file, and if there is doubt, this could go to a normal deletion request, by you or by James. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, on "working relationship". The 25 or so Admins who do 90% of the work on Commons all work together in concert for the good of Commons. We do not always agree, but we are almost always polite and respectful. One of the aspects of that is that we do not undo each other's work without good reason and certainly never without telling the other Admin. In this case Ellin removed my DR from the subject file without good reason and without telling me -- that is, as I said, outside of our usual relationship.

On Commons, speedy deletion can be undone by the Admin that did it if he or she believes that the image was tagged incorrectly. Ellin is perfectly free to undo her own speedy, but that's not at issue here, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

As for my "ABF" comment, on Commons, at least, we Assume Good Faith of users until they show us that that is foolish and that they cannot be trusted. We have here a man who has abused Commons over the years with three identities and lied about the authorship of images -- why should we do anything other than take everything he says with great suspicion? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Jim; Abd's request seemed quite normal on the surface. I had restored the image to visualize it because I didn't remember what the problem was and until I saw it was your nomination - it didn't click. Then I saw the subject was the own worker. I remember the issues from before. At that time, I was unsure whether to turn it off again based on the nomination - or to see if Abd would/could come up with a real source & license for the image as claimed. I should probably have followed my first instincts like you said ABF on this user, and deleted it again without saying anything, but I didn't -which was wrong.

I apologize for not just turning it back off again right after seeing who it was. What distracted me was the electric company auto-calling to warn that the power was going off for unknown amount of time starting about 5 minutes after their call. At that point I just had finished working on two windows: one to Matrix Air (above) and the other on this. Rather than try to figure out how to close off the image again without causing any more problems than those I could forsee, I scribbled the quick note above and turned off my computers in the hopes that you would see the note and help me and User:Abd with the situation. I had no time. I did take a second look at the message to be sure all the wikilinks were working and then I logged off again until just now.

I am really sorry that I chose the wrong option and that I have offended you. I'll be delighted to do whatever it takes to set the situation to rights (please see summary on photo now and note below as a start), and to override you was absolutely not my goal or intention. But like the deer in the headlights, I jumped and in this case jumped straight into the path of the oncoming car and have offended you. My apologies again. My power will be intermittent for the next few days while they repair the damage caused by a drunk who knocked down the main power poles into town. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abd: I have re-deleted the image today "Model made under government contract" is irrelevant to who took the picture. I was in error to have restored it yesterday, I hope this completes the transaction and solves all the issues. Please feel free to offer opinions about Commons policy on the appropriate noticeboards, I've explained above why I made this wrong decision yesterday - the changes you made to the file in the last 24 hours are insufficient to retain it. Sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Ellin -- we all make mistakes and I was more surprised than angry. Certainly this winter has taken its toll on all of us in various ways. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two alternate claims here, the bystander selfie issue -- which is far from resolved, but should be resolved generically instead of image by image -- and the NSF contract claim. The NSF claim is probably more relevant to the original work, that model, prepared under NSF contract, thus it's still important. (Otherwise the photo can be considered a derivative work). For Wikiversity, then, I will arrange upload there, where fair use can be claimed, in addition to the other claims. Wikiversity is my primary concern, but there are those who want images hosted on Commons if possible. I will wait for a generic community decision on "bystander selfies," before a request for undeletion. Thanks. I do not want to create DRs unless reasonably confident of the outcome. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NSF position is a non-starter. The {{PD-USGov-NSF}} template has its underlying basis in 17 U.S.C. § 105 which says, in its entireity, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (emphasis mine) Firstly, for PD-USGov-NSF to apply, Shustov would actually have to be a federal employee conducting official duties. As a "professor of earthquake engineering," he presumably is not. Merely being contracted or working on a project funded by the federal government does not produce this relationship. Secondly, even if we assume such a federal contract, work done thereunder would not enter the public domain ceteris paribus. The federal government is explicitly not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise; indeed, it can (and does) hold copyrights. That a relationship with a federal entity does not render a work public domain has been explained in relation to Shustov's uploads again, and again and again. Эlcobbola _talk 19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander selfies

Commons_talk:Own_work#Possible_incorrect_claim. Should this be more widely discussed? --Abd (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Thank you. I'm deleting the comments. Please delete this, I apologize for writing here, I just wasn't sure how to prevent future deletions of my unsigned artwork. unsignedUser:Drcamachoent

Sorry, but this doesn't work like that. This is my user talk page, I'd prefer if you left everything here for archive purposes. Please do not delete material from my talk page again. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Drcamachoent

Hello, my name is Mac Camacho, and my Wikipedia username is drcamachoent. I started creating artwork using InkScape about two years ago, you can find me on Researchgate.net or in google scholar under my full name Macario Camacho. I am an otolaryngologist and enjoy educating patients. I believe in creative commons and the ability to make my artwork open source. I was originally unaware that I was not supposed to upload my artwork with my name on it. I apologize for that. I am planning to upload the artwork without my signature. In the comments section where it states why the artwork was deleted, it reads that it is unlikely to be my original work because it is throughout the internet. My belief is that people have uploaded the artwork and have used it for their presentations. That is actually the goal of my artwork so that others can use it. I would like to undo at least the photos that do not have my signature. Some of these works took me over 20 hours to make, and I would like to continue to share them as that is the spirit of creative commons. I also use the "sleep surgery" website on a daily basis in clinic, and without the images, it is hard to do so. unsigned 07:08, 11 March 2015‎ User:Drcamachoent

Hi Drcamachoent : Looking at your user page, I see that you were cautioned on signing images in October of 2013, had some images marked for deletion in February 2015 by User:Steinsplitter and were given a week from the deletion to comment, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Drcamachoent. No comments were left, and the images were deleted by User:INeverCry. I don't see why you're leaving a message on my talk page unless I'm missing something. Instead you need to contact INeverCry or COM:UNDEL to attempt to reverse the deletions. As for reuploading the same images that were previously deleted, that will earn you a block if this isn't resolved first. Please remember to sign your posts with four "tildes" (~~~~) to reduce the time spent poking around to find who left the message! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand

Hi, Ellin! Here you mention «many edit wars created by user Tuválkin», and I’m worried you may be right, although I cannot see how. On the contrary, I try hard at difusing situations, while still trying to safeguard (what I see as) the project’s interest. Frankly I don’t recall any significant edit war or flame war fueled by me, let alone created by me. Help me understand what you mean, please? (I come here to your talk page as I think the AN/U thread should not be about tangent matters. Apologies if that’s unwelcome, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi : Perhaps I used the wrong word "edit wars", what I mean was some seemingly unnecessary conflict. Perhaps it was just language difficulty; but seriously why take something to the AN boards within one day of not being satisfied? Especially in a case where a person innocently renamed a file which really did look like a name with lack of meaning. He had AGF and was trying to help. There was nothing in the file to indicate the apparently meaningless file name was Esperanto. The reaction seemed to be out-of-proportion to the stimulus and thus I said "edit war" when perhaps I meant "this is must more of the March Madness which seems to be infecting everyone this year." This project wasn't built in a day - it will go on long after us I hope. A little patience and hand-holding will go farther than everyone getting at each other's throats over not much at all. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pool jumping.jpg

Ellin, you speedy-deleted this file, February 15, for "Copyright violation." It was the subject of a September 2014 discussion on that claim where it was Kept, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pool jumping.jpg. Please restore the file and, if needed, create a new DR. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this file was included in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov. that may have been an error, unless Shustov is also in that photo. I have also signed the result of that request for you. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abd : Sorry, no interest in the continuing drama-saga-epic. Please see User:Jameslwoodward or User:INeverCry for assistance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always give an acting administrator first opportunity to reverse a decision. No drama, and no epic, this was about a single file. And no necessity for further discussion by you. Thanks for the speedy decline. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rupp Peter.jpg

The picture "Peter Rupp, Architekt" has been created and uploaded by myself. It comes from my personal family documents. It can be used by everybody. It will be used next by nyself in an english wikipedia article about "Peter Rupp, architect". Erik Rupp, 14.03.2015, Udine, Italy

Hi User:Erik Rupp: The place to leave your comments about this file is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rupp Peter.jpg. Nothing we discuss here will affect the outcome of the nomination. "Personal family documents" however is not the same thing as own work. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) PS please stop editing my page long enough for me to reply to you.[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg

Hi, Ellin File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg and File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg They have been deleted, I am author of photos, thank you not erase the photos I uploaded --Ruwette 2 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruwette 2 :

File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg has not been deleted, it has a discussion about deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg.
File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg was removed "08:57, 12 March 2015 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg (File is corrupt, empty, or in a disallowed format)"

Please reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg regarding your ownership of this file. One of the reasons your work is getting tagged is that the quality is so poor and the files are so small. Please reply over there and one of the other admins will decide. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ellin File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpgI wanted to delete it and could not, it certainly is very low resolution. You can delete you forgive my poor English , I speak Spanish .best regard--Ruwette 2 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruwette 2 : I copied your note from above to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg page. Thank you for replying! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ceremony of the COE at the community's temple in Albacete.jpg

This is one of the reasons that cause me chilling. Mr. Francisco Manuel Fernandez Martinez CAN NOT give OTRS because among many other things has not idea of what are you talking about. If we did mention his name was in order to give a view of the problem and understand that not everything is 'nice' when somebody claim 'his alleged right to image'. The decision to delete the image is some kind of twisted excuse to finally delete the image as a main purpose so I'm kindly asking to prove that image do not belong to COE as stated instead of push the delete button so easy. Thanks for reading.--Gilwellian (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilwellian : I deleted the image because "Deleted: Not own work of uploader, "official photographer Mr. Francisco Manuel Fernandez Martinez" stated in discussion. We'd need OTRS from Mr. Martinez to retain the image." That Mr. Martinez doesn't know about Commons and/or OTRS means that he didn't upload his own images. The image was not as stated own work of the uploader; but credited to Mr. Martinez, hence permission would be required from Mr. Martinez to keep the image. If you disagree, the best option is to write a note at COM:UNDEL. Those notes work best when accusations are omitted and enough information is provided to be helpful to the UNDEL editors. I have no idea what you mean for "twisted excuse." We delete copyright violation images all day long. One of the commonest methods: One person's photo uploaded by another person under a false claim of own work - which it isn't, wasn't and needs OTRS permission by the person who actually took the photo - if they even agree to have it here.

Incidentally, you can leave all the cranky notes you want on deletion nominations (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg)- or learn how the process works and work within the process for the benefit of the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, I have enough with +2000 of own articles maintenance and improvements on Spanish wikipedia. I do my best but sometimes certain arbitrary actions harm our daily work and our maintenance routine becomes a headache. I can't learn around for the same reason, this is why you are doing such a job over here. Try to do your work in a way that regular people can understand easily what are you doing, not as a engineering thesis. That's my complaint but I do not intend to criticize or belittle your work, believe me. Have a nice day! --Gilwellian (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious, anonymous, vandalous

I own the copyrighted © website from which the image/s was/were copied but can't file an OTRS;You declare responsibly that all rights to these photos belong to Dmitry Minchenok, husband of Olga Dubinskaya - that is me. And I have every right of the post.
I own this original piece of art;You declare responsibly that all rights to these photos belong to Dmitry Minchenok, husband of Olga Dubinskaya - that is me. And I have every right of the post.
You declare responsibly that all rights to these photos belong to Dmitry Minchenok, husband of Olga Dubinskaya - that is me. And I have every right of the post.

Latest revision as of 09:30, 19 March 2015 (edit) (undo) 91.200.224.74 (talk)

*I Undid revision 153929637 by 91.200.224.74 (talk): User added to the validations list at the top, I moved their comments here.

This isn't the right place to leave messages concerning any deletions. For images under nomination, please go to the individual pages; for those previously deleted, you can file a request at COM:UNDEL. It is however necessary to provide some more information, for example, what is your username and/or what pictures are you talking about.

Please do not rearrange my information boxes on my talk page as you did earlier, just reply here. I'd leave you a ping but I don't know your username. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Searching "Dubinskaya" resulted in [3] no results. The only person with last name "Minchenok" found in search is female. I'd be happy to be of more help in this regard, but I need more information to get started. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could the public domain rationale be used for this picture?

Hello,

You recently saw what I wrote at the Village Pump regarding this picture: File:Helias Doundoulakis in Camp Crowder, MO, 1945.JPG. As you know, I nominated that picture for deletion, and I did so because I believe that the rationale that was used was wrong. For a while I considered the public domain rationale as an alternative, which is why I wrote at the Village Pump, until I found out that the image was probably published in a book written by the subject. Now, however, I have found out that all of the subject's books have been published by Xlibris; for example, please look for "Product Details" here. When an author publishes a book using Xlibris, he/she retains full rights, as can be seen here.

So my question is, do you think this image (as well as another old image uploaded by the same person, in a similar situation) would be acceptable using the public domain rationale after all? If so, please, what should be done? You can find our conversation here for more details: User_talk:Sbrondace#Newer_picture_.28from_2012.29.

Many thanks in advance for your generous help. Dontreader (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There have been new developments. Please read this: User_talk:Sbrondace#Connecting_the_uploaded_pictures_to_websites. Many thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dontreader : I've no interest in this drama, or in being canvassed for opinion/action on multiple pages on each of which has been left a book of text. I prefer to use my time here making positive contributions within the system than going in long-winded circles trying to change things. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your point. Certainly a long book could be written about this story, although I don't think it would become a best seller! Hopefully you'll be able to help me in the future with a more conventional and much less time-consuming matter. Thanks for your reply anyway, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations?

I note that Category:Images without source is now down to about 34,000 from 58,000. Can I assume that it is a result of hard work by you or has something else happened? Green Giant (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GG, I've picked away at it, but I also have been encouraging others to do the same. I can't take credit for all of it!! I think I personally removed one at a time about 2,000 images so far by sourcing them, and probably 3,000 more by fixing templates. But certainly not the entire drop is me! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assorted odors.jpg

I don’t disagree with this deletion, after all, but the way you framed the closing seems incorrect to me: It is (likely) a copyright violation because the photographed object (indoors) is recent artwork (if film prop design is art). Or it also may be a copyright violation of the photograph itself is we assumed that our Carl Purcell (talk · contribs) is impersonating the real one, who uploded the same photo to FineArtAmerica.com. However, the tagline «Copyright © 2015 FineArtAmerica.com - All Rights Reserved» refers to the site’s interface, and clearly not to the photos it hosts. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was (a) unused, (b) copyright of artist , (c) entire source page also copyright. I put the link in the closing summary because no one else had provided the link to show that the image was copyright and you had questioned if it were copyright or not. Yes, copyright; yes unused; and yes deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say «no one else had provided the link»: I did, just 2 lines above your closing statement. If I hadnt’t find the link before, I could never know that this photo was taken in Universal Studios, Orlando, Florida, USA — the base for my rationale against it being a «personal photo» and for the additional categorization of the photo.

This link can be an additional source for the photo (along with the {{Own}} uopload by Carl Purcell (talk · contribs)), and makes proof that it was circulated online before it was uploaded to Commons, but FineArtAmerica.com’s copyright tagline is irrelevant for the discussion.

The photograph is indeed copyrighted by of the photographer but that cannot be the reason for this deletion as it would question the authenticity of the account Carl Purcell (talk · contribs) — we do assume it is the same original photographer who posted some of his photos to FineArtAmerica.com and also to Commons. Or else we question it and all this user’s photos should be evaluated and an OTRS statement be demanded.

Seems to me that the only reason to delete this photo and not all others by the same user is that it depicts a copyrighted object. But I’m not sure if a film prop (or a real life reconstruction of an object from an animated movie?) constitutes a work of art, that’s why I asked as did in the DR. I’m still unclear about that matter.

Thanks for you time; I’m sure this mystery can be solved. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must needs redefine my use of English, no one else pasted a clear copy of the actual URL of the link, so I did. It's not easy when asked to do UNDELs if all the relevant information is buried behind mystery links like this one. P.S. when you ask me about "continuing edit wars" may I suggest this topic really doesn't need further discussion. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for further discussion, if you’re happy with the result. I am not asking for undeletion — just thought you might want to clarify your closing statement, or to investigate this user. Cheers, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your stuff looks fine; why do you want to be investigated? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jon Phillips

Ellin, did you intend to delete all of these -- or is there some reason you left the engagement party images? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JIM: I meant to delete them all but must have had some kind of glitch. We have had a lot of connectivity problems of late, they're replacing a lot of wires that were damaged in that accident and the internet comes and goes. Thank you so much for catching that! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keithharingportrait.png - Contested deletion

This photo File:Keithharingportrait.png was deleted because the Flickr uploader changed the license, it was listed under a creative commons license which I believed was irrevocable. Is this a common occurance on Wikicommons? Here is the photo the original was derived from: the flickr page. Is there any recourse?--The lorax (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The lorax : Sure there is recourse; and it's likely I made a mistakeon this one. To be sure that you get a full and objective review, would you file a brief request at COM:UNDEL? I won't oppose your request! Thank you for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pony

I do not understand what you are telling me. First lets explain the Abbreviations. DW= derivative work, but DN=? --Itu (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itu : "DN" is Deletion Nomination.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a glossary for commons?

Please be patient for further questions and possible objections in the DN due to my lack of time... --Itu (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some clue as to which DN you're working on? I posted a question at the Help desk about the glossaries: similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_shortcuts or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Glossary . I searched, but was unable to find them on a list like that here on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion

Hi. Why are two of the crests I've uploaded being deleted? I'm trying to upload a up-to-date crest for each team but it says I need permission from the author(I'm not sure who it is because crests such as these are found all over the internet). When I uploaded the file I wasn't sure which license to use but other similar crests have 'fair use rationale' should I have used that? Is it possible to use a file for one page only? --(Sliothar.

Hi Sliothar: There is no "fair use" on Commons, however local Wikipedias do allow it within various limits. For your two images:

File:Limerick-Crest.jpg http://limerickgaa.ie/ image found at source, but no indication of license.
File:Tyrone-GAA-crest.png http://www.gaa.ie/ image not found at source, so no way to figure out what license it would have because it isn't there.

I'm leaving a talk-back at your page, but let's keep the whole discussion here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I need to get permission to use the files? Is there a different copyright on Logos etc. than pictures? How do I use a file for just one Wikipedia page only - without uploading it to Commons? such as the logo on the Kerry GAA page which I can't see on here. Thanks for your help!

FileAndy_McMillan.jpg — Deleted Photo

Hi!

I'm the photographer for this photo: [4]. I was told to email permissions at Wikimedia and did so. You can see the flickr image with the correct license here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/danieleagee/16855049741/

Let me know what I need to do to get this image reinstated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Agee (talk • contribs)

Hi Daniel Agee: The image was bumped because it was found on flickr and you have the same name as the flickr account. That may seem counterintuitive but unfortunately it happens. The process now is to get the image undeleted and on its way for flickr review. I am NOT an expert in the latter; I'm going to restore the image and ping a more experienced editor named User:INeverCry to review this undeletion, and help with the flickr review; or starting it. I made the licenses match, also. I apologize for the delay in replying to your note, this is a very difficult week. Thank you for your understanding. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work here on commons! Highly appreciated. :-) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Steinsplitter Thank you!!

File:Hans-Ulrich Buchwald Self Portrait.jpg

Thank you for the many information. Fact about the file: Hans-Ulrich Buchwald Self Portrait.jpg is, that my wife Gundel Zschau-Buchwald is the heir of the painting. And I made the foto on her behalf. We try to establish an article about Hans-Ulrich Buchwald on Wikipedia. Maybe I made a formal mistake, but what can I do to show that the rights for the picture are in our hands? ZschauE --ZschauE (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZschauE: The problem here is that owning a painting is not necessarily the same thing as owning the copyright to the image, and in no way would that be licensed as own work in either case. If your wife feels she owns the copyright, please have her send in the very small and simple OTRS form. Meanwhile, please go to the image's deletion nomination and leave your message over there as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009-12-20 Paul Steinhardt revised.jpg

Hi - Thanks for your help with this photo today...you tagged it as "DN", which I'm hoping means: do not delete? Also, do you think I should just start over with this upload, and upload the release letter the same time as the photo? I have a release letter from Discovery LLC, but see that it takes about 2 months to get through the review process. I realize I made a mistake by uploading the photo and the release letter separately. Would it be easier if I just started over? Thanks for any advice you may have to offer on this! Sleepy Geek (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sleepy Geek: I changed the tag from to "DN" which is (don't panic) "deletion nomination". At present we are backed up over a month on DN's so this is a way of buying time for the OTRS editors (also backed up quite deeply) to get around to your image. Don't panic!! I'm not an OTRS editor, so I could not go into their area to see if everything was ok or not. That will be done by the next admin to touch your file, sometime in the next 30 days. Please don't start over, this picture is wending its way through a severely backlogged system. You're fine!! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I appreciate your cheerful, supportive comments!! Thank you,Sleepy Geek (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg

Hi Ellin, I just want let you know that a lot of files still using that deletion request -> see here. You might like to keep them too. regards. --Ju Ta 16:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Ju, I see your point. I'm going through doing what I think I can do simply today as I am still recovering from a week of funerals of close friends. The one image request was relatively easy to close, the longer one with the whole pile of images; I agree also needs closing - I'm just not sure I'm up to it today. I'll keep your note here and if no one else gets to them, I'll review in a day or two!! Thanks for the ping! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quicksocial

Hello Ellin, If you've found publications featuring any of the images i've uploaded it should be clearly marketd © Fonds famille Pommier. Which we are. Thanks, Alex Pommier

Hi User talk:Quicksocial, I've replied to you on your talk page as User:FDMS4 had already offered to look into the situation by the time I got to your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

file deletions

Hi Ellin, You marked a bunch of my files for deletion. These files, both photos and audio files, are the property of the East West Cultural Center in Culver City, CA. When I added them, I was doing so as a representative of the East West Cultural Center. Can I change the licensing to reflect that they are my files as I am a member of the board of directors of the East West Cultural Center. If that does not work, what steps do I need to take to not have the files deleted? one example of a file: File:Jyoti Mantras 06-Rig Veda.ogg Thank you, Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariosanto1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mario: Yup I sure did and here's why...

"Property of", the owning the object - or record album - doesn't mean the owner of the object owns the copyright. For the long list I tagged, I here list them by types:

Visual images

All your visual images were copied from "Mandakini, (Shaw, Madeleine) (April 1981). "Jyotipriya (Dr. Judith Tyberg (1902-1980), Part 3". Mother India: Monthly Review of Culture (Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram)":

Verbal files

All the OGG files are attributed to Judith Tyberg, except for File:Jyoti Mantras 11-Trudi King Song.ogg which authors are listed as Judith Tyberg and Trudi King.

So Madeline Shaw, Judith Tyberg (deceased in 1980), and Trudi King listed own the files you uploaded unless there is additional information not provided on the upload templates. Thus I marked them no permission because that is the apparently their current situation. Files uploaded by A, which belong to B, C, and D without permission of B, C, or D. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on what I can gather from your explanation, I can't use the files. Since, Judith Tyberg can't give permission because she is deceased. She left all her recordings and photos to the East West Cultural Center. I listed Madeline Shaw only because these images appeared in an article written by her, but the real owner of the images is the East West Cultural Center. What do I need to do to allow me to use the images and audio files? All of the material I uploaded is owned by the East West Cultural Center. I can re-upload them or change the licensing to show that they are owned by East West Cultural Center, but don't know how to satisfy your criteria to prove that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Mario

HI Again Ellin, I sent the message below to commons.permissions@wikipedia.com. Can you advise if this is sufficient or do I need additional proof or information? The photos uploaded by Wikipedia user Mariosanto1 are the property of the East West Cultural Center of Culver City, CA. The uploaded files are listed on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mariosanto1 Further, these files are in the public domain and can be used by others as they see fit. The URL for the East West Cultural Center is: http://www.sriaurobindocenter-la.org/ Please advise if you need additional proof or information, Mario Santonastaso Secretary of the Board East West Cultural Center

Hi Mario: At this point, having filed the OTRS form, you need to work with only the OTRS administrators to prevent confusion. I'd again caution that owning copies or photos or books is not the same thing as owning copyright on an item, a book or a photo. I see nothing on the link you gave me above which makes this any clearer, but again, please work with the OTRS editors and try not to be in too much of a hurry, all the Commons admins are very backed up and going through the lists as fast as they can. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Mario, please note the correct email address is permissions-commons

wikimedia.org, and not wikipedia.com. Green Giant (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marinamazatlan.webm

ok, I made the video and Alan Walker gave me permission to use their music in the video, and remove my copyright, what is the problem ??? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comprobante2.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Osuna (talk • contribs)

Hi William Osuna The problem is you have two authors and only one file. The second author needs to file an OTRS form. Just follow that link and the instructions and have Mr. Walker send the tiny required email and the editors over there will help you. The file you reference is a screen cap from a telephone, not a formal release of copyright, and unfortunately, could be from anyone - and even more unfortunately - says the file is ok for "Wikipedia" which is a different entity than Commons and which has different upload rules, including "fair use". Thus the more formal OTRS is required. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist me here

I have a user that is removing the photographers credit from the names in my files. It has only happened once and I have noticed the user to revert the photo to the proper name. Thank you! --WPPilot (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to a safe version. Please protect it if further disruption is encountered. J e e 07:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jee! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gingerroll45

Hi Ellin, I got the photos from a direct descendant. I now own the photographs, except for Madurai Mani and TVS. The newspaper cuttings are all in my collection. If publishing them is not in line with Wikimedia Commons, please delete them. And I don't know how to reply in the deletion nominations page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerroll45 (talk • contribs)

Hi Gingerroll45: Owning a photograph or a clipping is not the same thing as owning the copyright and even "direct descendants" may not be the heir to the copyright. You might read the OTRS page and see if anything there would be helpful. To comment on the nomination itself, follow the link on your talk page and repeated here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gingerroll45. And also, when you sign your name please use four ~~~~ "tilde characters". This will automatically put your name and a datestamp on it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dish-Stirling_Principle.png

Hello, As I stated in talk page for that file, I got permission from this company by email and forwarded that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and permissions-en@wikimedia.org but I didn't get back any OTRS code or any response at all. Image is now deleted and probably other images will be deleted soon. What should I do? Interlooks (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interlooks: Your image was deleted because no OTRS information was found on it. I'd suggest going to the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (aka COM:ON) and asking about the status of your OTRS email. I'm not one of those editors and unfortunately can't help you with that! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Ellin. Is there any other method of proving their permission? Interlooks (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interlooks: The OTRS is the only way at this point, I don't have access to their files! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Category:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu, Generación 2012

Hi. Following the results of this request, there are more photos in subcategories (Category:Daniela Abarca González‎, Category:Diego Grez Cañete, Category:Jacob Soto Araya‎ and Category:Demetrio Vidueira Mella) that follow the same reason to be deleted. It is necessary a new request for delete them? Best, --Warko (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warko: Yes, please start a new Deletion Request for any images you feel can/should be deleted. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellin, why did you delete photos that were in use on Wikipedia? --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diego Grez: I reviewed the images that were on the deletion nomination and didn't find any that were in use on articles in Wikipedia. The images were a series of personal snaps of students, and as one editor pointed out in the discussion, the potential that maybe one of those students might do something notable enough for inclusion is a possibility - not an actuality. Commons isn't a personal photo album. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in use now as they have been removed by CommonsDelinker. I mentioned a couple of files in that nomination that are used. Please restore them. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diego Grez: No, the process for restoring files is to apply at COM:UNDEL. I personally do not think these files belong on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for restoring my uploads

Dear sir, please remove the deletion logs in my uploaded files for Commons. All the files are my own files, and i am granting for using for all my files to be used free of cost in all wikis. Regards ---رحمت عزیز چترالی 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachitrali : Please notice the message at the bottom of your talk page, it reads "Hello Rachitrali. It has come to my/someone else's attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions. Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)".[reply]

The images you've uploaded have been nominated for deletion, please reply at their various nomination pages. In general, you don't own the copyrights of newspapers and photos even if you own a copy of the paper or photo. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mehfil Magazine Images

Hi there, I have requested the creator to send an email to Wikimedia commons email address. Isn't there a 7 day waiting time before the deletion of the pictures? If there is, what is the best way to do the upload, then? Because I know the producer of the images and he is agreed to release these pictures in public domains under free license.

Thanks and Regards.

(talk page stalker) If you are sure the consent letter has been sent, you can put a template in the licence area of the affected file pages like this: {{subst:OP}}, which will display a date-stamped notice that permission is pending. See COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder for more information.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did add this tag. Can you now please check for the email or request some another volunteer to do that? Thanks.User:SteveMattu

Some baklava for you!

Mr.Ellin Beltz, Some Baklava for you sir, please remove deletion logs in my files. thanks رحمت عزیز چترالی 05:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AmpaGiborTextileAviv.gif

Why did you delete this file? As I stated in the comments for the deletion, the files were uploaded a few years ago by me with the permissions of Amnon Niv (the architect) who took them. They used to be available on www.niv-schwartz.com (the architect's website) but the site is not available anymore. With the passing years, we lost the storage devices that had these images. By deleting them from wikipedia you are removing relevant content that was uploaded correctly and rightfully and negatively affect the importance of the page. Please retrieve the image. טלניב — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.213.59 (talk • contribs)

Hi, The process to request undeletion is outlined at COM:UNDEL. Your images were removed because there was no permission from their creator on file to be here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cattedrale Gallipoli - Massacro di Oradour-sur-Glane

Can you read my answers in the two threads please?--CortoFrancese (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, but it is very late at night here, and I will do it tomorrow. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CortoFrancese: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Massacro di Oradour-sur-Glane.jpg where I withdrew the nomination (someone else will close it), and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cattedrale Gallippoli.JPG where more information is requested. Nothing we talk about here counts over there, so let's keep all the discussions together and yes I watch all my nominations and reply. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

images deleted

Hi Ellin!

I am new in wikimedia, I am an spanish artist, Marina Núñez. I have uploaded some of my works, paintings and digital images, to wimimedia commons, and I have just seen they have been deleted them because, I think, you are not sure if I am the author and therefore if I have right to upload them.

If you need any evidence that I am really Marina Núñez, the author of the art works, please tell me how I should prove it.

I have seen I could send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but I don´t know if now that they are deleted that will be enough.

Thanks a lot for your help,

best,

Marina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marina19842001& (talk • contribs)

Hi Marina19842001&: As you know now, uploading works by living artists [e.g. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez Marina Núñez] without special permissions can result in deleted images.

The process to send permissions is listed at OTRS and if that is accepted, the OTRS editors are able to restore the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ellin!

File:Valdes libro Tejas Verdes ed1974.jpg

Hi, the issue of the file Tejas Verdes was discussed in january 2013. At that time, I uploaded another cover, of a printing house that dissapeared more than 30 years ago, but afterwards I found the 1st edition cover, that is quite primitive, and I was recommended to put the license PD-textlogo; I am not a specialist so I honestly don't no if the recommended license really fits. If you think this is not correct, then, no problem, delete the file. Best regards, Roferbia (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roferbia : The problem here is "no source" and "no author". I removed the speedy tag based on what you pointed out, added the author this morning and an English translation of the title, would you be so kind as to put in where the image came from? Was it a photo, a scan or??? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ellin for your help!!! I added the source and what I did with the file. I hope it's all ok now. Best regards, Roferbia (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion

Hi Ellin, We recently received 2 messages from you: an image deletion request and copyright violation assumption. Both photos — under the file names "File:Daniel de Weldon.jpg" and "[[:File:Danieldeweldon-2a.jpg}}" — are both owned by the image subject, Daniel de Weldon. Please do not delete these photos. If you have any questions, please let me know as I represent Daniel de Weldon's PR. My best, Amy

Hi BardotD: The situation you're describing is why the pictures are being deleted. The ownership of a print of an image does not confer copyright ownership. The second file is being discussed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Danieldeweldon-2a.jpg there, if you wish to leave your message at that place, the closing administrator will consider it. Nothing we discuss on the talk pages has any influence on the deletion nominations. But perhaps to explain a bit better, read COM:L. Also I tagged your photo from the LA Times and the half-toned headshot for no camera metadata. Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely licensed material; not collations of other people's work to do publicity. Please read COM:NOT too where the latter point is more clearly delineated. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cattedrale Gallipoli

Hi! If you are available and you are not exhausted due to the late hour, you can devote to reading my comment ;) --CortoFrancese (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CortoFrancese:

Done.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image without source

Dear Ellin, This is the sixth image I uploaded for which you unduly require a source (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ellin_Beltz&diff=prev&oldid=125711871). Please realize that there is no real need to put a "source" to an image when the "author" is the uploader himself - that kind of image obviously was made on the author's computer, and the "source" is necessarily "self work" with no added value. If the empty field bothers you, you can add the "information" directly, without waisting your time and mine. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michelet-密是力: Reading your talk page, I see you've been cautioned about this and had images nominated since at least 2010; meaning you've had five years to fix the problems since you were first notified. It's not up to other people to clean up your templates for you - especially after so many "no source" boxes and discussions are on your page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ellin,

If you read correctly my talk page, you will see that the files that have been signalled have been corrected as well, this is not the point.
There is no such thing as a Commons policy saying that I should update my uploads when the licence model has been changed - this is the responsibility of the user that changes the model, not of the initial up loader. Your assertion that "It's not up to other people to clean up your templates for you" is dead wrong : I don't follow the templates that I've posted. When I've posted them, they were correct according to Commons policies, and that's enough. The Commons policy does not ask for a follow-up - and that's definite (and that's logical).
If you feel that the "no source" files thereby posted must be sourced, please do so, without unduly disturbing the users that rightfully uploaded the files in the first place. If somebody changes the template:Information beheaviour, that author is responsible for the categorization change, and to him should be addressed the "images missing a source" problem - not to me.

If your personal policy (and/or the template:Information modification) for some reasons leads to problems, which seems to be the case, my first movement would be to revert to the previous template:Information version, suppressing the "images missing a source" categorization - problem fixed. Or specifically to prevent you from processing these files from the Category:Media without a source category - since you seem to be the only one to raise such problem, to prevent you to raise such problem in the Commons files - after all, I am also an admin on Commons.

Please reconsider your approach of the problem, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Michelet-密是力 that the images I tagged are crests of places/families/etc. You need to tell what the source of the image was that you copied to do the drawings. It's "own work" in the sense that you made the images, but even back when they were uploaded, you should have put what was the reference you used to make them. And also, when you get upset or cranky at me about all this, I don't make the rules here, I'm trying to keep your images in the project and to do that, I need your help. I can't put "OWN" work on yours, because you didn't invent the crests. You made the crests from something, somewhere, please put on the drawings where that source was. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File about sealants

File:Картриджи с разными герметиками и пистолет для них.jpg Вы выставили файл на удаление. Какая связь между COM:PACKAGING, файлом и его названием??? Если у Вас нет предвзятого отношения ко мне, то выставьте на удаление все файлы из данного раздела тогда: Category:Caulking_guns. Или что??? Ural-6683.149.35.61 01:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://translate.google.ru 83.149.35.61 01:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you have any problems with the Russian language? Then let those who are versed in it. 83.149.35.61 01:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ural-66: Regarding File:Картриджи с разными герметиками и пистолет для них.jpg - deletion log reads: "14:12, 13 April 2015 EugeneZelenko deleted page File:Картриджи с разными герметиками и пистолет для них.jpg (Derivative of non-free content: Commercial packaging)". The remainder of the images you cite in Category:Caulking_guns do not contain derivative images of packaging which is not in the public domain. Please see COM:L for more information before uploading more images. Thank you!

:журнал удалений читает : "14:12, 13 April 2015 EugeneZelenko удалённая страница File:Картриджи с разными герметиками и пистолет для них.jpg (Производная несвободной содержания: Упаковочное торговое). "Остальная часть изображений Вы приводите в Category:Caulking_guns. Не содержат производные изображения упаковки, которая не находится в общественном достоянии Пожалуйста см COM:L для получения дополнительной информации, прежде чем загружать несколько изображений Спасибо!/Spasibo! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there were several varieties of sealants: acrylic, silicone, bitumen. Data about the manufacturer painted. How do you imagine the show without sealants data "package" (cartridges from which they are squeezed under pressure), and it was clear from the photos that there are different sealants ??? Or do you - "acrylic", "silicon", "bitumen" - a trade name rather than substance ?!83.149.37.27 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ural-66: Talk to EugeneZelenko who deleted it, ok? You're barking up the wrong tree over here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but put up for deletion you really not understanding, and Zelenko hardly participated in the discussion ... and go into the essence of the issue ...83.149.37.27 16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly with the file: File:Мука из плодов черёмухи обыкновенной (Flour of Prunus padus)..jpg. If shopped, it would have discerned that the packaging is opened and can be seen in cellophane powder (flour browned). And the rest of the boxes were photographed by me, because there are cited examples of recipes in which this meal is used (in the text, where it was used file stated). The cost of this product is high enough (I only found this torment of the manufacturer), and photographed in the store, respectively, to pour out of the package is not possible. And if baked cake, how would you understand by the photos, it case, the new Cheremuhovo with flour? Or the word "cherries" and "meal" - is the trade name of your ???83.149.37.27 16:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ural-66: Now you're being silly. Eugene left you a message in perfect Russian explaining why that file was deleted. Please read COM:L and COM:PACKAGING rather than arguing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Для того, чтобы иллюстрировать статью о каком-либо продукте, упаковка, охраняемая авторскими правами, абсолютно необязательна. Заодно можно понять, что от смены логотипа мало что меняется :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Если Вы про черёмуховую муку, как без упаковки её иллюстрировать? Можно насыпать любой коричневый порошок, сфотографировать, обозвать мукоой? Что касаемо герметиков - что именно охраняется авторским правом? Стандартный картридж? На фото были 3 разных герметика (акриловый, силиконовый, битумный. Причем 3 разных производителей (специально выбрал, чтобы не рекламировать кого-то из них). Как Вы представляете сфотографировать герметики без картриджей? Даже, если выдавить из картриджа, чем на фото будут отличаться силиконовый и акриловый герметики? Вот объясните, что и как я должен фотографировать? Или восстановите изображение.:-) 83.149.34.221 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pics

Hi,

i didn't get you well about deletion (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Creation1) of my photos. I created them myself and maybe, because I am quite newbie, I made some mistakes, but it is not the reason to delete my files from wikipedia.

TIA--Creation1 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creation1: Please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE before uploading more files. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ascari

Hi Ellin Beltz. An apparent sock of NBDA has re-uploaded here a renamed version of File:Ascari.jpg. You deleted this file in February for being a copyright violation, so I tagged it for speedy deletion. However, the user has attempted to remove the tag. He also claims in the file description that his father originally took the photo in 1940. Can you please have a look? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Middayexpress: That image? [5], third picture from top at [6]. Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole_Wilkins_figure_champion_IFBB.jpg Image of Self

Hi Ellin,

This image of myself was rejected: "File:Nicole Wilkins figure champion IFBB.jpg" File:Nicole_Wilkins_figure_champion_IFBB.jpg

This image was taken on my cell phone by my business partner during a photoshoot. It was then posted by myself from my cell phone to my Instagram page here: https://instagram.com/p/yknnXLMZln/?taken-by=nicolemwilkins

Do I not own this copyright? In the submission I approved it for release under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL.

Please let me know if I also need my business partner to sign a release form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c501:6ce0:ed88:8843:9ef:7970 (talk • contribs)

Hiya Nmw2554 : The image you linked was deleted by admin Yann, on 11 April 2015. Yes, you will need to have whoever actually took the images to send in permission via OTRS system. Also please remember that COM:NOT Commons isn't a personal social media page, nor a place for promotion or self-promotion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Will Hurd official.jpg

US Congressional official photos are in the public domain. Can I ask why this one was deleted? Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk: Because the image we had was larger and framed differently than [7] which is only 32KB. The actual source of the file had to be from somewhere else, as it was not possible that a grainy 32KB was the source of the uploaded image. I agree it's likely to be the work of the official Congressional photographer, but the uploader did not provide the real source of the actual image they uploaded so I couldn't check it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's on his congressional site now. Can you restore so I can upload the hires version? Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please keep Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas pictures

Dear Ellin, please apologies for not being fast answering about this. This is the first time I was trying to contribute for your wikipedia data base, and was not clear about what to do. I would like your consideration to keep my photos, since I am the owner of them. All of those pictures where he appeared were my father possession, I am his son. I put a username as my father because I did not know if this should be the title of the article, and I wanted people to related my article directly with his name.

The old pictures (black and white) are also taking as digital by my own camera from the original picture (if you need the original source, please add my grandfather Jose Guillermo Méndez De Roux as his author), or let me know if I have to do that, he passed away too. These are the only pictures I have from my father when he was young and I consider is a pity if you remove them because then I do not have how to show his expression as an artist at that time, I consider those pictures add a huge value to my article.

With the pictures of examples of his presentation card, I was not trying to self promote anybody (he passed away), the only reason I put these pictures (which are mine, from his originals) is because I want the people to know how an artist at the 1940s promote himself, so is more for the historical value, over all in Panama, and its is own art.

The other pictures in color, where he stands with his paints or is actually painting, or just the watercolors, I was the photographer, so those are mine, but they are not the original because at the time, we did not have digital camera. This pictures where taken from my original pictures, now with digital camera, and I have passed to powerpoint to arrange a nice combination in one file, so could be more illustrative and easy to download.

I really appreciate you consider do not delete this pictures, as then the article won't have proof of his dedication and legacy in Panama.

Thank you very much

below are the files you nominated for deletion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk • contribs)

Hi Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas: Nothing we discuss here has relevance to the deletion or undeletion of these images. I'd suggest now, typing a very short note at COM:UNDEL, going image by image, who took it, why you think you have rights, etc. Remember that the painter died in 2004; you will need to be able to show who is the heir of the painter. Was that you, or another family member or members of the family? When you leave your message over there, please go photo by photo, a large clump as you have them here without specific photo-by-photo explanations is not likely to receive the attention I know you desire. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral Gallipoli

I solved the problem. You can see the new file here. --CortoFrancese (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CortoFrancese: Much better, thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miguel soares, Planets, 2008..jpg

Hi Ellin Beltz, I'm the author of the picture of a view of the artwork taken inside the museum room. I'm also the author of the photographed artwork.Mediasender (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mediasender: Please establish your copyright to the artwork in the image by filing an OTRS form. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NinjaCross

These 2 files have been requested for deletion

As I see, you are assuming these are promotional contents with no educational scope. Maybe I didn't describe them correctly and so they seems something they are not, and for this I'm sorry. They are not promotional/commercial, and I'm not getting any revenue sharing them. These files illustrate some crucial parts of the Filaments Evaluation Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filaments_Evaluation_Protocol), a free, opensource testing protocol born from the industrial knowledge of the company I work for. The protocol aims to help people to make competent choices about 3D printing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing) materials and filaments. There are no commercial implications. It's just a theorical and practical guide. I just desired to share this educational/knowledge content with the community, since it costed me hundreds of hours of hard work. If you can suggest some modifications that makes the content suitable (and so not be removed), I'll be happy to implement them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaCross (talk • contribs)

Hi NinjaCross: The page which is claimed to have licensing information for these images is marked "Copyright © 2015 Dogma Solutions" which means that the images from that page cannot be hosted on Commons. Please read COM:L before making more uploads! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Indigoigloo 600.png

This is logo is released under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. Please look at the bottom of the author page. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasulnrasul

Done Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dronning Margrethe med dronning Elizabeth II

Hola, he visto su historia, me digo ahora, que la "imagen que me había cargado parecía vintagr, alrededor del año 1979 podría pedirle que se sustituya la licencia, con un" otro bolígrafo licencia, debido a la carga de imágenes 'antes de, fui en la concesión de licencias daneses, pero no pude encontrar el más adecuado, por lo que ahora me parecía la más adecuada, que me haga saber que gracias :) :) (disculpen mi español, pero estoy usando el traductor de Google) --Арриги Джузеппе (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Арриги Джузеппе Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dronning Margrethe med dronning Elizabeth II.jpg " This photograph is tagged with a statement that it's not considered to be a photographic work, however at source, the image is labeled " Fotograf: Steen Jacobsen"... Therefore it is a photograph and copyright by Steen Jacobsen." As the photo was taken by Steen Jacobsen and only in 1970s, it is not possible that he has been dead 70 years as the license you used stated. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aceptar EXCUSA PARA MI CULPA, Y GRACIAS POR MARCAR LA CHEDIO SI USTED PUEDE eliminar --Арриги Джузеппе (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Winchedon School

Dear Ellin, I work as Communications Manager at The Winchendon School; recently I was asked to make some updates to the existing material on Wikipedia (currently, the majority of it was a history piece written by someone else, presumably an alumnus). I replaced some photos and added other new ones... and instantly got a number of nominations for deletion, based on the following: Multiple cameras, small sizes, low quality images comprising a series of promotional uploads, regarding some school, the Wikipedia page of which has been heavily edited by this uploader, yet has not a single reference.

As a first-time contributor to Wikipedia, I was somewhat taken aback. As a former journalist, I can respect the need to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia (and Wiki Commons) site - obviously, there are a lot of rules here that I need to read up on (and discuss with the School leadership here) before trying to address them one-by-one.

In a nutshell, most of these uploaded photos were taken by me. But, as an employee, the copyright is also connected to the school - all the work I do here instantly becomes property of the school. What is the proper copyright template to use for Wikipedia, given this situation? And how does one use it? The templates page I consulted last week is extremely confusing, with not very much guidance on exactly what to copy & paste, and where, for the new Wiki contributor. Nor does it tackle the potential issue of an editorial judgment on the types of photos chosen (if they appear to be "promotional," do I need to be more specific on what each of these photos depict, where they were taken, what class or lesson being taught, etc.?)

What kind of a problem do multiple cameras pose? That I do not understand at all.

The small sizes were done intentionally, after my first attempts at uploading a photo of the new Faculty Hall resulted in a photo that was so large, it went off the screen. So I downsized the other uploads in order to accomplish the layout that is there now.

"Regarding some school" ? What's the problem here?

What type of references are required? The previously existing text on the history of the Winchendon School was pretty much a copy of what we have on our official school webpage. Is there a proper reference that will attribute credit to that, such as a URL reference or link? And one of my edits removed some first-person comment that the writer had included in the text (something like "as an alumnus like myself"), which I did not think was appropriate for an encyclopedia or Wikipedia article. What kind of reference is needed for this?

Finally, if I upload new or additional text, such as the mini-article on the new DoI&T program, would it be better if the material employs quotes from the Head of School, the leader of the DoI&T teaching team, etc., all attributed properly, to communicate the points now included but written in a more institutional or "promotional" tone? --Tom Nalesnik

PS: HOW DID THE DRONNING MARGRET SECTION GET APPENDED TO THE HEAD OF MY NOTE?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Nalesnik (talk • contribs)

Hi Tom Nalesnik:

"most of these... were taken by me..." for this copyright question specifically, please visit the Village Pump and ask the copyright experts there. For the ones which were not taken by you, please acknowledge which they are and who actually took them.
"very confusing" I agree - I would rewrite all the instructions if they'd let me
"promotional" - here you hit something that is part of COM:SCOPE. It's not usually done to promote one's own thing, whether that's upload photos of your job or write about it - but that part isn't my personal concern other than the photos all came in a clump, on same topic which shows promotional intent.
"multiple cameras" - sometimes people who take photos off the web transfer the metadata as well resulting in their gallery containing multiple camera types, styles, etc.
"small sizes" - often show people don't have the original. The sizing over at Wikipedia is done by formatting, you don't control it by uploading tiny thumbnails at Commons. Oops!
"some school" - merely tells the next admin he's not looking at COM:PENIS.
"references" - now you're on a Wikipedia issue, please see their help pages.
"pretty much a copy" - is plagiarism and Wikipedia has a major issue with that.
"references" need to be reliable and secondary - again please see the Wiki help pages.
"quotes" - really wouldn't be part of the Wikipedia article being first person, they're not secondary sources.
"how did that get over my comment?" - you didn't add a header, or click "new section" so you got appended below everything else.

Please visit my Wikipedia page for some help getting started editing, and don't hesitate to ask any more questions you may have. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

leaving you a message

It has taken me 30 minutes just to find how I can contact you.

I own all of the pics of Adelaide Eldridge. I've much to learn about categories, just everything. I have to go slowly at this. I do have other things that I do, but I do want to contribute. I'd like to learn how to add a sound file.

Also, I changed my user name. Why is Adelaide Eldridge still being used?

04:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)AdelaideEldridge (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Adelaide Eldridge[reply]

Hi AdelaideEldridge: Commons isn't a place to advertise, do promotion or self-promotion. "Owning" a print of an image doesn't mean one owns the copyright, any more than the Darth Vader teeshirt I own doesn't grant me rights to any part of the Star Wars franchise - and we can't even upload photos of Darth teeshirts to Commons because they'd be infringing derivative works. It's complicated stuff, but the basics are:

No promotion. If you're really that notable other people will do it for you.
Own work doesn't mean I own the photo, it means It's my own personal creation. There's a huge difference.
What can you do to become a contributor? The best thing you could do is take your own camera around with you and take photos of things that are needed to fill in encyclopedia articles rather than to worry if images of yourself are included. Photos of your town, the area around it, incidental details of everyday life that don't include you or your friends in the foreground. In fact, it's best if there are no recognizable people since very few people are truly notable. You'd be amazed how many thousand images of people are deleted from the project every week. It seems the most important thing to most uploaders is only "me myself and I" and they fail to read the instructions that Wikimedia Commons isn't social media. Facebook is 100% better for self-promotion than Commons.

Regarding your "changed user name" I can't find the other account open, please see | User account "Adelaide Eldridge" is not registered. Please provide me a link to the page you think is open and I'll take a look. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC) PS: When I started I had at least one photo deleted for this same kind of reason and now look, they gave me a mop. Chin up![reply]

File:Akshaya Tritiya.jpg

It's the description of the painting, not overprinting. 'मुनि श्री ऋषभदेव का प्रथम आहार' means First 'ahara (food)' of muni shri Rishabhdeva. You can match the hindi text ('मुनि श्री ऋषभदेव का प्रथम आहार') with that of the painting and translate it in English.जैन (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@जैन: Hi,

You need to indicate who is the painter, and when he died. If it is a recent painting, a permission from the painter is necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@जैन: Hi, the overprinting describes the painting but fails to mention the painter, the year, etc. as stated by Yann. The only cut/copy/pastable text (not requiring us to type in the overprinting manually), reads "हिन्दी: मुनि श्री ऋषभदेव का प्रथम आहार. Hindi: Muni Shri Rishabhdev the first diet." That has no useful information for additional searching. It's always best to provide the most information possible about every image, it's not Twitter, you're not limited to 160 characters. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the nomination for deletion tag. "The making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access is permitted under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 52. जैन (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@जैन: Hi,

Unfortunately, no. I myself was caught by this bizarre sentence, and my pictures were deleted. 2D works of art like paintings are not included in "any other work of artistic craftsmanship". Sorry. Yann (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:

Sir, but "the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access is explicitly permitted under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957. जैन (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@जैन: Hi,

You quoted only half of the text. You are allowed that for a sculpture or a work of architecture, not for a painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all

I just delete all the files that I uploaded, are you satisfied ? --Uchup19 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Uchup19 Please discuss the files you uploaded at the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Uchup19 as requested. None of them have been deleted at present and you - as a new user - don't have deletion rights. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know about my rights. Please delete it all, without having discussed.--Uchup19 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm only the nominator, the images stay there until another administrator removes them. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goog job, even photos of myself too, were you deem worthy. Pathetic!Uchup19 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inflatable seal.jpg

Hello,

Hopefully I am doing this correctly as I am new to this. I have the permission of the copyright holder to use my image, but they did not know all of the licensing information. Perhaps I did not label it correctly. Could you direct me to the right copyright please?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintaylor j (talk • contribs)

Hi Martintaylor j : Please discuss your image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inflatable seal.jpg by following that link and clicking the word "edit". Please answer the source of the image, and it will need a license different than the one you chose for it because it's not a 2D object, it's a 3D object. Please however, discuss everything over there where the whole community can help out; nothing we say here or on your talk page will be considered by the closing admin. who will pick either keep or not keep. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas

Dear Ellin, please I need your help. I did all you asked me to do, writing to commons and explaining each picture who was the author, which is me, and the others where taken by my grandfather who died, passed to my father which is the painter, and then passed to me. The person who wrote me back told me that they can repost the once I took, but the other pictures where not possible. Apparently the person did not read very well what i was saying. Could you please help me with this? Thank you. Those are my pictures. Have a nice day. Please remember I am new on this, please apologies for any mistake. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contents [hide] 1 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Palacio Municipal Panama.jpg 2 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Renoir Copia.jpg 3 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez-Vargas, con cuadro casa muller.jpg 4 File:Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas, portaretrato.jpg 5 File:Rodolfo A. Mendez Vargas, en Hotel Panama Hilton.jpg 6 File:Rodolfo A. Mendez Vargas, Retrato.jpg 7 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Diputado Jorge Adámes.jpg 8 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, con planos de carro alegórico 1960.jpg 9 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, con sus esculturas.jpg 10 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, acuarelas.jpg 11 File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas pintando 1948.jpg 12 Notification about possible deletion

Hi Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas : The administrator who helped you has the right answer. The ones you took are ok, the others you don't have copyright on them and you cannot post them. Owning a copy of a print is not the same thing as copyright. I can't disagree with the more experienced editor; but I do have good news for you. Please continue to post photographs that you personally took. You don't just have to put up every picture of your family; take photos of your town and interesting things and upload those instead! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest thing here is if Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas simply answered the questions I asked four days ago at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_Rodolfo_Antonio_M.C3.A9ndez_Vargas_--_Comments_at_the_end_of_section.2C_please. In order to make any decision on the situation, we need answers there. If he does not answer there, the images will not be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by SteveMattu

Hi there, Recently, I uploaded some magazine covers on Wikimedia commons with the permission of the author. The copyright owner was agreed to release the image in public domain for free under CC 4.0. So I uploaded the images and inserted the OTRS pending tag, as the author emailed his granting email to OTRS a little late, the images are deleted by Wikimedia volunteer. Can you please provide some help on how can we get the images undeleted? Because the copyright is agreed to publish these images for free use and he also emailed the permission to OTRS email. Let me know what can we do now. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMattu (talk • contribs)

Hi SteveMattu: The editors over at OTRS are a bit backlogged, but if you put a post on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, referencing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SteveMattu ( cut copy paste this for the link to help them find your stuff [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SteveMattu]] ) and gently asking the status of the OTRS that was sent in before. One of the OTRS editors will then assist you through the remainder of the process. Also please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' which are like this ~~~~ so they can find you more easily than opening the page history (upper right corner near search), and paging through to find the "diff" (different version) you left and then getting along to helping you out! Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance on things other than OTRS. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buddy, Thanks for your help. I left a message on the notice board couple of days ago. As I was not getting any reply, I updated it again. But there is no help. Any suggestions? Steve Mattu (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SteveMattu: I read thru their page and they're even more backed up than we are right now. I saw unfinished business there from March. Otherwise, you could go ask User:Jameslwoodward "call him Jim", I think he still has access to OTRS queue (maybe not) and he might be able to shed some light on it. Just FYI, he's an awesome admin and really direct in speech but has heart of gold, don't get upset if he just tells you a, b, c and "yer out" without any softening! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guys -- "heart of gold" - eh? I'm frankly torn. First, I need to say that the OTRS backlog is unsatisfactory in many respects, but I don't have any bright ideas to solve it -- OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and there aren't enough, so there's a long backlog -- often a month or more. Very occasionally I will jump the OTRS queue to help a newbie who has gotten a raw deal for one reason or another, but generally I am reluctant to do so. If the world gets the idea that they can get ahead of the queue by asking one of us, that's unfair to those who are waiting patiently for their turn. So, Ellin, I guess I'll toss it back at you -- are there special circumstances here? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim: Not particularly any special circumstances, only my unfamiliarity with the length of the backlog and the need to check in with more experienced admins for a situation like this which is a series of magazine covers which await decision. Thanks for helping out! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot guys. I can wait in the queue :). I am just curious if re-uploading files again can do any good? Because when I first uploaded these files, volunteers marked them for deletion because they haven't found any email in OTRS. That was only a couple of days after the upload, while I think the copyright owner sent the email after at least a week. I understand your concerns about the backlog. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks once again. Steve Mattu (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polite patience goes a long way here. Ellin, the ticket is #2015041310004525 and it's fine. It covers the same 48 covers of Mehfil magazine as the DR. I'll leave it to you to restore them all and run VFC past the files to add {{PermissionOTRS}} to them all. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim: I generated a pile of warnings when I added the tags (manually because not being part of OTRS, VFC wouldn't do it for me), but I cited your name in the edit summaries and boldly hit save anyway. An@Steve Mattu, sorry for the inconvenience, now you can upload larger versions of all of them. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. sorry about that -- If I had known that VFC won't do that for non-OTRS people, I would have done it for you. Speaking of that, why don't you become an OTRS volunteer? They much prefer people who will really help them with the backlog, but I think that the most active Admins should have it because it comes up all the time. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim and Ellin, Thanks a lot guys. I appreciate your help. You both have heart of gold :). Steve Mattu (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You're awesome :) Really helpful. Steve Mattu (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apology!

Dear Ellin Beltz, I need to discuss something very important with you regarding my future relationship with Wikipedia. First of all, I saw you listed on the administrator list (of 242) and I wasn’t surprised. I originally went there to ask any administrator to delete all of my “rock” photos. I even thought of removing everything, in spite of spending the last three weeks, working day and night, enlightening Wikipedia of my little personal world. When you guys touched my “rocks,” you struck a nerve. Over the past 10 years, they have not only been my personal “pet rocks,” they have been an inspiration to write and eventually publish a book about meteorites. Now, I don’t want to go into technical details regarding why I am convinced that mine are meteorites, I’ve already spent a day doing that with Geogene. He has “seen” the light, if you will, not to the point of certifying my “rocks” as meteorites, because he can’t. He sort of gets where I am coming from and almost seems somewhat persuaded by my “theory.” (Not trying to point out his flaws, but he told me that ni-fe melting points were higher than silicates, i.e. SiO2, but they are not. I looked them up. He was speculating. I was not.) Anyway, the reason for this letter is this: I want to apologize for purposefully going to your fine photo collection and looking for flaws, and yes, I believe the plaque one could be touched up a little more. I did it in response to the last straw, of not only being ridiculed and called a hoaxster, but mentioning an insignificant part of a photograph that was not scanned. However, I now realize, you are right. The Bible should be given the best photographic detail allowable. So, if you were “playing my game,” I forgive you. Nevertheless, I will fix it and take an extremely great photo of my late-grandmother’s Bible. To cut this short, I originally wanted to opt out of Wiki when I went to the admin list. However, after reading your user page and realizing that you have a “tough” job, nominating and deleting people’s “beloved” pics, I tried to place myself in your shoes. Yes, I’m sure it is rough doing what you do. I am glad it’s not my job! I hope you haven’t become calloused because of people like me! Anyway, I admit that uploading my “rocks” under “false” pretenses was very presumptuous of me. I need verification and I am working on it. Secondly, I admit that I should not have purposefully looking for flaws in your photos. Being an administrator, you deserve more respect than that. (There’s not much of that around these days.) Finally, after being put through this “torture,” so to speak, I feel like I am able to “dust myself off and start all over again!” Oops! Did I just violate another copyright law? LOL! Hey, I don’t blame you if you were slightly offended by my emotional, temporal meltdown, but I have learned some valuable lessons these past three weeks, “Play the game right and you will win!” So, with that, go ahead and delete my account and photographs if you must. I am fine with that. I have many other avenues to express my creativity. I mention that ever so humbly. I am not an arrogant snob. On the other hand, if you want me to stay, I will. If I do stay, is it permissible to rename my “rock” photos in a more “benign” manner, like “An unidentified rock specimen that is under investigation to see whether or not it is celestial or terrestrial?” To me, that is sort of middle-ground; because you may strongly feel I’m wrong, judging by less-than-perfect pictures, inferring that they “might” be meteorites. Long story ended: Look, forgive me. I was wrong about several things. It wasn’t intentional. The Good Book that I try and adhere to in my life lets me know that lying is wrong. You can reinstate me and “cautiously” welcome me back, or you can delete my whole account. I really don’t believe that you are the latter…, though! If you chose not to respond to this correspondence, letting me know that you were hurt too much by my words, then just go ahead and remove it all, please! I don’t want to have to deal with any more emotional torment. If I am going to edit, I will follow the rules, but there has to be PEACE!!! Looking forward to hearing from you in at least a few words! Have a great weekend! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GEOGOZZ: Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And thanks for replying, too! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel tower going dark

Hi, I saw that you deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eiffel_tower_dark_armenian_genocide.jpg for copyright violation. Could you please detail more what is not correct on the picture ? Is it the fact that the author copied it from elsewhere or is it because of the absence of FoP in France ? Because, only the light is protected by copyright on the Eiffel Tower, and given that it is shutdown, there should be no copyright on it. Varmin (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's much simpler than that -- as noted in the file history, the image appeared at https://twitter.com/IDeArmenia/status/591700400786386944. Twitter is copyrighted, so even if the uploader is the photographer, policy requires that the photographer send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, so I can upload mine without any problem. Thanks. Varmin (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, on the same name. The quality is not that good, but it's better than nothing. Varmin (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an arresting image, if you know what the tower usually looks like. It reminds me very much of the cover of The New Yorker after 9/11/2001, see http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/911-new-yorker-covers. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Varmin: Actually I like yours better, can you upload a larger, preferably huge version? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have no bigger version of it. I took the picture with my phone (and it's a very old phone). I have to look if I can convince a photograph to post his picture with an OTRS authorization. Varmin (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still like yours better. I had the same thing happen, I took a photo on an old camera with bad quality, uploaded it here to Commons and they're using it in a book while complaining about the quality the whole way! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg

Prior to deleting an image, can we always have a discussion? Maybe we can fix the license issue, or maybe we can get permission from the author. Plus I want to check where that image was used, so that we can have corrective actions. All of this is not possible if you delete the image without previous discussion. This is what it probably happened with file File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg. Can you undelete it, so that we can evaluate it? Thanks! Jordiferrer (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordiferrer: Commons has several ways of dealing with copyright images. One is speedy, when the source file gives no clue to license and the images are not old enough to be in public domain, as here: http://www.revistaigualada.cat/ImatgesArticles/2009/30.08.40.pdf in the source PDF of the above image. On upload, photographer was given as unknown, but the article is from 2009. Discasto nominated it: "because According to the Spanish law, a work does not enter into the public domain until 80 years pma)". I removed it because "1937" is only 78 years ago, I didn't find any form of license statement at the source pdf (as above), the author was given as unknown and it was recently published - perhaps for the first time - in 2009. Please see COM:EVID and COM:PRP for reasons why a four-cause delete was speedied. Now, for your request for restoration: To assure you a neutral hearing by others - leave a message at COM:UNDEL with the clickable link to the image [[:File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg]] and a brief note why you feel the image should be restored, another administrator will take a look at the situation and give you advice. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All your reasons are valid and it is highly likely that the image may have to be deleted. However, a discussion should be granted before proceeding to deletion for all the reasons I told you (try to get permision from the author or heirs, be able to check on which wikipedia pages that image was being used so that we can replace it, etc. Speedy deletion makes that impossible, and should be used with more caution. Can you tell me on which wikipedia pages that image was used when you deleted it?--Jordiferrer (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordiferrer: Your complaints about how the file was nominated need to be directed to the editor who nominated the image as speedy, quite possibly based on the above and the long list of images which have been nominated and deleted from your uploads. That would be Discasto. Please discuss undeletion of your images at COM:UNDEL. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordi, first of all I didn't want to upset you (or whoever). With regard to the mechanism, copyright violation is always handled as a speedy deletion procedure. I admit, given the reasons you've provided, that a previous warning could have been useful, especially in this case. As far as I know, there's no way to know which pages were using the file when it was deleted. However, you can see in here where it is still "used". I've also verified the contributions of CommonsDelinker in viquipèdia, the French, the Occitan and the Spanish Wikipedia and it didn't removed this picture from any page in the last week. Therefore, the ones in the global usage page should be ones where the picture should be removed. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Discasto _talk 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Discasto. I have now solved the issue by using a modern image of that building, instead of the 1937 image, on the multiple pages where it was needed. Ellin, instead of talking of the "long list of images which have been nominated and deleted from your uploads" I would ask you to analyse which % are those compared to the big number of uploads that I have done (and always in good faith). Thanks.--Jordiferrer (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my apologies. I do think I followed the right procedure but I understand the arguments provided by Jordi and think they're sensible. I'll take it into account for future situations. Best regards --Discasto _talk 09:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto, I personally don't think you did anything wrong at all, COM:EVIDENCE says it's up to the uploaders to provide proper licensing and sources. So the first "should" here was that the uploader "should" have verified that the image was ok to upload to Commons. You did nothing wrong by sending it to speedy especially with the uploader's spotted history of uploading images without proper license and source which he or she "should." Anything after that is just smoke and mirrors saying that the admins here did anything wrong is silly; Commons isn't here to host images which do not comply with COM:SCOPE and certainly not COM:COPYVIOs. You are absolutely correct to say "copyright violation is always handled as a speedy deletion procedure." There was no reason to send the image to discussion nomination - it was an obvious copyvio. You were most kind to point the user to what he could have found himself with the same time spent searching as complaining. As for comparing the ratio of bad to good images in anyone's gallery - if images are continuously uploaded which are not correct by the same user - that's a learning pattern for the user to be more careful on uploads. It's not a case where the admins have to lay a silk carpet down and use a wet spaghetti noodle to admonish and coddle the uploader because they make such wonderful contributions, some percentage of the time. It's up to the uploader to respect and cherish the Commons process and be more careful in future. Also you don't need an administrator to find files in use. That ability is available to all users in their preferences, enable Preferences>Gadgets>Interface: Files and categories>Global Usage Badges see [8]. I'm not at all pleased to see the blame game applied to admins for doing what admins do (which is - in case this point was missed - delete obvious copyvios speedily) and demanding services which are set up so users can do that themselves. If you'd like further attention, please do so with an understanding that the admins are volunteers who wouldn't even be necessary really if people abided by the very simple rules of Commons - free images of educational utility only. No apologies for sounding cranky; if my kids acted like this they'd get the same "don't whine, you were wrong (in good faith a bunch of times), deal and do it yourself" lecture. And I'd also suggest they be a lot more careful in the future as this all goes down on their permanent records. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scofield Reference Bible

Hello Ellin. I replaced the Scofield Bible pic, better resolution, took out in sunshine. You can delete old one, please. Thanks, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GEOGOZZ: Please leave all correspondence on the [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schofield Bible.jpg relevant Deletion Nomination page]. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ellin, I will. I apologize for making that mistake. Cheers, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jerry Lee Lewis4 - Photo by Anthony Pepitone.jpg

Hi Ellin (cc @Yann: ). I don't understand your closure here. "Anthony Pepitone" is not some special person, it's just the full name of the own work uploader User:Dxede5x. You can tell from the upload I linked to where the author is identified as "user Dxede5x aka Anthony Pepitone - Photographer". This is just the same as when I upload as author=[[User:99of9|Toby Hudson]]. Nobody then argues that we need OTRS from Toby Hudson.--99of9 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 99of9 : No one is right all of the time. I evaluated what I saw, and looked to see if we had better images of Jerry Lee Lewis than this one of his ear and neck; decided that PRP was in order and deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, not end of world, just have another admin COM:UNDEL it, but then do be sure to leave something other than a Question "Are you Pepitone" on the user's page. It's partially because you asked there that I assumed there was doubt. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'll take it there. I asked the question of the user before I found the "aka" file, so I'm now much more confident. --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Talk Page Stalkers

So sorry, out of time for tonight, but no user's own work here. Could someone nominate the rest of the files please? I found an online source for every one of their images I searched; all older - none uploader's own work. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hello i finde a new copyvio gallery Special:Contributions/سمر_الجزائرية. Best regards.--Vikoula5 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vikoula5: Thanks, the other admins got to it before I did, see here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is also good.--Vikoula5 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there are a new one Contributions/Simo_bakloul.--Vikoula5 (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vikoula5: Good catch! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi Ellin Beltz. I read on your user page "Please feel free to collapse the big Table of Contents, the page looks much nicer without it!" You know that you can add __NOTOC__ on top of your user page which hides that 'big table of contents', right? With regards, Trijnstel_talk 13:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trijnstel: Thankies very much for telling me but I know about it. Personally I use the TOC constantly to find my piles of reference materials, but if it gets in other people's way the wee message explains that *they* can shut it down!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images from the article Попов, Иван Васильевич (политик)

Hello. Why have removed anonymous images of 1920-1930s? From the rules of Wikipedia (Commons:Licensing): If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication. Yokki (talk)

Hi Yokki Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yokki you left some very specific conditions, including publication. I don't see publication dates on those two images. Please feel free to file a request for undeletion at COM:UNDEL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Permission tags for files uploaded in 2007

Ellin, you just tagged File:064 Ankara.05.2006 resize.JPG as "no Permission". It is true that this file uploaded in 2007 does not meet today's metadata standards, but the original uploader did not use {{Information}} template, as most files uploaded in those days, but it used "{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}" where it claims that he is the copyright holder. That was the standard back then. You can not be tagging files like that with "no Permission" the uploader was not around for last 8 years so he will likely is not going to find your messages and we do not want to be automatically deleting files because they do not use {{Own}} which was not even created back then. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarekt : Obviously I made a mistake, no reason to lecture. I do see your name on some reloads of these images and there is empty template data on those uploads, so perhaps it would have been more clear if the file had had source & author filled in the empty fields after your reupload in 2008. But whatever. We're all working to get the right information on thses files. That's why there's a 7 day hold on the files - to get the sources. It never ceases to amaze me how many people - including admins - get all worked up by those tags, ermagerd end of world image got tagged... Wouldn't it be easier to just fix the problems than complain to the person who found them? BTW, there's another one of these UUU files for same uploader, you might want to take him out of "no source" as well. There's nearly 40,000 old no sources to go, I can't be 100% right all the time, but I'd love to get help from everyone as we go along. BTW, my "stupid screwup" ratio is still less than two cents on my dollar of total performance, sorry you were one of those pennies! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not meant to lecture. I add a lot of {{No license}} and spend a lot of time at Category:Media without a license: needs history check. But one reason why I "get all worked up by those tags" is that if you add a tag to a file uploaded 8 years ago than most likely it will be deleted after 7 days because in most cases nobody is watching the talk pages of people from back there. We only add {{No license}} tags to new uploads and try to figure out what triggered an old file to show up on your radar. There is a big push to add {{Information}} templates to old files, and in some cases people add almost empty {{Information}} templates, mistakenly thinking that it is helpful. I do not want those file to get deleted because someone was trying to help. Any way I am sorry I am lecturing again. --Jarekt (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Jarekt : I understand about those old files, I spend piles of time in images with no source, we had over 80K when I started picking at it - and encouraging others to do so - and now we are under 50K I think. I don't put a lot of tags on them, but I spend hours looking for the sources wherever possible. I have no desire to know what the NSA thinks of me with the search history I must have gained in last year+. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer Gage Skidmore and reversion of his edits

Ellin, could you take a look at this discussion and at the activities on Wikipedia of editors GageSkidmore, Stemoc and Davey2010 (and me) concerning what the former (Skidmore) asserts as his photographic product? Stemoc brought your involvement to my attention. I note that you have so far been unsuccessful in getting the photographer to explain his re-uploads and/or attempts to rename his images here, but I do not think that justifies the automatic reversion of the photographer's edits on Wikipedia without some clear policy that calls for it (and so far have found none). Are you aware of one, or have any other position on this matter? Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dwpaul: I looked at those diffs and pages. I asked the photographer why he put his name at the end because I do that for every one of those I see. Some of them are unclear on the 2.0 license thing and feel they have to have their name in the image title or they won't get credit. From personal experience, see image fourth from top, attributed "1898 building by architect T.J. Frost on Main Street in Ferndale | © Ellin Beltz/WikiCommons", [at source, it's PD-self]. And of course my name isn't in any of the image titles, to me personally it makes the file names too long and hard to work on categories. Despite my personal methods and opinion, I do not know of any official Wikimedia Commons policy prohibiting it! In fact, if you look a couple of sections above this one WPPilot is undergoing the same renaming situation on his images - and has also had his high-quality images nominated for deletion because of _____(you fill it in, I don't get it)____. He objected and is now blocked on en:Wiki! So there is some movement afoot perhaps, but it's really not up to the Wikipedians to worry about Commons images and start edit wars therefrom.

I fail to see why Wikipedians would be so fussy about Commons image names. As so beautifully stated by Morticia Addams, Don't torture yourself, Gomez. That's my job. No more than a Commons administrator would be welcome running around tossing tags on en:Wiki articles, I think should be en:wikians_without_a_clue engaging in edit wars over a filename. When done with this, they can all get electron scanners and worry about the number of angels dancing on the head of a cat hair or something. I think there's plenty more real work to be done on the various projects without turning cannibalistic on each other and working and reworking various issues.

With that said however -- in my personal opionion -- this photographer is not right to upload 'new files of the same image which was uploaded before. The older images had the flickr link and the flickr review. The new files do not have the link or the review. This will only confuse people and we don't need to waste time chasing down the dups. The problem now is, that one of the two currently nominated for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Hader by Gage Skidmore.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica Alba by Gage Skidmore.jpg is in use, the older duplicate isn't. I suspect that's from the edit wars as linked above.

I think the best course would be to go to VP and ask; or perhaps to some of the Commonsians with way more experience than I have, including INC, Green Giant and etc. Thank you for mentioning this, please stay in touch! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance! Dwpaul (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

توبيخ

File:رضوان الحناشي.jpg	توبيخ
	انا احذرك Ridouan al hannachi (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Removed from Adolph Dial

You deleted the uploaded photo of Adolph Dial from my page on Adolph Dial today. This photo does not breach copyright as it was taken with permission of the owner and then uploaded by a collaborator of the page as his own, original photo. Our research group has been made aware of what does and does not break copyright and this photo does not. Please put it back on the page as immediately as possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atpittma (talk • contribs)

Hi @Atpittma: : I see three editors on the Adolph Dial page you said was "my page": yourself @Aboutmovies: , and @Qtatum: . Just FYI there are no "my pages" or "your pages" on these projects, we're all working together to create a source of information. Qtatum uploaded File:AdolphDial.jpg., an image which was composed of multiple other images. "Taken with permission of the owner" is not the same thing as "having copyright permission" therefore the upload was nominated as a copyright violation at 14:30, 5 May 2015 by Aboutmovies "Marking as possible copyvio because: This is clearly a picture of a piece of art that hangs on a wall. Likely 6 different copyrighted works are in the photo." All the rest of what you said really isn't at issue. Whoever of your group actually owns the copyright can file an COM:OTRS form and explain why they claim copyright to the image. It's all clearly explained at the COM:OTRS page. Remember as with Solomon and the babies, the actual copyright holder will be delighted that his/her rights are being upheld. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I don't even know where to start

The EN site has blocked me and a obvious effort to remove my work is well under way. People are removing my name from files, and I have in no way granted any rights for any of my photos to be here, without attribution. If my name is stripped the license is gone, so each time it happens I will nominate it for deletion I guess. It is simply not worth dealing with anymore. --WPPilot (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow WPPilot, I really don't either. There's three things to point out though... taking your name off the file name is (a) reversible and (b) doesn't ruin the license for the image, they still have to attribute you if that's how your license reads. And (c) it's only the internet, we all make mistakes and the written word - for some unknown reason - comes across as *angry* when the intent was to be *precise and direct*. I'm not in any way brushing aside anything which may have happened over there, and I didn't read it in depth but I don't understand what I did read - I don't see a blocking reason. I mean really, they didn't block someone who blanked my page and left a death threat on it, why would they... doesn't make sense to me either. By the way that juvenile threatened "killa" was finally blocked by an admin... for ... hold your seat down... vandalizing Barney the Purple Dinosaur on April Fools, not for threatening to kill me. I guess the dinosaur is worth more to some admin than my life was to others - and yes I complained about it, but no one did a damn thing except the police who took it very seriously and had a chat with his school and parents. So we all have our issues. I hope you'd put this whole thing down, breathe deeply, realize everything is reversible and there are responsible adults loose in the system somewhere. Most of them really are here at Commons... I used to like Wikipedia but it has gotten a bit too Wild West for me and with my heritage and sex, that's not the best holodeck for me to play in. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: There is a strong message in your post and I totally hear what your saying. It is interesting (to sanitize the real word) and your points about my heritage and sex, it might not be "the best holodeck for me to play in" too. (whats a holodeck) I came here to contribute my images. I have plenty of great stuff and I should start nominating my pics here as Featured Photos. I had 11 that were nominated as featured on the EN site, and I was wondering if perhaps you might help me get some going here. I guess the rename thing was a automate thing that was not done intentionally, so I may have over reacted due to the EN drama, please forgive me. Your story about Barney is funny but sad, at the same time. Wild Wild West is about right. Can you simply restore my name to the end of the file as it is now? That would be a good pic to nominate perhaps or I could do the already FP's from EN, any thoughts? --WPPilot (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WPPilot: Take a look at the correspondence two below this one, and see you're not the only photographer having this happen over at en:Wiki. It would seem there's a move afoot for en:Wikians to have the desire to rename Commons so it matches some set of rules that seem to be interpretations of this layered on that with a dollop of whipping preen. I think seeing that it is now a trend, to watch what happens below where I've asked a couple of other English speaking Commons admins to take a look at the other situation. Then we see what happens there - where the war is hot and active... then see what maybe can be done with your situation as well. Mean while, I know very little about Featured Pictures. I tried nominating one of my photos which won the "best redwood photograph of the year" award in our local area - only to be told that "any tourist could make that photo standing there." Which is so obviously ridiculous because the location is 2 hours off trail so no tourist is going there and second I doubt if any of the complainers have any idea how hard it is to photograph 200 foot tall trees without parallax issues, etc. Someday when they visit the redwoods and take home too dark, blurry images of not much but crowns of trees perhaps they will understand. In any case, I caution you there are egos at play in those woods too, but your photos are vastly better than mine so perhaps they'd show you some respect. A Holodeck ... "is a simulated reality facility" a little more high-tech than Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Time is in favor of the patient. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to e mail me? --WPPilot (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is for WPPilot as well. Ellin I haven't forgotten your request. I just needed some time to think it over, because I cannot recall this ever being an issue before, which is not to say that it hasn't been covered in an archive somewhere. I think we really have two issues to deal with here - the issue of WPPilots name in the filename; and the issue of whether a filename is accurate. To start with the first issue, most of the CC licenses before version 4.0 require the title of the work (i.e. filename) to be provided IF the author supplies it. However, there appears to be silence on the question of changing the title i.e. I'm not sure there is anything preventing filename changes as long as the other aspects of attribution are met, within reason. It could be argued that it is met by WPPilot's name being kept in the author line. However, I do note that there are some files where the authors name is included and it has never been questioned e.g. File:Jean Bodin.- De la République, 1756.djvu and File:Louis Daguerre - The Ruins of Holyrood Chapel - Google Art Project.jpg. So my conclusion for the first issue is that there appears to be nothing in our policies or the licenses that prevents an authors name being included in the filename. The second issue is whether a filename is accurate, and this is where I think there is some latitude because we have a file renaming policy. If for example there is a dispute about the correct name of this building, then it would have been better to have a quick discussion on either the file talk page or the uploaders talk page before renaming. If the building is genuinely only a state building then I don't think there is anything wrong with a rename and equally I don't think it invalidates the license. Unless WPPilot has evidence to the contrary, the compromise solution is to rename it to include both the suggested name and the authors name. If I can make a further suggestion I don't think it is necessary to have the words "photo by" in the filename, but that is just my opinion. In addition there are a couple of other deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:FILED Criminal Perjury Complaint re Cluckey McDowell.pdf. I have to agree with Tuvalkin that it is WPPilots own work but I am unsure whether it fits the project scope. That's not to say it doesn't but I think we need a good explanation of why it does. Finally there is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wendell Jacobson 2008 MGM Casino Surveillance Photo.jpg where I have to agree with the nominator. Submitting a copyright work to a court does not transfer or lift the protections that are inherent to such works unless Congress changes the law. In this case, the casino retains its copyright to the footage, and without a license from them the file should be deleted. I hope that helps but feel free to ask me if there is anything else. Green Giant (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:FILED Criminal Perjury Complaint re Cluckey McDowell.pdf and voted to delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wendell Jacobson 2008 MGM Casino Surveillance Photo.jpg with reasons at those locations. Those two deletions I think are separate from the renaming situation from Wikipedians not necessarily as up on the Commons policies as we all might wish they were. I see the point of having photographic works by known photographers identified by their own names. We do it for painters all the time: see Category:Albert Bierstadt, photographers Category:2011 Ansel Adams donation from U.S. National Archives, and even our Russian brethren use this format, see Category:Photo of Yaroslavl Governorate by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky where pictures of buildings are labeled nothing but "Gorski..." etc. I think there's plenty to do of real work without going round in circles about how major uploaders choose to name their images, but that's just me. I don't see any precedent for renaming files when the only reason to do so is to remove the photographer's name. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DR's closed as deleted, one file renamed with authors name, one unhappy uploader cheered up. Job done, methinks. Green Giant (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been nominated!

See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations#Ellin_Beltz , :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'awwww Steinsplitter, that's sweet... Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions request

Hi Ellin Beltz/Archive 2! I uploaded that images as test. I forgot ask a deletion to them. You can delete it without any problem with my permission this and this. Thank you. Connie^GB 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ConnieGB: The system will get them in a few days, no worries!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!. Connie^GB 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about socking

Greetings Ellin, I don't think we have ever worked together yet. I am fairly new to Commons but have edited WMF wiki's for many years (mostly English Wikipedia). I generally agree with your statements on the blocks page you made and certainly a lot of socking is unnecessary, but as someone who has faced abuse on another project I will say that oftentimes creating a new account is the only way to edit. Once you are labelled, the only thing you can do is either walk away from the project completely (thereby the project loses useful edits) or create a new account and keep contributing. Now I am not referring to vandalism, trolling or the manipulation of a venue by voting, I am talking about positive contributions that improve the project. So much of the internet and so many people are blocked from some of the projects, oftentimes for very little reason or no proof at all, that creating an alternate account is required in order to edit that wiki at all. Additionally, the stigma of socking is such that it really ensure that if someone creates an alternate account they have to do it very sneakily or get caught. In fact I would wager that a lot more editors do it than we know about because they are often very careful about the edits or enough time passes that the checkuser tool can't capture it. The fact remains though if the projects continue to allow any admin to block anyone they choose and the WMF provides no useful checks and balances to prevent manipulation of policy on the projects, its going to happen and if we were more open to allowing people to use their account rather than use blocks as a hammer for punishment, a lot of the socking we see in general would not be occurring. Anyway, just my 2 cents as someone who is currently in a no win position to either not edit certain wiki's at all (English Wikipedia) or do it with a different account than this one so improvements can be made. Reguyla (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reguyla: I'm sorry about your other experiences and that you feel you need to sock to contribute, but my comment on the blocks page was particular to a particular user. Unless you are that user it doesn't apply to you. As for "the only thing you can do" ... I disagree. I think there are methods to appeal blocks and if one is as blameless as claimed, the admins will take that into account in their actions. As for socking, our rules are pretty clear on the topic and nothing I type here will fix/change anything. "Use blocks as a hammer for punishment" - sorry that statement is absurd. Blocking is done to prevent bad behavior on Commons, specifically uploading copyrighted images after a warning, and so on. This situation is obvious vandalism, trolling and manipulation; if you don't see that simple point, nothing I write will change anything. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my experiences are somewhat different. The methods of appeal are basically useless as its the same people doing the appealing as the ones doing the blocking and the answer in an appeal is almost 100% of the time no regardless of the situation or circumstances. Anyone can block someone but in order to unblock, unless you are the blocking admin, you have to go to that admin and ask and if they say no then that is that. I do agree that the rules are clear and its irrelevant whether I/we agree. They are what they are and unfortunately the way they are is what sometimes causes the problems and no I wasn't really referring to this particular case, which I agree is unacceptable from that user. Anyway, cheers! Reguyla (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reguyla : On that last we do agree. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something Special for you!

Category help needed

Hi Ellin,

I uploaded some images of meteorites and parked them in category:Lunar samples which is not the correct cat I believe. Do you know in which category the following images should be placed?

Some help is much appreciated :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Natuur12: I think they're probably fine in Lunar Samples, but you might find something useful in Category:Meteorites, they have by find location, and etc. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look up some extra cats when I am doing my next categorisation run :). Natuur12 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unproper deletion of image

Hi, image File:Plano detalle 1906.JPG has been deleted due a supposed infringement of Author Rights. However this is a piece of the Map of Madrid done in 1906 by the Spanish military cartographer Facundo Cañada, born in 1851 and died in 1913. In Spain a work goes into Public Domain after 70 years since the death of the author, and thus this work is in public domain since 1983. Said so, could you please undelete the image and restore the links to the harmed articles? Thank you. Lironcareto (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lironcareto : Do you have a source for that map? As in Where is the Map of Madrid 1906 located? Is it online? Is it in a book, or a museum? The image was uploaded with PD-old as license, and author unknown. As such had no way to tell when the author died, e.g. was it over 70 years or not. It was nominated by Dicastro for no source, and sat for a week waiting help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin, the best source for it is the CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spanish for High Council of Scientific Investigation) which has this map (as of 1900, not 1906), in its website [[9]]. Sadly the description is in Spanish but the map is downloadable in the links to the right. Lironcareto (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lironcareto : File:Plano detalle 1906.JPG has been restored. Thank you for your help with the image source. The only thing I could not find was the date of death of the creator, even in his es:wiki article! Can you track that down? Oh, and I'm taking off that "no source" box from your talk page, I hope that's ok! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack-Layton-2003-NDP-Leadership.jpg

Hi there, with regards to this file, I can confirm that it is cropped from a photo I took myself, which I had uploaded to Wikipedia many, many years ago (it seems to be gone from Wikipedia and from the Commons). So it should be fine. - Montrealais (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montrealais : The image had gotten separated from its history somehow, and it's now perfectly ok! Sorry for any confusion! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image

Dear Ellin Beltz, I have learned that you deleted my image 81Dojo_screenshot.jpg on 9th of May. I do not see the reason for this. Could you please explain. Thank you in advance for your feedback. With best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shogi 81 2 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shogi81: The best explanation is found on the edit summary, File:81Dojo_screenshot.jpg at the link. It reads:

05:59, 28 March 2014 Fastily deleted page File:81Dojo screenshot.jpg (No source since 20 March 2014)

And for the second upload of the same image:

16:48, 9 May 2015 Ellin Beltz deleted page File:81Dojo screenshot.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing)

The notifications went to the original uploader's User talk:Worldshogi page the first time, and to your User talk:Shogi81 page the second time. And then for the third account which you left me the message from User talk:Shogi 81 2, there are no contributions but this one note. Did you read the section on COM:SOCK? I would if I were you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies to DN's

Hi Ellin, I hope you didn't get annoyed that I've converted several of your speedies into regular DRs. There is some chance that these old per-war historic photos/documents from Russia might be in the public domain already, which needs to be proven, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio: No, I'm not upset at all. I do that too sometimes when I'm unsure of an image and unwilling to leave it lay around for others. The whole point of what we do is cooperative rather than competitive.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Darth vader cosplay (14049852150) (cropped).jpg

Hi! I see you marked File:Darth vader cosplay (14049852150) (cropped).jpg as a possible copyright violation. I can fully understand why, but in that case the full picture (File:Darth vader cosplay (14049852150).jpg) should also be marked. The file I uploaded was only a cropped file of another Commons picture, and therefore no violation by me, but by the Flickr file it is originating from. Am I right in my statement, or am I off base? Torfilm (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Torfilm : Yup, you are. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination

Hello,

The collection of photos that I have uploaded is intended to contribute legitimate nudist images to the community.

I would note that two images have been used to illustrate wikipedia articles and one image was recently used for a news article related to nudists: http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/summer-nudist-camp-to-be-held-in-dumfriesshire-forest-1-3747098

The photos were never meant to be a personal album on wikimedia and that was never my intention (that is what Flickr is for). Please reconsider the deletion nomination.

Thanks,

Dudenopants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudenopants (talk • contribs)

Hi Dudenopants: The place to leave all comments on the deletion nomination is on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dudenopants. Nothing talked about here will have any relationship to the nomination. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image - COM:DW

hello dear Ellin, I recognize File:Trofeo BSC 1960.png these images were edited from a picture found on internet, but them were made some changes by me, my ask is if i do a illustration of the same trophy, cup it's mine? so, i can upload it?.

Thank you, best regards Omar Venegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar v1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Omar: Using a base image from the internet, a book, magazine or other source and making changes to it is called a "Derivative Work." Please see the page COM:DW where it explains all about derivative works. In brief: the original copyright belongs to the person who made the original image, not to the person who made changes. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алексей Кебадзе

Dear Ellin Beltz!

You presented on deleted a few files high-usage an user by Алексей Кебадзе. It is illustrations to the articles:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Славороссов,_Харитон_Никанорович

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Грацианов,_Александр_Алексеевич

These articles tell about my native grandfather and native great-grandfather. Materials the user to Алексей Кебадзе are passed to by me. I ask you to give help in correct licensing of these files:

File:Slavorossova-1.jpg This my own poem, it is written in 2010. "Cafe "Rotunda" In summer 1914" is this name of poem, but not date of creation.

All photos from my personal archive are done in a period from 1911 to 1922.

File:Slavo27.jpg 1922
File:Slavorossov 9.jpg 1911
File:Slavorossov 7.jpg 1912
File:Slavorossov 5.jpg 1913
File:Slavorossov 4.jpg 1911
File:Slavorossov 3.jpg 1913
File:Справка 1.jpg 1963 original from my personal archive.
File:подпись Slavorossov.jpg original from my personal archive.
File:Удостоверение Берлин.jpg original from my personal archive.
File:Grazianov003.jpg not later 1919
File:Grazianov001.jpg not later 1917
File:Grazianov002.jpg not later 1919
File:Каменский11.jpg the poem of В. of Каменского is written in 1914.

With kind regards Евгения Славороссова.--Евгения Славороссова (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Евгения Славороссова : The way to fix the problem is to take what you wrote here and put it on the deletion nomination page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алексей Кебадзе. The issue is that the licenses put on the pictures imply SELF made images which these obviously are not - they are mostly too old for you to be the original creator! "From personal archive" does not mean ownership of copyright. We need to know who created the images, not merely the date of the image. But please, reply over there at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алексей Кебадзе., where the entire community can help get this as right as it ever will be. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Мне хотелось бы задать вопрос, каким образом я должна доказать право собственности на справку о реабилитации своего деда, репрессированного в ГУЛАГе File:Справка 1.jpg 1963 original from my personal archive., на его автограф и любительские фотографии деда и прадеда (1911-1922), всегда хранившиеся в моей семье и которые по моей доброй воле предоставлялись для научных и исторических публикаций безвозмездно.

Greetings Евгения Славороссова : Комментарии, как это и просьбы о помощи должны быть оставлены на Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алексей Кебадзе странице. Спасибо! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) English: Comments like this and requests for help need to be left at the deletion nomination page. Thanks! I hope Google translate did ok with all the Cyrillic characters![reply]

Deleted Image File:Confronto_Kouroi_giganti.jpg

Hi Ellin Beltz,

The image was created by me, by combining photos of the statues of the giants of Mount Prama, (uploaded by me on Wikicommons) and photos of the statues Kouroi, already used in the pages dedicated to Kouroi (also uploaded on Wikicommons). Therefore, I can not understand why the puzzle has been canceled.

[[10]] Thank you, best regards --DedaloNur (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DedaloNur: The problem was that you knew all that but you didn't put any of it on the upload form which read: {{Information|description={{it|1=Confronto stilistico e strutturale tra Kouroi e Giganti}}|date=2015-05-01|source={{own}}|author=DedaloNur|permission=self|cc-by-sa-4.0|other versions=}}</nowiki>. And the collage was obviously not own work. So please take your request to COM:UNDEL and ask that the file be restored? I was not the deleting editor and I don't want to override their deletion without consultation. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

File:Amaryllis cultivars photo D Ramey Logan.jpg should be named "File:Hippeastrum by D Ramey Logan.jpg" can you correct it? Thank you. --WPPilot (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, I have no idea how I did this next one.

File:Pilatus PC 12 N983CH by D Ramey Logan.jpg should be named Miami North Beach Waterway by D Ramey Logan.jpg. Thumbnails were not working and I titled the wrong picture :) Thank you!!! --WPPilot (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done. Green Giant (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (talk page stalker) @Green Giant: - --WPPilot (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos borradas de Azi_Wolfenson_Ulanowski

Estimado Sr. Ellin Beltz

Tengo varias fotos propuestas para borrado como podrá observar en mi pagina de discución https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edwinjcb.

Le agradecería revisar estas observaciones, las fotos se las solicite al Sr. Azi Wolfenson quien muy amablemente me las envió vía correo electrónico. El autorizo el uso de estas fotos mediante un documento firmado el cual fue enviado a permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org

Le agradecería me indicara como poner el tipo de licencia en las fotos, así como también, como puedo hacerle llegar este documento de autorización.

Como vera están borrando fotos familiares las cuales el es su único propietario, por eso pido reconsiderar el borrado de estas.

Gracias por su colaboracion

--Edwinjcb (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC) edwinjcb[reply]

Hi Edwinjcb : Esas diversas propuestas de eliminación fueron puestos allí por el usuario Jameslwoodward; probablemente sería mejor para incluir él en la discusión aquí. Those various deletion proposals were put there by user Jameslwoodward; it would probably be best to include him in the discussion here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he heard either of you, probably because his username is Jameslwoodward ie lower-case lw. Green Giant (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant It was only me who mistyped, thanks for the headsup !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments -- first, discussion of the Deletion Requests should take place on the DR pages, not here. Second, (ignoring my first comment), the problem here is that Mr. Wolfensohn probably has no right to license these images. Owning a copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to license it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the photos proposed for deletion are included family photos that certainly are owned by Mr. Wolfenson. We fully understand that having a photo gives no right but owning it maybe it does, specially if they have been taken by close members of his family like wife, father and son.

For example there is a photo of Mr. Wolfenson which was deleted and he tells me that it was taken some 30 years ago for his passport. The way it was taken was in a special boot that was at the Luzern railway station where for 10 Swiss Francs you had the chance to choose from 4 samples one picture and you pressed a button and you got 6 copies of the same. All the process was done by yourself. In this case it was qualified by your staff as a studio photo. Who has the right to the photo? The machine who does not exist any longer as Passport photos are today taken at the Office that delivers them? Or they belong to Mr. Wolfenson who managed the whole process and pressed the button himself?

Anyway I would like to know how I could mail you the letter of authorization from Mr. Wolfenson according to the details and sample of the photos he already mailed to Mr. Toni Desplà and how do I have to change the code to indicate to whom belong the photos. --Edwinjcb (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC) edwinjcb[reply]

Hi Edwinjcb : Is there some particular reason you can't follow the link to your [Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Edwinjcb] and comment over there? Jim was the nominator, but for some reason you're on my talk page with questions that are easily answered by the community at the Deletion Nomination to which you've been pointed from your talk page, suggested you visit by Jim and now - please - take your comments over there? For whatever authorization your friend is able to send, that goes though COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say again, Ellin has it right. This whole discussion should take place on the DR pages.

Also again, owning a copy of a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright, even if it is the only copy. If Mr. Wolfenson can prove -- not merely state, but prove beyond a significant doubt -- that any of the photographs were taken by people for whom he is the heir, and therefore is the copyright owner, then they can be kept on Commons. However, proving the the history of family album photographs is hard. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About deleted image from Facundo Cañada and his date of death

Hi Ellin. The source for the year of death of Facundo Cañada, 1913, is the monographic website by his grandson, J.A. Cañada. [[11]]. Lironcareto (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lironcareto: I put the link on File:Plano_detalle_1906.JPG. You can edit too! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File SuperSikhCover.jpg restoration

Hi Ellin, I just noticed that you deleted the file SuperSikhCover.jpg. This was not a copyright violation as you may have think. This upload is part of the project of creating a Wikipedia page on the subject itself. The rightful copyright owner of this image had in fact sent a message with the release license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have attempted to display the appropriate code {{OTRS pending}} in the license section during the upload of the image but it seems like I have been a little slow to learn and act. I will appreciate if you could restore this image that have been deleted so fast? Thank you for your understanding. Valenciatist (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valenciatist : When the COM:OTRS admins get to that part of their pile of correspondence they are able to restore the image. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellin, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am a little surprised by this procedure. I thought the image could stay in Commons until the OTRS ticket is assigned and not the other way around. I am afraid this process could take several weeks as the queue is significantly long. As the person who deleted the image, could you please do something in the mean time? I appreciate your cooperation. Thanks Valenciatist (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valenciatist : I don't have OTRS permissions to read the queue. And just being in the line doesn't mean the application is/ will be complete and I have no way to predict. So to protect your friend's copyright, the image is merely hidden at this time. When/if OTRS is achieved (and I only say If because my Acme Magic Future-Predicting Orb Model 2013-0915 is in the shop for repairs atm), the image can/will be restored by those editors you won't have to do a thing to bring it back. At the time the image was removed, there was no permission from the creator of the obviously professional image. The whole point of the process is to protect the creator's copyrights. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Leplin

I would like to extend my deepest acknowledgement to you, and to the other Wikipedians, who removed every single photo of this composer-painter and every single oil painting and watercolor photo executed by this composer-painter, that I placed there, even though my family has had all of these photos in our possession for as long ago as 65 years; no one has claimed them; no evidence exists that we do not own them. You have all single-handedly ripped a year out of my life; it took me a year to learn enough about Wikipedia and locate all of the sources to create the article. Yes, I'm the one who is alleged to have been "too close" to the subject, even though it has (currently) 59 real citations from secondary sources. The only questionable source could be the San Francisco History Center at the San Francisco Public Library. Yes, I created this archive, and the History Center has accepted everything I've given them over the years. It can be imagined that there is no secondary source in any of the relevant citations, because the media involved came from me. However, the media involved consists entirely of secondary sources: mainly original articles from papers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco News-Call, the San Mateo Times, the Palo Alto Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Also: letters from Leonard Bernstein and Pierre Monteux, and photos of nearly all of his paintings. Emanuel Leplin was well-known in the Bay Area, but he died before he could reach a larger audience. His career was not killed by polio, but he was killed because of having been paralyzed by polio, and, based upon observations of many Wikipedia articles about famous composers and painters, Wikipedia is rampant with photos of artists and paintings whose sources are easily as speculative as those that were in the article I wrote—the difference being that they did not have polio, and did not die too soon. The placement of the painting photos was called "indiscriminate." Every one of them illuminated the subject, and contributed to people's awareness of Leplin's output and genius. And this does not have to be considered with a jaundiced eye because I am his son; cited secondary sources universally extolled the value of Emanuel Leplin's life and works. This is not my biased opinion; anyone who reads the article will see that it's a fact. If anyone is biased, it's Wikipedia: in favor of the famous and celebrated, and dismissive—obviously—of those who are not.

It's stated that I'm "too close" to the subject. It is those who are closest to the subject who can be relied on to offer the most information about the subject, and instead of being rejected because of proximity, should be rewarded for their efforts to bring the subject alive, and help make Wikipedia the true all-embracing reference it believes itself to be. Somewhere, I heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleplin (talk • contribs)

Greetings Rleplin : I am assuming you are writing me in reference to:

The last group were nominated as "Modern art and historical photos. I think painter/heirs identity/permission confirmation via COM:OTRS is necessary." And yes, that is correct, so I deleted the image files. At least one of the painters died in 1972, not long enough for their work to be public domain. Additionally, other images were of the artists without any mention who took the photograph. Owning a copy of an image is not the same thing as owning copyright even if you've owned it for a long time. The copyright remains with the creator. The remainer of your complaints about the "wikipedians" etc. here, are really not relevant here on Commons - we're a separate project. The issue here is who has the copyright to the images because Commons cannot free-host unfree work. Please read COM:L for enlightenment. As for "too close to the topic", the admins here at Commons had nothing to do with that, but I think anyone looking at the edit page history of Emanuel_Leplin could easily see that a Rleplin editing on an Emanuel Leplin page might be too close to the subject. That's covered in the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is a separate project from Commons, and while photos may be worth 1000 words, copyright violations are not able to be hosted on the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About some DRs

Hi, For some DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSCN3660 2 (6025176253).jpg you closed as Delete, but the image was renamed and is still here: File:Scenery on Le Pouce (2).jpg. There are several like this. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann : I think I got them all today, please take a fast look and let me know? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the ones mentioned below, and not Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSCN3310 2 (6025138553).jpg, File:DSCN3309 2 (6025692348).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I went back to uploader's contributions and deleted all the files for which they requested renaming. Sorry about the problems in deletion, I've never encountered a situation where the files were renamed during the deletion process. Would you check one more time to see if I've finally gotten them all? Again sorry for the hassle.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Russavia created this mess, not you. ;o) I think there are only 2 left, renamed by another sock (Special:Contributions/A41-213), File:Le Pouce in Mauritius (1).jpg, File:Hiking on Le Pouce (3).jpg. Not sure if they are worth keeping or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Files should never renamed while there’s a Deletion Request pending, and this is why. (Also, often a problem, though, as many Deletion Requests pertain only the filename and would be avoided if less experienced users found the rename this button before the delete this button…) However red link says that «Ellin Beltz deleted page File:Scenery on Le Pouce (2).jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing: was renamed deleting again)», but the original Deletion Request closing was about off-scope-ness, not about copyvio — I would not have worked at description/categorization of a copyvio to “save” it. I believe it is pretty much in scope, and if needed I can open an Undeletion Request. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ellin Beltz. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tuválkin: What would you like me to do about this? I deleted the images two times; if the automated message of the second deletion was incorrect, I apologize. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining about close

Ellin, you have deleted almost all of the Le Pouce nominations by Yann as being out of scope. Le Pouce in Mauritius is a mountain which is "popular" for hiking. Can you please explain how once identified, imagery relating to hiking on Le Pouce was deemed by you to be out of scope. Example: File:View from Le Pouce (2).jpg is out of scope, according to you. Can you please show a similar image from Le Pouce which shows these views? Others are useful for the flora (which can be identified and might be unique to Mauritius). Others for hiking topics in general. They could be use for wikivoyage, or even off WMF projects. TyphoonE2000 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you closed File:Hiking trail on Le Pouce.jpg as delete on the grounds that it's unused (NEVER A REASON FOR DELETION), and that there are better images in the category. Can you kindly show where these better images showing a hiking trail on Le Pouce exist. TyphoonE2000 (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could come back and say that File:Le Pouce in Mauritius (1).jpg is a better photo of a hiking trail on Le Pouce, but you also closed this as delete as well. Seriously, did you even look at any of these photos? TyphoonE2000 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, this is me Russavia. TyphoonE2000 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help!! WMFOffice!!! INeverCry 04:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, you’re not helping. -_- There’s a lot of Commons users’ who’ll jump when you say jump, but you need to “reach out” in meatspace: Make a stink, hire a lawyer, go to the media, hire Prikasso to paint a Philippe this time, do whatever — but don’t crwal out of the woodwork pretending this is business as usual. It is not: You were banned (and I’d not be surprised to learn you were banned over some petty concern, or worse), and you need to get yourself unbanned before ever returning to business as usual. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Ellin Beltz. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

INeverCry 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rainbow Zebra 13

Dear Ellin, I have provided the necessary source information for all of my uploaded files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbow Zebra 13 (talk • contribs)

Hi Rainbow Zebra 13, I've added a note to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rainbow Zebra 13. Please go over there and take a look. Would also be good for you to put a comment right below mine so the closing administrator sees that you're working the process. Thanks for your understanding! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:20100131-DSC 2331 (4872714278).jpg

Can you please point to the Commons policy on when an image must be deleted as "really poor quality"?

Also could you please clarify your closing deletion comment, "A really poor quality image, out of COM:SCOPE as nominated." The nomination of "Useless name, no description, no useful category, poor quality, not used. " had five points to it, none of which were COM:SCOPE. Three of which were simple matters for description improvement (as was done) and nothing to do with the image. "Not used" is never reason to delete at Commons.

So was this deleted under COM:SCOPE? If so, are all similar images of architecture in Lucerne to be deleted (because this seems firmly within scope as much as any other building detail shot might be).

Was this deleted for quality reasons? Do we even have a policy on that? COM:SCOPE isn't. It's far from the worst photo on Commons and for night-time architecture without tripod-carrying effort, it isn't even that bad. AFAIK, this location isn't otherwise covered by a photograph (it's not the Eiffel tower) and so there's no justification of "We have many identical photos, cull the worst".

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this Andy. It has triggered me to finally vote in the Bureaucrat elections. Something I was avoiding as I really don't fancy being targeted by people with 'crat powers for "special attention" - Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Ellin_Beltz#Votes. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see that you deleted this (it had been renamed) as "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing", despite your completely different rationale on the DR. So what's going on? Was this for a copyvio? Or quality? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley (re: your second note before I replied to any) Because the image had been deleted under it's old name, removing the renamed duplicate was done with the automatic tool. (re: your first note before I was able to reply to any.) The Commons policy which refers to quality is COM:SCOPE in that an image must be realistically useful for an educational purpose as well as be correctly licensed. Clarifying the closing deletion comment: What is missing there is one ampersand... "A really poor quality image, out of COM:SCOPE & as nominated." I often write notes referring to the image in some way to help me remember individuals among the many. So "as nominated" includes everything in the nomination. It was a really poor image, mostly black sky, blurry, small and as the nomination said - not named, described, categorized and so on. Please see COM:EDUSE and COM:INUSE for the specifics of reasons to nominate / and or delete images at Commons under COM:SCOPE. As was pointed out in the discussion, "the "not in use" criteria is at Commons:Project scope#File not legitimately in use." As you know, deletion discussions pertain only to the file/s in that DN, not to other files in the same category - and of course this image was uncategorized, so was not a consideration. I wouldn't oppose your request to restore this at COM:UNDEL which is very simple to do. Just leave them a note explaining the situation and another admin will review the deletion. "Deletions" are merely files made invisible to the general public, nothing is permanent and most if not all situations can continue to be discussed and reviewed until consensus is achieved. IMO, we're here to work together for the good of the project, and the established processes provide procedural checks and balances to resolve issues. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a piece of wriggling!

So why did you delete this? Throwing all the possible justification reasons up in the air and hoping one of them sticks is not the same thing at all as explaining your actual reason.

COM:SCOPE does not apply here as a reason for deletion. It is a feature of one obviously substantial piece of the skyline of Lucerne. We regard such things as worthwhile: we have whole categories for them. Nor do we seen to have another image of the same subject.

"Copyvio / licensing" is of course a conveniently unchallengeable reason for deletion. Except that in this case it is wholly irrelevant and you only seem to have cited it because "an automated tool chose that as a message". Are you actually in control of your admin tools? Or do you simply regard the little people as undeserving of an explanation of your lofty admin actions?

"Deletion for lack of categorization" is an obviously invalid reason as it can, and was, fixed simply already. So why repeat it here?

You cite COM:INUSE as if this somehow explained your justification of "not used". Yet that is not what COM:INUSE states and it is thoroughly disingenuous of you to imply that it does.

Which leaves quality as the only reason left to delete it. Yet there is no clear COM policy for such (It is a perennial problem to get truly knackered images removed). A "mostly black sky" is hardly convincing as a criticism of a nighttime image of a feature of a building!

Your "explanation" here is nothing of the sort. If this is the sort of obfuscation we can expect when you become a bureaucrat, Jimbo help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs)

@Fæ Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]