User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 14

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

Hello dear Elcobbola

Hello! please take a look here! Do you think this file (File:Vikistansiya.jpg) can be broadcast without restrictions? This file is my own work and I designed it. Please help me with this! Help me not to be blocked again!


Deleting Photo without any Process or Evidence

Hey there, I don't think I violate Commons: Licensing, the file I uploaded is my own work. Can you give me a shred of evidence that I violate something? You're just abusing your role at Wikipedia and tagging something that doesn't been reviewed or having proof that I violate it. File:Survivalcraft.png I played this game for 6 years and I created this logo with the help of my friends. File:Survivalcraft.png

Sockpuppet back

Hello Elcobbola. I wish you a happy 2021. Today I noticed that this sock is back in the most {{duck}} way. They've removed the DR tags again and the username is an impersonation attempt of tr.wikipedia user Evrifaessa. Their upload pattern also match their previous socks. Could you please take a look when you can? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 11:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarcoAurelio: please forgive my belated reply. This is, of course, Confirmed along with the following:

Unblocking User:Yahadzija

Hello,

User:Yahadzija is an active member of Wikimed Foundation.

In the long past, he might erred by uploading unfree uploads. But right now he understands the nature of Commons and would not dare repeat the same thing. Hence I request you to please unblock him. Moreover a period of about 2 years has already passed. Hoping a positive reply from your side, --Muzammil (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yahadzija is globally banned and indeed globally locked. Even if I wanted to unblock him, one of the must prolific sockpuppeteers with sock puppets and block evasion as recent as this month (!!!), I could not. The purport that he understands the issue is abject nonsense, and you appear grossly unaware of the scope, nature, and duration of his misbehaviour. Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right I had no knowledge about this background I only went by his reputation and exchange of emails in the Wikimed foundation user group exchange of emails. thank you for the information. --Muzammil (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:VLu

Why did you block User:VLu? The template on his page does not show the reason. --Juandev (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the block log. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't understand that statement. Which policy prohibits using more accounts? --Juandev (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please review COM:BP, especially: "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below: [...] Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances." (bold in original, underline added) Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you very much for the explanation. --Juandev (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation

User:Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas) is uploading photos from the internet and he claims it is his own work which is not allowed . Gosego Nkwadzile (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi. Since you're familiar with the editor EdDakhla and their socking (see previous SPI), I just thought I let you know that this IP (already blocked on en.wp) has just reverted back to EdDakhla's version on Morocco's article. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know, but I can't generally offer comment that would publicly connect an IP to a user. Achim55 promptly protected the file, which seems sufficient handling of disruption for the moment. Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I don't know what else to do as they continue to harass me on en.wp and Commons (see their comment on my talk page). Should I open a SPI? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading

I will make sure to only upload my work. DestinationFearFan (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not publish the picture?

FunkyDiscoPops For the last three or four years, I have tried to publish four - 4 - pictures. All but one have been stopped, without any comments to my following questions. And now I get the block warning because of a picture I want to use on my father's page on wikipedia.no. File:Edvard Eikill.jpg . I have got permission from the photographer to use this picture freely, so what is the problem? Funkydiscopops and 19:18, 25 January 2021‎

I've explained the issue at your undeletion request. If you genuinely do not understand why misrepresenting authorship, breaching licenses, and failing to provide evidence are problematic, I'm unsure how to assist you. Эlcobbola talk 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deltagammaz

You blocked this user for a week in October for repeated copyright violations. Their latest upload. File:N224kl Patent Troll Express.png, is also a copyright violation. Deltagammaz claims that it is their own work, but it is not. The original image, uncropped and with full EXIF data is here. Deletagammaz has uploaded a cropped PNG version of the original with the clear intent to deceive Commons about the origins and true copyright of the image. Please indef block this user. Thank you. Mo Billings (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies, I thought that image was in the public domain. My Chrome Auto Translate mistranslated. Won't happen again. Deltagammaz (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deltagammaz: That doesn't explain why you claimed it was your own work, why you didn't provide the source url, or why you uploaded it as a PNG file. Mo Billings (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the picture I have uploaded?

Hello. I would like to add a picture to the article about the game Nano-farm in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but you delete it. Why? https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Нано-ферма Nestlix (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous notices and warnings on your talk page explain the issue. This question suggests you've not bothered to read them. Please review COM:L and COM:NETCOPYVIO. Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am an employee of this company, and the community manager of the Nano Farm game. Our company does not mind if this picture is uploaded to Wikipedia. Nestlix (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a mere employee is not adequate; corporate intellectual properties can only be licensed by certain officers/executives/agents/directors (however styled at your organisation). As a corollary, a cashier at McDonalds is an employee, but has no ability to license corporate assets. The appropriate agent will need to provide permission using the COM:OTRS process. Note also that by failing to have disclosed your connection on your user page or in edits related to your employ, you are violating our terms of service. Is your employer aware of this? Эlcobbola talk 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with the management of the company regarding Wikipedia, and they gave a positive answer Nestlix (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

take back deletion

Good evening you just asked for me to delete two articles that I wrote and that still are not finished. Sven Bartosch is a coach just like Tony Robbins Tobias Beck Dr Stefan Frädrich and philanthropisches Coaching is an official trademark and a method just like Psychoanalytics. I'm a writer and I don't receive money for creating those articles also they are my first articles so I have absolutely no idea how to get rid of your deletion. Can you please make sure they will not be deleted this is is just not right and it's really frustrating as they are my first articles I've never done this before and I just think it's not fair. Ida Universum (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my images

Hi Elcobbola,

I recently uploaded 2 images: File:Tolga Akcayli Summer.jpg and File:Tolga Akcayli.jpg

They are both images of myself and I own the rights to these images. Is there anything I can provide?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolgaria (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided this information in response to your requests. Is there any particular reason you've not read those responses? Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elcobbola,
Please excuse my persistence with this matter. I'm not familiar with this type of communication and did not get a notification on your response. I've contacted the photographer explaining the situation and I will send over the documents once it has been processed. Where do I upload the copy-right documentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolgaria (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
The process and email address can be found at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Elcobbola,

The copyright holder sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. using the OTRS Release generator with the image in question:File:Tolga Akcayli.jpg

What are the next steps?

Pace2Pace

hello Sorry about File:1156968806.jpg.0.webpm,I realized it was not a public image after i reversed image searched it, whichis why I did not upload it onto the site. i didnt realize uploading it kept it in teh system or whatever. For File:Michael Onwenu.jpg i thought i had done it correctly by searching with "&tbs=sur:fmc", which is what the images page said I should do but if I did it wrong then that's my bad.

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Elcobbola

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


user:Roman Kubanskiy

I've had an extensive disscussion with this user on discord and they seem to understand the problem. I'm minded to unblock unless there is something I've missed.Geni (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are welcome to file an unblock request that is responsive to our requirements; an off-site discord discussion is entirely unacceptable including because it does not allow admins to review their comments in the future. Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They've filed an unblock request and made a reasonable response to your inertial objection on their talk page.Geni (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have not. COM:BP requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. Where are either of those? Эlcobbola talk 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote "Okay, yes, I made a mistake, I understand this mistake and I won't do it again, if I'm not sure exactly what the license is and whether it is correct (at least without a debate at Commons:Village pump/Copyright )".Geni (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where are either of those? "I made a mistake" is not an understanding. What was the mistake? How will it be avoided in the future? Why was it made after a series of warnings, and indeed a block, for similar issues? Why is this time, and indeed with a request coming so temporally proximate to the block (i.e., very little time for study and review of issues), expected to be different? With the absence of any of the foregoing, why should we consider "I won't do it again" credible? Эlcobbola talk 19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's getting into demanding shrubberies territory. As for study and review. None of us speak kyrgyz. None of us can reasonable predict how the courts would interpret кадыресе басма сөз маалыматынын мүнөзүнө ээ болгон күндөлүк жаңылыктар жөнүндө маалыматтар же күндөлүк окуялар жөнүндө билдирүүлөр and its not clear there is even enough kyrgyz caselaw for such a question to be meaningful. Anyway Roman Kubanskiy has been through a high speed "this is how copyright works and make use of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright" session with me which I'd argue is more effective than your hope they will get better after a month and Taivo suggestion for COM:L (which isn't the issue here the here, the user was misinterpreting a particular corner case). I'm pulling the block.Geni (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One notes you've not answered the questions, had the user answer the questions, and have acted against two admin's (me and Taivo) opinions. I'm not demanding shrubberies, but integrity and respect for our rules. Neither on offer from you. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Policy requires "An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated" not study and review. Yeah overall I'm mostly going with a user with ~150 ok uploads isn't being malicious and is instead getting caught up in the complexities international copyright law (and in one case a video going private, going by the channel the video probably was CC).Geni (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks prevent disruption and are agnostic to intent--copyright violations are copyright violations and disruptive whether here due to malice, carelessness, confusion, or otherwise. The "credible" in "credible promise" necessarily requires assessment (through, for example, statements that answer the questions I posed). You've elected to accept some off-site conversation on a sister project's discord server, and over the objection of two other admins who are actually involved in this project. (This little episode of wheel warring is your 3rd admin action in the trailing month.) Thanks for stopping by. Эlcobbola talk 21:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Elcobbola,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Namest 2003 family

Hi Elcobbola. I've seen that you blocked Namest 2003 and CarlosArrimadas here at Commons. I'm a sysop from es-wiki and I know the case closely. Is a person who is obsessed with that politician lady or works for her. That is why I ask you to review the case of Usuari Escuer, which is another blocking evasion of the previous two. Also I have marked to delete some images because they are copyvio. I link you the category of sockpuppets in case you want to review. Greetings. --Geom (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geom: thanks for letting me know. Other "new" socks are Zaragozano Escuer, Carlos Alegría 1623, Albert Lambán, Aragones Ranera, and Albert Santisteve. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting photos without further process

Hi Elcobbola,

I’ve had the necessary OST mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for all of these images, but there’s been no further processing.


I’ve now received a strict warning, yet despite following protocol nothing is being processed.

Can you let me know what is required after the necessary information is sent to permissions-commons? How long does the process take? It was sent 2 weeks ago.

Best,

--Tolgaria (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not followed protocol. Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject. Despite purporting to be the subject, you claimed yourself to be the author of your most recent copyvio. This was not only a falsehood, but a breach of the purported {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license (where "by" means attribution is required). Please review critically the warnings you've received and the related policies. The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 18 days. The volunteer who processes the ticket will make appropriate arrangements on your behalf; in no circumstance should you continue uploading images with untrue assertions and without evidence of permission. Эlcobbola talk 23:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sobre el borrado de fotografias de Encina_waslala

Sorry for my spanish!!!

Hola, la fotografía https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_artista_Luc%C3%ADa_Loren_en_su_taller_de_Montejo_de_la_Sierra_(Madrid).jpg está hecha con mi cámara y has solicitado su borrado. Tengo más fotografías de ese mismo día si hubiera dudas sobre mi autoría.

Del mismo modo, las fotografías están realizadas con mi cámara: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_perfecta_casada._Elena_del_Rivero.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_perfecta_casada,_detalle._Elena_del_Rivero.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_perfecta_casada,_Elena_del_Rivero.jpg

¿Es un problema de resolución?

Espero que podamos mantenerlas. Son de mi autoría y la resolución no es muy alta pero quizás si suficiente para ser vistas con calidad en wikipedia.

Gracias y un saludo, --Encina waslala (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encina waslala, please enter any comments at the DR. Please also review COM:NETCOPYVIO and note that photographs of an art installation (File:La perfecta casada. Elena del Rivero.jpg, File:La perfecta casada, detalle. Elena del Rivero.jpg, and File:La perfecta casada, Elena del Rivero.jpg) are derivative works requiring evidence of permission from both the photographer and the author of the underlying work (Elena del Rivero). Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted as copyright violations

You deleted two files as copyright violations - File:United 328 Incident - Exterior 01.jpg and File:United 328 Incident - Exterior 02.jpg. In fact, these are not copyright violations, as they were taken by a passenger on Flight 328 and he generously agreed to release them. See discussion at en-Wiki. What is the correct procedure to get these photgraphs back please? Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration procedure is discussion with the deleting admin and/or the undeletion process if the deleting admin is not amenable or a wider audience is needed. In this case, the uploader already pursued the undeletion process and the request was declined for the reason on which I'll elaborate: Copyright violation means a violation of our polices related to copyright and is not necessarily to be conflated with copyright infringement. As I'm sure you're aware, we require no evidence or verification to register a given username (here, Speedbird5280) or to make a given assertion. Accordingly, we not uncommonly have users register impostor accounts, fan accounts, and the like, especially around current events. Of course, I do not say this is the case with Speedbird5280, but I trust you understand that, as a matter of diligence, fairness, and respect for the property and rights of authors, this historical abuse has caused us to require previously published images to have additional evidence of permission submitted using the COM:OTRS process (this is not dissimilar to the en.wiki concept of verifiably, not truth, being an inclusion threshold). As an alternative, Speedbird5280 could edit the speedbird5280 Instagram account profile to include "I am speedbird5280 on Wikipedia" (or similar), which would be sufficient demonstration of the connection. This change would not need to be permanent; it need only be there long enough for me to see it, which would allow me to restore the images and mark them as reviewed. Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Deletion of Gyrosteus Image and "Sockpuppets"

I have noticed that you deleted the file File:Gyrosteus mirabilis and Hauffiosaurus zanoni.png that was uploaded by Fishboy86164577 whilst I was in the process of placing said image onto the Paleoart Review page for inclusion in the article. I am here to inform you that Fishboy is not a "sockpuppet" (I assume this means an alt account) of the user Yewtharaptor as you apparently believed (not sure what the context of that whole situation is), but is the original creator of the illustration in question (https://twitter.com/fishboy86164577) and thus request the file in question be restored. In the future, I strongly advise that you check before making rash assumptions like this. Pryftan213 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made a rash assumption; if we're offering advise, perhaps consider that a checkuser might just know more about both the abuse of multiple accounts and copyright issues than a user with 11 edits who, to their credit, readily acknowledges they are "not sure what the context of that whole situation is." Alternatively stated, try curiosity instead of condescension--reading COM:L would be a start. Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have gone back and looked into the whole Yewtharaptor copyright violation situation I can see how you may have mistaken the two accounts for being alts, but the fact remains nevertheless that you did mistake two different people alts of one and you very much should have at the least looked into it further rather than deleting the file (and apparently blocking the uploader) in a matter of seconds. I know the person in question (Fishboy that is, not Yewtharaptor) and they are indeed the original creator of the file, as you can see on their Twitter account which I linked in my prior message for your convenience, so I reiterate again that this is not a copyright violation on their part. Therefore, I again request that you rectify this error on your part. Pryftan213 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no error. As you are either unwilling or unable to investigate the relevant polices or issues:
One does not need CU tools to see the connection. Abuse of multiple accounts encompasses both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and the block rationale indeed remarks on the latter. Whether Yewtharaptor is operating the Fishboy86164577 account (Yewtharaptor indeed has a laundering history) or whether the Fishboy86164577 is someone else recreating the image at Yewtharaptor's prompting matters not, as either is an abusive use of multiple accounts (the latter both block evasion by proxy and recreating deleted content out-of-process without remedying the copyright issue). Even if Fishboy86164577 is operated by the twitter user, it is still a copyright violation as previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. If you'd read COM:L as I'd indicated, or indeed even my comments in the section immediately above (!!!), you might have understood this. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear here is that you have made an error of judgement and are either unwilling or unable to admit the fact and trying to distract from this by repeatedly linking the policies which we both know have not been knowingly violated rather than actually addressing the matter. It is not "block evasion" or "sockpuppetry" for an artist to try to post their own painting to Wikipedia as the terms of Commons clearly allow one to upload their own work to the site. The fact that a different person had apparently posted the same painting and had it taken down earlier on is irrelevant to the matter, and particularly so as the artist in question was not aware that their work had been deleted prior, which is something you would no doubt be aware of if you had to ask them to begin with. Quite curious how simply this entire situation could have been avoided or rectified if you had simply deigned to take a few minutes to actually speak to the person. Clearly there is no changing your mind so I suppose I should drop the matter here, but I am extremely disappointed with how poorly you have handled this entire situation. Hopefully you will learn from this event, though judging from your attitude here, I think I should not hold my breath. Pryftan213 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue might be that Yewtharaptor has commissioned artwork from other people in the past, but not always getting the right OTRS paperwork done, and in this case, Fishboy is presumably the artist he commisioned the artwork from. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed by Fishboy that the piece was not commissioned from him by this Yewtharaptor person, the latter simply asked him if he would be okay with his piece being used for Wikipedia. Realistically speaking that should be more than enough but I understand that Wikipedia's policy does not consider that to be ample enough permission, which is nitpicky but I see where it comes from. The issue here is not so much anything to do with what rights Yewtharaptor had to upload the art as it is the fact that the actual artist who made the piece was blocked for no just cause and the moderator in question would rather waste time trying to invent justification than simply fix their mistake. Pryftan213 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would meatpuppetry apply if "Fishboy86164577" is the author of the image in question? I don't see why Fishboy86164577 should be blocked without actual checkuser evidence that the commons account is from the same IP address as Yewtharaptor. I don't disagree with the indef block of Yewtharaptor though, as they are a serial copyright infringer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Deletion

You deleted file that has a policy opyright Policy Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, all photos and videos by Vitaly Kuzmin are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

[1] please stop. please read the policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KYKYPY3OB (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Did you? Эlcobbola talk 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:PyshmaMilMuseumPart2-005-XL.jpg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigationJump to search
This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

22:10, 25 February 2021 Elcobbola talk contribs deleted page File:PyshmaMilMuseumPart2-005-XL.jpg (Recreation of content deleted per community consensus (G4)) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
{{int:license-header}}
{{VitalyKuzmin}}
{{Watermarked}}

KYKYPY3OB (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

now you send me this?
STOP!!!
read the policyKYKYPY3OB (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did ("This template is only valid for files that have been available at that website before 30 August 2017.") Did you? Эlcobbola talk 22:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so and the problem is what? date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KYKYPY3OB (talk • contribs) 25 February 2021‎ (UTC)

What part of "This template is only valid for files that have been available at that website before 30 August 2017" is unclear? File:PyshmaMilMuseumPart2-005-XL.jpg is dated 2019-09-19 08:44:53. Images after 30 August 2017 are NC-ND, as you said yourself. Эlcobbola talk 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic uploads

Hi Elcobbola,
Just now I came across the uploads of this user and I have certain concerns about copyright and whether the photos can be published here at all. I noticed that you were already in exchange with this user. Maybe you can take care of the problematic uploads? Best regards and thank you, Mosbatho (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and blocked. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 14:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Rani Vanouska

Hello You have deleted all pictures which I uploaded to the draft page Princess Rani Vanouska T. Modely. Nothing against you, but your explanation is wrong. All those pictures I received from Princess Rani Vanouska T. Modely and have her permission to publish them on Wikipedia. So I did not brake the author rights anyhow as she is the owner of those pictures. So whar we can do now? Will you restore them or should I upload them again? Or what do you suggest? Thanks DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decemberwrite20 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

My "explanation" is not wrong. 1) You'd claimed yourself to be the author, which you now acknowledge to have been an untruth ("All those pictures I received from Princess Rani Vanouska T. Modely"); 2) Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject (Rani Vanouska T. Modely); accordingly, purported permission from the latter is of no value; 3) We require COM:OTRS evidence of permission for previously published images, which would be direct (i.e., not forwarded) permission from the actual author or a copy of the formal written conveyance that transferred copyrights from the author to Vanouska T. Modely (if your implication is to be believed); and 4) Whatever the copyright status, this is a COM:NOTHOST issue; indeed, the "article" for which the images were intended, w:Rani Vanouska T. Modely, has already been deleted. Please critically review the policies that have been several times referenced in your talk page notices. Эlcobbola talk 20:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rießler

Hi Elcobbola, your deletion request seemed really urgent, but my question you aren't answering, unfortunately. I now better understand the problem with my files and for most of them the OTRS is already done or in progress. But what about the Exlibris and the bookcovers for which I myself are the publisher? Rießler (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing urgent about DRs. Regarding book covers: 1) previously published works require COM:OTRS evidence of permission; and 2) being the publisher is distinct from the being the illustrator of the book cover. The latter is the author and thus the person in whom copyright would initially vest. For example, for File:KSS2 Full Cover.jpg, you explicitly credit "Anne-Christin Jyrch (Designer)"; for this example, we would require permission either directly from Jyrch or, if the purport that you as publisher own the copyright is true, to be in the form of a copy of the document that formally transferred copyright from Jyrch to you. Эlcobbola talk 19:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of copyright violation

Hello. You recently deleted some files uploaded by me as copyright violations. However, the pictures are my own work. Can you advise the specific reasons for which you have deemed these to be copyright violations please so I can resolve the issue promptly.

Sm105 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published images require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. File:5NBUZ at GFLL.jpg previously appeared here and File:Old terminal at GLRB.jpg previously appeared here. Эlcobbola talk 13:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I will upload different photos of the same subject taken around the same time instead to avoid the conflict in that case. Appreciate you taking the time for the explanation. Sm105 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of copyright violation

Dear Sir, kindly[see] . Sorry for the violation of laws annoyingly. While uploading the photos, I selected this is not my work which is true. And as per my knowledge tried to add appropriate information. I don't know what is wrong info added by me. My be it's not a proper way to upload a file. Kindly provide me any video link to learn the procedure Goresm (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been provided with numerous notices linking to the relevant policies. As easy examples:
"A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license." [2]
"A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license." [3]
"everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing." (bold in original) [4]
Merely providing a source is not adequate; that source must also explicitly identify a free license. Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Debbie Arnold.jpg

Dear Sirs,

Help! I'm not an expert on how Wiki works (I don't even know if I'm typing this in the right place). I'm a friend of Debbie Arnold. Debbie and I are just trying to get a photo on HER OWN wiki page. We used one from her website, and you deleted it saying the copyright belonged to the pro photograher who took it, rather than Debbie herself (fair enough). But now we've uploaded a private home photo and you're threatening to delete that just because Debbie also put it on her OWN PERSONAL instagram? How do we win here? Every other celebrity seems to have a photo on their page with no hassle.

Before deleting her photos, please contact Debbie Arnold herself - User:Beandisney on here - please. Neither of us know how to edit wiki properly, so would rather have some help than obstacles. The picture we've currently put on her Debbie Arnold wiki page is a private one. The only place it appears other than wiki is on her own Instagram. No one else has copyright. --KenBarlow (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said anything about a deleted image ("you deleted it saying the copyright belonged to the pro photograher who took it"). That was someone else's comment in 2016 regarding an image, File:Debbiearnold.jpg, with which I've had no involvement whatsoever. I am, further, not threatening anything ("you're threatening to delete that"), and this is not a battleground for anyone to win or lose ("How do we win here?") What other images do is irrelevant and you are welcome to nominate for deletion any other files that you feel are not in compliance with our policies. It is incumbent on you to provide appropriate evidence of permission, not for us to seek it ("Before deleting her photos, please contact Debbie Arnold herself"). Previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process. This page was provided to you in the aforementioned 2016 comment, which you explicitly recall. Is there a reason you've not consulted and/or followed the guidance on this page? What is unclear about "If any of the following statements is one you could make, then you must send an email to the OTRS system: I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons [... or ...] I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter" (underline added, bold in original)? Эlcobbola talk 14:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KanzatBot

Hi, I made a mistake and was unattentive a little, so I thought that I need to create 50 test runs first and only then create a bot request here: Commons:Bots/Requests. Looks like things are opposite. So, I completed step #1 and step #2 from Bot Requests manual. Now I need to complete step #3 - create 50 test runs, and then wait for approval. So, please unblock my bot account. Thanks. --Kanzat (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review COM:BOT, especially "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so." (underline added) If you want to operate an account with "Bot" in its name (i.e., a bot account) you must first apply for and receive a bot flag. The account will not be unblocked until it has successfully been approved and received a bot flag. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Commons:Bots/Requests. A quote: "Make a short test run with your bot account (30-50 edits/uploads) to allow other users to review your bot's tasks". My bot account is KanzatBot. Or do I need to upload using this account, Kanzat? --Kanzat (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so" is unclear? Please link the advance permisison. Please also review COM:BP, especially "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below: [...] Unauthorized or non-responsive bot accounts. Bot accounts not authorized by the Commons community are not allowed to operate on Wikimedia Commons, [...] Bots may not be operated on Commons without prior approval (which can be sought at Commons:Bots/Requests)." (bold in original) The account will not be unblocked until it has been approved and received the bot flag. Эlcobbola talk 18:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so aggressive. You need to read rules, before applying them. Quotes from Commons:Bots:
Bots must be run from a separate user account from that used for general editing by the bot operator.
Any admin may block a bot – without the autoblock option set – that is misbehaving if the operator is not immediately available to deal with the issue.
In principle, an unapproved bot may be blocked, though in practice unless the bot is doing harm the operator should normally be asked to submit a retrospective bot request.
--Kanzat (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already submitted a bot request. Now I need it to be unblocked to complete the steps from the Commons:Bots/Requests manual. If you don't agree with the manual - you need to discuss it with other admins. --Kanzat (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any reasonable person could read the above and accuse me of not having read the rules. I've quoted them extensively. I'll do so again: COM:BRFA says "If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first." (underline added) COM:BOTS says "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so." (underline added) I'll ask again: where is a link to the advance permission? These pages are the only pages you've cited. At best, then, they are internally inconsistent, which would be an issue for you, as the user seeking a bot flag, to resolve. Whatever the case, neither COM:BRFA nor COM:BOTS is a policy; accordingly, if there is disagreement, both are subordinate to actual policy pages (i.e., COM:IU and COM:BP), which I've cited. If you are not going to engage with my question, I consider there to be nothing further to discuss. Эlcobbola talk 19:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot Chauvinist

All three blocked as sockpuppets on en, the first one has image uploads here. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. If future reference is needed: Confirmed that CyprusMilitaryPics = Ελληνας Εθνικιστης = Eidikes Dynameis Kyprou. EvrychouCyprus is Likely. Эlcobbola talk 19:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heleen_Mees,_July_2020.tif

You asked me to leave you a message. I have permission from the copyright holder to upload the image on Wikimedia Commons. Please check the copyright holder's email exchange with Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwz3hm (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

The missing permission template was not added by me; indeed, I've never edited this file. I also don't know what email exchange you're referring to. If the copyright holder has already provided permission using the COM:OTRS process, the agent who processes the ticket will make note of the permission if everything is in order. If the copyright holder has not already done this, please refer them to that page. Эlcobbola talk 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L4 Bren

Regarding the deleted image I uploaded, would the following from the NAM's website not permit usage? And if it's not, would you care to explain the specific reason why?

"Material identified as copyright of the National Army Museum (© National Army Museum) may be reproduced free of charge under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND) where indicated.

Material identified as copyright of the Crown (© Crown Copyright) may be reproduced free of charge under the terms of the National Army Museum Non-Commercial Licence where indicated."

Cheers Loafiewa (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loafiewa, please see COM:L (including Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses); we cannot accept licenses with NC (no commercial) and/or ND (no derivatives) provisions as those conditions render them unfree. Эlcobbola talk 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Warning

"As you are already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A48Pills perfectly aware], personal attacks and incivility, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:48Pills&curid=90881519&diff=544101222&oldid=543297080 such as this], will result in a block if they continue. [[User:elcobbola|<span style="color:#038"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 18:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)"

If anyone is subjecting anyone else to a personal attack here, that would be you. What right do you have to come to my personal space and accuse me of being uncivil, threatening me with a block, all because of a single word I wrote on my own talkpage out of frustration? How dare you try to insinuate there is something happening when you have absolutely no evidence, except what your imagination has concluded from that one word. On balance, the response to your threats and accusation on my talkpage was justified. Now, unless you have proof to the contrary, I suggest you apologise and promise not to continue harassing me on my talkpage with your unsubstantiated claims. Is that clear? 48Pills (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to the delusion that "go fuck yourself" and "asshole" are not uncivil, and I'm welcome to seek to disabuse you of that nonsense. Rest assured, I will block you if it continues. Эlcobbola talk 22:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far from deluded, but thanks for the compliment. But, let's keep it in context, "This is my Talkpage, go f**k yourself", was a justifiable "edit summary" to someone who having been colluding with another user, posting threats on my Talk page for some time, and your friend creating the 480days account just to request a file deletion with it. Just how is that word on my Talk page proof of uncivility toward anyone, unless that someone were paranoid? You or your little friend mess about with Talk pages as you like without consequence, baiting unexperienced users into a justifiably angry response, then abuse your privilege by blocking them? 48Pills (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck

Hi. I do not want to be reverting them all the time. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Photo

I am trying to re-add the photo (File:Jarrett-Carter.jpg) to his Wikipedia page, which I received from the subject of the page as a part of a contract to design the contents. How can I add the infobox without being flagged for copyright violations? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbcurecords (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed yourself to be the author, which was untrue; File:Jarrett-Carter.jpg is the work of Wes Linda. Linda will need to provide permission to us directly (we cannot accept forwarded permission) using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samogit

This map of the reconstructed battle, compiled on the basis of historical written sources, information from wikipedia, and books describing the history of Lithuania.The information includes the approximate number and type of ships, the history of the ships, the history of their armaments, and descriptions of the cannons, the directions of the ships' movements, and the course of the battle. also indicate the nationality of the sailors, as well as the nationalities of the persons who assisted in the battle. Based on all this information, the battle map was depicted as accurately as possible. which touches other files. Yes we sometimes use the copy paste principle. It is not good. but we try not to abuse it. :) --Samogits (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made these comments at the DR, so I'm unsure why you are repeating them here. In either venue, they are not at all responsive to the concern. Please read critically, and review COM:L and COM:DW ("Yes we sometimes use the copy paste principle. It is not good. but we try not to abuse it"). Эlcobbola talk 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you plz restore

File:Gretchen Mol (2015) - 2.jpg to the 20:48, 30 October 2019 version, and delete the versions with the guy? it was cropped for Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting_a_Large-scale_Courtesy_Deletion_of_Personal_Images_of_Myself. Thx!--Roy17 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Эlcobbola talk 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Photo without any Process or Evidence

Hey there, I don't think I violate Commons: Licensing, the file I uploaded is my own work. Can you give me a shred of evidence that I violate something? You're just abusing your role at Wikipedia and tagging something that doesn't been reviewed or having proof that I violate it. File:Survivalcraft.png I played this game for 6 years and I created this logo with the help of my friends. File:Survivalcraft.png

Copyright

See licence,

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Attribution: dati.camera.it
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.


. I fixed licence after upload. Please, restore all files. --151 cp (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pesos

I uploaded public images because they are from public character, and being banknotes, I preferred that way because it’s safer than taking photographs to real ones. Or should I take from Central Bank (Banco de México), and how to upload them? The Sammirs (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not upload images of (post 23 July 1928) Mexican banknotes from any source derived, as such images are derivatives of unfree currency. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean from a derived source, why English page has images restricted for other pages, how can I upload example images from Banco de México page, and can I upload images from my own banknotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sammirs (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
Images of contemporary Mexican pesos used on the english Mexican Peso article are hosted locally on en.wiki claiming fair use, which is disallowed on both the Commons (see COM:FU) and on es.wiki (see es:Wikipedia:Derechos de autor#Contenidos no libres: Política de Doctrina de Excepción and es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo). Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And after, can I upload images from Banco de México page, or should I upload photos from my real banknotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sammirs (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
You cannot upload images of Mexican banknotes. Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content

Please upload only files that:

you had created it yourself File:Personagens de Danganronpa v3.png File:Debate Scrums v3.png File:Komaru Naegi e Toko Fukawa.png File:Komaru usando um Megafone Hacking no jogo.png File:Goodbye.png File:Tela de Login de Danganronpa 2.png File:Exemplo de jogabilidade em Danganronpa.png File:Danganronpa daily life.png

I can't understand, because you deleted it, they were all removed from my game, which I have downloaded and printed, my own authorship, I was not picked up from the internet, I was captured by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schinneyder (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

These are screenshots of a video game. Please review COM:DW and, indeed, the very first page of the UploadWizard, which you used for each of these images, which says "We can't accept works created or inspired by others [...] This included material such as [...] screens of TV shows, movies, DVDs, and software." (underlined added) Эlcobbola talk 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue with Joe Bob Briggs Image

Hello Elcobbola, hope you are doing well!

I saw that you deleted an image I uploaded for the upcoming page The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs. I have permission to use this image though, so I am wondering if you could help me make that clear so the image isn't deleted. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncayk1 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "this image comes from Joe Bob Briggs, who gave his permission to use this image for Wikipedia because in his eyes it was already publicly available anyways" is not acceptable permission for numerous reasons: 1) Briggs is not the author (illustrator) of the image and thus would not hold copyright unless it was formally transferred in writing (evidence of which--a copy of that document--would need to be provided); 2) we require licenses to be explicit and specific, and to allow use everywhere, not just Wikipedia ("permission to use this image for Wikipedia"); 3) "in his eyes it was already publicly available anyways" is explicitly disallowed by COM:PRP; and 4) previously published works require evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 01:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge he is the copyright holder of the image, so I can try to get more detailed permission in writing from him although he tends to be very busy. If that can't happen, what do you recommend for an image for this page? I see that the MonsterVision page, the predecessor to The Last Drive-in, uses a similar logo from the show. I can't imagine that was given to Wikipedia for public use, so I'm wondering how I could get something like that for this show. Thank you for your help!
Unlike the Commons, en.wiki allows fair use. You might consider consulting their non-free content criteria and, if use of this image in the relevant article is supported, uploading the image there with a fair use rationale. (Indeed, this is how w:File:MonsterVision logo.jpg is currently being used.) For hosting on this project (the Commons), however, images must be free and uploaders must provide appropriate evidence of the same. Эlcobbola talk 21:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you for your help, I really appreciate it! I've been editing articles for a while now, but never had to upload an image so this is all new to me. I will look into these and hope for the best. Have a great rest of your day!

Vandal IP

Here. --E4024 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

Hi there! I received a notice from you about an image I uploaded, file Glenn close at damages premiere (cropped).jpg. It said it got deleted because it was a copyright violation. I simply wanted to know why this happened, because all I simply did was create a cropped version of that file. I did not upload the original file. I was also wondering why you decided to delete it now if that image had been in the article for years now. Just wanted some insight on this. Thanks! Film Enthusiast (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am aware now that all the other files I uploaded were deleted because of copyright violations. I apologize for that. I had no idea they were, I thought that they were permissible to use because they appeared to be so on Flickr (and Commons didn't reject the files when uploaded) so I assumed they were available for use. Though I do want to point out again that the last image I created was simply a cropped version of the original, so not sure why I got the warning. The original image was even already on the article for years before I replaced it with the cropped version. Film Enthusiast (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of the cropped version appeared in the recent files, which is how I became aware of the copyvio from which it was extracted. Copyvios are deleted on-sight; that the original "image had been in the article for years now" is of no relevance. The deletion script automatically notifies all impacted uploaders (indeed, the original uploader received a notice as well). Эlcobbola talk 03:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a deleted image

Relating to the copyright of File:DerekChauvin-FrontMugshot-2021.jpg, under Minnesota Statutes 2021 §13.82.26(b), a booking photograph is within the public domain. A direct link to the statue in question can be found here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/13.82#stat.13.82.26 . With that in mind, I thereby request that this image be restored to the commons. If you have any other concerns with the image in question, please let me know. SgtShyGuy (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding that you falsely claimed this to be a federal work, you've not read critically. §13.82.26(b) says "public data" it does not say "public domain." This is a reference to accessibility, and is not a statement about underlying intellectual property (see gratis versus libre). Indeed, the Commons has already rejected your interpretation in, among others, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination). As an example that serves as a test: City of Minneapolis website says "Copyright © 2021" and has terms of use that say "All text and images City of Minneapolis unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Any reuse or republishing of the text or images on this website without prior written consent of the copyright holder is prohibited." The Minnesota Judicial Branch, as another test, has terms of use that say "This website is the property of the Minnesota Judicial Branch and is protected by copyright and other restrictions. Any unauthorized reproduction, commercial publication, or exploitation of any text, images or content of this website is strictly prohibited." These terms and statements would not be present if your reading/purport regarding the scope of "public data" were correct. Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic amount of deletions re: SandyShores03

You've just deleted a large number of images of RMS Titanic. Can you please point to the discussion wherein this large deletion was agreed?

It is unclear why you deleted these. They're all >100 years old, most were taken by the well-known works photographer, who died in 1936. They're clearly out of copyright. Their historical value would seem obvious, yet you pasted a boilerplate template to the user page "The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose". Your deletions are tagged as COM:CSD#F6, which is licence laundering. I don't know how you launder licences for content that's already clearly PD by age, and has such an obvious date to it. You then blocked the uploader for sockpuppeting, so perhaps you can link to the sockpuppeting discussion as well? There is a cryptic comment about checkuser in the block log, but again, no linked discussion of this and I'm unaware that you have access to checkuser tools or their non-public results. If you are using such a tool, or someone is using it on your behalf, then that would be very concerning.

There is this discussion, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HefePine23, about a different set of images uploaded by a different editor, only listed two days ago and with (as yet) no comments by others.

Can you please explain what is going on here? You seem to have elected yourself judge, jury and executioner in order to exclude editors from the project and delete a bunch of valuable content (this is rather more than a bag of selfies), where that content's age is such as to make it PD. That is a harmful action to the project, no matter what the behaviour of some editors might have been in getting it there.

It is of course possible that some of these images are not so old, or that there is some reason why they needed to be deleted. That is why we have a discussion and review process for such actions, which doesn't appear to have been followed here. A deletion as broad as this, on such tenuous grounds, should never have been handled as a speedy deletion by a single admin.

Extended content

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser Alexandre Billy

Hi!

I saw that Alexandre Billy is blocked for Abusing multiple accounts. Can you please tell me which others accounts he used? He is currently making promotional edits on FR:WP.

I also am a Checkuser on WP:FR and would like to know if he as used those accounts here.

Thanks! Durifon (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Durifon: , the related account is UPEC DROIT. Эlcobbola talk 19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Habil Humbatov.jpg

Hi. You deleted this file sometime prior to April 5 of this year, after which a bot removed it from the English WP article, Habil Humbatov, on April 5. It appears to have been recreated. Thought you might want to take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Onel5969: . Uploader also a confirmed sock of Scot0ma to the extent you're tracking. Эlcobbola talk 19:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry

Hello dear elcobbola. Soon you blocked me. I didn't know there was copyright infringement when uploading five photos. Even while you were warning me, I uploaded them one after the other without entering the message. then I wanted to explain to you. This time I was blocked. I also haven't read the Commons guidelines. I made a mistake because I did not read. I apologize if I had a mistake. I will be happy if you reply me if possible. I made my mistake unintentionally. Good day Sir.Sezen Aktaş (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba sayin elcobbola. Yakin bir zamanda siz beni engellediniz. Be fotograf yuklerken telif ihlali oldugunu bilmuyordum. Hatta siz beni uyarirken mesaja girmeden arka arkaya yukleme yaptim. sonra size aciklamak istedim. Bu seferde engellendim. Ayrica Commons ilkelerini okumadım. Okumadigim icin hata yaptim. Bir hatam olduysa özür dilerim. Bana mümkünse cevap yazarsanız mutlu olacağım. Hatamı istemeden yaptım. İyi günler efendim.Sezen Aktaş (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

İ am sorry

Hello dear elcobbola. You blocked me recently. I uploaded a few photos. Upon your notice, copyright infringement and photos have been deleted. I really haven't read the Commons directives. I thought any photo would be uploaded. It was unintentional, I'm sorry. When you warned me, I uploaded photos one after the other without seeing your message. When I saw the message, I wanted to reply. This time you blocked me. I have no bad intentions. I wanted to contribute. Best Regards. Good night sir.Sezen Aktaş (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba sayın elcobbola. Yakin bir tarihte beni engellediniz. Birkac tane fotograf yuklemistim. Sizin uyariniz uzerine telif ihlali ediniz ve fotoğraflar silindi. Hakikaten Commons yonergelerini okumadım. Herhangi bir fotograf yuklenecegini düşünüyordum. İstemeden oldu cok özür dilerim. Siz beni uyarinca bana gelen mesajinizi gormeden arka arkaya fotograf yukledim. Mesaji görünce de cevap yazmak istedim. Bu sefer siz beni engellediniz. Kötü bir niyetim yok. Katkida bulunmak istedim. Saygılar, Sevgiler. İyi geceler efendim.Sezen Aktaş (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Səmədov

Hi. Can you check uploads by this user? Thanks. NMW03 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible socks

Hello Elcobbola, hope that you're doing well. From the edits/uploads, there is sufficient grounds to believe that 2nd account might be a sock. It might possibly a mean to avoid stuff like this, as such, should either accounts be checked/blocked? --Minoraxtalk 13:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative accounts are discouraged, but not disallowed so long as they are not used disruptively. That JFVelasquez Floro is Judgefloro looks like a duck to me, but no action is necessary unless JFVelasquez Floro is continuing issues for which Judgefloro was warned/sanctioned. I didn't see anything problematic looking at Commons and Talk space edits, but let me know if I missed something. Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the countless amounts of FOP-related DRs placed on Judgefloro uploads. I believe that the user has been sufficiently warned about this issue but still continues to upload files like this. --Minoraxtalk 01:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the elaboration, @Minorax: . This is Confirmed, and I've blocked the accounts. Эlcobbola talk 16:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block again

Hi again Elcobbola, I think the IP range block for 2600:387:0:800:0:0:0:0/60 may again be affecting me from mobile edits and uploads, since the IP exempt status expired. Can this be a longer-term or permanent status? I am not sure why any long-term user in good standing should be unable to edit while logged in but in a bad IP range. ɱ (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ɱ: I've added the IPE flag again with a year duration; if there is still an issue thereafter, I'll set it as indefinite. Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deleted picture

My question is in regards to this picture I uploaded. See here for reference: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clark_Gilbert.jpg

16:02, 5 May 2021 Elcobbola talk contribs deleted page File:Clark Gilbert.jpg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): https://www.thechurchnews.com/podcast/2021-01-12/byu-pathway-worldwide-president-gilbert-education-innovation-201621) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)

I am new to Wikipedia, but it seems like the image was deleted because it would look like The Church News owns the picture. Is my understanding correct? In reality, my institution (BYU-Pathway Worldwide) was the one to provide the image to the Church News. Here is an example of us using it in our official blog: https://blog.pathwaynewsroom.org/2021/02/ar20-prepared-and-guided-by-the-lord

Would you mind helping me understand how to go about uploading a picture we own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhg90 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 May 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

When an image has been previously published, we require evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process. Accordingly, the churchnews.com link is meant only to demonstrate previous publication and is not to be interpreted as a representation or belief that Church News owns the picture. Per the image's EXIF, the author (photographer) is Michael Lewis; this is the person from whom the aforementioned evidence must be directly (we cannot accept forwarded permission) received. Brigham Young University would only hold the copyright ("[BYU-Pathway Worldwide] was the one to provide the image to the Church News") if transferred to it by Lewis through a formal written conveyance. If this is indeed the case, evidence will need to be in the form of a copy of that document. (Note that even the link you've provided here says "© 2020 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved," which contradicts the purported cc-by-sa-4.0 license and is precisely why we require supplemental evidence.) Once appropriate evidence has been received, the person who processes the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image. Note also that, for the file you uploaded, you had indicted yourself to be the author. This is implicitly untrue per your statement above, and, if so, additionally problematic as a breach of the purported cc-by-sa-4.0 license (the "by" in cc-by-sa-4.0 means "appropriate attribution is required.") Going forward, please be more careful to read the instructions and directions of UploadWizard, which you used, and to enter only accurate information. Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. As I mentioned, I am new to this and I am trying to figure it out. I will look into it more and try again then. Thank you.


COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Time for final warnings and indefinite blocks?. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. 
Bidgee (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File pexels-bel-canto-7824860.jpg delete it

it is free to use, it has no copyrights https://www.pexels.com/photo/7824860/ please restore it.

Kind regards, LovingOperaForever (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the UDR. Please use that forum to keep discussions in one place. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only point that we can discuss is "Don't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms." But I don't think Wikipedia is a stock photo or wallpaper platform, is it correct?

Evasión de Sorginak vía IP

Hola Elcobbola, disculpa que te comente en español pero desde ayer hemos descubierto que el usuario Sorginak (al cual detectaste varios títeres) posiblemente está evadiendo el bloqueo global como IP, te adjunto lo que se ha solicitado en la Wikipedia en español y sugiero que revises en esta categoría y este archivo‎. Cualquier cosa, estoy a tu disposición. Taichi (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding copyright violation

I am using photograph of my dog Ch.Nova is my dog I own him for 8 years. I own the pictures and rights, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong? Dlexus (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlexus, previously published images require additional evidence of permission. Please see COM:OTRS for additional details and the process(es) through which permission can be provided. This is, for example, the issue that was previously raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ABKC Champion Nova.jpg. Эlcobbola talk 22:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the OTRS release, I hope this resolves the issue. Thank you again for your time Dlexus (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading of death threat

Hi, I need the block of Bsta82 because the account upload a death threat to a famous singer. The account uses sockpuppets and vandalized in some Wikipedias. Taichi (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account and deleted the image. Please consider advising stewards/WMF if you believe the issue needs further attention. Эlcobbola talk 18:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of public domain work

Hello Elcobbola! I noticed you deleted a file I recently uploaded to the Commons, 'Betsy Beutler.jpg'. Betsy Beutler Flickr

This file is listed as Public Domain by the photographer on Flickr (an accepted license on the Commons). Why was this file deleted? Please let me know or remediate. Thank you!

--3shoggoth (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr account was created 19. May 2021; the image was uploaded there 19. May 2021; and you uploaded it here 19. May 2021. Moreover, the image appeared elsewhere on the Internet, in numerous places, as of at least 24. November 2019 and Colin Key makes no reference to the Flickr account. This timing is no coincidence. Please review COM:LL and use the COM:OTRS process to submit genuine evidence of permission. Эlcobbola talk 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with your original assessment of flickrwashing and would have done the same thing Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alacoolwiki

Hi, from what I can see some of your deletions concerning User talk:Alacoolwiki's contribution were a little speedy, as from what I gather this person did the necassary OTRS procedures. Maybe you should have left a little more time before deleting? Kind regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what "speedy" in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion means. Alacoolwiki did not indicate OTRS tickets had been sent, and did not provide evidence of permission for previously published images. In addition to COM:CSD and COM:EVID, please also review COM:AGF ("someone exclusively targeted one contributor.") Is there any particular reason you're canvassing instead of advising Alacoolwiki of our policies? Эlcobbola talk 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elcobbola
@Nattes à chat replied because I'm not very comfortable expressing myself in English on the subject. Please accept that I am of good faith. The OTRS procedures are in progress. I think they just did not take the time to send the message.
Alacoolwiki (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like you to explain to Alacool so that he can take action to indicate the OTRS procedure is being followed (from what I gather he has asked the authors to send the OTRS mail). Nattes à chat (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted files

Hello Elcobbola. I saw that files I posted were deleted due to possible copyright issues and that I can be blocked and deleted. I'm new here in the project and I don't know how to use it very well yet. It was not my intention to try to circumvent anything related to copyrights. As you may have seen, the images were, in general, photos I took or found on the internet of football trophies. I don't understand how they can violate copyright as they are old public things and objects. If you could help me, I would like to know and understand how I can recover the images and how can I use them properly. I thank you in advance for your attention and understanding. And I apologize for any English mistake. User:Ryan_Domingos (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan Domingos, you cannot recover the images as they are unambiguous copyright violations. Please review the notices on your talk page (for example, "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (emphasis in original) appears there four times (!!!)) and COM:DW. Even if a trophy is free (and you've provided no evidence of even this; "they are old public things and objects" is entirely meaningless), the photograph of the trophy also has a copyright. By way of example, surely you would not believe this image to be free because a human being has no copyright. Эlcobbola talk 14:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola, I said that these trophies are free because they are permanently situated / exposed in a place accessible to the general public. And the Law here in Brazil says that the reproduction of works situated in public spaces (or accessible to the public) is allowed as they are not modified. In addition, these objects are of great public interest, as they are achievements of the main football clubs in the country. From that, please, I would like to know the following: if I am the author of the photo, can I post freely? And if I am not the author, can I post as long as I give the credits to the site where I found it? Once again, thank you very much for your attention. User:Ryan_Domingos (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Your comments are immediately above, and you've said no such thing. You took random internet images and lied about their copyright status, which is the sum total of your file contributions thus far. 2) Being "of great public interest" has no relevance whatsoever to copyright; 3) Your uploads have included, at least, Italian trophies (Italy does not have FoP) and Spanish trophies (Spanish FoP is understood to related to outdoor installation); and 4) "permanent" in "permanently situated" means for the natural lifetime of the work; it would generally be difficult to substantiate the claim that a trophy (i.e., something awarded annually to various clubs) is "permanently situated" for its natural lifetime. That notwithstanding, you may upload a photo of which you are the author iff it is not a derivative of an unfree work. Per COM:EVID, the burden is on you to prove a work is free, not for anyone else to prove it is not. Эlcobbola talk 14:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said "they are old public things and objects" in the first comment. In the third comment, I tried to explain why I said that and to show what the Law says here; The photos of the Italian and Spanish trophies you mentioned are owned by Vasco da Gama and are displayed in its trophy room in Brazil. In these cases, I THINK (if I'm wrong, please enlighten me) that the rules which apply to them are those of the country in which they are located in; Nowadays the championships are standardized, as well as their trophies. But NOT in the past. There were championships such as Sul-Americano de Clubes Campeões and Octogonal Rivadávia Corrêa Meyer, which had ONLY ONE edition in history. And others like Copa Myrurgia, which had one or very few editions in the 1930s (there are few historical reports). So they are unique historical pieces permanently and exclusively situated where they are. User:Ryan_Domingos (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Rgalo socks

Wasn't sure if I was supposed to add new socks to a different page, but Rgalo10 is back. Please check here. Mtattrain (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:RFCU is "a last resort for difficult cases" (note, for example, that {{Duck}} is under the "request declined" indicator header). Obvious socks, especially of LTAs, should simply be reported at COM:ANB. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to reopen this topic, but is there additionally a way to get the other photos one of his socks uploaded? They are clearly ripped off of YouTube videos by other individuals, but Rigojefte seems to insist that they are his (poorly at that manner too). Mtattrain (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
> EDIT: upon research, there is a rule that could get them deleted, but perhaps admins are backlogged. The two remaining YouTube screenshots have their own deletion nomination pages here and here. Mtattrain (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"[I]s there additionally a way to get the other photos one of his socks uploaded?" - Among other issues, the Commons has the precautionary principle, which requires that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. Any assertion by Rgalo10 would, at this point, be subject to significant doubt. Эlcobbola talk 14:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help restore two deleted images

Hi @Elcobbola, we have recently received OTRS permission for two images deleted by you. Can you help restore them? The images are:

  1. File:Mariam_Kamara_OTRS_BW.jpg
  2. File:Mariam_Kamara_OTRS.jpg

Thanks in advance. Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Going forward, it would be helpful if you would provide a ticket number. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images today

Hello dear Elcobbola, I've noticed your intervention against the two photos i've downloaded (Doja_Cat_-_Hot_Pink.png and Doja_Cat_-_Amala.png) on the french version of their respective pages. I was wondering why you did that because those pictures are exactly the same pictures as it is used (and authorized) in the english version of the respective pages. What was my mistake? Thanks, Yours sincerely, Clem0711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clem0711 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 May 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Clem0711, w:File:Doja Cat - Hot Pink.png at en.wiki, for example, is there under fair use, which is not allowed here. Indeed, as the notice I've already left on your talk page says, "the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; 'fair use' materials are not acceptable here." Note also that you uploaded both images with the UploadWizard, the very first page of which is a large infographic (including in French) that says "We can’t accept works created or inspired by others. This includes material such as [...] CD / DVD covers". Please review the notices on your talk page and COM:L; please also follow instructions carefully and make truthful representations (these images would not have been uploaded with cc-by-sa 4.0 licenses if the inputs to the UploadWizard had been such.) Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Elcobbola. 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.

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarek.jpg

Hello, I think that this file (File:Tarek.jpg) deposited on the server is not free. Cordially. Arturo63 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo63, I don't see that this image appears in reverse image searches or in the subject's social media prior to its upload date of 5 September 2015. It's possible the image is non-free, but I don't currently have sufficient support for such a conclusion. Please consider reviewing COM:DR and following the process there to open a deletion request with the reason(s) you believe it is not free. Эlcobbola talk 23:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t meant to upload a copyright photo

Can you please add Bayley photo back up on her wiki page that isn’t copyrighted she suppose to have one some bot took it down recently TonyTheKing112 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this person is or whether free images are available. Consider reviewing w:WP:FIT for guidance on how perhaps to find one, or place the {{Image requested}} template on the article's talk page on en.wiki. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reylynn Caster.jpg

Hello. The picture that I added of Reylynn Caster today is one that I took with my own camera. I have no desire to violate copyright rules here, but if I'm using a picture that I took myself and it's being rejected what needs to be done to get a picture approved? The image is Reylynn_Caster.jpg. FYI - I'm her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtcaster (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

As has already been indicated numerous times ([5][6]), works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 20:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohadese Honarmand.jpg

Hi Elcobbola. Would you mind taking a look at File:Mohadese Honarmand.jpg? You deleted a file with the same name once already on May 20, but another one has been uploaded. I can't tell for sure if it's the same file; the name is the same, but the source given for the image is different. The latest version is sourced to YouTube, but I can't find anything on the source to verify that this has been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, and I don't think YouTube standard licensing is such a license. Moreover, although the same image can be seen on YouTube it's of a much lower resolution and smaller size; so, it seems at least a bit questionable as to whether YouTube is the original source.

The uploader of this file seems to be having lots of problems uploading files, not only on Commons but also on English Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure if that's just because they just don't understand the "mistakes" they seem to continue to make, or because they just don't care whether they're making mistakes. The former case is probably something that can be sorted out if the user wants help and asks for assistance, but the latter case is probably going to end up with the user being eventually blocked. Not sure what's going to need to be done next, but hopefully they'll respond to my post on their English Wikipedia user talk page and ask for assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry for uninformed deletion of my uploaded photos

Dear Elcobbola, I have been facing this issue since the past weeks. Any new photo that I upload to Wikipedia or Commons, gets deleted despite the fact that it is properly licensed, attributed and even serves a genuine purpose to the article. As a frequent user on this website, you can relate with me that we as moderators serve a big responsibility to provided new users or random people over the internet with an interactive experience. Many of the celeb Wiki pages to which I added to their photos did not even have the image of the subject of discussion. All I did was contributing fruitfully to Wikipedia articles. Yet this is happening again and my contributions have got deleted. This behavior only discourages the editors and does not serve an ideal purpose to Wikipedia's editing fraternity. I apologize for any incompetent behavior or for unknowingly breaching the Wikipedia rules. Please fix my query before leaving. In all of the photos which I posted, I specified the copyright holder, website URL and even licensing details. Yet they were removed stating work of copyright infringement. If thousands of news websites and social media webpages are using the photos without any restrictions, this only means that the file lies in public domain or is freely licensed. And all of the photos which I uploaded were already available on so many various websites. This is a common case and it is impossible to find the original copyright holder. Please guide me on how to find the safest file to upload. You can also suggest me how to upload an existent photo on the web in a safe manner on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarsh Alias 272 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Please guide me on how to find the safest file to upload" - You may start by reviewing the numerous notices left on your talk page and the policies to which they refer, especially COM:L and COM:NETCOPYVIO. Your remarks here suggest that effort has not been made; indeed, your indefinite block for copyright infringement on en.wiki ought to be sufficient indication you are operating under a great misapprehension and would do well to inform yourself of our expectations. Эlcobbola talk 23:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upload File

User talk:Elcobbola Thank you for your attention, I am the owner of File:Mehdi Zatout.jpg. This files was provided by me to Mehdi Zatout and my version is without text. Regarding magazines, there is no copyright law in Iran and everyone can use the scanning of publications in the right way. Regarding File:Venue of Muay Hardcore competitions.jpg You are right and I apologize. I thought there was nothing wrong with using this file by citing the source. And regarding File:2016-World-Championsips-Jankoping-Sweden.pdf You are right and I apologize. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply untrue. Indeed, you even purport the files to be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} which is mutually exclusive with being public domain ("no copyright law"). Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elcobbola You have more experience than me. I respect every decision you make. Regards MMA Kid (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elcobbola: Yours sincerely, the following photos that have been removed from the tag were taken by me or my photography team. All source files are available and have not been published anywhere.

It is not really fair that you put all my pictures on the verge of deletion at once due to a mistake. Regards MMA Kid (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuboro files

Hi Elcobbola, you might have been way too fast with deleting the CUBORO files today. The name of the user who uploaded the files, Sebastian Etter, has the same name as the CEO of the CUBORO company. I find it very likely that he owns these photos even if they were found elsewhere on the web, and they might be very valuable to Wikipedia. This is a new user, so if he made mistakes marking them properly, this should not lead to an instant deletion. Can the images please be kept for possible restoration until this has been clarified? -- H005 16:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. If Sebastian Etter is the CEO of Cuburo, they are welcome to use that process to submit evidence that the photographer (the metadata credit "Merlin Photography Ltd.") has transferred rights to either Etter or Cuburo. The volunteer who process the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the images if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 16:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a photo deletion

Hello. I upoaded a photo (Actor_Jeff_Wincott_at_Brooklyn_Film_Festival_June_6,_2021.jpg) taken at the Brooklyn Film Festival. It's a photo I took on my phone at the event. I am not a professional photographer, and I had permission from the festival to take the photo, and permission from the actor to upload it. Please explain how that is copyright violation. Is it because of the festival sponsor logos in the background of a public event? I can photoshop those out. I would like to use this image, so please explain how I can make this happen, or reinstate the photo as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjik23 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation does not necessarily mean copyright infringement, but rather a violation of our policies related to copyright. In this case, previously published images require additional evidence of permission, which is typically submitted using the COM:OTRS process. This could include, for example, submission of a high resolution version of the image with its camera EXIF intact. One notes, additionally, that you uploaded this image less than a day after an identical image, uploaded by a different account also claiming self authorship, had been deleted. This seems a remarkable coincidence. You may wish to familiarise yourself with sock/meatpuppetry and note that abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited. Эlcobbola talk

Question on Wikipedia about German copyrights

Good day Elcobbola. There are questions here which could use your talents.

Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. Hope you and yours are well, KB. Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We have had some health issues but otherwise are fine. Kablammo (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio repeat?

File:Sherman_Packard.jpg has been uploaded after you deleted a similarly named file from the same user. I'm not sure how you check these things, but I believe the same user is vandalizing pages on en.wiki. Thanks H0n0r (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@H0n0r: Thanks for letting me know. This is not the same as the previously deleted image, but it also has the hallmarks of a copyvio. I've nominated it for deletion here. Эlcobbola talk 14:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:БРДМ-2 в Падиково.jpg

Restore this, please. OTRS ticket 2021061010008511 --NoFrost (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we accept a ticket related to a work from kskdivniy.ru that does not come from that domain? Where is evidence the sender is both affiliated with the museum and authorised to license IP on its behalf? Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't understand the question. I, as an OTRS agent, have done this kind of check and am fully confident that permission has been granted. Could you please show me the rule where I have to publicly comment on my actions and report information about "personal information" to an administrator? You don't even sign a non-disclosure agreement, unlike OTRS agents. And I have yet to hear any claim that I have to provide you with evidence when asked to restore a file. (Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)) --NoFrost (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although no. In this case, it's probably public information and I can show it. Look. --NoFrost (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an OTRS agent. I don't know what you're talking about, and you appear not to either. Эlcobbola (A/CU) talk 22:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If you are an OTRS agent, you should know that much of our work cannot be discussed publicly. If you have had or will have any questions to me about OTRS - ask me in a ticket through a known interface, and not publicly. --NoFrost (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacques Médecin.jpg

This photos comes from Getty Images. All photos of Getty Images have a free license. I do not understand why you suppressed it. Sincerely, --Samarien de plaisir (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. How to you reconcile the restrictions of "This content may not be materially modified or used in composite content. This image is intended for Editorial use (e.g. news articles). Images must be licensed for a minimum of $250 USD. Any commercial use requires additional clearance" with the freeness requirements set forth at COM:L? Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have left me the following message. The picture I have uploaded on several occasions keeps being removed by you and other editors claiming we do not have the right to use this photo - I CAN confirm we do have permission to use this photo from the production company and owners of the copyright to this image (which can be supplied!), therefore, I would request this image be put back on that basis.

Hello LukePea. You have uploaded one or more files that are in violation of copyright. 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. The next time you upload a copyright violation, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

I have not violated any copyright policies as we do have permission to use this photo as stated above. Please advise whether you will require evidence of this which I can provide and whether you will put the image back or whether I will need to.

Regards,

Luke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukePea (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

As you've neglected to reference an image, despite explicit instructions at the top of the page, I cannot offer instructions. Please review notices left on your talk page and the guidance/polcies referenced therein. Note that if you recreate content out-of-process ("whether you will put the image back or whether I will need to") may result in a block. Эlcobbola talk 21:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that User:LukePea uploaded File:The Sheriff's are Coming S9.jpg after this discussion and the last warning you gave them on their talk page. Aspects (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madden 22 Cover

I was confused on how to put in a fair use label for the Madden 22 Cover, as has been precedent in the past. You threatened to block me for it, which is a little overboard.

requesting review

Please review this image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL_amca.jpg) I've uploaded, the source didn't say it's copyrighted (they don't have any copyright policy it seems) so do the meta data also this is the highest quality (4096*2264) I could found on the internet; so I assume they are the creator but please review whether it's a copyright violation or not before attaching to the article source - https://ifenewsnetwork.com/indigenous-stealth-aircraft-amca-to-get-approved-soon-latest-update/

The image is, of course, a COM:NETCOPYVIO. Please read that page, COM:L, and indeed the notices on your talk page. Those notices, which appear multiple times (!!!), include "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (italics and bold in original). I would be curious how you reconcile that guidance with the belief that "the source didn't say it's copyrighted" is adequate. Copyright subsists upon creation and is thus the default state. Эlcobbola talk 21:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephens% 2C% 20Blake% 20Cowboy flags.jpg

Can you undelete the picture so I can put the license tag in? Apparently the deleted picture says it didn't have a free license and this license PD-OK-LSBPD is what was suppose to be used if it didn't have it before.

Dillon251992 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dillon251992: ✓ Done, restored and tagged {{PD-OK-LSBPD}}. Эlcobbola talk 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appericate it. I might have to come back to you with some more public domain ones. I tried to make a request in the restore deleted section and only one person supported and which the picture not being restored here ---> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Senator_Mark_Wyland.jpg Can you also restore that one too with a different tag? Dillon251992 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Stephens photo contained metadata crediting "LSB [Legislative Service Bureau] PHOTO", which was sufficient evidence of authorship demonstrating the applicability of PD-OK-LSBPD. The Wyland photo, however, does not currently have evidence of authorship. State (and federal) entities commonly contract private photographers for official portraits, and PD-CAGov requires authorship by a government unit. It could well be a State of California work, but it could well not be; because the latter is a genuine possibility, I don't have adequate basis to restore it. Эlcobbola talk 16:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, the file:Senator_Mark_Wyland.jpg is in the Senate archive which is consider in the State of California regardless of where it came from. That's why I think it should be undeleted. I could try and find the author but I'm not that all familiar with how to deeply inspect where a picture comes from such as the "author" if you say the picture came from a private photographer. Anyways, I forgot to ask you if you can also undelete the file File:Burns% 2C% 20George flags 1.jpg It's also part of the PD-OK-LSBPD license. Dillon251992 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done for File:Burns% 2C% 20George flags 1.jpg. For Wyland, "in the Senate archive which is consider in the State of California" is incoherent and not germane to PD-CAGov, which is for works "created by a government unit," not works in "in the Senate archive." If you have evidence that all works "in the Senate archive" have been released to the public domain, I'd gladly consider it. Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dean.png

Do you not have anyone else to harass? The photo does not have any copyright attached to it, and who are you to say I'll be blocked soon? Undelete the file now. TheWeekdayz (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Klippenstein photo

I noticed the photo I took of Ken Klippenstein and uploaded to my flickr (public domain) was deleted off of here as somehow belonging to Berkeley. The photo was called Ken Klippenstein.jpg. I did not give Berkeley rights to the photo nor did Ken. It's a photo I took and if anyone were to assert rights to it, it would be me. It's for the public and I would hope that it could add substance to Ken's page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein. I stripped the exif data from it before posting for privacy purposes but can repost to my flickr with the exif data if I actually have to prove that I took the photo and would be the only one able to assert a right to how it is being used.

Also I apologize for creating an extra account for commons. Bethsquire (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When an image has been previously published, we require additional evidence of permission. Accordingly, the Berkeley link is meant only to demonstrate previous publication and is not to be interpreted as a representation or belief that Berkeley owns the picture. Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to submit the aforementioned evidence and the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore, or arrange for the restoration of, the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:White Horserider

Hi, it looks like White Horserider (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a sock of Showbiz826 you blocked last year. The user is already blocked on en-wiki but still uploading images here. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiditaliancrush

Hi Elcobbola, just need to inform you that the user above is uploading images with copyright, some have already been removed. Also has nominated two images with no valid arguments. Thanks for your help.--Rodrigobaaz (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that you've tried communicating with them. Why have you not done that? What action are you looking for from me? Эlcobbola talk 14:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Please don't remove my logos please.

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

This image is possibly a copyright violation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=prev&oldid=1034007149#/media/File:Earliest_Arjun_tank_prototype.jpg), I don't know how to report. Please check this. Thank you –Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removal of images (public domain)

hello I reviewed the license for all the actors from the getty images (https://www.gettyimages.fi/unreleased-imagery) and for skaters theboardr allows open use as the profile images are public. If I am incorrect pls advise as I have noted the Source, Author and selected 'Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain: legal code)

thank you for your time in advance i appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbenoitControl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Model releases have nothing to do with copyright. Please review gratis versus libre and COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 03:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schinhu (talk · contribs)

Hi Elcobbola, thank you for your {{End of copyvios}} warning a few days ago to User talk:Schinhu. Unfortunately they continue to ignore all communication, and have since uploaded two more images with possible copyright issues (added to COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Schinhu). Could you please take a look and escalate if necessary? Note that the user is currently blocked for 72 hrs on ENWP for fair use violations and failure to communicate. Thanks, -M.nelson (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Schinhu's most recent deleted contribution is File:Christine Kinealy.jpg, which was uploaded prior to the {{End of copyvios}} warnings. Of the three uploads since that warning, two are safely public domain (File:Edward John Eyre 2021.jpg published 4. May 1867 and File:Emigrants leaving Queenstown Ireland for New York 1874.jpg has already been properly identified) and File:Charles20200718.jpg, whose sitter died 1893, may be a plausible case for {{PD-old-assumed}} (1893 at worst creation + 120 + 1 = 2014). I grant that all are nevertheless technically copyvios (violation of policy related to copyright)--the user is simply taking old-looking images from the internet and uploading them with concocted licenses and no respect or thought for PD criteria in countries' of origin--but this may be progress of a sort from the previous upload of contemporary images (e.g., File:Christine Kinealy.jpg). In the absence of new contemporary images, I'm disposed to consider the new uploads as attempts, although confused and wrong, to respect policy. I thus won't block at the moment, but will advise them of the same. Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thank you for your response and for AGF with this user. -M.nelson (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPODM & Elcobbola

I'm confused. I made the photos I uploaded by taking snaps (blurry ones at that) from music videos/performances and editing them to create the images I uploaded. Nothing was uploaded from google or even a website. I know wiki is strict about copyright (for good reason) but seriously? Is there a way the original images can go back up (the ones that have been there for months and/or years). If they were there that long with no issue, why all of a sudden is copyright a concern? (CiaraAtlanta)(CiaraCloseup) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "original images" you're referencing. Эlcobbola talk 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Image Of her In Blue at the 2019 AMA Awards (it's name was something like "Ciara AMA's 2019.png"). That used to be the first picture you see when you go on her wikipedia. That image was there before I even created an account. There was also an Image (Ciara iconic 1.jpg) that I created from an old clip of her performing at the BET Awards in 2013. I made that entirely. It's not a commercially released still or google image. That was there just fine for 2 months, as multiple other accounts made edits to the page. Why is it suddenly being deleted for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a file with the name File:Ciara AMA's 2019.png. There are more than 75 million files on the Commons. That File:Ciara Iconic 1.jpg wasn't caught as a copyvio for a month is not an argument. Have you not read the notices on your talk page or the guidance linked therefrom? Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already read the notices on my talk pages. It still didn't explain what about those screenshots were copyright infringement. Now I just checked out the guidence and all I really have left to say is how I can get a free image or the original picture back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the article to the state it was in before you introduced the copyright violations. Going forward, please address issues at en.wiki on that project. Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Adaaaam uncivil and disruptive. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. 
Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plz restore

Hi. File:Fabrizio Gilardi.jpg is from this website which has a commons license. Pirhayati (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read the notice you were left? Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail about photos

Hello! I've received your message about 5 of uploaded by me pictures are missing permission information. I've asked copyright owner to send the e-mail with affirmation, which she did. And she received an autogenerated confirmation. So could you please check the info? And post my artcile? [Ticket#: 2021072610006607]. Thank you in advance. --Imdutch (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imdutch, an agent is already assigned to that ticket and they will handle processing of the related images if everything is in order. If and when images are restored, you can add them to an article. Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [7]The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Your images do violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. While I don't believe in appeals to authority, and I indeed make mistakes like everyone, I have in fact been an admin for more than 13 years; you've had an account for 41 days. Has it occurred to you that I just might have a better grasp of whether your images "violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons" than you? Has it occurred to you that, especially given that both of your undeletion requests have been declined ([8][9]), that the terms of use do not say what you think they do? Verily, the terms say "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." This speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. Please review COM:DW and note that if you continue to upload copyright violations, or recreate images of of-process as you did with File:Añgokh-Nlô-Byeri.jpg, you will be blocked from editing. Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rede do Esporte

Hello! On your reverted notification I'd like to let it clear: the Rede do Esporte says: "All content on this site is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil License." I'm only uploading some of their images, not from other protected sources that they cite in some articles. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please restore my files. Your action is vandalism.

File:Blessed John Paul II Church (interior1), Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:Blessed John Paul II Church (interior2), Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:Blessed John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics, Chapel of Leviticus, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:Blessed John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics, Chapel of St Jadwiga of Poland, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:Blessed John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics, Chapel of St Kinga of Poland, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:Blessed John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:St. John Paul II church (interior), Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:St. John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics, Chapel of Our Lady of Ludzmierz, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

File:St. John Paul II Church, Church of the Relics-interior, Totus Tuus street, Krakow, Poland.jpg

I greet you Zetpe0202 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken identity with Fishboy86164577, Pryftran, and Yewtharaptor

Hello, I have been informed of a several-month-old controversy between you and three people I know off-site, which apparently resulted in an unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry and subsequent ban. Fishboy86164577 is not a sockpuppet of Yewtharaptor, but is instead this person: [10]. I have interacted and chatted with these three people and can say for certain that they are different human beings. To clarify, I have to give you some context for conversations which occurred outside of Wikipedia. Fishboy is responsible for the creation of a piece of Gyrosteus artwork off-site, which he created on February 22nd and posted to twitter at 12:21 on February 23rd, 2021 [11]. He then gave Yewtharaptor verbal permission, but this was not acceptable under Wikipedia's copyright policy and the art piece was deleted. When this occurred, Fishboy created his own Wikipedia account and attempted to post the piece himself. This was also deleted, as it was the same file posted by Yewtharaptor a few hours earlier. Pryftan is a friend of both of these people and attempted to explain it in similar terms. I have brought this up right now when Fishboy personally informed of how the ban occurred. We would be grateful if you restore Fishboy's account, as he was basically suspended for posting his own art after Yewtharaptor's file was removed. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboyphilosopher, I've already explained the issue, and characterisation of "an unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry and subsequent ban" is patently false. "Abusing multiple accounts," the actual block (not ban) rationale, encompasses both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. The latter is acknowledged by you above. Fishboy was not "suspended for posting his own art," he was blocked for recreating an image out-of-process, without remedying the permission issue, and in coordination with a blocked user. If elaboration on the permission issue is needed: as I'm sure you're aware, we require no evidence or verification to register a given username (here, Fishboy86164577) or to make a given assertion. Accordingly, we not uncommonly have users register impostor accounts, fan accounts, and the like. (Indeed, Yewtharaptor's historical license laundering was a contributing issue.) Consequently, as a matter of diligence, fairness, and respect for the property and rights of authors, this historical abuse has caused us to require previously published images to have additional evidence of permission submitted using the COM:VRT process (this is not dissimilar to the en.wiki concept of verifiably, not truth, being an inclusion threshold). That said, as you are apparently in contact with Fishboy86164577, I will unblock the account if you confirm he understands meatpuppetry (and the prohibition thereof) and our licensing requirements. Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that imposter/fan accounts exist, but the actual fishboy personally confirmed to me (and earlier Pryftran) that the Wikipedia account was his. Your caution was reasonable considering Yewtharaptor's history, and I agree that it was the right decision to delete the improperly licensed fishboy art posted by that Yewtharaptor. Nevertheless, I believe that there should have been more discussion and prying before blocking fishboy's Wikipedia account for "abusing multiple accounts". I have recently posted several pieces of fishboy's art to Commons, but only after requesting that he publicly tag them as CC 4.0 on twitter, in order to avoid a similar situation. About your statement, "he (fishboy) was blocked for recreating an image out-of-process, without remedying the permission issue, and in coordination with a blocked user", who is the blocked user? I believe that neither fishboy nor Yewtharaptor were blocked at the time, but I may be misremembering. As I understand it, you are arguing that the current offense is meatpuppetry (myself, Pryftran) petitioning on behalf of a blocked user (fishboy) who had previously been accused of being a sockpuppet of another (Yewtharaptor). Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this. I personally feel that this is a case of mistaken identity, rather than a policy or edit debate, and thus meatpuppetry does not apply to the situation now that we have established that fishboy (the editor) is simply the Wikipedia account of fishboy (the twitter user). If Yewtharaptor was not involved, would you have accepted that fishboy on Wikipedia was simply the twitter user, posting his own art? When I was a new user in 2017, I personally posted a piece of my own art to Wikipedia the same day it was published on Deviantart. Finally, how would you accept fishboy's acknowledgement of Wikipedia's policies on licensing and meatpuppetry? Could my hearsay be acceptable, or should he make a public statement? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numbered points to keep the various notions distinct rather than in a wall of text:
  1. Abuse of multiple accounts encompasses both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is, by definition, more than one distinct individual. It is not relevant who they say they are or who they actually are, as the "abuse" in "abuse of multiple accounts" here, as I've said, is recreating an image out-of-process, without remedying the permission issue, and in coordination with a blocked user. This is not a case of mistaken identity or an issue that was is need of "more discussion and prying".
  2. Indeed, you are misremembering and misinterpreting. Yewtharaptor was blocked 19:08, 23 February 2021 and Fishboy86164577 attached to the Commons at 19:46, 23 February 2021. I am not referring, and have not referenced, to you as a meatpuppet or anything else. Fishboy86164577 was acting as a meatpuppet of Yewtharaptor; that is all. I also don't know what the "current offense" is meant to be. This happened in February and your message here, out of the blue, some five months later is the first I've heard of it since.
  3. Yes, I will accept hearsay; as I've indicated, "I will unblock the account if you confirm he understands meatpuppetry (and the prohibition thereof) and our licensing requirements." (underline added) Эlcobbola talk 14:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, I was trying to get a handle on what specific breach of policy occurred to have fishboy stay blocked up until the present (i.e., who was meatpuppeting who). I now see what you mean by "abuse of multiple accounts" in regards to the situation. I can confirm that fishboy86164577 has read through and understood the policies, and we will do our best to prevent this kind of situation from occurring again. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:File copyright status

Thanks for your edits on {{File copyright status}}. Do you think creating an alternate FOP warning template (something like Template:FOP notice) is a better solution instead of stuffing more information on FCS? Regards and thanks for your opinions.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As FOP, by definition, relates to derivative works, I believe the existing {{Derivativenote}} template does a good job of explaining the issue with an appropriate amount of detail. It also explicitly references FOP and links to the related page. If that template doesn't speak to the issue you'd like expressed, I supposed I'd need to have a better understanding of the specific issue/guidance you find current templates to be lacking. Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your information. Still have a question though: {{Derivativenote}} seems to be complimentary to speedy deletions (If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.), and Ikan Kekek proposed on Commons talk:Deletion requests that FOP deletions should never be nominated for speedy deletion, with a majority of users supported. I think this is also suitable to other derivative work deletions. Do you think a bit of change on the last sentence will make it better? (Like: If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, please start a new deletion request or leave your objection on the deletion discussion page.)
Thanks for your valuable comments.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really parse. {{File copyright status}} is also complimentary to speedy deletions, so why would altering it have been suitable if that's disqualifying? If FoP issues are always to require a full DR, the nomination would use the {{Idw}} template and the FoP issue would be elaborated upon in the DR rationale. As far as I'm aware, all DRs use that single template, so the creation of a DR template specifically for use in FoP cases would be novel, logistically burdensome, and of no benefit given the presence of the aforementioned (mandatory) DR rationale. Эlcobbola talk 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:CREG7898

This editor is back to uploading copyrighted sports images after his one week block. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and blocked. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

You deleted my proof of Scooby-Doo and the Witch’s Ghost being 66 minutes long not 77 minutes. You didn’t have to do that. That was my proof to KatnissEverdeen that the movie is 66 minutes long. That was a screenshot. She could have saw the photo and sees that it 66 minutes long. Kevbo128 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lilcuteoss

Hello, I hope this is the correct place to ask; I'm rather unfamiliar with Commons customs compared to Wikipedia ones. I've noticed that this user constantly uploads copyrighted files. You've already warned them three times, but they've done it again just six hours ago. I figured I would inform you in case action beyond warnings needs to be taken. Thank you for your time. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 03:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bizarre Bizarre for the notice, and sorry for the mistakes. I will read the rules.--Lilcuteoss (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:La Gallerie de Commons

Hallo Elcobbola, kannst du den Block nochmal überdenken? Das scheint tatsächlich eine WG oder ein Mietshaus oder was auch immer mit 2001:861:3205:2630::/64 zu sein, siehe meine TP. La Gallerie de Commons hat sich immer gegen M. Têtu geäußert, ich glaube nicht, dass hier eine Situation good hand - bad hand vorliegt. Gruß, Achim (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Die Abfrage des Kontos La Gallerie de Commons ergab, dass alle IP-Adressen (drei verschiedene IP-Ranges), unter denen mit diesem Konto editiert wurde, auch vom Konto Emmanuel Macron nique là république (Mr têtu) verwendet wurden. Ich denke, hier agiert eine Person. Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian footy fan sockpuppet User:Hxuehdyej

Hi, I thought I'd reach out to you instead of creating a checkuser request, since it's an obvious addition to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tittto that you closed earlier. Hxuehdyej (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has the same M.O. as all the others, uploading obviously copyvio images of Neymar and using dynamic IP addresses to upload them to en-wiki. This seems like an obvious case of block evasion. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Confirmed. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 17:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hi, Elcobbola! I saw your block here and have indeffed that sock on English Wikipedia. Thought you might want to take a look at Dyfichhixc, as Johnato3126 uploaded the same two files on en.wp. BTW, do you have a speedy deletion criterion for sock creations? – I couldn't see one. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: same /64 range with ecosystem overlap, and given that Dyfichhixc uploaded File:Pete Festersen.jpg at 22:39, 24 August 2021 and Johnato3126 added it to w:Pete Festersen at 23:07, 24 August 2021, I'd say at least meatpupptry is confirmed. Unfortunately, no, the Commons does not have a G5 equivalent. Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for dealing with that, sorry to have added to your workload. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image reuploaded by a different user

Hello,

File:Peter Daut personal headshot.jpg was recently uploaded; it seems to be the same image as File:Peter Daut.jpg, which you deleted today, but it was uploaded by a different user. Worth checking if it is a sock, perhaps? – FlyingAce (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the file and usernames ("714"), it's a duck, and at least meatpupptry. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

I have spotted three more images we should be deleting per contributions from the account which you've recently blocked. I'm not going to waste time requesting deletion for those photos as the results will be inevitable for all of them. Thanks, Iggy the Swan (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

File:1987 - Metalder.jpg - The Image are absolutelly public domain! Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPregador (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, it is absolutely not. In fact, you yourself claimed it to be cc-by-sa-4.0, which it also is absolutely not. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novikoff problem

I concerned about Mike Novikoff has been blocked on Russian Wikipedia for trolling admins to make friends, in these cases for edit warring on English Wikipedia involving Vladimir Lenin and Alexei Navalny back in 2020. But Moscow Connection had been reverted for violating three revert rule, Novikoff has been involved editing on Russian articles, but Moscow Connection had been concerned about bold revert discuss cycle without consensus as part of ongoing Arbitration Committee process over Eastern Europe. --Timpernest (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b

I remember you did a CU of Salim McDoom. Is it possibly that this dynamic IP could belong to him? The IP have been spamming my talk page with deletion requests and my uploads with speedy delete for alleged advertisement, which is something i remember McDoom accusing me of before he got blocked. I am not saying that all of the deletion requests are invalid, but most of them are really stretching the accusation. --Trade (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the pictures are extremely similar so the IP could very easily just have compiled them together to a few pages.
It is not that i don't wish to respond to the deletions. But i cannot respond to every single deletion request within reasonable time due to the sheer amount of requests he's making. --Trade (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: I'm not sure I follow. C4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b is a registered user, not a dynamic IP, and I don't see accusations of advertisements among McDoom's edits. Do you have diffs of the accusations/evidencing a connection? Эlcobbola talk 16:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, they turned out to be related --Trade (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock again: Emperor1992z

Emperor1992z (talk · contribs), just vandalized File:Blank-map PHMunicipalities.png which I promptly reverted just now. I don't know if this is the right place for my concern, as there are many files vandalized by the socks of this user (or maybe his acquaintances?). Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Confirmed. Because COM:RFCU is for difficult cases (e.g., {{Duck}} is a "request declined" indicator), it's just fine either to let a CU know or to post at COM:ANB. The latter is generally preferable for expediency as it does not limit the notice to a single admin. Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsinn

Bezugnehmend auf https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Edificio_VyV_Uyuni.jpg&diff=next&oldid=601830153 Warum ist die Anfrage von mir Unsinn, aber das Bild gelöscht? Das widerspricht sich. Die Android App Commons bietet nicht besonders viele Textbausteine an, um Bilder zu reviewen und zu melden. Die Textbausteine sind auch nicht bearbeitbar vor dem Absenden. Vielleicht ist die App der Unsinn. Strubbl (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nur damit das klar ist: eine Anfrage mit so einer Begründung kann man nicht von Vandalismus unterscheiden. Sie ist doch Unsinn. Das echte Problem hast du gar nicht bemerkt. Эlcobbola talk 19:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war and blocked user

Hi, after this DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png), the user tried twice to have the file deleted using {{Copyvio}}. He's now blocked, but I wanted you to know and watch the file as well. Cheers

PS: Maybe the license should be CC BY SA 3.0, if the background comes from OSM. --Ruthven (msg) 14:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: thanks for the note; I've watched the file. The DR only related to scope, so I wouldn't object to an alternative discussion regarding copyright--use of a speedy template to do so, however, is of course completely inappropriate. I did assume from the text format and visual characteristics that the underlying map was from OSM, so did not investigate further or look at the specific license being claimed. OSM content can have a range of licenses, and the various CC licenses purport to relate to "data" (which is a complete non sequitur to me as, at least in the US, data are generally considered facts and thus not eligible for copyright protection and related licenses). The "map tiles," which I understand to be the visual manifestations of the data (i.e., the maps) are under the Open Database License. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to point out this rant on de.wiki. I do not speak German, but you might want to have a look in case it's a sort of canvassing. I'll be grateful if you check. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 10:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think rant rather than canvasing is apt. As the saying goes: those with the law on their side pound the law; those with the facts on their side pound the facts; those with nothing on their side pound the table. This is table pounding. If such tantrums and intellectual dishonesty (if they genuinely cared about copyright, they would have mentioned it in the first place or added the concern in the, as they so often point out, intervening year) are how they see fit to conduct themselves...und tschüss. Эlcobbola talk 10:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal file

Hello. Please, delete this file. Using for vandalism in UkWiki. --Mykola7 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Mykola7 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The files I uploaded do not violate any guidelines

On my discussion page, you told me that all of the files I have uploaded break the copyright policies and other policies. I may be wrong, but I think this is false. FrostedFlakesFan (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have read the notices and are, indeed, wrong. Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuscaloosa County School System Board of Education.png

Can you undetected this image as this image does not contain any copyrighted materials since it is just a building that is in downtown Tuscaloosa and is an original image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwlowe 4 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is an image you stole from Google Street View, which is plain from the numerous "©2020 Google" watermarks. Please review the notice you received, which you appear not to have done. Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quit removing the Tuscaloosa County School System Board of Education image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwlowe 4 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
Quit leaving unsigned comments at the top of this page. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but if I was putting an image for the cover art of a DVD or the front cover of a book for context, I can put the image but I would also have to put the license of the image. Also don't catch an attitude with me since you were the one to cause problems with me and for deleting an image that I had to replace the other image that you deleted. But other than that have a good day.

--Mwlowe 4 (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Mwlowe 4[reply]

Norbix9 Honor of Kings Photos

Hi there! :) Honor of Kings: World photos have been deleted, and now I have tried to reupload them via the installing wizard including the obligatory information, however the photos are still unavailable. This is first time I am trying this, I would like to ask for your assistance! ☺ Thank you, ~ Norbix9

Norbix9, please review COM:L, COM:NETCOPYVIO, and COM:FU. You may only upload free content (libre, not merely gratis) to the Commons; providing a source of a screenshot does nothing to address our copyright requirements. I note, for example, that you used the UploadWizard, the very first page of which is a giant infographic (including in Hungarian) that says "By default, you can't upload someone else's work. This includes material such as screenshots of TV shows, movies, DVDs, and software." Эlcobbola talk 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question, it might sound silly though. If I take pictures by myself in games (screenshots, gameplay pictures from my matches), may I upload them as mine? I have seen several similar ones around Wiki. ~ Norbix9, 9th of Nov, 2021, 21:07
No, such screenshots would be derivative works. You may not copy the original content of others' unless it is verifiably free. What you have seen elsewhere is likely fair use, which is not allowed on the Commons and is a matter for the specific project on which you would like to use the image. Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that also mean if I see such screenshots I may report them to be removed? ~ Norbix9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbix9 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the procedures for obvious and non-obvious cases are at COM:CSD and COM:DR, respectively. Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abidjan Collage.jpg

Hello, you have nominated this file for deletion for absent sources 3 min after I upload it. I thus didn't had the time to properly add all the different sources in the description, since they all come from Wikimedia Commons. But anyway, all the sources have now been added so could you please review the nomiantion. Futureofafrica (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is disingenuous. You had ample time to add that information in the UploadWizard, which you used, and you've had ample warning of the necessity of proper attribution. Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not disingenous since I wanted to have a gallery layout for image sources and I don't know how to do it via the UploadWizard. That is indeed thanks to these warnings that I chose only images from Wikimedia Commons. Thank you still for the rectification of nomination. Futureofafrica (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm copyright issues

Hi Elcobbola, thanks for your work on this sockfarm. Regarding this user, they have a long and extensive history of image copyright violations. Some are covered here, others have been separately and individually deleted by other admins in the past so I can't point to them (although perhaps if you are able to look at my deleted contributions there are some there). Given this, I would suggest the uploaded images from the various socks be deleted on copyright grounds as previous ones have. While I don't know what method you used to ID the socks (and don't suggest explaining), it did miss some like this one and this one. Thanks again, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the remaining socks. The Commons, foolishly, does not have a G5 equivalent; thus, unfortunately, as the m.o. is at times to upload unproblematic content to establish legitimacy, the uploads cannot simply be nuked and will need to be addressed on individual (de)merits. Эlcobbola talk 14:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That mo does not apply here, as I am not sure there is actually unproblematic content among the uploads. Some are even very obviously scanned/rephotographed old grainy photos. In the past I have traced the origin of one or two on flickr or twitter, but I do not have the tools others seem to have that have in the past caught those I could not find. I have tagged one or two, for the rest I suppose if commons wants to keep almost certain copyvios commons can do so for now. I do appreciate the work though, this is a deeply problematic user, as the copyvios demonstrate. I doubt those were the remaining socks, plenty are blocked on en.wiki that remain here, although they often run different accounts on each. Always new ones like this one popping up too, endless fun. Best, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't understood me. I said "the m.o. is at times to upload unproblematic content" (emphasis added), which is to say some content is unproblematic, not all. Because some content is unproblematic, the lack of G5 prevents us from from simply deleting everything. This is, as I also said, why the uploads will need to be addressed on individual (de)merits. Feel free to nominate for deletion any uploads for which you have concerns. Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was that this is not one of those times. I'm pretty sure all of the photos are copyvios, based on their appearance, past records I linked to, and other individual deletions, but it seems unproductive to deliberately start a process that will suck up volunteer time from myself and from others for no gain. That is a lot of copyvios you are requesting I check individually, and for others to check on the deletion request (currently at a nine month backlog). As I mentioned I already dealt with a few, so hopefully those with better tools will eventually find the others, as has just happened for File:AppleStoreOrchard.jpg (flickr and twitter seem common origins). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re G5, please see Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Creations by blocked or locked users.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff. Doesn't look like there'll be much procedural change soon. In the meantime, here's a new one, in addition to the one mentioned earlier. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: ✓ Done, blocked by Achim and now reported at m:srg#Global lock for Ineedtostopforgetting et al. Sorry, I didn't notice your reply until now because you didn't ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elcobbola, found another one here. Already tagged one image. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elcobbola, another one here. Best, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyvios

Hi. I note that you appear to have blocked Yousef1834 on 3 November. I've just tagged multiple copyvios of two sets of images of a cricketer - there is another set of another one that appears to be an obvious screen grab but that I'm struggling to find anything to show copyright for. Is the user actually blocked or was it a temp block? When you get a chance... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block on 3. November was for one week. After it expired, the user continue uploading copyvios. I've blocked them again for a month. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Don-kun (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Another possible Bhuvahngund sock

YOu recently closed Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bhuvanhungund. MalikGymkhana (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appears to be another reincarnation, seeing how they're uploading another dubiously sourced Anupam Tripathi image and using a 2409.4071.xxx IP address to insert it into en-wiki, so it looks like an obvious case. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete a page

Good evening, please cancel my upload of the photo "Ugo Lupo" on wikimedia commons because I uploaded it here by mistake. Mattioskii (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also it must be deleted because it is a copyrighted photo and I was wrong I apologize again for the inconvenience please intervene. Thanks so much in advance and sorry again Mattioskii (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Эlcobbola talk 16:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for doing it and for your promptness and kindness sorry for having distracted you however I could not solve my problem without contacting an expert (in this case you) having said that I wish you a good evening. Mattioskii (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nissan2020

Good day! Could you please check on Nissan2020 (talk · contribs)? I suspect they are a sock account of NissanGTRz (talk · contribs) which may be a sock of the likes of Teamayuiyui (talk · contribs) et. al. (Continues to upload out of scope and redundant map files while overwriting existing ones with low-quality versions). Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BLaurain‎

Thank you for finding and blocking this sock. Are you happy to look at their uploads, please, and determine whether they may be speedily deleted? Timtrent (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take a look?

At this Special:Contributions/Elcocabbola. If it is you - apologies! --Herby talk thyme 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Always safe to block and nuke these. Эlcobbola talk 12:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewmilesmilana

Likely another suspected sock of Mattyuzon44 (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthewmilesmilana). Self artwork of trains using internet images of a group (CASCADA), all out of scope and potentially DW problems. While the account may no longer be active, I think it's best to ban the account to prevent future abuse. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for a file transfer

Hello, I take the liberty of writing to you to avoid repeating my past mistakes. I would like to add a photo in the infobox of the wikipedia article Evelyn Claire. To avoid violations, I asked this time for a royalty-free photo directly from the person concerned (Evelyn Claire herself) who generously sent me a photo from her personal repertoire, which therefore did not was taken by no pro photographer. Since she is not herself listed on wikipedia, could I upload the file as a self-made file without risk? She's the one who gave me permission to use the photo, normaly shouldn't there be any problem? Thank you in advance for your answer. Regards--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject (Claire). Accordingly, unless the image is a selfie, permission from Claire will not be adequate; the actual photographer will need to provide permission directly (i.e., not forwarded) to us using the process described at COM:VRT. If the image is a selfie, Claire will need to contact us directly using that process (no WMF account is needed for this--it is email-based.) The photo can be attached to those emails and will be uploaded for you if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed LTA

is now operating as 176.110.2.15.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another User:Coalvolts sock

User:Clumplein uploaded File:Berta Castañé interview cropped.jpg, I'm quite sure this or a very similar image was deleted during the cleanup last month. Added to Wikidata by an IP, see [12] --Denniss (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarteano is just another sock, uploading Berta Castañé copyvio image. --Denniss (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both confirmed; thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 13:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: User:Verasweat. A very stubborn italian fanboy of this actress (and Vodafone customer). Maybe ask for a long IP protection of the Wikidata article. --Denniss (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Protection is a possibility, but I generally worry about losing useful honeypots. Sometimes the best strategy is to allow LTAs to tire/become bored from the repetition, rather than essentially playing along with them by giving them a new challenge to overcome. Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Straredex and 37.119.100.38 (IP creating cats another IP adds to WD soon after) seems to be just another one. --Denniss (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check/block User:Hankermiyy1998. Uploads image of Hande Erçel here and added to Wikidata by 5.9x IP --Denniss (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RandomGerman

Hi, I suppose you have a good reason to block this account, but you didn't mention it in your block summary. Since the account asked me a question, I would like to know what's the issue. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the block log. This is SwissArmyGuy, whom we've discontinued tagging per DENY. This, for example, like UnrandomCanadian, is a spoof of @RandomCanadian: whom they are currently harassing across projects. Their question is trolling you. Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agustin03072005 socks

Hey Elcobbola, I am going to tell you about socks of Agustin03072005. Unfortunetely, I have report all of these users socks to Steward/Global lock at meta-Wikipedia. And if you see any upcoming sock of this user. Do you mind do the same and report them to meta-Wikipedia at steward/request/global lock too? MrKDunleavy (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your info

I saw this. From experience a /16 of 60k+ IP addresses may be unduly restrictive of innocent users (or not). Herby talk thyme 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The range block is for two months. Notwithstanding consideration of non-public CU data, in the preceding two months, this range has had less than twenty edits, and not all productive (e.g., [13],[14],[15],etc.). I did (and do) not consider this block unduly restrictive, especially relative to prospective benefit from prevention of LTA disruption. You are welcome to lift or change it if, but I can't say I'm sympathetic to this. Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_14&oldid=712912435"