This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would support you becoming a bureaucrat. English Wikipedia is a project of similar size and complexity, with 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ check-users and 50+ oversighters, some of whom are inactive. I'm not suggesting similar numbers for Commons but it would be useful to have at least double digits for each group. Green Giant (talk)15:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! It was an interesting experience. I don't take anything anywhere good enough for that, but perhaps some of mine can be something else, I'd like a blue ribbon or two for my pictures. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Another Nomination?
South Beach Miami Classic Olds Mobile by D Ramey Logan
I would have to agree, it was interesting. I think I enjoy the featured picture process here better then EN really, it seems to me that people are more inclined to assist in gaining the consensus here, that is motivating! I invite you to review some more of my past work & donations here and lets find some more that we can nominate. I did this picture a few days ago, don't know if it is worthy of a FP but please LMK what you think! Also can videos be nominated here as FP's or is there a cat for FV? --WPPilot (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin. As part of your RfB I was checking out your (excellent) photo gallery. I noticed this photo, which obviously wasn't (entirely) own work. Even reading the "government photographer" justification, I think it is an error to assume it is PD-Gov, because it was at the California Legislature, so is surely a State government photographer, not a Federal employee. Unless you have other information, I think it should be deleted. Regards, --99of9 (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi 99of9: Sorry, but it's not an assumption, it's a statement by the subject herself who was there. The photo was taken while Desmond Tutu was traveling around with a US Government photographer and his host senator. The government photographer took photos of Tutu with local dignitaries at all the stops on the tour. The photo prints were later sent to the subjects which is how she comes to have one framed on her wall. She graciously permitted me to unframe it to rephotograph it. Ms. Tanner was most emphatic that the photographer was a Federal employee and as a California representative herself with her partner a law judge, I'd not argue with the woman. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok great that sounds watertight. I think it would help if you added the word Federal in the author field (and maybe link to the detail you have provided here). --99of9 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi 99of9: I went to change the file template and found it already said "Photograph was taken by a U.S. Government photographer as part of Bishop Tutu's tour of California. Other politicians were photographed as part of this series. Print of photo was framed and given to Sally Tanner. This is my photograph of her copy, color corrected, contrast corrected, sharpened and cropped." Is there a problem with what it says already? I didn't want to change anything until you read it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
US sculpture & FoP
Also, it looks like there are a few problematic US sculptures:
Hi 99of9: Please feel free to nominate any of these. But then also, please nominate all statues of Paul Bunyon (see category he's in) because I only uploaded these because I saw that there were others of same statue and same type. I will find out about the Klamath Bears (they predate the construction of the highway) and if they're old enough / sculptor died long enough ago / I'll file a COM:UNDEL later. The Klamath sign is their welcome sign, it never occurred to me it would be a problem, but please nominate it as well. The last one "indomitable" turns out the caption is wrong. That one is a copy of the original which rotted. Again, please nominate, I won't fuss. Those were taken a long time ago before all the intricacies of the system had been learned. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I sent correspondence to the Trees of Mystery concerning Paul Bunyan and Babe. The Golden Bears were added to the "new" bridge in 1965, whether they were part of the older bridge, moved from some other location or (?) is being looked into by a Del Norte County amateur historian. I will call their Chamber of Commerce on Monday to see if there's more information. Also the salmon in the Heart sign at Klamath is also their logo; I hope they will know the creator and copyright status. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Szia! Pontosan meg van adva, honnan származik a kép. 1937-ben készítette egy ismeretlen fotós. Ez leírásra is került. Üdv. Tambo (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations Ellin. Please feel free to use the yellow notice at the left every time you are working on something bureaucracy-related. Green Giant (talk)19:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your page is gettin a bit long. You wanna try out one-click archiving? If you do add this to User:Ellin Beltz/common.js: importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
I can adjust your MiszaBot settings, then you can archive your threads like this. INeverCry06:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry: I put the script on the common.js page, and I see archive buttons, please adjust the MiszaBot settings, this looks like it will be a BIG help! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
As long as you change the counter, the script will automatically create a new archive, so you don't have to. By the way, both of you should be aware (and I didn't realise this until yesterday), but the original script is no longer being maintained by Equazcion although User:Technical13 is working on it now. I think you should probably change the line in your common.js to: importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. Green Giant (talk)10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That looks much better. You can one-click archive threads at the 'crats noticeboard or any of the admin noticeboards now too. The script works on any page that archives to a set numbered archive. INeverCry06:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
As you already delete all the photos. All the photo and the information I provide it will collected by me and very rare to found. as you wish that you already delete all of them.Most of the photo and collage done by me for Sports knowledge purpose, I don't understand how you delete those pictures.... This is not justification. please reply with valid reason and prove,if possible. but I will not do any hardwork in future for updation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Table tennis pic (talk • contribs)
My first RFA victim who's gone on to become a 'crat! I'm so proud I could almost cry. Now you can bore yourself and other 'crats to death on the 'crat mailing list, just like I used to do on the checkuser list. INeverCry20:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither of those lists can be as bad as the OTRS mailing list - reading it sometimes feels like watching paint dry! Green Giant (talk)20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Green Giant , Jee & Hedwig in Washington. I'm looking forward to a long peaceful career of watching paint dry and hopefully lending my tiny voice to get some super-powered automated tools going for admins here; wouldn't an automatic API to compare new uploads to pictures already on the web be lovely? We are so few and the tasks so many. Again, thank you for my new file cabinet to lean my mop on. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi: After studying the Wikimedia's Template messages, I have uploaded the file File:Derekmuller.jpg. Please guide me to prevent my image my image from deletion. Because Derek Muller is my role model, I don't want to lose his picture and I like to be the person who uploads his picture into Wikipedia. I hope I have uploaded it with an appropriate message or I should change the license to Template:Cc by sa 2.0 or Template:Cc zero???. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkuru Afshar (talk • contribs)
I see you have earned a new bit. I missed the vote, but thank you for your service and your willingness to take on more responsibility. Cheers! -Pete F (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status of Washington State Governor's proclamations
Hello, Ellin,
I hope you are recovering from your cold. Summer colds are the worst.
I'm just tying up a loose end—after the deletion of this file I finally received this response from the Washington Attorney General's office:
Your inquiry to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office was provided to me for a response. Thank you for your inquiry. You wrote,
Subject: Copyright status of Governor's ceremonial proclamations
Message: Former Governor Booth Gardner issued a proclamation declaring October 23, 1989, to be "Nist Family Day," in honor of the contributions the Nist family of Seattle had made to the economy of the state. I have a photograph of the proclamation that I posted to to use in Wikipedia articles about Seattle-Tacoma Box Company and Joseph Nist, the company's founder. Copyright status of the proclamation has come into question.
I contacted the Secretary of State who referred my query to State Archives; Lupita Lopez replied that proclamations are covered by the Public Records Act 42.56. However, the guarantee of public access is not the same as being in the public domain. Can you please clarify whether the proclamation is in the public domain?
Thanks for your advice.
Please note that our office cannot provide private citizens legal advice or legal opinions. We can, however provide general information.
We are not aware of any court decision or other law providing that proclamations issued by the Washington State Governor’s Office, or the Nist Family Day proclamation in particular, have been found to be subject to a copyright. We are not aware of any court decisions directly addressing the copyright status of governors’ proclamations generally. However, it’s well-settled that legislative enactments and judicial opinions lack copyright, and perhaps similar analysis would apply to other official acts of public entities such as ceremonial proclamations.
I trust this information assists you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Krier <NancyK1@ATG.WA.GOV>
Assistant Attorney General for Open Government
Unfortunately, Ms. Krier's conclusion, "legislative enactments and judicial opinions lack copyright, and perhaps similar analysis would apply to other official acts of public entities such as ceremonial proclamations" still is not assurance it's in the public domain. I've concluded that Hedwig in Washington accurately described the situation as "Sloppy legislature". My sincere thanks to both of you for your work upholding Wikimedia's copyright policies. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like clarify the possible use of a file: In the style of Andy Warhol.jpg the artist claimed that his images could be used freely. I went back to the page on Wikimedia Commons and see that it has been deleted. Please let me know if there is a way to contact the artist and if it's alright to use his painted images of Marilyn Monroe. thank you noranovak009@aol.com
Hi: As stated on Commons:Deletion requests/File:In the style of Andy Warhol.jpg, "Uploader did not take the photo of Marilyn Monroe" and "this photograph is copyright of the Michael Ochs Archive". Since Mr. Ochs is deceased, it's unlikely he will be available for copyright release; the artist having made a derivative work of a copyrighted image cannot release any copyright. There is also no fair use on Commons and so the file was deleted. Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You have been nominated for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
After your note about Derrek Muller.jpg, I asked him to upload his photo “Derrek Muller.jpg” then he told he is the copyright holder of his photos and not Queen’s University of Canada
I have 2 questions:
1) There are many older than 30 years pictures in Iranian related pages such as “Zari-khoshkam2.jpg”, “Leila-hatami-childhood.jpg”, “Ali Hatami.jpg” and “سلطان صاحبقران.jpg” that the name of source in them is said “Unknown” or “Internet” and there is no copyright problem. So why my old photos such as “Eskan 1974, 2.jpg”, “Eskan 1974, 3.jpg”, “Ali Neshat On chair.jpg”, “Ali neshat Mohammad reza pahlavi.jpg”, “Gavaznha Dubbing.png” and “Morteza Keyvan Execution 1954.jpg” have been deleted? Is it possible for me to reupload my photos with same copyright license?
2) For recently taken that I have uploaded from sites such as BBC, is it possible that I send the links for you and suggest the appropriate copyright license for you, and after your confirmation, I upload them into Wikimedia commons?
Hi Shkuru Afshar: If you have found images you think should be nominated for deletion, by all means start the process. For images "from sites such as BBC," those images would not be able to be uploaded without specific permission by the copyright holder. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin
1) If you would be aware of Copyright laws of Iran (حق تکثیر در ایران) and based on
wikipedia license, you would know that many of Persian photos that uploaded by Iranians like me such as “Eskan 1974, 2.jpg”, “Eskan 1974, 3.jpg” and “Ali Neshat On chair.jpg” are copyright free. Almost all of photos are from Iranian magazines or companies which are defunct now (epecially after 1979 revolution of Iran).
2) I should note that some people like "Ali Neshat" have been executed shortly after 1979 revolution of Iran, then how can I ask him to upload his photo?
Hi Shkuru Afshar: The issue with the Iranian images is that you have to show that they were published as required by the template you reprinted, otherwise the terms are not met. So "Internet" doesn't show that the image has been published, by when or by whom. This would apply regardless whether the subject is living or dead. As for how you would obtain BBC permission for images, that's up to you. Commons cannot host copyrighted images, such as those published daily by BBC. Please read COM:L for more information. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, about a year ago, you closed this DR stating that there were too many files to consider in a single DR. I am planning on re-nominating some of the individual files. Do you have any objections? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Storkk: No objections. I would suggest nominations be put only on one kind of image, or only one uploader, or something because mixed bag nominations (even if united by FOP status) would be like as if I nominated 20 images from 20 uploaders that were all out of COM:SCOPE and that was their only unifying feature. It makes it harder for the closing admin to have too many images all in one nomination - unless they present an obvious pattern. For example, one time I noticed 25 photographs uploaded one right after the other - all from a travel company promoting their Jeep tours. All 25 images were then treated as a single unit and another admin removed them en masse. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ellin. Regarding your request for deletion of this image, hypnagogic or hypnapompic imagery001.jpg, this was only meant to be an example of hypnagogic/hypnapompic hallucations(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia), and I only uploaded this image to provide an example of that phenomena because I've been unable to find any other images which display examples of hypnagogic hallucinations on Wikimedia. In fact, I haven't been able to find very many illustrations of hypnagogic hallucinations on the internet at all. The colorful, doodle-like style of the image is in fact similar to the nature of such hallucinations. Though these hallucinations take countless forms, I feel that my image provides a very basic example of the nature of such imagery.
I did not intend to use Wikimedia Commons as my "personal doodle notebook", or for any sort of artistic promotion. There are other places I could have posted that image for such a purpose. I posted it here because I felt it would be useful for people learning about dreams, sleep, and altered states of consciousness, to see an example of what "hypnagogic" or "hypnapompic" imagery might look like.
I appreciate your commitment to preserving the quality of this site, but I ask that you reconsider your request for deletion of this particular image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalstyle91 (talk • contribs)
Karen Novak, PhD (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)As you suggested, I tried to edit the info attached to pictures that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons but didn't see an edit mode. Also, I don't really have more info to add. Maybe I just put it in the wrong place on the form. On the Wikipedia page the pictures have captions as intended.
I don’t think the term applies to tropical environments like the above, but for your neck of the woods (so to speak), at the higher elevations at least, see Krummholz.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wikipediaval: I reviewed your situation and find the following six situations before the present mass deletion request which I shall address in the following paragraph:
To answer your specific question about "allowed me to use", that is not at all the same thing as "giving you the copyright." In order to upload to Commons you must either be the copyright holder , have their specific permission (see COM:OTRS, or the image must be itself free prior to your upload (see COM:L). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We have recently uploaded number of images with the intention to validate some of our claims in the biographical article we are developing (images to be used as links next to the award listings, etc.) However, we have encountered this deletion request and are interested to learn how we can preserve the images and avoid any potential regulation violations.
With this article we intend to present life and legacy of one, in our view, exceptional lady that has promoted Indian tradition worldwide and provided hundreds of people from rural India with means to earn their living with this traditional craft (blue pottery).
As part of the article, we have listed numerous awards and certificates that we wanted to further authenticate with images, it seems that in this process we have accidentally violated some of the rules. We wish to correct this issues and preserve as many images as possible. Please let us know what are our options.
Thank you for your time. Looking forward to your response.
As you suggested, I tried to edit the info attached to pictures that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons but didn't see an edit mode. Also, I don't really have more info to add. Maybe I just put it in the wrong place on the form. On the Wikipedia page the pictures have captions as intended. Karen Novak, PhD (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karen Novak, PhD: Please see the image attached to the right for help finding edit and history on an image page. Edit and History on a Wikimedia Commons page are in the same relative positions for all projects (remember they will be reversed for languages written from right to left. Other information you must have had at time of upload was the actual source of the images "Google source" is not particularly informative. Since you didn't take the series of images yourself, it's required that the source be provided. That is true on all the images you uploaded which you did not create. The other suggestion I made on your talk page was to wikilink to the artist's name to help people who find the image and want to know more about the artist, when he lived and so forth. Your licenses in some cases claim the images were published before 1923, but at present there is insufficient information to verify. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC) PS: (talk page stalker)s with interests in turn of the century painting invited to help straighten this out.
I tried to upload a logo for the page Christopher Ward (watchmaker). I work for a company on their behalf and you can find the logo here www.christopherward.co.uk/ I have noticed other similar companies have their logo appearing, so how can I get mine to?
Thanks! I can't guarantee that I'll remember your offer, but if the problems come back and I remember, I'll let you know. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Barneygumble: The problem is that it's a composite image and thus each image requires a source otherwise it looks like a scan from a book or something. Since you took both of them it will not be difficult for you to upload singly, not as a pair. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Some of the pictures are HR, so we could assume good faith for these. For Belize, the rule is 50 years pma, so any picture older than 1964 might be in the public domain. Just my 2 Rs. I deleted the most obvious copyvios. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yann: We'd need some indication of source for these images before assuming Belize, no? "Archives of yadda yadda" is not able to be checked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, more information is needed, but speedy is a bit too fast. There is no harm waiting for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I am getting all these objections at once months after placing the photos according to the directions I was given by editors then. Please give me time to satisfy your increased demands. I do have permission from Jesuit Conference for all the photos that we used in the book we just published and were also used by Jesuit Missions magazine, to which Jesuit Conference now holds the rights. At the time I was told that filling out the form was not necessary: I do have the email from the Conference if you want to see it, and can get the form filled out but that will take a few days to accomplish: all this was just dumped on me this morning after a few months of not a word said! So what do you want me to do to prove I took care and avoided photos where I was unsure about the source.Jzsj (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jzsj: On April 16, 2015 several of your images were nominated for deletion. At that time, the COM:OTRS process was suggested. On 29 April 2015, another of your images was nominated and you were informed on 29 April 2015, three months ago, that there were problems with these uploads. You replied 4th July 2015 after the bulk of the images had been tagged for removal due to the three month lag with no communication and their lack of source, author and license information. For example, as published images, which magazine issue, page number, etc. would go in source not just "Name of Magazine".
Reviewing the history of your talk page, I am sorry I do not see "directions" you were given by editors months ago, nor any written directions which would have given your photos rights unshared by all the other photos on the project. I do however see an inquiry about the status and provenance of the images which was ignored. While we work under COM:AGF, when one doesn't reply to first messages and continues the pattern of "unknown" author uploads, the assumption then shifts to COM:EVID and it's up to the uploader (as it was all along) to provide sources and licenses for the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was getting the permissions but I was following this 16 April missive and interpreting later missives in light of it. My interpretation was that I needed the permission but that listing the permission during the upload was sufficient if I uploaded them myself.
"It would be best if you could ask the Bishop to send that email confirming that the images are released into the public domain to permissions-commons wikimedia.org himself (or have an authorized representative of the diocese send the email); the people dealing with that email queue will then add the appropriate permission tags to the various files. A standard release form can be found here: WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You should maybe point out that releasing it into the public domain isn't required and may be more permissive than he'd like; personally I'd suggest releasing them under an acceptable Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 instead. That way, any derivative works would need to be released under a compatible license, and the diocese would need to be credited (for example via a link to their website, which would be a good idea in any case). Huon (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)"
I am now in the process of getting permissions to you, but the Jesuit Missions photos were taken by Jesuits who have a vow of poverty and ownership of these diverts to the United States Jesuit Conference. It may be difficult to get a page and volume for many of them for they were found in a Jesuit archives where some were not even used. Would releasing them but not in Commons be easier here, if Commons requires more info than we can provide? The secretary of the Jesuit Conference assured me that all the Jesuit mission photos can be put in the public domain, but proving who took them and when is not so easy as ascertaining that they belong to Jesuit Missions.
Another question, is the 1964 release date good for Jesuits from the USA working in Belize? They were the ones who were taking the photos of their fellow Jesuits and mission work, which landed in the archives.
Also, all of these photos were published in a book for which the diocese holds the copyright, with the only attributions to the Belize diocese or Jesuit Missions. Can the book be used as proof of ownership? The problem is that these church publications usually don't reveal the photographer, who is working for the diocese or the Jesuit order, not for himself. For most of them the photographer remains unknown, it's only known that they belong to the Diocese.
Also, if a friend took a picture of a group of us 20 years ago must we remember who took the photo or whose camera it was? If it was a personal picture (nothing artistic) and we are in it and were given a copy may we place it in the public domain?
Hi Jzsj : Please forgive the shortness of the reply, I've family things to attend to atm, but this might get you started. Look at File:John Lydgate.jpg, or File:AntónioVieira.jpg for ideas on how to present the information as to source for these older portraits. Also a new category as part of Category:Jesuits by country for Belize would probably be a good idea, then they're all in the same box and the information is more clear to the viewer that these are all Belizian. Is the magazine you refer to an international publication, or just from that country? Any and all scraps of information you can give - including birth and death dates of the individuals depicted will all help determine the status of the image and the ability of Commons to provide free hosting ofr it. Putting the full information about the book would be a good idea, and as for the release information, that is for the admins at COM:OTRS to answer; they specialize in complicated license situations such as this one. And other than that, I'd follow Huon's advice; they've laid it out very clearly the steps to take. Also I'm asking @Yann: to help out as he seems to have some experience with Belize copyright. Thanks all. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed solution: I believe the best solution is to attribute all these photos to Belize, since missionaries working there are working in and for that country. And then to correct the "date" boxes: I found confusing the fact that only recent dates were offered, but most all the photos we used in Years of Grace, and in my wiki articles drawn from it, were more than 50 years old. How can I proceed to emend this? Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jzsj: With all respect, you are missing the point entirely. Photographs are not copyright to a nation unless they were taken by employees of that nation in pursuit of their jobs and on working hours. Please focus on what you were told above? The book / magazine needs better citation than "Jesuit Magazine". Imagine if you went into a library in some other country and asked for "Jesuit Magazine". It is unlikely you would be handed the issues from Belize. So please provide more information about this publication as at present it is unable to be found by basic internet search by the name given. If an image were published in a book, the book needs to be cited. (Speaking only of the book you mention above which I have not seen...) Whoever holds the copyright to the images - now I'm assuming that's the bishop of your area or archbishop; will have to file a COM:OTRS form which will take a very short period of time as the form is already written on the COM:OTRS page. I'd follow the suggestion of Huon above for the license chosen; if someone put a moustache - or worse - on one of your monsiegnors for an advertisement, the 3.0 license would at least show that the original source had no control over what was done with the image afterwards. Copyright for the project is done under U.S. Copyright Law because that's where the servers are. To mention that all this is from Belize is not to attempt to credit the copyright to the nation of Belize, but to add to the understanding of the viewer as to where the images were taken. If that location of photograph in any way changes copyright status of the image, it can be considered after proper source and license are on the image. Any image which was previously deleted can be undeleted once the source and license information are correct. The file names are on your page and also on a record of "deleted contributions"; any administrator can access that. So be of good cheer, it's a process not a judgement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response with clarifications, and for restoring those with corrected, pre-1923 dates. Also, did you get my emails with permissions from "Jesuit Missions" magazine, St. Catherine, Fordyce Chapel at St. John's College, and Ruben Wong of Holy Redeemer church? Are these emails sufficient or must they fill out the official form now: please advise. "Jesuit Missions" is a specific journal: I'll have all the archive info after the end of July when I visit the Rockhurst U. Library, they have it in their collection. I'm also working on the official release by the Bishop in Belize for material from their website and archives. Finally, Huon suggests perhaps "not releasing into the public domain". It seems this is greatly discouraged when I attempt it. Do you recommend it (though no one at this end has shown hesitancy about the full release). If we should want to so release one, what tag should we use? Thanks for all your help.Jzsj (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Any permission emails/questions should be directed to OTRS or perhaps asked at the OTRS Noticeboard. If a large number of images will be released by an organization/source, a special licensing tag can be arranged through OTRS, which can be added to each image. INeverCry21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; I've requested the special tag which, with their 13-day backlog, should arrive in time for my 3-hour travels to the Kansas City library that has a copy of Jesuit Missions where most of the older photos originated. I'm also waiting for determination of all the photos that need re-licensing, not to bother these busy executives too often with signing of permissions.Jzsj (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear it looks as though I have erred in some way. I appreciate your time spent in looking over my contributions and would like to hear how I have transgressed and what I need to do to correct things. The photos you have indicated as being possible social media types are from film locations around the world. Krov Menuhin has been making films for over 40 years and these are taken by him or for him or me (his wife). Many are already part of documentaries released through BBC, PBS Channel 4/HTV or Ushuaia TV for TF1 (France). They are already public in some form or other and have been uploaded here to illustrate parts of Krov Menuhin's page and his history.
Kind regards,
Karen KarenMenuhin (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Karen: Really simple answer. For the pictures taken by Mr. Menuhin, please have him send email to COM:OTRS as outlined on that page. It is a simple form and it just needs to be filled in and sent. There is an "OTRS applied for" tag that then gets put on each of those picture pages and you go to the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KarenMenuhin and point out that the form has been sent for picA, picB .... and so on. For the ones that were taken by you yourself, please let me know which ones they are and I personally will remove the tag based on your statement. I put a note on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KarenMenuhin (as linked above) to show that you've contacted me. I totally believe you. We're here to protect the rights of the artist/photographer who made the images and occasionally - like here - the "usual tip-offs" have pointed directly to the image creator/s, you and Mr. Menuhin. So we have at least ten days until any of those images are zapped; I'm not saying that to slow down your email to COM:OTRS, just know they're not going to POOF instantly and even if they did vanish, they can be restored without reupload. Thank you for your patience with our system. I'm not an OTRS editor and I really do not like to ask them to "jump their queue" but once you have those pending tags on his files and you tell me directly which are your files, the Deletion Nomination will have been solved. Also I asked an experienced Wikipedian (award winning editor and encourager of new editors) to take a look at your article work and perhaps lend a hand. I'm not as up on the Wikipedia guidelines as once I was and so asked her to step in. We value your contributions and hope you don't feel bad about this start to your long and beautiful relationship with the project. When you're done with that bio, please feel free to edit other things! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you please explain why this page has being deleted File:Afdeling_Binnelandse_Stabiliteit_-_Internal_Stability_Division.jpg.
"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
• 15:27, 16 July 2015 Ellin Beltz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Afdeling Binnelandse Stabiliteit - Internal Stability Division.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage;delinker log)"
Thank you. Gavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Fox123 (talk • contribs)
Hi Gavin Fox123: The reason was that the image was a duplicate of an image on a website which did not have free license. Copying from a website doesn't make it own work of the uploader to Commons. I have nominated a couple of your other images with longer description of why they're nominated, perhaps you could provide actual sources for the photos and/or the objects depicted. Please also read COM:L. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! The image is published in 1937 in Tér és Forma (this is a journal) without author name. Such the license is: PD-HU-unknown. The false date (2007) been deleted. --Szenti Tamás (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
File:1 1 Hertzian Cone in Polarized Light 3177 xsm.png
Ms. Beltz,
I'm new to Wikipedia so do not know the protocol.
The image File:1 1 Hertzian Cone in Polarized Light 3177 xsm.png is mine. I am happy to give this version of the image for use on Wikipedia, however, I do not know how to do it. Someone mentioned me in the article and my work with Hertzian cones and Hertzian fractures. I am happy to donate, but if this is not appropriate I am fine with that too.
Regards,
James Byous
J Byous Company
JByousCompany.com
A.T. Dowd Research
www.DowdResearch.org
jamesbyous@gmail.com
Hiya Excolis: The image was nominated as "It is a photo of a photo on a tombstone. The original artist is not indicated." I see your comment also "The polish FoP Act allows the publication of copyrighted works, as long they're installed permanently in public areas. This photo is an inherent part of Przewdzing's tombstone, located at the public Zyrowa town cemetery. --Excolis (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)". Please be sure that information including that it's in Poland is obvious on the restored file? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I told my assistant to replace the photo of myself with Barry Cook on my wiki page phillip rhee. Because I do believe Barry Cook was self promoting himself within my wiki page. So I instructed my assistant Sky Patterson to change the picture of only myself.
Then to my surprise, the photo of myself to which I own the copyright has been taken down, so please put it back up. if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at phillip@stereopictures.com
Dear Mr. Rhee: The image was marked as a copyright violation because it was widely used on the web prior to the upload here and there was no indication that the uploader held copyright. And as you say, the nomination was correct, because someone else uploaded your photo! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
ZCYGORRES.jpg
I found out you deleted the image of ZCYGORRES.jpg because you say it was copyvio. I wonder. How exactly was it copyvio? 98.119.155.8123:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The image was transferred from Wikipedia by a bot which seems to have lost the source during the transfer. I'll restore it and would you be so kind to check it over afterwards? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
What to do to legally sound upload the following cartoons on commons.wikimedia.org
Lieber Ellin Beltz,
was ist zu tun, um die nachfolgenden Karikaturen rechtlich einwandfrei auf commons.wikimedia.org hochzuladen?
Die Zustimmung des Karikaturisten liegt vor.
(Übersetzungen ins Englische mit Google Translate)
Hi Molgreen: The images were uploaded with information including
Information
|description=
Deutsch: Karikatur von Gerhard Mester zum Thema Energiespeicher und Konkurrenzbedingungen Erneuerbarer Energien.
English: Cartoon by Gerhard Mester on energy storage and renewable energy competition conditions.
|date=2013
|source=Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland e.V.
|author=Gerhard Mester
|permission= cc-by-sa-4.0
Gerhard Mester is a notable cartoonist, therefore it is possible that people would try to upload his cartoons without his permission. This sort of thing is common, unfortunately. If it were not, we could save a lot of everyone's time.
Because these are works of a notable cartoonist who is still alive, when someone else uploads them and claims a license without giving a link where the license can be found, volunteers tag these as "no source" and wait for a week to get the help of the original uploader - in this case Ankhaton.
On 15 July (ten days ago), the file was tagged as "no source" which is correct - there was no way to verify the source of the images by Gerhard Mester to Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland e.V. As contemporary material, web sources proving licenses are more common than plain text without a link.
On 25 July I deleted the files. They were obviously professional cartoons, there was no indication of real source and no link to any form of online license information.
Subsequently you have written that the email is in the email to COM:OTRS regarding these files. Those admins also have a backlog. But, they have the ability to restore files if they find the permissions to be correct. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
File:SFV_Logo_4c.jpg file was uploaded by the Information Officer of Solar Energy Förderverein Germany eV (SFV)
Dear Ellin Beltz,
The file File:SFV_Logo_4c.jpg
uploaded from the Information Officer of Solar Energy Förderverein Germany eV (SFV). A corresponding mail in front of me.
(Translation into English with Google Translate)
wurde vom Öffentlichkeitsreferent des Solarenergie-Fördervereins Deutschland e.V. (SFV) hochgeladen. Eine entsprechende Mail liegt mir vor.
(Übersetzungen ins Englische mit Google Translate)
Не портите страницу! Я требую восстановления этого файла (и всех других), так как являюсь членом редакции журнала "Новая Юность" и размещаю файлы от имени журнала. Я подписал автора и внес просьбу ссылаться на журнал в случае использования картинки. Я не считаю, что я что-то нарушил. Вообще, с какой стати англоязычный пользователь вносит какие-то правки, что-то удаляет, не умея читать по-русски?!
Игорь Дуардович,
журналист, ответственный секретарь и редактор журнала "Новая Юность" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Игорь Дуардович (talk • contribs)
Translated by Google: Hello! Do not spoil this page! I demand the restoration of the file (and all others), as I am a member of the editorial board of the "New Youth" and place the file on behalf of the magazine. I signed the poster and made a request to refer to the log in the case of images. I do not think I broke something. Actually, why should an English user makes any changes, something removed without knowing how to read in Russian ?! Igor Duardovich, journalist, executive secretary and editor of the "New Youth"
Нет, Вы совершили ошибку.
Напишите на этот адрес электронной почты (почта "Новой Юности") и удостоверьтесь, что я являюсь членом редакции и имею право размещать любые обложки и картинки нашего журнала. Вот адрес почты журнала "Новая Юность": newnost93@list.ru. Обязательно напишите и Вам ответят, что Вы совершили ошибку. Можете также зайти на мою страничку в Фейсбуке: https://www.facebook.com/I.Duardovich. И вот еще страница нашего журнала в "Журнальном зале": http://magazines.russ.ru/nov_yun/.
Наш журнал намерен подать жалобу на Вас, если это возможно, в Википедию.
Вы испортили нам страницу.
Всего доброго!
И. Дуардович,
ответственный секретарь и редактор журнала "Новая Юность"
:Translation by Google Hello, Ellin Beltz! No, you made a mistake. Send this e-mail (e-mail, "New Youth") and make sure that I am a member of the editorial board and have the right to place any covers and pictures of our magazine. That email address magazine "New Youth": newnost93@list.ru. Be sure to write you and will tell you that you made a mistake. You can also go to my page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/I.Duardovich. And another page in our magazine "coffee room": http://magazines.russ.ru/nov_yun/. Our magazine is going to file a complaint against you, if possible, in Wikipedia. You spoiled us page.
all the best! I. Duardovich, executive secretary and editor of the "New Youth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Игорь Дуардович (talk • contribs)
I got a bunch of emails from you about photos for both Rebel Randall and Beryl Davis.
My updating of Rebel Randall’s page (and Beryl Davis’ page) is my first attempt (last night) at editing and writing on Wikipedia. Apparently, I need some pointers.
I have read through the stuff about attribution for photos, and frankly, I don't understand it. It may as well be written in Japanese.
In the instance of these two people, however, both were wives of my great-uncle, William Mann Moore (aka Peter Potter). Most of the images I posted came from family photo collections. Some were shared on Ancestry.com. (I am a genealogist.) Some were given to me by the children of William Mann Moore (Peter Potter) and Beryl Davis. The photo of the headstone for Beryl was created by my cousin, Melinda -- Beryl's daughter.
I'm having enough trouble with the HTML mark-up language. I have no idea what to do with these photos.
I want to create a page (none exists) for William Mann Moore (Peter Potter). I own, and have scanned some of the memorabilia from his life. I have photos. I have newspaper articles.
I need some super easy instructions about how to deal with these photos. There is not much out there on any of these three individuals, and as the family genealogist, it is my goal to try to correct that.
(A) The images that were placed for deletion were not created by you; the sources were from family albums not from the copyright holder. Thus you giving them a public license isn't possible. This covers the group "Pictures from family photo collections, some from Ancestry.com, some given by children"... For these, no unless you have the permission of the actual copyright holder.
(B) "The photo of the headstone for Beryl was created by my cousin, Melinda -- Beryl's daughter." If you will have Melinda file the simple email form at COM:OTRS and wait a couple weeks, those admins are able to restore the image.
I understand your commitment to your family's history, but please - at Wikipedia - read about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and about en:WP:RELIABLE the use of reliable sources - not just IMDB and Find-a-Grave for citations.
Please feel free to continue the dialog, while I don't do as much Wikipedia editing as I used to, I may be able to help. If you wish me to point you to an experienced editor over there for help, please let me know. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi AntanO: Some were sent to speedy, the rest to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HaizadSys. Please comment over there if you wish. PS: If you check in Preferences/ Gadgets / Maintenance tools do you find Tineye tab & Google Images tab? Those are the magic decoder ring to reverse finding images and being able to speedy without spending all night on one image. If they're available to you, a quick check mark in each box will change your browsing experience forever. The results show up under "More" tab at top of page by History. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Jzsj photo usage
I've tried to explain to you that when I continued uploading photos I did so in good faith, and focusing on my continuing to do it seems unfair to me for the following reasons.
I read Huon's advice as giving me a choice to either get emails for the photos or get the release form filled out. Please try to understand that the communication could be read in that way.
I had had experience of editors disagreeing among themselves, and some very poor decisions by an editor, as when I was told that the most prominent bishop in Belize lacked prominence (but none of the other bishops I wrote on where even questioned!).
In ignoring a few notices that my photos would be removed I thought that this was just disagreement among editors: none were removed. Why wasn't one removed rather than all at once. Then we could have had a helpful discussion on how one tells who is speaking with ultimate authority and who is just one voice among many.
That's one of the main problems for us beginners, to figure out who speaks with authority. There are so many voices contradicting each other out there (as on 2 of my articles that were absolutely rejected by one editor but then accepted by another).
I've raised questions on a couple of the talk pages but so far received no response. I understand it takes time, as it will for me to get all the permissions but I'm working on it.Jzsj (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Jzsj: Please look at top of page where it says "this user is an administrator" and "this user is a bureaucrat". There are 12 bureaucrats on commons, see here. I am one of the twelve. Those little boxes tell you to whom you are speaking on anyone's page who is either an admin or a bureaucrat. That might help you sort out the problems. Your uploads were nominated separately because there were different problems with different ones. None were "own work" as you originally claimed - even the one of yourself was taken by someone else! Therefore they were removed under the rules of Commons, see COM:L which require you to only upload your own work, and/or to provide permission for the images uploaded. You were referred to COM:OTRS on multiple occasions by me and other adminstrators who tried to help. In a nutshell, one cannot give / sell or assign rights to which he or she is not in title, and that unfortunately was the situation with the images you uploaded. I do wish you'd read COM:L which is many thousands of words attempting to document this simple concept... "is this your picture" YES upload... "if its not your picture, and no valid PD license" NO upload. I have worked with a lot of beginners here on Commons - you'd be surprised how many of them read the instructions and got it right the first time. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ellin, Could you please comment your decission to delete This file? According to Wikipedia this encyclopaedia is CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed. Also the permission image linked here seems to be accepted for other files. The reason for my question is that there is a ProofRead project on Wikisource that is derivative of this file and strongly depends on its existence. But we need a valid rationale to delete it. Could you, please, help us to clen up this mess? Unfortunately, I found no deletion explanation on the user page also. Ankry (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ankry: The file data included the following "{{OTRS pending|year=2014|month=September|day=22}}". That's almost a year ago and even though the COM:OTRS team is backed up, they're not eleven months backed up. Could you clarify what happened to the OTRS request please? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it was added by mistake by an unexperienced user. I have checked: no related ticket i +/- 1 day in OTRS. The question is whether the permission was even necessary (IMO, looking into other information - it is not) and whether we should delete contribution of five other users in another project (that depends on exactly this file being present here) - because of an uploader mistake. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ankry: Fixed! Please take a look at the file now, it's out of the otrs pending category & the no permissions since ____ 2014 category - both of those a blessing from being from so long ago. Thanks for your help on this. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I'm interested why you deleted the club crest for Newport County A.F.C due to copyright issue. Not saying you are wrong - I just dont understand the whole issue ie does that mean every sports club crest throughout WIki needs to be removed ? why did you delete the Newport County one specifically and not others ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs)
The original image was provided via Twitter. Can you please explain why an agreement on Twitter is not valid permission in this case? This is fully comparable to the situation of Flickr, where permission on the site itself is considered 'good enough'. Neither the Deletion policy nor the Licensing policy mention any OTRS requirement. Valhallasw (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides the discussion of the permission needs to be send to com:OTRS or not: the release is invalid. "CC-BY" is not a license but a specific type of license. And "take it:) it's my gift to you! Hugs!!!" is not a legally binding transfer of copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I need help with figuring out how Wikimedia Commons would like to have multiple HABS/HAER images of one structure categorized into one category. I've been categorizing these for several states and recently received opposition to the long titles that I took from the image names. Shortening category titles seems to have not helped the problem. It appears that at least one other administrator is involved in a discussion on my talk pages with 2 others and it is getting over my head in how this situation should be handled. Yours or another administrators help would be greatly appreciated.
Xnatedawgx (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Xnatedawgx: There are three willing users trying to talk to you on your talk page (e.g.Green Giant, Nyttend & Choess. I do not see that you have replied to the discussion on your talk page which is where the discussion needs to be... with them; not here with me. I am glad I got your attention, now please direct it to your talk page and achieve consensus with the other users who are trying to help you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I didn't realize I was to respond in my own talk page and had responded on others talk pages...my mistake.
Xnatedawgx (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kaztima109: The file was nominated "May 25, 2015 "Looks like a map published by the shrine itself, and is unlikely to be the own work of the uploader as claimed," and was deleted on 31 May 2015. If you would like to request that it be restored, please send a short, coherent letter to COM:UNDEL. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, can you explain what copyright violation you saw in File:Sheshrao Deshmukh.jpg to nominate it for deletion? That photo was clicked by me. Is it good when I post something on admin's notice board to seek some help but in return admins check my alone photo and nominate it for deletion?? --Human3015 (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have replied Human3015 on my talk page where he asked similar question to me. And its absolutely good, in fact a very good thing, that admins and patrollers go on checking all uploads of some user where they have doubt. You shouldn't be offended by this if they are doing their job. If you are right, why fear? I also checked your other uploads and then re-categorized two of your maps to better categories. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: Other websites can upload anyone's photos after uploading it to Wikipedia, one can see own uploaded images on google image search after uploading it to Wikipedia. The person in pic was ex-MLA of Parbhani in 1960s, you are aware about Maharashtra/Marathwada and me, getting his photo is not a big deal. Trust me I have clicked his photo. And I'm not aware about technical things you are asking me on your talk page. --Human3015 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@admins: You people are claiming that you have found that pic on other websites, image search on google showing that image only on Wikipedia. On which website you found that pic?? If you could able to find out the timing of image uploaded on your said website then it will be better, if you see timing of upload on website after I uploaded that pic on Commons then you should restore the image. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see COM:L ... "Artworks and sculptures not OK.For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork"
Continuing on COM:CB // aka // Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter subsection "Murals - Unless old enough to be in the public domain, murals will normally be copyright-protected even if the artist is unknown. Thus, images of murals cannot usually be accepted. It normally makes no difference if the mural is in a public place and can be freely photographed since Freedom of Panorama, where it exists, typically does not extend to permitting photographs of 2D artworks such as murals. There are some exceptions - see:" ... Commons:Freedom of panorama & Graffiti above same page.
And then of course, Frank Shepard Fairey(born February 15, 1970), is still alive, so he holds copyright to his images; thus the comment in the Deletion nomination that Mr. Fairey's permission would be needed is accurate.
Hi - I'm interested why you deleted the club crest for Newport County A.F.C due to copyright issue. Not saying you are wrong - I just dont understand the whole issue ie does that mean every sports club crest throughout WIki needs to be removed ? why did you delete the Newport County one specifically and not others ? Thanks.
Hi Pwimageglow: Actually, after much wiggling around, I found your file File:Newport County A.F.C.png. It was uploaded without a source, author and valid permission. Here is what the upload form read
--Information--
description= English: Newport County F.C.
date=2015-07-26
source=
author=
permission=
other versions=
--int:license-header--
self|cc-by-sa-4.0
Without a source, the license "self/cc-by-sa-4.0" is impossible. See COM:EVID for discussion of what is required of the uploader. Does that help? If not, leave me another message! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.
For archival purposes, the JPEG file was of much higher quality. It was used to replace all occurrences of the lesser quality file. A new crop head shot was made from the better file and replaced the head shot of the lesser files. The lesser files were deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I had uploaded some images licensed under CC, but it was not the correct CC license. So the said images were deleted in 7 days. I have now acquired permission from the company, but the Upload Wizard fails to upload the files saying they already exist, with the error "None of the uploads were successful". What do I do? I cannot re-upload the files and I cannot un-delete them either. I need to add these images in. I'm writing to you because the deletion log says you deleted them. Any ideas?
It said the image was (translated) Picture donated by the owner of the photograph, Damm SA. As you know, Faithful Reproductions of 2D art are ok (Bridgeman-Corel decision). The image is old enough, the rendition is photo or scan. Source was given. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin Beltz,
I am disappointed for the deletion of a photo of mine.... because mine means it was I to take it and I and only I have the original file, so as I think I declared when I uploaded it in WikiCommons.... so no problem at all with any copyright ! This is what I read in the Revision history:
07:45, 24 March 2015 Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs) . . (7,142 bytes) (-89) . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Gyorgy Szabados Fono 2005.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by INeverCry (Per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gyorgy Szabados Fono 2005.jpg).) (undo)
How come INeverCry had the right to delete it withou any previous checking or warning, though it was not the case.... alberto pagani aka pagania62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Pagania62 (UTC) PS: I just tried to get a new password for my username but, altough the system said that a mail had been sent, I have received none so far
The Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gyorgy Szabados Fono 2005.jpg read : delete|reason=This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data?|subpage=File:Gyorgy Szabados Fono 2005.jpg|year=2015|month=March|day=17 @Taivo Since there was no reply by the uploader on that page, closing admin INeverCry closed the DN. I am restoring your file, but with the same request, please upload a larger version.
I am sorry but I don't have anything to do with sending you a new password, I hope you have received it by now? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Your DRs on PD works
I noticied that you nominated most of the files that I removed the {{Copyvio}} placed by krdbort, that, as you noticied is a bot. As human, I remove the tag only from files that are clearly false positives (works in or very likely to be in the Public Domain like old pictures, logos bellow the COM:TOO, etc). Also, I reported to krd the problems with his bot, in order to reduce its range of false positives and improve it; in most of cases, krdbot tags files with {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}}, then, a DR seems to be redundant, because the user has been already warned by krdbot, and another notification for a DR is just flooding the User talk page.
Another problem with the Threshold of Originality is this and this file, a clear {{PD-Textlogo}} case (and the logo has been created in 1911). If you done a deeper research, you wold be found this DR already resolved as kept. And about this DR, be free to mominate the thsousand of files transferred from Wikipedia using CommonsHelper or manually; the problem with the description is with the original uploader, not the user/bot that transferred the file to Commons (assuming the the user know what files qualifies to be transferred). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Amitie 10g: While you may think you were taking bot tags, the histories of several files show that you removed multiple tags which was placed by other editors, including User:JuTa. If you take off bot tags, you are responsible for making the file right, not just ripping off tags because you don't like them. I think that you have occasionally carried your COM:TOO arguments from the ridiculous to the sublime. Commons doesn't need every 2 or 3 letter acronym ever invented - especially if they have no source. I could make a lovely acronym for any organization I chose, even a made-up one, upload it under TOO and you'd argue it needs to be kept. Also, do you notice that you make unnecessarily harsh statements when all we are doing here is deciding on licenses and copyrights? Please feel free to leave your comments on the individual nominations, nothing we say here will change anything there. If a file is moved by hand from Wiki to Commons as you did recently, it is on the transferring editor (in this case you) to be sure it has a source, license, author, description and date - else it should stay at Wiki. See COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll dont care about the files tagged as Speedy by kdrbot that I considered as false positives (uploader is still responsible to add the proper license, but I still think that a DR was unneccesary), but the Bethlehem Steel logo case is quite different. As indicated in the description:
Who is the author?Bethlehem Steel, and maybe the person that made the SVG (unknown at the moment, but no reason for deletion).
Date of the (original) logo? 1911 (company founded in 1857 and logo created and published before 1925, already in the Public Domain in the US)
Source of the SVG?http://www.lehigh.edu/~bwl211/images/BethSteelLogo.svg (not longer available, but assuming as valid at the moment of the upload). The Raster version source is Facebook, but this is irrelevant, because the restrictions of a particular websites does not apply to works already in the PD, and this include logos bellow the TOO.
License? Clearly {{PD-Textlogo}}, bellow the Threshold of Originality in the US. Several users said that this should be enough, like in this DR.
Amitie 10g; If you are this expert on the particulars of the file that you brought over from en:Wiki, why didn't you put it on the file template? Why don't you argue this out at the Discussion Nomination? And, finally why do you need to become sexist in your discussion about an old logo? Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
What sexism? You're clearly in emotional problems caused by the Copyright Paranoia, and you misundertood the US Copyright Law (specially the § 1302). I strongly reccommend to refrain to comment in this discussion until you calm and learn in deep the US Copyright Law (specially Chapter 13), and let other admins and more experienced users to decide the future of the file (where a raster version of the same logo has been kept). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Other than the fact you've got your copyright law utterly confused (see "here wherein the law you cite is actually only for vehicle hulls), I am very tired of the amateur psychology and your personal attacks. To answer your specific question, please define the word "witch". Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you recently deleted File:Petya tyankova new.jpg. What was the reason for this deletion? The file was deleted earlier, probably because it didn't have the right licensing information. I restored it and included all the correct license templates (the Bulgarian President's website (where this image originates) is licensed under a cc-by-2.5-bg license, which I believe makes the photo suitable for commons). Cheers Tropcho (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tropcho: I was unable to get the page here to open and thus deleted the file. Is there perhaps a typo in the name? It just spins endlessly. I'll be happy to restore if I can see the license! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it opens just fine for me here so I think we can rule out a typo. Could you perhaps try opening the main page? If you have trouble accessing it then it's perhaps some sort of network problem, and maybe temporary?
If you can load the main page, then you should probably also be able to load the page you linked to above as well as the copyright policy page here. Both are in Bulgarian, but it's easy to spot the creative commons license icon on the copyright policy page. In case that's not convincing enough you can try google translate or ask another Bulgarian user to translate (perhaps Spritia could assist you with this). Tropcho (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tropcho: You're absolutely right the CC license shows on that page. I used Google translate which made an utter hash out of most of it, but it's clearly CC2.5. Sorry about the problems with this file, and thank you very much for your patience. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Following the deletion of the below items from the commons in reference of being Official symbols, not own work. Actually, i provided the necessary details of the source of these files in the -source section- as the Somali Government but these Emblem designs are redesigned Using Vector Graphics from the original Emblems - which is my own work by up-loader. Please refer to the links provided under the source section.
Therefore, i would like to request to un-delete these Items which have already been removed.
List of files removed:
Hi Amamaalin: Could you point me to the source where the Somali government gives PD permissions for all their army, police, and intelligence logos and also to the actual source of the ogg file? Who recorded it and when? Your files were nominated by EugeneZelenko on 12 July 2015 with discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amamaalin. Since we didn't hear a word from you about the sources before, they were removed on 7th July by me. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin,
I am sure i didn't use PD-Somalia but i think i released under valid copyright tag and mentioned the link which inspired my own work, by the way i am not sure whether Somalia has known copyright law. For the .ogg file, the Somali Armed Forces Band is the performer every year since 1960 and the uploaded one was performed on 2012 in Mogadishu, Somalia
Hi Amamaalin: It looks as though Yann and others have cleaned up 4 of the 5 files for you. Please check each image not only to see how they did it for your future uploads but to be sure the information is all correct. The uploader is the ultimate authority on source! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Margaret Oliver Brown
Random I know, but just found this indicating that Margaret Oliver Brown died in 1990, so she is not a living artist as you said in your nom - shame, I thought we'd found another notable centenarian! Mabalu (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you advise as to why the portrait of Doris Salcedo was removed? It was an image taken and shared in the public domain with Doris' consent as well the photographer's. Mlynch345 (talk)
I take very strong exception to your labelling of multiple images as potential copyright breaches. These are predominantly photographs of artworks and all are taken with the owners consent. UK galleries explicitly state which works may or may not be photographed... and restrictions here never cover sculpture and 3-dimensional work. Images not copyright in their country of origin cannot be copyright out with that country. Private galleries and collections are always expressly asked if photographs may be taken. --Stephencdickson (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, :Stephen is not exactly right about the copyright, but at least 3D art work should not have been speedy deleted. {{FOP-UK}} may apply. Could you restore these please, and create proper DRs instead? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings : I have (at Yann's suggestion) restored all the files (both 2D and 3D) and converted them to Deletion Nominations. While the photos are yours, that doesn't give the right to license as own work. You did not create the artwork, thus the licensing of all the images is incorrect.
Regarding your statement that it's all UK definition of public art... There was no indication on most of these files where they were created or exhibited. As far as I saw, only a couple of the images said they were taken in the U.K. Commons policy "COM:EVID" requires the uploader to provide source, and license information for all images. The file template of these images should also show where they are/were on display at the time of the photo. With no clue where the art was when the photo was taken it is not possible for me to apply a {{FOP-UK}} tag. That should be done by the uploader, along with a statement of where the art is/was located and whether it was/is on permanent display or a temporary exhibit. Please feel free to place comments on the Deletion Nominations: as nominator I won't be participating in the closure - that will be (as it was for the speedies) to be done by another administrator. And, it's a process not a judgement so please do not be offended that we work to protect the rights of living and recently dead artists. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The only works I have added which are not public domain are those of Louise Giblin. These images were taken with express permission in the company of both Louise and the Gallery owner. The Guy Portelli image is a personal possession. It would seem a huge task to now go through the gigantic list of nominations explaining the same thing on each one. Is this necessary to avoid deletion. It represents a huge amount of work on my part which was intended for public benefit, and definitely does not breach UK copyright law. As explained to Yenn I have 30 years experience in UK copyright but would not deign to comment on the copyright of other countries. Where a 2D image of a sculpture can be copyright, my own 2D image does not breach the copyright on other images. Certain galleries and collections DO have exclusive photography rights. These are not within the scope of my images--Stephencdickson (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If the correct licenses and location information had been included on the original uploads, none of us would have had to do any of this work. Ms. Giblin will need to send COM:OTRS form for retention of her work. This is done for the protection of the artist - the actual copyright holder. I'm sure hoping you don't take that weblink you sent me as representing law: for the U.S. works it mentions, it is 100% incorrect. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Guidance on a Suspected Sockpuppet
I'm not yet familiar with how to report Sockpuppets on Commons as compared to Wikipedia. I cannot seem to find the equivalent of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations but found on commons. Can you tell me where it is as an administrator? Another user pointed out on a number of images I put up for deletion were recreated by a Sockpuppet for a number of other accounts, who was unhappy his images were deleted. So I thought that they need to be invested and blocked if it turns out they are actually Sockpuppets.--ARTEST4ECHOtalk14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi ARTEST4ECHO: You did a wonderful job of documentation there. I don't have "checkuser" priviledges, but I am sure someone will be along to help you quickly. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Having noticed your messages here, I wanted to point out to you that the user Uroghe77 is blocked indefinitely since he is a sockpuppet of a very well-known sockpuppeteer, that is globally banned (the sockpuppeteer was blocked here for violation of copyright and abuse of multiple accounts, but his home wiki is it.wiki). Thank for your attention, Regards. And sorry for my broken English!--Caarl 95 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
R6, C8: “witch-hunt” has the wrong homonym “which”.
R7, C1: “careless” is missing an E.
R7, C4: “hypocritical” has an A that should be an I. (From Gr. κρίνω, decide, not κρατέω, rule.)
I was somewhat surprised not to see “vandal(ism)” on the original graphic, but unfortunately such accusations are thrown about so often that they might not be worth noting.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: You're exactly right, it's so overused, I failed to see it a more than a placeholder. It never fails to amaze/amuse me that users and admins find voluminous arguments more useful than uploading stuff right in the first place. Thank you very much for catching the typos in the coded version, I didn't see it well enough through a haze of hilarity! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin Beltz
Please help me clarify what I must do to properly submit this photo. Yes my own work. what do you need from me.? I am the Art Director for the BMG signed My World which is Chris's band. As I understood the resolution 800x532 at 72dpi. When You say small size do you want a larger file size or resolution? Where would I add the useful metadata? to correct this critic.? I remain open for advisement and direction. and thank you for your time in assisting me. wikipedia user : bobbyzou888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyZou888 (talk • contribs)
Hi Ellin Betz : Ok, understood. And where (how should ) I provide this information?
Hi Ellin Betz : Dear Ellen I posted the above question yesterday around 1700 my time NYC (2200 UTC). You did not reply. I was waiting for direction.
I check my Draft page with the loaded photo and I see that it has been deleted: File:DominationALbumCover(promo)Jun15.jpg Why? Is this the way you moderate entries? I was actively engaged in a conversation with you and you unilaterally delete my design. The album cover for Domination for the band My World (signed by BMG/Chrysalis) was designed by me the Art Director of My World (Chris Mungers band)
please advise. I consider your action extremely unfair considering we had not even completed the first day since the photo was flagged and I can prove it is I who is the author of all the images and designs on the Chris Munger page and after following the Wizard instructions believed I had fulfilled all parameters. this matter is important. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyZou888 (talk • contribs) 07:02 16Aug15 (UTC)
Hiya BobbyZou888 : I'd have gotten the message faster if we weren't on a weekend, in opposite time zones, and because you spelled my name wrong in the template ( {{u|Ellin Betz}} ), both times so the system did not "ping" me for your messages. Even so, I do have to sleep!
I found your uploads because one of your images had been sent as a copyright violation. In that process the rest of your gallery was reviewed. You have two photos of the same man playing guitar. One is high quality, the other looks like a camera phone picture. I nominated what looks to me like a professional photo File:ChrisMunger2014.jpg because of the small overall size of the image and the lack of any useful camera metadata on it. Usually top notch high-quality photographers upload gigantic images, 2,000x... or greater in size with high quality and metadata so when we see one of that quality small size, no metadata the image goes up for discussion. Right now for this image, please go to to its entry and explain who took the photo. This image hasn't been deleted yet; it's only up for discussion.
The File:DominationALbumCover(promo)Jun15.jpg was nominated for no fair use media on Commons by Motopark. That is what is called a {{Speedy}} deletion and it went that way because it was obviously an album/CD cover. I've bolded the parts of the upload template (copied below) which caused part of the problem. There is only have one permission for a file created by two people/entities according to the uploader who is one of them. The information on the template reads "
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Domination Album cover for #myworldband '''by Bobby Zou (Art Director) & #annidoripublicrelations''' June15}}
|date=2015-07-13
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:BobbyZou888|BobbyZou888]]
|permission={{'''self'''|cc-by-sa-4.0}}"
For this latter one, please follow the directions at COM:OTRS. There are specialized administrators there who can help sort this puzzle out. No further uploads will be required. Files which are approved by OTRS process are automagically restored.
I'm really sorry you felt that any action on my part was "extremely unfair" instead please think about protecting the rights of the creators which is what everyone here volunteers time to do. As a creator yourself, you can appreciate that the mechanism was designed for the common event that fans of a band or star-struck people upload images claiming association with the star or group. So all this difficulty is merely a process, it's all reversible and it won't happen overnight - be calm and remember COM:AGF for the admins as well as the uploaders! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
the Grove
Not sure why you deleted my photographs when I tried to communicate to you sooner that these images come from the Florida Department of State's website www.floridamemory.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabnoles1 (talk • contribs)
Hi Wabnoles1: The pictures that I worked on had not been removed, thank you for getting in touch. I had just enough time last night to fix this problem and leave messages on your talk page, and ran out of time to reply here! I left a longer message over there about the other images from floridamemory which were removed earlier and am able to help you navigate the confusing world of Commons if you wish. For one thing, I think that the building "The Grove" probably deserves its own category within Category:Buildings in Tallahassee, Florida, and so on. It was really interesting to read how the girl in your Fairy Queen picture later ended up being wife of the Governor of Florida! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
For Belarus, please see Category:Passports of Belarus for media files similar to the one you reference. One file File:Belarusian Passport (cover).jpg, contains the following information: "Public domain - This work is not an object of copyright according to the Law of the Belarus No. 370-XIII of May 16, 1996 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights... " Another file in the category is incorrectly licensed: File:Passport of Belarus.jpg but could be tagged with the tag from the other file if someone were going through the category doing administrative mopping and vacuuming.
The specific problem with the deletion which contained the file you referenced was the false claim by the uploader of "own work", not the actual copyright issue of each image from each country. Since they had no sources, and were falsely claimed "own"... they went. COM:EVID requires the uploaders to provide certain information in exchange for free hosting on Commons. Hope this helps, if not, please write back! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The deletions are inconsistent and not justified. There are two other similar pictures in the EPF categorie wich are in use. The European passenger federation has an Dutch and German article so this subject is not out of scope. This should be considered leading in any scope discussion in the Commons. Even then pictures of conferences can be usefull on its own. There was no discussion with the person not justifying his opinion. I did not put up any arguments as this seemed an obvious nonvalid case. My mistake.Smiley.toerist (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Smiley.toerist: Please feel free to nominate any pictures which you think should be put forward for discussion. Since you didn't provide me a link to the photos you'd like explained, I can only assume it was Commons:Deletion requests/File:EPF conference 2014 II.jpg, but I see that you left a comment there, so that cannot be the one you mean as you wrote "did not put up any arguments". If that was indeed the image about which you're concerned, it was considered non encylopedic as it showed (to the best of my memory) mostly a drop ceiling and a few people milling about. Please advise. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why my photo is slated to be deleted. I uploaded a photo that I own. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeqwestrealty (talk • contribs)
Hi Ellin Beltz,
The owmer of the picture, Andreas Strehler, gave the permission on 10.08.2015 by e-mail:
"Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild Papillon d'Or Gold front.jpg dass ich
Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.
Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).
Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen."
I have run into a few snags when trying to properly upload/credit images for use on Wikimedia Commons. Can you point me the right direction? I would really appreciate it.
The images in question are entirely sourced by Marquette Transportation Company, and I'm trying to help out their IT staff by figuring out this process on their behalf. I recently had one of their employees start a Flickr account and attribute the images in question with a CC-SA license. But, I still wonder if I am inadvertently creating headaches for others. Am I on the right track?
These files were nominated by @Hedwig in Washington: & deleted
They all had the same delete reason - a different camera was used for every image and permission from every single photographer was needed. Each photographer could have filed a COM:OTRS to fix this problem, but none did and the images were deleted.
Having reviewed your files and the article to which they were attached it looks to me as if your company is indulging in some self-promotion of the Wikipedia kind. I have placed "citation needed" statements at the end of each sentence in Wikipedia which requires them, removed unnecessary and unencyclopedic information and redundant repetitions of the company name from that article.
Back to your images. "Entirely sourced by Marquette Transportation Company" is an impossibility. The company has no hands with which to take a photo, and despite the Supreme Court ruling which turned "corporations into people" they still cannot release the photographic rights of others (With the usual caveats that there are some tiny exceptions to every rule - but this situation isn't it, so I'm skipping it.). The most basic point of Commons is that it is a free-image repository. Images taken from the web - including flickr - which do not have free licenses cannot be added to the project. Each image uploaded must have a source, a person who created it. A company does not take a photo - a person takes a photo. For images not created by the uploader personally, images must have a proper license (like Sam Huff at flickr), or complete the OTRS process (as on the logo image).
I will be nominating that image File:Father-pat-marquette.jpg -- Nikon photo credited to ANNAELISEPOCHE, due to the meta data crediting "Anna Elise Poche" which I'm 99% certain you aren't (especially with a first name of John ). I know this may seem that we're not being friendly or supportive, but the basic rules of the free hosting here require 100% certainty of the free licensing of the images.
Are you making more work? Yes, however you're being awfully nice about it, so it's not a problem! Your people do have access to some amazing imagery, and when we get this all sorted can make a huge contribution to the project by taking photos of the water scenes they pass on a daily basis. We just can't take the risk of providing non-free imagery and thus have this baleen-like filtering mechanism at the entry point. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions if the foregoing isn't clear enough - or it raises more questions for you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ellin -
Thank you for taking the time out to break this down for me! I'm reading through your response right now and will let you know if I have any additional questions. Thanks again!
Com:Otrs File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg
As you requested, Ron Roberts directly sent a letter to Com:Otrs on August 20th with ticket #2015010210007101 in the subject bar and received a confirmation email from permissions-commons stating "If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015082010023931]." The letter should be under one of those two ticket numbers. I would appreciate that the discussion and deletion request be closed. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you marked these images as "delete"?
The following images have been uploaded to wikimedia by me as part of a project i am working in Somali Wikipedia. I have full license and or some images where public and was allowed to share by educational purposes including the use of within Wikipedia articles in any language. I have noticed that you marked them for "deletion" because of what you called "No indication of user's own work on any of these images, writings or maps. Inconsistent sizes, no meta data and no sources."
The following images are connected to underdevelopment Somali Wikipedia pages. And i dont see any enough reason to delete them. If there are any errors or something you don't understand about them let me know so we can correct it. But do NOT delete them.
Hi Ismail4all: I carefully answered your questions here, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ismail4all. All discussion of images nominated needs to occur on the nomination page, the closing admin (keep or delete) won't read side threads. I caution you that reuploading images which were previously deleted is not a good idea, please reread the terms under which Commons can host free images, including COM:L and COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
According to the Commons:File renaming this file should not be renamed. But if you want, you can do it by yourself, each admin is a filemover ;-) I have nothing against, do your best, please.
Have a nice evening :-) Wieralee (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wieralee : That's why I always make a request and get a second opinion. I find leading punctuation very unhelpful in file management, others might not agree! Thanks for your help. BTW, I filed four more with leading periods; the rest of the images from that book don't have any, it would help if they were all the same. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In the deletion reason. You state that's a copyvio when the page states a PD-CA-Gov. I had to search why you deleted, when I should be clear, especially for a file this old. Pleclown (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The picture is from a book. CA-gov can't grant a license to what it doesn't own and/or didn't create. These old pictures are from one of those "golden-book" type fossils for kids books and the CA-gov website used the image. Just using an image on a state website doesn't release the copyright of the original creator (who wasn't acknowledged). There were several from this series, I could research it harder if you wish, but it was clear and there were other comments on the other ones in the series. One of the other sharp-eyed Commons editors pointed out the book. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Why did you delete this image? The rights to use it was received via OTRS from the manufacturer. When deleting it no proper reason was given except for "copyright violation". I had personally worked with the manufacturer to send the OTRS email. I don't see any "violation" that occurred.
"Leon Haanstra" accepted the OTRS, and the number was "Ticket#: 2015060910009491".
Done Hi Wonderfl: It's restored now. I have no idea why it was included in the batch, I didn't even find the proper set of tags. I reviewed actions on both sides of it and found no other images of yours. I restored it before writing you this note. Thank you for bringing it up. Please do help out and take a look as PicoScope has no category and it would be very helpful if you could do that. If you need help, let me know. I usually start by searching similar images, but you know more about the subject and will start with a greater advantage. Sorry for the hassle! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed! No apologies are needed, in fact I'm most grateful for your kind words. WP has become a land of wolves these days. Hardly a day passes without a bitter argument for no reason. Warm regards. I'll add what tags I can. Wonderfl (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter: Flattered I am, but concerned also at too much "power" in one person. Let me think about it, but no decision expected immediately. Thank you again for the invite! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I cannot understand what kind of violation could be involved in create a flag inspired in another flag?
They were created as a part a projects few years ago to get more autonomy in the Caribean region in Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyemail (talk • contribs)
Hi Jyemail: The flag that your pictures were copied from seems to be copyright by the creator, Kyle Lockwood. His designs occur on his webpage, marked (c). So as "derivative works" of a copyrighted image, I nominated those flags, too. It's not your fault that the copyright status of the flag you copied from was not-free. Please let me know if I can be of any additional help? Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, could you please explain why the photo of Fountain Place has been nominated for deletion? It is a Provincial Heritage Site (SAHRA file number 9/2/080/0002-307) in the Western Cape in South Africa and the photograph is owned by my husband and me. It is a photo from our website which we own: http://www.fountainplace.co.za and we live in and run a bed & breakfast at Fountain Place. The historical information is correct and the building is of historical and heritage interest and features in the museum in the village of McGregor. Thank you and I look forward to your reply, kind regards, Mcgregorlady (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Linzi (mcgregorlady)
Hello. I always change the license after a DR closing when it is needed. In the case of File:Macvey Napier by J P Slater.jpg, I am not sure whether FOP-UK applies. This artwork is part of the collection of the University of Edinburgh, but all this collection is not located in a public place (see [3] : "A large percentage of the Art Collection is on display enhancing the public, staff and student spaces of the University."). Moreover, the question of FOP is irrelevant in this case, because the sculpture was made in 1814, so it is in the public domain because it is impossible that its sculptor was still alive in 1914, so it is {{PD-old-100}}. I have not added the template {{PD-old-100}} in the image page, because up to now we do not have a consistent system for these cases where 2 copyrights are involved: the copyright of the photographer (which is CC-BY-SA) and the copyright of the photographed artwork (which is PD). So I think only mentioning the copyright of the photographer is the best thing to do. I have also expanded the description in order to make clear that this artwork is in the public domain. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Muzammil: You're very welcome. I strive every day to manifest the best that I personally can be as well as the goals of the project and to remember it's all individual people behind the keyboards, who - regardless of their expertise in their own field - may or may not be an expert in uploading to Commons! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Representation against haphazard bulk nomination-Request legitimately genuine analysis of each picture before taking final decision in a haste
Dear Sir,
I stand before the entire wikimedia fraternity as a fellow individual contributor among millions of my friends here who sacrifice their precious time, effort & energy and passionately contributed within the ambit of wikimedia, making it better knowledge based every day, someone among themselves. A contributor whose years of constructive contribution and creative freedom and valuable content addition is on the brink of collapse because of an unsubstantiated, haphazard and prejudiced nomination based on sheer imagination. There can not be a more brazen & blatantly illegitimate & malicious attempt to suppress creativity and to nullify one's sincere contributions to wikimedia commons over so many years.
As an active wikipedian since last one decade, it is a biazarre that almost all the uploaded images have been arbitrarily proposed for deletion without proper analysis and scrutiny of each of them! Some of them have been on wikimedia for over 4-5 years and are an important part of informative content in respective pages. This disturbingly harsh and prejudiced action is highly deplorable and unacceptable in Wikimedia. If you want, all the sincere wikimedia contributors to stop doing their work, please block/ban us but don't spoil the value addition contributions that are the core foundation of wikimedia
It's like one arbitrary action for anything and everything which is both impracticable and incorrect!
Sir, I humbly appeal and ask to the wikimedia community, should there be herculean restrictions on creativity and should all of us contributors be 'censored' to suit one's tailor made needs? This is very much against the spirit of this organization
Sir, As far as the official legitimacy of all the said images are concerned, I humbly ask everyone,Is there any convention/rule that prohibits or censors contributing one's own original creations or pictures of natural landscape, pictures of public figure at public functions taken by an individual and pictures from one's personal archives?
1. If I visit a public function attended by a public figure and take snaps in my individual capacity (Which is absolutely permissible both legally and officially in India & as per the wikimedia policy), will the said images will be deleted just on the pretext and unsubstantiated notion that there must be some official camera pictures present for the said function! It is a bizarre but if i click a picture of a tree or an animal or a public building or a public function and upload it on wikimedia;will it be deleted since the govt. also publishes the similar pictures? If that's the new ruthless policy then almost 95-97 percent of wikimedia pictures will cease to exist!
All the below pictures have been absolutely clicked by me and in my capacity as an individual, neither are they copyrighted nor there is any official hurdle what so ever in uploading them since I , as the author/creator is releasing them in PD as a creative contributor, so there can not be any remotest reason what so ever to remove/delete my creations based on fabricated facts and prejudiced vendetta.All these images are an indispensable part of contents and any deletion will jeopardize the very essence of people's encyclopedia i.e. Wikipedia & Wikimedia.
2.If an honorable constitutional functionary visits my private home on a personal visit and I take the snaps personally, will it be forced to be deleted? Since their official PRD machinery may have taken similar snaps. or of i visit a public function or ceremony or a cricket match and take snaps; will i be coerced & compelled to delete them?
This is draconian & a haphazard murder of creativity and contributions!
are from my personal archives, (Mind you neither official nor professional but totally Personal)
On what basis will they be deleted? Just because some one is after an old wikimedia contributor Bn bt ec01, so they must be deleted?
3. There are millions of such pictures of public figures & personalities taken by individuals and uploaded on the Wikimedia; Will all of them proposed to be deleted on similar 'one size fits all' basis? Will they be censored too without reasons?
Infact, even from my Home country India and home province Bihar; there are hundreds of similar images posted by individual contributors; will they be haphazardly deleted and removed without proper individual scrutiny?
4. Why is the wikimedia cracking down on a prejudiced idea and unsubstantiated ground? I hereby stand that all these images belong to the contributor, is there any proof/evidence that contradicts the same? Never, there just can't be!
5. If the wikimedia administrators want to ban, censor, arbitrarily edit/delete and impose restrictions on a legitimate contribution by a author, Please ban/block me from Wikimedia and block hundreds of un-named un-sung volunteers like me who had spent hours & days & years for making wikimedia a global success.
6. There may be technical problems in labeling relevant license but that does not entitle one to delete the entire work! Also, if some picture is already in public domain, how could they be modified/erased if the author has cited veritable source from where the picture is taken?
I henceforth, request learned volunteers at wikimedia and would only hope that Justice will be done to me, for this will not be an individual case but the case of every single contributor from India
7. All the listed images should be individually discussed and not merely arbitrarily deleted based on ir-rational beliefs and autocratic censorship
8. I humbly request, Sir,please block me, ban me, despise me and ban hundreds of contributors like me, but don't ruin valuable contributions in a haphazard and blatantly incorrect manner
9.There should be a wider platform to discuss technical glitches and copyright issues but that must not become the playground to distort and damage meaningful contributions
10. Like every sincere wikimedia contributor, I stand by my work and will revert the destructive edits because there has been grave discrepancy conducted in nominating them in a bulk without meticulous individual analysis.I know, I may be banned/blocked; I am ready for it, as long as spirit of Wikimedia stands tall
Thanks for the note about COM:OTRS. I have reached out to all the various mapmakers and instructed them to send the permissions email. Hopefully they will respond in a timely manner. Apologies for breaking procedure!
--Munion (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Munion: Please leave a message on the Deletion Nominations themselves that you are awaiting correspondence. If the correspondence arrives after the images (might perhaps maybe) have been deleted, they can be restored by the OTRS editors without additional work from you. Thank you for understanding that this is a process not a judgement. Next time, OTRS first! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for the delay in replying, my internet was down - someone cut a fibre optic cable and disconnected a large corner of the state!
Hi Cara kerr: The file was deleted by Hedwig in Washington because it was taken from http://www.tiara-mily.com/ website Tiara Mily, which site has text at the bottom which reads "Copyright(C)2013 Tiara Mily Corporation. All Rights Reserved." Commons is not able to host non-free images and so the file was removed from view. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps I do a mistake with the license type. I have changed it to {{PD-textlogo}} Is te same type of license that I had view at File:Logotipo Podemos.svg. These files ( File:Podemos RM2.jpg and File:LOGOPRMcolor.png) are logos for a regional branch of "Podemos", a Spanish political party, in the administrative territory of "Región de Murcia". If you think that´s not correct, can you tell my what I can do? Thanks in advance P.S. I have not good skills to write english so escuse me for my bad. --Lofesa (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lofesa: Your English is great! What is needed now is the source... The "description" line reads " Logotipo del partido político de España "Podemos" en Región de Murcia". And the source says own work. Since it's an official logo, there must be a website, or some source. This information goes where you have own work because you aren't the organization and probably didn't design their official logo. You are correct this is PD-textlogo for license! Even with the license, a reference to the source is still needed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I have sustitued source from own work to url to the official website images. These logos can be found in a image search in Google but I think is better source the official website. Is that all? If you think any other issues with these images, please let me a message and I try to accomplish with the issues. Sorry for all the work I force you has to do --Lofesa (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I've change the regsitration of Cremieux. If it's not enough for you, go F... and DELETE ! I'v leave Wpfr because of people like you. Vous êtes de vrais Minables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean de Parthenay (talk • contribs)
Greetings Jean de Parthenay: I am sorry you feel you need to curse and insult instead of just following the very simple rules of providing a source and license for your files. I've converted the "no source" to a deletion nomination since you have not yet provided information about where the image came from. Please see COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin, delete or not. But i warn you : YOU WILL DESTROY a precious work for Wp... I dont care anymore.. It's YOUR PROBLEM. i dont work on wp since years. And i wont come back. Jean de Parthenay (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: I find your threats immaterial to the situation. If you would merely provide a source of the image and stop the useless drama the situation would be solved. But if you prefer to keep insulting me, that's your problem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Unsure, why you deleted this w/out discussion. Logo is more than 100 yrs old (Brazil Copyright for audiovisual 70 yrs after publication) and COM:TOO. Kindly undelete, if need add template PD-Brazil-media. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi OAlexander: According to the source page, http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/sao-cristovao-de-futebol-e-regatas, "You hereby agree that you agree to the Terms of Use and that the artwork you download will be used for non-commercial use without infringing on the rights of the copyright and/or trademark holder and in compliance with the DMCA act of 1998..." Because they state that the images are for non-commercial use only, it may not be hosted on Commons and thus was nominated by Yann and deleted by me. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ellin: Brandsoftheworld does not own the copyright for the design, and this is what matters in this regard. If I draw a logo of Coca-Cola I cannot tell others how to use it, unless I own the rights to the design. The trademark rights here belong fully to São Cristovão FR, the copyright has expired. Nobody has that much time. Pls undelete. Thank you and cheers. OAlexander (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@OAlexander: Hi, There was no date provided for this file. Can you provide that with a reference? There were 3 licenses for this file, and as far as I can tell, none fit for this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: : The file can be dated 1943, when it was created from the crests of São Cristovão de Regatas (that's the anchor in the top left) and São Cristovão Atlético Clube after the clubs merged. The base design of the the whole shebang has been commonplace at least since the 1920s or earlier and been used by numerous other clubs: this exlcludes even claims to originality.
Ellin Beltz: Change the source of the file to my name. It has technically nothing to do whatsoever with Brandsoftheworld, which inserted because I am a courteous person. Next: what part of the notion that Brandsoftheworld has created a copy of a trademarked symbol, which does not whatsoever give them any rights to the design. Not whatsoever, notwithstanding what they say on their website. Copyright they may claim for their own designs; and yes, they have such things on their website too. You have no valid arguments here. The source of a file is meaningless in terms of determining copyright! It gives you an idea about the validity of the content. Thus the file is determined by age and originality. Age is audivisual Brazil 70years after publication fulfilled, originality in historical context is zilch.
In summary, I would be highly appreciative of you kindly could treat what I say in this case somewhat more respectful! Thank you very much for your kind attention. May I kindly say, that NOBODY on this planet has that much tome to deal with trivial nonsense of this kind. I have bills to pay and very little time for endless discussions of this kind. Apart from formal politeness, the utter absence of any real respect one is given here is disdainful. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@OAlexander: If you wish a file undeleted, the process is to go to COM:UNDEL and briefly state your case. An uninvolved admin will take a look at the situation. I told you why it was nominated and Yann has also explained. The admins at UNDEL can take a fresh look at the situation without any possibility of bias. Thank you for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
May I request that you reconsider: Commons:Deletion requests/File:01.1Sketch "White Eustis House".png? I ask that you link to the research being done by visiting two pages that may provide background context for the utility of the sketch. I have tonight submitted the sandbox article called, "Cincinnati architecture study in formal analysis drawings" ahead of my original intended submission date, in an effort to answer your deletion request on behalf of User:BrandonHicks1
I am working on an article about formal analysis of Cincinnati architecture and hope to use all of the drawings in that effort. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Inglert (talk • contribs)
Hi Eric Inglert: I think it would be best for your sandbox article to wait to see what the Wikipedia community replies. As for the images, I still do not see that they have any encyclopedic value to the project as a whole, but the place to write your concerns about them is not here, but on the Deletion Nomination as directed on the uploader's talk page. The system here works that one person nominates and then the other people discuss and finally an administrator closes the discussion based on the specifics of that single image. Please be aware there are many things that the Wiki projects are not (e.g. COM:NOT. Student classwork has consistently been among the list of "nots" for all obvious reasons, along with doodle art. Also to put it as someone once said on a similar discussion "Commons is not your personal cloud." There are dozens of places to get free blog and image space for your classes. But do please reply on the deletion nominations. Commons policy will not incorporate any talk page discussions into the final decision because each image is evaluated on its own merits. Please always sign your notes with four ~~~~ tildas, those will autosign and date your notes... I also took the libery to add the appropriate linking formats to the deletion nomination and the User name. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin,
I am trying to submit a page about West Who, a micronation. There are a number of different micronations in Wikipedia. The pictures I uploaded are part of a draft article which I recently submitted. If they are deleated it will effect the draft. What should I do?
John Farr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horton225 (talk • contribs)
how are you ? i find this box( sender message box) very difficult !!!!!
you send a message about my media : File:Bakhtiar & Solo , Azna , Iran نانوایی سنگکی بختیار و سولو.jpeg
this picture take by me in my city . and have license. what is problem??? Hamid Soufi (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hamid Soufi : That is a really pretty message box, but you don't have to do all that work, just type below this message:
"Iranian magazine" unfortunately isn't a useful source for File:Seyed abdolah behbahani سید عبداله بهبهانی در زمان مشروطیت.jpg. If I told you "go to TIME Magazine you will find the photo" you would say "but in what year, what month?" So "Iranian Magazine" has the same problem. It's not a source of the image, and doesn't show any license information.
I hope this helps you understand what happened with these images, for future uploads please read COM:L first. It will help you avoid mistakes! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it wise and legitimately permissible to nominate the entire contributions made by a volunteer so far in last 5-6 years in one go without due consideration on prejudiced assertion ? That's too in an arbritarily haphazard manner? Jus because you have rights doesn't means to misuse it and suppress some one.
With respect to the link you have provided above in the discussion , Dear SIR
please let a neutral transparent look at both the pictures and let every one genuinely assess
Both the pictures are of the same event taken by different persons from different angles/positions and the prejudiced assertion that the same picture has been uploaded by me is sheer fabrication of facts! Infact just a few seconds of careful observation will prove that both are same event pictures but are Completely different
Pls answer my query, hundreds of people like me were present on the occassion , dozens of media houses, diff. Govt PRDs have covered the public event, does that mean that I can not upload snap taken by myself since already some media house has released a similar (but not same/identical ) of it on its website? Please Please carefully look and confirm sir, they are not the same at all!
I stand by every word in the above argument presented by me against blatant incorrect nomination , contesting the veritability and originality of creations of a sincere contributor
I can concede that there may be technical problems relating to license but that doesn't mean that I should be barred from rectifying it
I again request you, please analyse every single file/image blatantly nominated, there's is no verifiable evidence that contradicts my genuine arguments
Also, when the scanned images from documents that are legitimately in public domain are uploaded, a suitable license may be updated
The pertinent reality is, how could the images taken by oneself during public functions and of public buildings be nominated just for name sake? That's too without proper discussion? They were not uploaded over night but over last 4-5 years but today in a brazen manner they all have been nominated today
Also, pls note that, if I have got a picture developed(In old days there used to be camera reel unlike today) and scanned my own clicked snaps and uploaded it, obviously it will show HP Scan
PLEASE ANALYSE AND THROUGHLY assess the files but don't just put forward hastily made conclusion
I request you young lad, please proceed with reason and credible facts and do not be automatically autocratic, it's a platform for all to be creative and not the property of one's whims and fancies
Our admin must help us get things technically correct and not suppress us!
Hi, Last spring, Saqib got some pictures of Pakistanese celebs from a famous photographer ([4], from File:Mahreen Raheel.JPG until File:Ali Zaffar.jpg). This photographer agreed to send a permission through OTRS, but it seems it was not done. Now he agrees again to send a permission. Do you agree the files to be undeleted with a {{OTRS pending}} template? It would be easier for the photographer if he can check the pictures while sending the permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to be a bit less strict for pictures uploaded in 2005. We have to accept that the source may not be provided if other evidences show that it is not a copyright violation. Idem for OTRS permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yann: I have been finding a lot of sources even for the oldest images - you'd be amazed at what all is cross indexed now for photo comparison. In no source work, many times it's only one or two of the person's early pictures and a simple message on their talk page gets them to go back and improve the files. Another huge group of no sources that I work with are missing or broken template files, where a curly bracket or two will solve the problem. More sourcing is with historicals - where the image shows up in a collection of a museum or at another credible source. I've even managed to upload a few of higher quality and improve our holdings. Other sourcing regards the images images which are obviously own work of uploader (same camera, same day, same place, forgot something in template) but have no source. Those I change to own. Please see my contributions, I have variable ways of reporting the file changes including "fill in template", "fix template to show source", "source = own" and so on.
Let me also say that I do not disagree with you only the perception that I am "strict" about old pictures. I'm not targeting older images; I'm going through "without source" and find that many must just be left with "no action" being the only possible outcome at present. Obvious copyvios and images way out of scope (holiday snaps, baby pictures, grainy ancients "from family album") no matter how old will get nominated because there's no reason for Commons to accumulate decades of junk files either. If we believe that this project will last for a long time, it would be best to clear the old stuff gradually along with keeping close eye on all the people who didn't read and/or understand COM:L before hitting 'upload'.
In the interest of personal non-burnout on the process, I alternate my time between categorizing... sourcing old images... and looking at newer uploads. That way I don't feel like I'm some vulture hanging over the entry portal awaiting fresh carrion. And yes, I do nominate some real ancients along the way. Sometimes whole categories of ancient files appear just from the most random searches or associations. I also search out the Majedi hoax every few days and keep removing those images and their sockmasters (over forty so far). So I think I have a very varied output of effort with no particular interest or position on older files. In fact most of the ancients I find that seem hopeless I just leave in the category for someone else or time to solve them, hence why I don't see myself as "strict" on them. I keep hoping someone with more computer coding ability could write a "comparison google/tineye checker" for all incoming images and the category no source, and if they're found, to apply a tag perhaps so that they can be looked at as a class, perhaps even botted somehow. As the number of uploads increase, automation of as many tasks seems the only way to keep up. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
PS Yann: If it's File:Tatjavanavark-machine.jpg that image you're referring to, the machine was made by a private person in 2002, photographed by the person who owns the website from which it was taken, http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvv1/pht10.html. That webpage contains no license information. The user who uploaded the image also uploaded several others from other people's websites. Email with some other third party is unlikely to have been with the creator of the image and I've seen many claims of email permission that did not hold up before. There's no indication the uploader owns the website from which the image was taken. So I think that DN was perfectly necessary. I was a little surprised that you kept it just now when I saw it come up in the watchlist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I need Help. User Amitie asked me to stop vandalizing commons. I replied to him that I am just mass nominating for deletion a few images, that if he does not agree about it, he can write that in the proper deletion request. But I need him to revert that and I apologize about it. Why? Because I do not want anyone checking my talk history to figure it out that I am a vandal. Have I done anything to receive the last warning, even not the first one, but the last warning? If I am wrong, please explain me. Thanks for your reply, --Osplace (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Osplace: Please see [5]. I have archived that box with an explanation that I disagree with it; it will not be visible to any casual user. Once this situation is solved (perhaps a week or two) be sure there is something else on the archive page (any photo or comment will do) and then you can delete that box. It will still show in history but will not be visible to the casual visitor. If there's any more difficulties, please feel free to message me again - or email me if it's urgent! Also you can always archive anything from your talk page! Take a peek at some of the vitriol in my archives - after a while some of it's almost humorous... "oh ya, I remember when...." kind of stuff. I hope you are smiling again; I personally don't think you did anything wrong. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ellin Beltz, this is greatly appreciated. Is important to realize I am not the only one who think I have not done anything wrong. I still need the apology for that user. And about the Mass nomination I have started, why have not anyone go there and vote? Osplace (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Question
Not own work: User did not design the uniform or the logo of the team. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
So how do I change the copyrights to credit the university and NCAA with trademark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanton49 (talk • contribs)
Hi Stanton49: I see you have had quite a few files deleted over time and have received a final warning from Yann. I assume you are referencing the following three files.
I reviewed your gallery. For me to help you, I need to know a couple of things: First you find out from the University and the NCAA how they handle their trademarks because obviously you personally cannot sign them off as "own work". Second, where did all the photos in your gallery come from? I see a pile of different kinds of phones, and several cameras. Did you take all those yourself, or are they from university materials? Knowing the answer to these two questions, will help me help both you and the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you getting back to me. Yann already explained to me the copyright issues and I will be reloading the images using Wikipedia uploader with proper copyright since Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a fair use policy for these types of images. Thanks again.
URGENT Attention
Please check the following multiple files uploaded on Wikimedia-they seems to be absolute promotional uploads amounting to bias & Vandalism
Actually I see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Suraj yadav2005, which shows these files were previously kept by Yann. If you wish a review of the Deletion request, Yann's the admin with whom to start. As it says in the close, the pictures appear old enough to be retained, but no one added {{PD-India}} tags to them making them still look wrong. I agree also they're most likely not own work of the uploader and that might also wish to be changed to an {{unknown}} tag instead. COM:EVID requests the uploaders to do this, however this one has not been active in several years and perhaps the mops & buckets need to come out! Thank you for your note. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The pictures can not be in public domain as per copyright acts since Mr. B P MANDAL was active in public life during 1970s and in no way any of the pictures is more than 50 years old! Also, it is more of a redundant edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.5.169 (talk • contribs)
Closes this discussion on this talk page
ping Tuválkin, Yann & I'd ping the sender too if he/she were not on constantly dynamic address.
There are processes for this which are not on my talk page. Anon, if you think these should be deleted, start a deletion nomination. I'm not supportive of a private war from a constantly changing IP and the apparent expertise in some areas of markup and lack of understanding in others (i.e. (+) file syntax but (-) signature and login) to continue this discussion in private.
In brief, either man up and get an account, or take this to the original closing admin as directed in the above paragraph. This message will remain until sundown (12 hours) and it will be archived. Any additional anonymous correspondence on this matter will also be immediately archived without action or referral by this admin. This discussion is closed here without action on my part and no action will be taken by me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
RFA notices
Hi, in line with some of the suggestions in my RFA, and based on IRC discussion, it might actually be a sensible approach to extend the deadline from my RFA and put a neutral notice on the Village Pump. This would attract a wider range of viewpoints from the general community and reduce the possible effect that off-wiki canvassing has had. We have no current written guidelines about canvassing or RFA notification, I'm genuine in suggesting that a discussion on AN might benefit the community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fæ: I think with 50% no and 50% yes it might be advisable to withdraw the request until a future date. I don't see any reason to extend the time of this one. You have mentioned this 'offwiki canvass' a pile of times but I personally see no evidence of it. No one but you has contacted me about your RfA. Of course you are welcome to begin any discussions you wish! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The canvassing was not by email, as mentioned it's off-wiki, if you haven't seen it that's a good thing.
There's only a day left for the current RFA, I think it's better to let people have a chance to express a viewpoint, though unfortunately very few of the negative votes provide any evidence I can review ("judgement" without a diff is particularly hard to interpret). I'll consider the value of raising the question later on AN of how to notify the community more widely in advance of my next RFA. As there are no guidelines, I suspect that unless something is set down, then any action I take will be subject to complaints. As mentioned this has been going on for 4 years, so something ought to change so we can deal with it more appropriately. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Several warnings...
I have seen the several warnings in User_talk:AlvoMaia. I believe everything is fixed now, and the doubts concerning permissions cleared out. The maps were from Google maps, but ok you were right for the warning and now I used map images available in Wikipedia.
Hi : FYI "from Google Maps" is usually copyright, besides that some things are still wrong with some of the files. I have fixed File:Mapa de Reinel (rodado) e a costa do México.png to show you how to handle the licenses for images you used from Wikimedia Commons. If you crop an image and stick it next to another image -- that is not own work. You have to credit the licenses of the photos you used. I would call your attention to the syntax [[:File:Pedro Reinel 1485.png]] which results in display " File:Pedro Reinel 1485.png " for saying "this picture is source". I am glad you put the sources, but that's not the same thing as the license. I know this is all complicated but it's very well explained on that list of instructions on the top of your user talk page and also through COM:L. Please let me know when you have updated the other file templates in this manner. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I got it all fixed now. It makes sense, and I'm sorry for some shortcuts from my part. Nevertheless, I just would like to point out that the responsibility of cuting or joining two different parts I considered that "own work". But of course, it should refer to the previous work. I hope it is ok now. AlvoMaia (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I left messages on each of the pages and one on your talk page. I also archived all the notice boxes for you so they don't clutter up your user page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Osplace : Just put a {{watermark}} watermark tag on it, and someone who takes them off will find it and remove it. The image is ok on flickr and it passed flickr review here. Thank you for asking! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I do not really understand what you mean. I have answered to all the comments on my talk page, including the last comment by Stephencase504. I answered within 5 minutes. Is it good enough? Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi BrightRaven: I just don't see the answers on your talk page. Are you answering at the user's pages? My suggestion relates to the idea that it looks like (to a casual viewer like myself) that there are no answers on your talk page, only questions. I meant no disrespect, just wondering how you handled this. Perhaps a note on your page that you reply on Other pages and thus unthread the convo would be helpful? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
These two pictures were deleted for copyright violation. Note that the source (http://pierrenantel.npd.ca/a-propos) indicates at end of page that all images are subject to Creative Commons License (BY-NC-ND). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 450gv (talk • contribs)
Hi 450gv: The bottom of that page for source reads "Images made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0 International." That license is incompatible with Commons because it prohibits commercial use and derivative works. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians
Hi Ellin Beltz,
You have been nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!
Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.
Hi Texyalen: Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ente sun fall.jpg deleted by Hedwig in Washington after a week available for discussion. If you'd like to contest the deletion, please leave a brief and reasonably polite message at COM:UNDEL. The nomination was based on factors in COM:SCOPE the reading of which is always a good idea prior to uploading. In brief, personal artworks are more appropriate for personal websites, Facebook, Redbubble or Cafe Press, and art-appreciation sites such as DeviantArt; they're outside the scope of Commons. And regarding your comment about jerk, we could use more pictures in that category: Category:Jerk (mechanics). At present we only have eleven. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
All the images i upload on my account are my owned. how to prove that let me know the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyyadav (talk • contribs)
Hi Rubyyadav: Please follow the form at COM:OTRS. "Owned" is not the same thing as "I hold copyright" btw. I wouldn't suggest to you that you claim you own the various pages of newspapers formerly uploaded. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, You closed this as deleted, but it is still there. Also the images which use this template should be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you could do that for me. I am sorry, I didn't realize the images needed to go at the same time and now I'm out of time because I have to go to work. I really appreciate your help. Also could you take a look at [6] and see if you think this person has uploaded from too many cameras? Thank you so much for your help, sorry to ask you to finish this for me, but otherwise it will be 8 to 10 hours (or tomorrow) before I can do it! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, but then it may have to wait. Most other nominations by this user were kept, and I think that his/her copyright understanding is poor. I don't know myself about this one, and I don't want to delete these files without more expert opinions. Anyway, this template was created 5 years ago, it could wait for a few days. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Yann I assumed that deleting the template would remove it from all those pages, doesn't it autoremove? Also not all those pictures seem eligible for deletion, would it not be best to put them for individual DNs if they seem controversial? As always your advice greatly sought. I have reverted my incomplete deletion to give more time to examine the photos. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Please specify, why do you think that the file is out of scope? It depicted the directors of presumably notable movie, so I suppose the photo can be used in that article. --INS Pirat (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi : Did you read the Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC 7983.JPG? The nomination says specifically why it was nominated for out of scope, and my close reads "unused, out of scope". The image had no names, no link to the movie, no information of why this picture of two guys heads is any more important that two other guys heads. It was nominated on 27 August and deleted nearly a month later after (a) no one fixed the description to explain why the image is educational and (b) no one used the image in any articles. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Football club logos uploaded by Nemigo
Hi, I want to talk about that deletion because I think that the files are correct, perhaps I could fullfill the information of the files:
Yes, Elisardojm. You'd need a statement that the logos were public domain to begin with before the derivative works. The pages you link do not show the license on the logo given by the sports clubs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That files aren't logos, it are coat of arms, and the files created by Nemigo aren't the same that uses that sports clubs, that files are created based on the description of the coat of arms, and that descriptions hasn't copyright because it don't surpass the Threshold of originality.
The description of the coat of arms of Deportivo da Coruña is: "Cinturón de caballero que rodea el pendón morado de la Sala Calvet y bandera de Galicia. Corona Real en el centro del pendón y sobre el escudo." "Man belt surrounding purple standard of Sala Calvet and flag of Galicia. Royal Crown at center of standard over the coat of arms" [7]. I think that that description is in PD because it doesn't surpass the threshold of originality. The same is for the others coat of arms. Thanks, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Elisardojm: I'd suggest that you file a request at COM:UNDEL and let a different admin take a look at your request? That provides checks and balances. There were no sources for these descriptions of the "coats of arms" you describe linked from the pages. The sources you've linked above are actual images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, I forgot about this one when I did Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Tamil Eelam.svg and meant to add it later but again slipped my mind, but it's the same logic and image -- the source of the image is the deleted one and the flag is that of a private organization. Can it be deleted as a copyvio referring the earlier discussion? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please be more specific about how most of these images seem to be covered under PD-FinlandGov tag? And about how these a few that you deleted seem more problematic than the rest? I think it's clear that one of the users that voted for "keep" had his argument based on a misinterpretaion of the law. Other user who voted for "keep" on the other hand made very vague claims that make it almost impossible to say something solid about the copyright status of these images. I could nominate images separately, but all of them would be nominated for the same reason as in this mass nomination. The images that I picked for nomination are those that seem most likely to be independent works not covered under PD-FinlandGov. Possibly for a few of these nominations we could find some evidence that make an image seem like not an independent work. But then again per precautionary principle it should be shown for each image that they are really free to be kept, not the other way around, isn't it? 90.191.109.908:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anon: As stated in that close "I would not oppose individual re-nominations of any additionally disputed image of this large group; large batches of variable situation images are not usually easy to close." It is nearly impossible to close out dozens of images under one reason. If you'd like to renominate in smaller batches that may actually be possible to find 100% similarity in images/licenses, I would not oppose such and would work on each of those individually.
The most significant statement for me in the discussion was
This earlier DR repeates the same baseless claims for "keep" as the recent DR. It only refers (see citation in recent DR) to an opinion which questions if the law should have provisions that it has on independet works. But the law hasn't changed regarding this matter ever since this opinion was voiced. Also, this specific image being an "integral part" part of the document was discussed in recent DR. It's not cited in the source document, publishing the document without this illustration could not affect the message of the document in this specific case. So it's unclear in what sense is the work an "integral part" and overall it remains unclear why this earlier DR was dropped in the first place.
Well, it's common to all nominated images that they are wihtout any explanations why the attatced license tag could be considered appropriate (i.e in what sense on solid grounds are the specific works not independent works). The evidence is pretty much missing. 90.191.109.916:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to renominate - but I suggest doing so in smaller batches more applicable to the images contained within, rather than a giant mass nomination. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I came here so that you could perpahs help me figure out why the larger batch wasn't applicable to the images contained within. This being unclear, I don't see much of a point renominating. Currently it seems that our policies on precautionary principle and on providing evidence are just being ignored. 90.191.109.916:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. All I can suggest to you is to not nominate several dozen images of various types under a single deletion nomination. If you really feel strongly that your position hasn't been listened to, there's an administrator's noticeboard, a Village Pump and other avenues of communication. But based on the nomination you presented with a large number of files attached, and after the prior deletion nomination referenced above, I didn't see any reason to delete those files. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC) PS: Have you considered getting an account? It does speed up communication.
Could you please at least try to sum up some actual solid reasons to believe that nominated images are actually free (i.e why they are not independent works in sense of the law) and that PD-FinlandGov tag applys? Refering to a claim that is either already disproved or simply baseless doesn't really explain anything, does it. Closing nominations like this just messes things up more than they already were messed up. While per precautionary principle the goal is that copyright status for every uploaded image has to be clear. Also, you deleted for instance File:Elisabet Rehn.jpg. Why was the nomination more applicable to this image than to the rest? 90.191.109.919:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me point you upward on this discussion :The most significant statement for me in the discussion was
What I'd suggest now is that you nominate Just One Image for deletion and let us discuss the copyright situation of Just One Image. You will get a much more cogent discussion if we're not also having to review dozens of photos as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I already replied to that upward quote and I showed why this makes no sense.
In recent DR we aleady discussed some specific images: File:Rajavartijoita_passintarkastuksessa.jpg, File:Level crossing accident in Nivala.jpeg, File:Conscript duty NCO wearing a gorget.jpg. We could of course discuss all other images one by one too to see if they could be considered non-independet works. But all in all it's the same case for all of the recently nominated images: in a set of images which being free is highly doubtful all the images lack an evidence that they are free. Again, per COM:EVID the burden of proof lies on those in favor of keeping the image, not the other way around. Current experience is that on this matter our policies or simply ignored. So what would it really change if I nominate smaller batches or single images? 90.191.109.906:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what it would change, but neither do you until you try it. A talk page is not a venue for this discussion; a Deletion Nomination is. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Gentile Ellin Beltz, sono io e solo io l'autore delle foto eliminate da Commons, in particolare quella di M.La Spina, tomba Geremia. Le foto dell'affresco di Paolo Vasta sono pure mie, con la differenza che esse, scattate intorno al 1926, sono della mia famiglia e incollate su carta, non appartenendo ad alcun volume pubblicato. Perchè avete distrutto tutto? Tra l'altro è sparito il mio nome (Giancaxio) dai registrati di Wikipedia. Che fare?--82.53.99.15514:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
google translate Dear Ellin Beltz, I'm just me and the author of the deleted photos from Commons, in particular that of M.La Spina, grave Jeremiah. Pictures of the fresco by Paolo Vasta are also mine, with the difference that they, taken around 1926, are of my family and glued on paper, not belonging to any book published. Because you have destroyed everything? Among the other it is gone my name (Giancaxio) by registered Wikipedia. What to do?
Hi 82.53.99.155: Your request seems to relate to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giancaxio. The user talk page of that uploader is at User talk:Giancaxio and has not been removed. The problem with the images was stated at the Deletion nomination "Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giancaxio". The uploader, User Giancaxio could now go to COM:UNDEL and give reasons, for these files to be restored. As it is now, we have an anonymous editor claiming ownership of images previously claimed owned by Giancaxio. I am assuming the fresco to be by Pietro Paolo Vasta (Acireale, 31 luglio 1697 – Acireale, 28 novembre 1760) so that is old enough, however the photographs... the question is who actually took those before they were put on paper, not in a book? Most of us are not old enough to have been taking photographs in 1926. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
75 images tagged for deletion & deleted
Hi ... an individual was "suspect" of the copyright of an image that I had put up at Wikimedia Commons (the copyright was righteous) that person then tagged for deletion all 75 images I had uploaded since 2007. Now all of those images are gone. I think it is terribly unfair to tag all the images at one time. I would be happy to email and to explain to the group that checks copyrights for one image, but 75! Come on ... that's just plain mean! For me to write and send 75 emails, that is really too much to ask. However, the person who did this terrible thing most likely is sitting back in his / her little dark cave ... enjoying the fact that he / she ruined the pages of some very talented musicians, actors, & artists. Shame on Wikimedia and Wikipedia for allowing creeps to become editors. Editors need to be vetted. Chaos4tu (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chaos4tu: Let's keep the discussion on my and your user talk pages instead of spreading it over dozens of pages. And please also stop your personal attacks, your comment above would be enough for a long block on it's own. --Didym (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The link you suggested....
You wrote me to send an email to "OCT" something. I read that the volunteers that run that link are overwhelmed with work. Perhaps, it would take more than a month and that they must have very specific information, but the information they want is not specified. So, how do I know what to send? Do they want my birth certificate, my driver's license, credit card, or what? Please tell me what exactly to I put into the email? Thanks Chaos4tu (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes Chaos4tu: I did give you the link, it's about 1 inch above this just look up and click on it. The instructions over there are complete, there is no reason for me to retype their whole page of instructions here as well. Everything you need is on that page and thousands of people have managed to send in the information merely by reading that page. All the Commons volunteers here are behind, what else is new? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ellin, I came across this nomination of yours through some images on en.wiki that I wanted to tag. Now the uploader left a message on my talk page and on looking again I found that he has gone and removed the deletion discussion tags and changed the licenses on some files (e.g. this set of edits. Joining this editor is User:Sunny singh9128 who I blocked on en.wiki about 12 hours ago for persistent copyvios over four years. He is also involved in this business of randomly changing the license tag of the files. I can't say for sure if there's socking involved, but this is a major mess right now as the copyvios are creeping into multiple articles on en.wiki and I can't figure out what to do with it. Can you please take a deeper look on this and/or request action here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg
Deleted images from newspaper La Presse "may be freely distributed on the internet..." (La Presse)
I am writing, first of all, for the user Mlaucke since his health is not perfect at present. My name is Dave and I have been his assistant for many years.
The present communication concerns the following document, which is an article that appeared in a French newspaper called La Presse.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg
1) Toutefois, la Loi sur le droit d’auteur permet aux enseignants et aux étudiants de sauvegarder, de télécharger, de montrer, d’échanger et de transmettre les ressources librement accessibles sur Internet dans leur environnement pédagogique. Les textes sur Internet ou sur des sites Web qui ne comportent aucune interdiction de reproduction peuvent donc être intégrés au recueil à distribuer aux étudiants ou à verser sur une plateforme sécurisée.
AND
2) interdisant la reproduction en plusieurs exemplaires des articles provenant d’Eureka.cc pour d'autres personnes, les documents repérés dans cette base de données peuvent tout de même être intégrés à un recueil de textes et reproduits à des fins d’enseignement.
In a nutshell, this says that, regarding reproducing articles from La Presse, "the Law on copyright allows people to save, upload, display, share and transmit them (newspaper articles from La Presse) freely on the Internet for educational or informative purposes." One is NOT allowed to reprint and distribute La Presse articles for personal financial gain (obviously not our case). ...thus "prohibiting multiple copying of newspaper articles for other people. Furthermore, La Presse newspaper articles may be integrated into a collection of texts and reproduced for educational and informative purposes".
I hope this helps somewhat to clarify the use of this newspaper article and other newspaper articles, (and our good faith :), articles we uploaded to contribute to users' material in the realm of the classical guitar.
I understand that there was also an issue with our highlighting certain phrases to help users save time and get to the most interesting parts of these newspaper articles. If you wish, we can upload original, un-highlighted versions, of these newspaper articles, if need be.
Thank you so much for taking the time, and applying your attention to making Wikipedia the magnificent achievement that it is!
all my very best wishes, Dave Bradley 74.56.38.175 04:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Mlaucke (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Many thanks and kindly excuse our rather novice way of responding and navigating the Wikipedia interface; we are obviously beginners and the learning curve is admittedly ...ongoing, at the moment. We will keep the conversation on User_talk:Mlaucke . best wishes, Michael --Mlaucke (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin Beltz, Thanks for checking my file. I think that File:MongkutChulalongkornU.png is emblem of thai public university and this university is operated by Royal Thai government. What should I do with this deletion nomination to remain this file. How can I do? Please tell me and I will fix it to the right way. Thanks --BunBn (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)BunBn
Hello! I added where this file were from. Can you please check it. I lost one file, a yellow box with green cross on it. Thanks. Ras Benjih 10:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras Benjih (talk • contribs)
Re: File:Alexander Garnet Brown.jpg: I have a letter addressed to me from AG Brown with this signature on it. I posted the letter as my own work and outlined it on the file? Not sure what you mean when it's not correctly featured on the site? Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: File:Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg: I took this picture and this is the orginal? What is missing in the file to make this my own work, I added comments to the file when I uploaded it?Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi : I've converted both of them to deletion nominations to gain more time. All discussions of DN's should occur on the individual Deletion Nomination so that the closing administrator (not me) has as much material to work with as possible. In summary...
Please add to that page itself, not the discussion page, what you put here on my talk page. Whatever is put on a talk page, has no bearing on the discussion about the image.
I outlined the problems with this file, same as previous image, please discuss at the DN. I won't close out either of those files, another administrator - based on what they see on those pages - will make the decision.
There is an appeals process too at COM:UNDEL should an image of yours be removed and you feel it was done incorrectly, a third admin will take a look at it for you. Most of these are procedural; files need to have proper information right after upload so that in 10 years some other poor admin doesn't have to pull the plug without you around to provide information. You might also want to read COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, Re: File:Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg: you seem to be assuming bad faith here. Obviously, the original photo was not taken with an iPhone. Our incredibly shitty upload tools make it almost impossible for a user to correctly upload a photo like this. The solution to that problem is not to open DR's on images like this. It's to fix our upload tools. Please make that happen. It's urgent. It's important. In the interim. you shouldn't DR's as bludgeon. --Elvey (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am in the picture and was attending the event when the picture was taken by an in-law(not sure who, no one remembers). The picture was printed poster size so I couldn't scan of it and I don't have a negative scanner. I used an iPhone to take a picture of the poster print and uploaded that version to the site. So yes I am in the picture and I took the picture of the picture. I hope that clears those conflicting statements. My when my grandmother died they were going to place the print in the garbage, I saved it. (presumably Jbignell, signed out) 18:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Understanding when PD-*Gov* applies - e.g. to unpaid work.
As User:Clindberg recently said on his talk page, "If a work was done in the course of their employment, paid or not, it's a work for hire and the government entity would own the copyright. It's only works made for personal purposes which would still be a private copyright. Carl Lindberg 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)" You seem to be unaware that, IIRC, there's an informed, consensus view 'round here that it generally doesn't matter whether the creator is paid or volunteer, when it comes to PD-USGov applicability. Please educate yourself. Feel free to ping me if you can't find confirmation of this, e.g. via google, or in related discussion currently on Carl's talk page. I don't think anyone 'round here has a better understanding of copyright law than Carl. --Elvey (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Elvey Be so kind as to give me so clue what file/s you're talking about? The discussion on Carl's page is specific only to the images he was discussing and I don't see that I was any point of the discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about any specific files. His point is valid for any work for the US Government. Do you dispute its validity? You weren't involved in the discussion. But you recently claimed (incorrectly) that PD-USGov doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government.--Elvey (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Provide Evidence & Link or Revert Incorrect Action
On what basis & merit has the files which were already in public domain as per Indian Copyright Act have been deliberately deleted?
If a picture is already in public domain since its copyright has expired and can be reused freely by anyone & everyone , how the contributions made by me over last 4 years deleted entirety, some of which were certainly credibly in public domain?
Suppose there's a picture dating back to year 1917 in India, it is obviously already in public domain since its license has expired but to delete it also among other images justified?
Answer a simple logic,If an author uploads 10 images, 6 out of which are perfectly fine & in accordance with wikimedia policy but 4 have issues, any admin will delete those 4 and may review the already scrutinised 6 but it is highly impractical that all 10 will be deleted!
This is exactly what has been done here, the only pertinent issue was copyright & if copy right was absolutely ok in all PD images Why were they deleted? Does being admin means doing what one may feel like at discretion?
I have to appeal against this incorrect act & complain about some people who don't deserve to be an admin at first place
Provide me with link of higher authorities of wikimedia, where I can file my appeal against this high handiness.
In reason it is written, found higher resolution, pls provide link of any such higher resolution picture! I request you to prove, image by image, what higher resolution images you are talking about? Where you found them? Are they itself derived from Wikimedia upload or images of PD
Bn bt ec01, per COM:EVID, the impetus is on you to provide sufficient support for the licenses claimed, not for us to prove ("I request you to prove") the contrary. As indicated at the DR, the wide range of technical, mechanical and aesthetic attributes; widely disparate dates; photos of notable persons claimed as "self"; and your history of copyvios (including ever-changing rationales which got your Sunny singh9128 indef blocked at en.wiki) and sock-puppetry on Commons and en.wiki suggest, frankly, you are not to be trusted (see also COM:PRP) and that you haven't the first clue regarding who "deserve[s] to be an admin at first place". I'm not sure why Ellin is encouraging continued block evasion and sock-puppetry with the referral to COM:UNDEL? Эlcobbolatalk14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Because he asked where to appeal the decision. I'm sorry if you felt I was encouraging a problem; every user who asks how to appeal gets the best answer I can at the time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Elcobbola:First & foremost, Sure I am astonishingly clueless about the newer criteria which permits entrants with minimal common sense and maximum arrogance to be admin! First & foremost administrator is liable for his actions taken onlying on evidence backed by facts.Any action taken must have concrete ground & proof and is subjected to revision.See its fine if images which don't qualify are removed but the entire onus of providing veritable proof that each of them violated copyright is on the admin who deleted them! I had requested for the proof against each deleted images individually but i am yet to get even till now! Images which were in PD and had no issues watsoever with license were deleted, these images were uploaded back 3-4 years ago and have been analysed & scrutinised by different admins and they found nothing against it.In a week how they become Ineligible? What is the proof of copyright violation of images whose copyright has already expires! @Ellin Ellin Beltz This point has to be noted! That's why I asked to file appeal with higher admins against this unilaterally taken action which sure has enough loopholes for suspicion. I am entitled to make an appeal and equally entitled to seek reasonable reply but people like Elcobbola are not to be trusted who consider wikimedia their private fiefdoms will not understand it.
Hi I am A. Perumal Thevan (Apthevan). I am a copy writer and freelance translator. I am doing some corrections in the article Muthuramalinga Thevar in Tamil Wikipedia and uploading some pictures of Mr. Thevar. And I have sent the permission letter to Wiki by mail [Ticket#2015092610011501]. I ask you have to I send mail every time I upload for each photograph's a particular owner? Regards. A. Perumal Thevan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apthevan (talk • contribs)
Hi Apthevan: If every picture you upload is by a different photographer, then each photographer will have to provide their own OTRS. Please when you write on talk pages, put your message on the bottom of the page to begin... then stay within the section to reply. Thank you! Also sign name with four tildes ~~~~ and I won't have to do 2 extra steps to figure out who you are. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz, i don't understand your rationale to keep this picture from Roskosmos! Yes, NASA says "Credits: NASA" but this is demonstrably false. You can not see the links to the ru:sources? I have given three web sources to prove the true origin once again. ESA's Flickr account (Credit: GCTC), Roskosmos and Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center. On each site the picture was copyrighted by Roskosmos/GCTC not NASA, because it is a Russian made image! We can't keep this unfree copyrighted image here, it is against Commons' aims. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your objections are correct, but NASA only got the RAW file IMG_2820.CR2 from Roskosmos and don't photograph this image! We know to 100 % that this photo was made by Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, i don't know why NASA says it is it's own work. Makes this lapsus the work free for us? A kind of Flickr washing through NASA? Regards!--Ras67 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what else to suggest to you. The image was stated to be a NASA image, it was found credited to NASA on an official NASA website. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This is false, the image is not a NASA image! The copyright submits to lies? Is for Commons an "official NASA" lie, error or lapsus good enough that we can break GCTC's copyright? Regards --Ras67 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin. File:Istiklal Marsi-TSK.ogg contains vandalism in the written lyrics between 0:31-0:35. I just removed it from the article of Turkey on en.wiki but I leave it up to you to clean it up here as I am not familiar with Commons. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
When you play it, written lyrics appear in English translating the song. The written lyrics translation contains the word "f******" as in "It is my nation's star and it is [expletive] mine. Dr.K. (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded the Family Tree to the existing entry - Radhabinod Pal.
The family tree has been prepared by Radhabinod Pal's grand daughter Dr. Madhumita Roy (nee Pal) from Kolkata India.
By an email to me, she authorised me to upload it, as she did not have the skills to upload it. This is her copyright and I am not infringing it.
I can send you a copy of her email or her contacts (phone, email, mailing address) if you would like to verify. I have mentioned her as the source.
Do you want me mention her as the copyright holder and myself as the licensee?
However, I am not skilled in doing all these. It is better if you could do whatever is needed to retain the family tree that the family of Radhabinod Pal wants included in this entry.
Hi Sayed1951, Read the page COM:OTRS and work with your contact to do that process. It's very easy. There are trusted volunteers at OTRS who will work with you. The process is not speedy. Should the image be removed before the OTRS is fulfilled; when/if it is, the OTRS admins are able to restore the file. Please don't send me the info; please work the process at COM:OTRS. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Iglesia Del Buen Despacho, Benito Juárez
Hi, the file i uploaded is my creation and it is free for all this version. You can crop, edit or do whatever you want.
Bye :) Yamak22 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Re:Please act professionally
Then, what specific nominations are you talking about?
I promised to refrain to do personal attacks, but not refraining to comment your DRs, most of them obvious cases (like PD scans, Threshold of originality, well know Free Software and free logos) (yes, I ecceded in some of my comments). If I mentioned Copyright paranoia (seeing every element of a image as copyvio) some weeks ago, was because you're somewhat abusing COM:EVID, requiring more evidence than the enough . But instead of understanding, you're still taking most of my comments as a personal attacks, and even making the same mistake DRs (most of them resolved as Kept and even Speedy kept).
As an admin (just a trusted user with andminsitative tools), you should take advice and criticism (from other trusted users in good faith) to learn, not as personal attacks (specially the Copyright paranoia term). Anyway, if you want to avoid my comments in your DRs, please think two or three times and do a little research before nominating, and try to do more constructive and corrective editions; obvious cases anyway will be kept. You're right in most of cases, but obvious ones are just a waste of time.
Free Licence for image "family tree final Sept 2015 (1)" already uploaded in existing entry "Radhabinod Pal"
Hi Ellin
I have already emailed copyright holder, who had earlier authorised me by an email, Dr Madhumita Roy (nee Pal) to send an email (using prescribed template) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org granting Free Licence.
Hope this is what is needed to retain it there.
Thanks.
Sayed1951
Sayed Chowdhury
Images submission
Hi Ellin,
I am new to Wiki and had uploaded couple of my works to wikimedia, but you sent me a message that they are not properly copyrighted.
All these images were created by me myself. What kind of proof you want to be placed on images?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janelop (talk • contribs) 16:01, 08 October 2015 (UTC)
Hiya Janelop, I know this can be confusing, I had difficulty when I started to. Here the problem is with the diagrams, the information contained within them needs a source. So if you used a book for the ideas, what was that book? If there was a diagram you were copying, where was that diagram? Otherwise how did the information come to be? All that shows is your user name and Photoshop; there is no indication of the source. Don't worry, all images uploaded can always be reactivated later. The diagrams which were deleted were found on other websites. I left you messages your user talk page and also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Водоснабжение дома от дождевой воды.gif. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you much for the reply, Ellin. Here is a story: the matrix diagram was created by me myself as an illustration for my publishing at my web site http://www.enures.dacha-dom.ru/boevoi-stress-cosc.shtml That work is a Russian translation with my own additions and new look of U.S. Army COSR decision matrix (it is not a copy of the original matrix in English). What attribution should I place to the image to make it properly licensed? The other websites you have found the same images belongs to me. Thank you! Janelop (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Janelop : For the matrix diagram, please put the information of the source of the U.S. Army COSR matrix... even if it is not a copy, it needs to show where the ideas came from. For the best answer to the license for that one, I'd ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright because that is a very tricky question, and the best copyright people here answer that board. For the diagrams from the website, best is to file a COM:OTRS form. There are trusted volunteers over there who can help verify that you're that website. As you can imagine there are people uploading images from the web all day and night! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Request Kind Action
Sir, Wikipedia facilitates constructive contribution and original creations. In-fact, its guidelines favor fair and genuinely original creation. While copyright issues must be dealt strictly as per rules but fair images and original creations that do not have any copyright issue whatsoever should not be altered/deleted out of prejudice. Sir, the pertinent issue here is copyright violation and license and I humbly request you to check and validate copyright issue of the following original creations that have been incorrectly deleted. As evident, if an image is created by myself during the public event widely attended, no copyright violation issues whatsoever exists for any original creations. If, I had created/taken the picture of a natural landscape/public figures at a public event such as public rallies or functions or public anniversaries; they can be duly released under appropriate license by creator.
The following images in question has no proof/evidence of any copyright violation,the said images are my original creation. Please discuss why it should be deleted out of prejudice for a non existent copyright violation! I humbly request you to use your discretion and legitimately examine each of them, it will establish the genuine fact that no copyright issue ever exists with following images and they were my original creation . I had taken the said snaps & entirely own the copyrights for the same. I had uploaded the pictures & released copyrights under suitable license as permitted by policy.These images were systematically uploaded with proper license & copyright info over last 3-4 years.
Even if it is somehow proved that some of the other deleted images were not in PD or any newer version located, it does not mean that all the original creations which qualify to exist in wikimedia should be forcefully deleted. I request scrutiny of each of the images and if no evidence/proof of any violation is found, they must be restored immediately.With respect to myself,I am reiterating that, I have taken these images and duly uploaded, is there any evidence against any individual image?.How come original creations of an author be deleted? after verification i am sure admins will find merit in the fact.
Please check the following files, one by one carefully and undelete them as there is no copyright issue whatsoever and they are original creation.
Greetings: It's impossible to discuss image rights with an anonymous persona. So sorry, but anyone could claim to be anyone. The process to establish your rights - if any - to these images is to follow the process at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Why you delete my files that I translate from English to Khmer
Hi Nisetpdajsankha: The file tag on your page for the current .svg file, asks you to please contact Jarekt who left you a note and offered to help you.
Regarding the two older files... Here are their two file templates, so you can see what you wrote:
File:Energy and life km.svgDeleted:INeverCry 11 July 2015
{{delete|reason=Derivative work of photographs, not user's own work.|subpage=File:Energy and life km.svg|year=2015|month=July|day=4}}
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
{{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=November|day=26}}
The problems with these files - as you can see - is that you claimed own work, put your name is as author, and licensed the images as if they were your own work, when they were illustrations by others who were not given credit. I now see what you say, that you took illustrations and added translations, but you still have to put the URL of the source file you used in "source"... as the illustrations were not your own work and translating a few words doesn't give you license rights to the images.
Hi тнояsтеn: I certainly saw your note. In fact I added a comment below it in case this question ever arose. Both files were the same. I see no reason to keep two files identical to each other, one with correct license and the other one claimed to be own work. I replaced the usages on the project and removed the wrongly claimed "self" file. The other file is correctly licensed and attributed and is now in use across the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz, will you please tell me what was wrong with this file? I have changed the licence this morning and now it is deleted. Why? Thorsten is right: Is it not the same file, because the island were marked as related to Turkey but indeed they are greek! It is really not funny to invest the time to improve commons, if I have to live whith such decisions. Please visit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt#T.C3.BCrkei (German) for more information. Kind regards, Lantus (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Lantus, @тнояsтеn: Problems solved folks. In future don't panic for 24 hours because even admins have to eat, sleep, etc. Please review the template of the file. Information contained on the image is not readable for "file template data". Please describe in detail differences between maps in the future and provide working links (within the template) to the source images of files. Sorry for the delay it was commute, work, eat, sleep, eat, commute. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz, its okay. Go on working, eating, sleeping, commuting, deleting and again. ;-)) Zur Sache: In my opinion, the problem was not the missing description but a wrong licensing. So I had no idea, what was wrong. So, thanks for restoring. Next time, I will try to describe more exact, what I have changed. Cheers, Lantus (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I had to stop by and say hi to my dear Ellin, and hope she's well. I've been away for a while without internet, but with a nice new medication that's helped me put on 40lbs in two months. I was 6'0 and 130 when we last talked. I'm currently feeding the mother cat and three very hungry kittens who seem to grow visibly every day! I'll have to get a pic of them uploaded. I'm trying to get my INC acct back at the moment. We'll see. I just can't stay away. I should've given in long ago... Jeff the Obscure03:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jeff the Obscure: But do you really need INC all over yourself? (giggles) I'm so glad to hear you're better and have gotten some weight on! Six foot is way too tall for 130 lbs! Seriously!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
that I constructed myself by the help of Powerpoint and informations out of diverse public literature pointed out in that picture. There cannot be any "copyright violation" if I created it, myself!?! It's a real pity that Wikipedia withholds people of these informations about contaminants in the soil, intended to help them to protect themselves, as the salespersons tried to withold these informations, too, and declared the area to be clean despite of no chemial remediation or soil change. Poor children, suffering from illnesses specific for heavy metalls like those children, formerly living next to the former industry, there, did.
Because of these extinctions, I am very much disapointed of Wikipedia and will not spend any time, work or money, anymore. --Amica 2467 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Amica 2467: No reason to panic or be upset! The process of reviewing files is just that - a process. And any process can be undone. Especially if people are not too upset to fix it. For File:Phoenixsee Bodenprofil.JPG it was nominated by Hedwig in Washington and I deleted it because in seven days no one had said any reason why it should not. Now that it's not publically visible your next step is simple. Go to COM:UNDEL and ask someone to review the case. Please use the full file name when you ask instead of the partial one you have above. That will make it simpler for everyone. When deleted it contained the following template information =={{int:filedesc}}=={{Information|description={{de|1=Phönixsee (Dortmund): Schadstoffgehalte im Boden der Wohngebiete}}{{en|1=Phoenix Lake (Dortmund): contaminant levels in the soil of residential areas}}|date=2015-05-01|source={{own}}|author=[[User:Amica 2467|Amica 2467]]|permission=|other versions=}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}[[Category:Phoenix-See]] Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I did, indeed, answer 'Hedwig form Washington', I tried to answer on different sites, and explained that I created it, myself. I did not know if it is unusual to get no answer but I was surprised that my explanations were ignoren. It seems that I do not understand the technics of Wikipedia but I do not have the time to study it. For example, when you deleted my picture, I did not know any longer how I named it, exactly (I updated it seeral times but did not know to delete the older ones, myself). And I doubt that I will be successful in following your recommendation to go "COM:UNDEL"... --Amica 2467 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Amica 2467: Hedwig in Washington did reply to your message, on the Talk page where you asked, but I guess you didn’t know where to look for it: here’s a link to the posting (scroll to the bottom). Please don’t be discouraged by our processes: nobody likes bureaucracy, but we need to protect the interests of our content’s creators and reusers both, respecting the intellectual property of the former while giving the latter confidence that the permissions are valid.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: Thank you for your answer. I thought 'Hedwig from Washington' would send me an email as reached me when the deletion was announced. To regain one of these sites (where I left a message, e.g.) is fortune for me. - I just tried "COM:UNDEL", I hope I did it, correctly ... -
Concerning "bureaucracy": For uploading the picture I had used your "assistent" and declared the picture as my "own work". When the above mentioned email reached me, I declared again that it was me who created this chart. Some kind of html-window was shown to me but I really did not know where to add more of that kind of information - and how. Probably, you already realise that it is even more difficult for me to do it in English. To put it in a nutshell, it is to much "bureaucracy" and / or too difficult. I suppose I would not try again to give ambitious informations to Wikipedia. Probably, these procedures can be improved, in future?! --Amica 2467 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ellin_Beltz , I tried to answer Hedwig on her side, twice, today. But, both times, I received a message (on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amica_2467) that in saving my answer, I deleted other text ("your two recent edits to Hedwig's talk page caused several paragraphs to be deleted, ... You have made a mess here and now I must try to sort some of it out"). I do not know how it happend (I suppose it to be it a technical problem) but I do not dare to try again. I hope it will not happen, now?! --Amica 2467 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
Hi Ellen Beltz. You recently deleted File:NewLabArtistsRendering.jpg which was uploaded by Vincent Wedge. The same uploader has just uploaded File:NewLabBrooklynNavyYardRendering.jpg which looks like the same file, but I am not sure. It also is not clear as to whether the uploader has received the permission they need (as explained at File talk:NewLabArtistsRendering.jpg) to uploaded this as free. For reference, the same uploader tried a number of times to upload similar of images locally to Wikipedia (en:User talk:Vincent Wedge) and all almost all of them were removed. The same uploader has also uploaded
to Commons, but there is no evidence they have received permission for these as well. I'm assuming the source for some or all of these images is macro-sea.com, or articles like this linked to from the company's website. Are OTRS permissions required for these images? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz. Thank you for your monitoring of the images I uploaded to the commons. I am relatively new to wikipedia and still figuring out how to properly document permission (which is why I reposted the images). My intent is not to disregard the editing that editors are doing. I think I've just made a mistake in not putting the OTRS pending tag on the images. I have sent permissions request to the creators and they agreed to share the images, but I didn't give them the correct form so I should have documentation very soon. I apologize. I am a graduate student at the university of utah and this is for a project i'm working on for an architecture and urban design thesis. These are not commercial posts. Vincent Wedge (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Vincent Wedge
Hi Vincent Wedge: Well, the other mistake was reloading an image previously deleted. When OTRS is received, the images are able to be restored by the OTRS editors. I'm glad this is your school project; however correct licensing and permissions are still required on all images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again for your patience Ellin Beltz. I did not know that deleted files could be restored. So if I send the permissions I receive to the permissions address what do I reference? If I state the exact file name e.g. "NewLabBrooklynNavyYardRendering" in the permission email (even though the files may have been deleted) along with the photographers signed consent they will then be restored and I don't need to re-upload them? So sorry if I seem like an idiot here. Slightly embarrassed. Best Vincent Wedge (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vincent Wedge: No worries! Yes please give the whole file name in the OTRS request to help the OTRS admins with your request. Don't be embarrassed, we all make/and have made mistakes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate it Ellin Beltz. I actually just learned a ton in the last half hr here. I will send the signed permissions as soon as I receive them. There is a fair amount of bureaucracy at the company I contacted for the image permissions so my requests keep getting bounced around and I finally found the author/ photographer of both the rendering and the images, but they have not replied back to the proper creative commons release form yet. Vincent Wedge (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the other account just didn't feel right...kinda like a rental car. That reminds me of a rental car mishap I had a long time ago. I drove a 1992 Suburban at the time. It was in the shop for a new transmission, and I ended up with a purple Geo Metro for a temp rental provided by either the shop or my insurance, I forget which. I weighed 220lbs at the time...I felt like I was driving a clown car, and I felt like a clown being a big strong guy stuffed into the front seat of a Metro...I tried to hide my face at every red light and stop sign, and the people at work gave me no peace about it when I pulled up in it the first day I had it... INeverCry03:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ellin Beltz - thank you for tagging your name to the various deletions of images uploaded by me. I confess that I have probably made mistakes in the uploading process and that perhaps a couple of images are borderline in terms of being safe for Wikipedia copyright purposes.
However I can assure you beyond any doubt that in the cases of coats of arms, parliamentarians' photos from www.parliament.uk, the CPA logo and UK national honours insignia there is absolutely no problem at all for these images to be displayed on Wikipedia's pages - in fact their whole purpose is for public display. The laws of heraldry and Honours insignia I can go into in detail should you so wish but suffice to say that whosoever creates such images does not own their property rights, because by their very nature they are for public display - I have dealt with this before in detail and can do so again if need be (roughly speaking Royal prerogative). In the case of the MPs' images, again the whole purpose of the UK parliamentary website is so that the public can see who their elected representatives are - the express purpose of these photos is for public use. In the case the CPA logo I am not so sure about the fineries of the law because it transcends English law but certainly the logo's purpose was not to be private property but for public display appropriately and specifically in connection with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There is quite a lot to consider here so let's deal with the others later but I should be most grateful to receive your thoughts, and ideally to be taught how to upload any such appropriate images correctly in future. Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. M Mabelina (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabelina: The problem with most of the uploads is claim of own work on source. If you did indeed include the webaddresses of where you got the material, the admins would have a chance of figuring out the licenses. But as you have claimed own work on things which are obviously not yours, they are put for deletion.
On 12 August 2012 (three years ago) the first of your files was nominated, more "no permissions" tags were added in May 2015, others in August and September, as well as a few nominated by Motopark and January in October. Of the long list on your talk page, I've placed five files there,
I'd suggest that it would be best if you went to the actual deletion nominations (as directed in the boxes left on your talk page) to explain why you uploaded the work of other people with the tag own work. There are plenty of valid licenses to work with for images... own work on the obvious work of another doesn't work.
The boxes placed on your talk page contain information how to proceed with those images. The instructions are very clear and contain helpful information. For sure leave comments at the three Deletion Nominations. Nothing discussed on a user talk page enters into the deletion nomination discussion. Please read the page COM:L before making any more uploads.
There are additional problems in your uploads including those which have URL sources, images credited to names which do not appear on the pages, mid-15th century heraldry with dates in the 21st century and so on. I would appreciate it if you could go through your entire uploads and check to be sure (after reading COM:L) that the file templates are filled in correctly. Hope this helps! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: - thanks for this, it is most helpful as indeed is Alan's description of what Wiki finds acceptable by way of image licensing. A further mea culpa is that I stated own work for some armorial images since no particular Wiki licensing tag seemed to me (then, at least) to fit the bill - this passed for some time without contravention by Wiki powers-that-be so I assumed it to be justifiable practice. Anyway, now knowing the error of this previous approach, let's remedy matters.
File:Adamson COA.jpg - these are my own family's arms (which I commissioned from an heraldic artist so there should therefore be no doubt I own "it" - it, presumably being from a Wikipedia point of view the artwork? although of far more importance under the law of arms in England is entitlement to bear these arms. Many heraldic images appear all over the place, but the only ones that could ever be subject to legal challenge would those which are used inappropriately - most obviously in cases where a said person or body uses a coat of arms belonging to another person/corporate body (in which case the Earl Marshal's Court would adjudicate)
File:Armas de Ramírez.gif - my Spanish girlfriend's family arms which she sent me but neither of us kept a record of this particular image's origin since we couldn't envisage it becoming at all problematic; however, if it helps, a quick google search finds: http://www.plusesmas.com/genealogia/escudos/39073/ramirez/aragon/ depicting another version of this coat of arms. PS. still slightly confused as to whether Wiki licensing in case of heraldic images conflates so-called "image ownership" with the "right to bear arms", and how this fits in with Wiki policy, although undoubtedly both arms here are correct and are/were correctly displayed/labelled in appropriate and relevant Wiki articles (appreciate if these comments could be eliminated asap acknowledged and understood, which hopefully self-evident).
The other three nominated images to which you refer are also easy to explain but perhaps let's just deal with the above two cases first since they are hopefully crystal clear? Looking forward to hearing and of course protecting personal info (if that has not already been compromised)! Many thanks again. Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabelina : You've done the right thing by leaving messages on the three files. I converted your other two files also to formal nominations, please see
If you would be so kind as to copy/summarize what you write on my talk page to those two discussions, that would be great. Then we all sit back and wait for discussion, help and/or deletion by another admin (not me!). I hope this is also helpful? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: - Done accordingly & your guidance is much appreciated. I am so sorry not to have uploaded these images correctly in the first place, but I trust that you can appreciate it wasn't so easy to figure out which is the most appropriate Wiki licence tag in every case. Anyhow, the main point is that there is nothing in the slightest wrong with Wiki displaying these images & I look forward to hearing further. Many thanks again. Best M Mabelina (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you did not delete the KevinHoneycuttPresenting image. I intend to use this for Kevin Honeycutt's wikipedia page. Thanks, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben AZH9 (talk • contribs)
Hi Ben AZH9: The right place to leave messages about this image is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:KevinHoneycuttPresenting.png as directed in the message box on your talk page. Nothing we discuss will have any bearing on the nomination discussion unless it's on that page. Please do not forget to sign your messages, use ~~~~ "four tildes" and the system automatically puts your sig. and date. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Missing source information
Dear Ellin,
You left a series on messages on my talk page about images that I've uploaded that are missing source information.
User:Leyo has kindly added that information for me, but I wanted to let you know of this and also to request that you do not delete any of these images, or any similar ones I have uploaded.
I have made thousands of similar images and it would be onerous for me to manually add source information to each of them, yet the information itself is very simple: the images are my own work and I have released them into the public domain. Is there a way I can automatically mark them as such?
Hi Ben: I removed tags on all those image files and archived the notices for you on "User talk:Benjah-bmm27/Archive 1". Please feel free to archive other old messages from your page - once the actions contained in the messages are completed. As for 'onerous', the problem is that they come up on pages of "missing source" and COM:EVID does require source on all images. So some poor admin has to slog through right now 50,000 plus images hoping to reduce some of that pile, and of course yours popped out because you're active and can still fix your own things! Yay for that! For automatic during uploads, there's two pathways. If you're using the Upload Wizard and answer the questions, you can get automatic own work with only one click in the little button. If you're using the old Special/Upload page, as soon as you put in {{own work}} the first time, you just have to type one bracket and the choice pops up which you then select. So one click in Upload Wizard or 12 characters the first time and one character thereafter on single uploads. Either way it's fairly automatic, just be sure it appears in the line before hitting "upload" like you do with all the other information. FYI I really like Upload Wizard and recommend it to people who do not like to do repeat work, it lets you add things to all files in the upload series, as well as customize each one. Please let me know if I may of any further assistance to you.
Hi Ellin, thanks for the quick response. I've been adding the appropriate source information for years now using the methods you describe, what's I'm concerned about here are images I uploaded before this was widespread practice. I hope there aren't too many - I'll see what I can do now and will get back to you if I have trouble. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, due to a race condition where I did a null-edit to a file's page at the same time you were deleting it, I accidentally recreated File:Vakku.jpeg that you had just deleted (I'm in the process of doing a "touch" null-edit to the files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license). Would you mind re-deleting File:Vakku.jpeg? 03:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RP88 (talk • contribs)
Hedwig in Washington was kind enough to re-delete yesterday, a few hours after I mentioned it here. Thanks. —RP88 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there
I just requested moving an article but I noticed I wrote "Semoliana" instead of "Semolina". Can you make the necessary correction with the new file name? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
: COM:PRP, if valid COM:OTRS is received, the images are able to be restored. File was open for 20 days with no additional comments or input. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin,
Can you please restore my photos of Jim Jones? I took them in San Francisco in January and August of 1977 and they are historical documents which should be seen by the public.
Info Ticket:2014022210011738 is a record of verification for the above statement. Should anyone have a reason to question this, I suggest writing in to permissions@commons.org quoting the ticket number. This will help us handle discussion in a mellow fashion, and maintain suitable respect for legal identities. Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "
Thank you,
Nancy Wong aka Edmunddantes
San Francisco
Hi Anidaat: The plane was decommissioned from Switzerland in 1994. The Apple Company released the first iPhones in 2007. Please tell me how you came to take an iPhone photo of a plane which has not had Swiss markings in over twenty years with a phone which could not have been released more than eight years ago? Perhaps the photograph is of a display or a magazine or a book? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm the only owner of the one original and it had never been published. It was just a giveaway for Wikipedia. Please tell me how to define this correctly if I felt like uploading a better scan, I don't have a scanner. So again, this will be done with a digital camera but with more quality (although this old personal conflict that is now a case for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee with the user that requested deletion doesn't motivate me much). How do I declare it, if there is no "correct" EXIF?--Anidaat (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Is this an old photo originally taken with a film camera? Do you still have the negative? If so, you could take a photo of the negative, upload it as evidence that this is your own work, and link it to the photo scan. INeverCry08:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it was a film camera, what else? This cannot be the solution to the problem that I should have to upload 2 pics to verify a picture. (No one asks if someone uploads a picture that is digitally taken.) There must be an easier way. I'll probably ask a german speaker then - just noticed AFBorchert - because it is strange to need to do ORTS for my own private pictures. The question is in general, not for the deleted picture. (by the way: what to do with abuse of the system deletion request?)--Anidaat (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
it makes no sense to write an email, that I'm the owner of all rights of a photograph, if I did declare this already while uploading. Can you please undo the deletion. Abuse was meant, if someone starts a deletion request and an IP appears shortly after. It was just the easiest way to undo the deletion and tell me what to do for that. I really thought that an EXIF data is absolutely no reason for deletion as it is as well absolutely clear that there were no correct EXIFs back before 1994. This was too weird for me to think it was enough for a deletion. What was the significant doubt anyway if the EXIF absolutely can't be?--Anidaat (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anidaat, The reason was because The plane was decommissioned from Switzerland in 1994. The Apple Company released the first iPhones in 2007. The upload form has long spaces for things to be written in, such as how this image came to be, it's date and so on. None of this information was provided, all the EXIF data said the image was created after the plane was decommissioned. It is not possible to take a photo of a plane which no longer exists of course, so my and INeverCry's question is/was how was the base image created, who made it, etc. Just like on the upload form. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
ok, the thing is that those stupid films didn't write down the date so the best I can find out is roughly a period of a month. At least I know the year... would this be exact enough?--Anidaat (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Time Machine photos
Hi, I was in the process of helping User:Terabass provide more evidence for his uploads. Given that he replied to an email sent to original hosting site, it is almost certain that this is the correct person. However removing the images has caused confused and upset the user who went to great lengths to contribute their professional photographs. As you know not every photo requires an OTRS - so there is no reason the images had to be deleted so quickly. It would be great if they could restored in the meantime. ed g2s • talk19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi ed g2s: This was one of those closes I really thought about before closing. The images are obviously of the highest quality - but then again - those are the ones so often swiped and misclaimed (not saying that happened in this case). If I have erred, it is on the side of (COM:PRP) and in the interest of protecting the copyright holder. Please don't take any part of my reply as harsh, I'm clicking through the reasoning here, since you claimed there was none. The images were nominated over a week ago. There was no indication that the creator replied to original hosting site mail; only that you had email received and then nothing else for another 3 days. There was no indication of the reply contents, good or bad - and we do receive both types. I am not familiar with you from involvement with the deletion process, so I looked at your user page. While you are a very active contributor, you're not an admin or an OTRS volunteer and didn't refer to an OTRS email, so there is nothing official on file with the project for me to check. DNs work for the protection of whoever actually took those photographs, and to protect the project. Most professional / really good photographers - especially those who have websites - are perfectly capable of filing an OTRS in seconds without the slightest problem and totally understand the reason for the system without seeing it as anything other than a simple note for their own protection. Few expert photographers - especially those who use digital - are confused by technology. The last time I asked an expert digital photographer with his own website for an OTRS it was back in under 10 minutes (he emailed me a copy of his application). OTRS is really simple, just take a look! Like I said in the close, whenever the copyright holder of these photos files a valid OTRS, the images may be restored by the OTRS editors at that time or very shortly thereafter. What you perceive as "fast" was actually held over by your request for more time, which three days with nothing else, when even a "wait longer" message would have provided more time. It appeared that you had lost interest since there was no reported movement. If you want to take this to COM:UNDEL I won't oppose it, but it would be faster to turn in an OTRS because it will take the about same amount of time for either path. In this case due to the obviously professional and high quality images, and the only provable source being a copyrighted website I was willing to take less of a risk leaving the images for a few days. Once it is administratively settled, no one can ever complain about any of his images ever again. And if it's any consolation, send a message to WPPilot and find out how rough his landing was here in Commons because he is also an excellent photographer as well as an amazing pilot. Which makes him doubly unbelivable! (or so he found out until he filed the funny little form). For Commons mody uploads are "good amateur photography", thus pro and expert work sticks out a mile - and of course those are the photos people try to swipe from (c) websites to add to Commons. So now, having given the reasons, allow me to offer my apologies for any bad feelings, and a reminder this is all a process - not any form of a judgement. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the issues around misclaims - hence my original listing. I would request that next time you perhaps err on the side of caution, especially when an experienced user has said they are dealing with it. Restoring the damage, both upset caused to the uploader (citing a case of another pro photographer we upset is not a consolation, it just shows how bad we are with newbies), and bot edits across countless wikis, is very expensive compared to just waiting a few days or double checking. It would have been just as easy to engage with the RfD. Thanks, ed g2s • talk15:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Mabelina
Hi Ellin - thanks for your attention to my uploads on Wiki Commons & I have just clarified re West Hall, High Legh. Please guide me as to how my original upload was wrong insofar as the image in any event dates from 1882 (which could easily be verified by anyone interested) and I also see another Admin has recently been so kind as to approve my own family coat of arms! Since these two items have struggled/are struggling to pass Wiki Commons vetting, it doesn't make me feel very welcome - is it worth my bothering with Wiki Commons from now on (altho I should like to)? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi [[User:Mabelina|Mabelina]: The upload form read
DescriptionEllin Beltz/Archive 3
English: I own this print engraving which is over 100 years old
So there was nothing to indicate the creator of the print, as was mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/File:West Hall High Legh.jpg. You were asked some questions about the print, but didn't answer. At that DN, it was mentioned that owning a print doesn't mean one owns the copyright. It was indicated in your upload form where you put that it was dated July 11, 2015 and was created by yourself "own". No where does it say from 1882 on the upload form, and there was no way to verify that. If you'd like it reconsidered, please put a notice at COM:UNDEL and one of the other volunteers will take a second look. As for "not welcome", I'm personally sorry that you ran up against problems, however I don't think you would have if you had put the date of the print, more information than "i own" and source of own work which it kinda obviously wasn't. We do the best we can with what we are given on image review! The best things to upload are images you took yourself of modern things; but also there are rules to watch out for there, such as no COM:FOP in many countries around the world. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I also happened to notice (but didn‘t get around to mentioning before the DR was closed), that the image was very low in resolution, which tends to support the suspicion that it was grabbed off the Web somewhere. @Mabelina: , if you were to scan such images in sufficient detail to make the caption and other labels clearly legible while revealing something of the origiinal printing technique, and also to include EXIF data from the device you used, it would go a long way to help others satisfy themselves of the plausibility of the stated provenance. I might add that in most jurisdictions 100 years post-creation is not long enough to safely assume all copyrights have expired (especially for anonymous works), so precise dating is important. The claims of “own work“ & authorship are problematic not only because they impute undeserved credit but—at least as importantly—because obscuring the work’s origin is an impediment to curation and greatly reduces its educational utility.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thank you Odysseus1479 - now I really am getting helpful feedback, so I should scan the picture again but do it better this time... At least now I have been given a proper insight as to what is required rather than constant rebuttals - you know what I mean? Hopefully we can work through all my uploads since none were frauds - or at least any which are not acceptable just tell me & we'll drop them. Many thanks for your further insight - very much appreciated. Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Regarding “frauds”, Commons shares with WP an ethos of assuming good faith—and even for hardened cynics there’s Hanlon’s razor. In most cases these problems arise from carelessness or insufficient awareness of the backing that’s expected for our licences. This can be a lot to absorb, so as long as beginners show willingness to learn from their mistakes (and where possible repair them), they shouldn‘t be faulted personally, although the correction process can be somewhat bruising. On the bright side, since this is a wiki, it’s easy to amend file-description pages after uploading; it’s widely acknowledged that the upload tools don’t make things easy for any but the most straightforward licensing situations, and it’s very common for users to fall back on “own work” without considering the implications. The precautionary principle allows us to act on uncertainty without having to demonstrate (or even allege) any malice or dishonesty.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Odysseus1479 Thanks for your help! I somehow wish we could make people watch a movie or something before uploading to commmons, because all these instructions in the upload wizard seem to be in too small of type to be helpful. Glad this is solved, see you both soon. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't have work?
Why are you touch our files? We are poor and destitute country. As for me i may make one journey in my country once a 2-3 years, foreighn i must earn money 10-15 years. And you go to me, to my fotos and delet them. I've spended a lot of money and some salaries to make theese foto. Return my foto please here if you have heart and humanity. If we live in not same world, if you didn't want to know about us. We'll upload our fotos in our own Commons. --ДмитрОст (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings ДмитрОст. Despite volunteering at Commons, I have heart & humanity and we live in the same world. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Джарилгацький національний природний парк 01.JPG refers to a photo of something created by another person besides yourself. Therefore while it is your photograph, that which is depicted is not your work COM:DW, and you cannot put copyright license on the work of another person. The rest of your pictures are lovely and did not have any problems! Please read COM:L for more details. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Jan de Winter
Hello Ellen,
Thank you for posting the request for deletion of the picture of the vermurail of Jan de Winter.
I don't agree on your vision.
Since I am the owner of the vermurail and Jan de Winter is known for his "glass art" I thought it is a nice addition to the wiki.
For your note regarding the the LG phone and destroying others work I ask you to be more specific.
Hi Janfromholland: Mr. de Winter still holds copyright on his image even if you own it in the frame. Artists have copyrights to their work for seventy years after they die, and since Mr. de Winter is still alive, Commons unfortunately can't host the image without his permission. (There are ways for him to give permission if you can, just read COM:OTRS. I didn't leave you any messages about destruction or LG phones, that's the prior correspondent on my talk page taking shots at me. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! It's me again. I'm very sorry for such a late reply. I hope I'm not bothering you.
Yes, I have read the nomination. But I thought that the admin, who would close DR, would take my comment into account so I wouldn't have to fix the file description and to place the photo into some articles by myself. I'm sorry if I was wrong about admin's tasks.
So do you think it would be enough to keep this file on Commons, if it would be used in one article (and maybe another) and its description would provide the names of depicted people? Or, in your opinion, some additional information is also required? Thanks. --INS Pirat (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi INS Pirat: It was deleted because it was out of scope due to lack of educational utility. We don't have an article about either of the people in the photo, so they're not at present considered notable. If you wish to request a review of the deletion, please put a brief note on COM:UNDEL. And thank you for understanding this is a process not a personal judgement. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Maps of Košice nominated for deletion and a lot of other files
Hi Wizzard : Not every image on Flickr is correctly licensed as needed by Wikimedia Commons. The base maps need to be identified which file they were taken from, because as you just said, taking them from another file is not "own work" and needs to be credited. As for your comments that I'm destroying something, please take a look at COM:L and be sure your uploads are within the rules of Commons. Headshots taken from books and magazines are not own work; maps copied from someone else are not own work. And phones with photographs on them which were obviously not taken by the flickr photographer are not own work either, hence the nominations and deletions of those images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wizzard: The problem with the pictures of the phones was that the phones also had photographs on them which were unattributed. We don't know that whoever posted the images at Flickr had permission to use the inner pictures (the ones on the phones). Those inner pictures are called "derivative works" because they derive some part of the final image from unattributed works of others. I don't think there is anyone "in charge" of flickr to review copyrights and Commons isn't part of flickr. Commons licensing rules (see COM:L) do not permit derivative works COM:DW because all parts of an image submitted to Commons have to be freely licensed. Better? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It means that if the phone or tablet display contains some graphics or operating system, the picture cannot be uploaded to commons, even though the original Flickr image is tagged with Creative Commons license? It seems like very strict rule for me. Also this file will be deleted? File:LG Optimus 3D Cube.jpg If those pictures does not contain any graphics on display, is that OK? --Wizzard (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wizzard: You are correct, that Flickr users sometimes do not understand the needs of Commons and Commons rules of copyright. The image you ask about now has only System photos displaying and the closing admin made the assumption that LG owns the copyrights to images that are part of their system graphics. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You marked this file for speedy deletion stating you were "Marking as possible copyvio because (c) at source." At the source, [10] the image is listed as CC BY 4.0. PeRshGo (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently listed this image for deletion. The Spirit of Detroit falls under the category, "statues and art installed in a place open to the general public prior to 1978" Please note Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US. In addition he gifted the statue to the City of Detroit and as such it is public property, and images of it are regularly used as a public symbol. Is there a tag needed to reference this? PeRshGo (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
DonePeRshGo: I added link to COM:PACUSA, the dates of installation, the dates of the sculptor and withdrew the nomination. There is also template {{PD-US-no notice}} which you can add to pictures covered by PACUSA if you are sure that there are no copyrights engraved on the bases or anything. Thank you for being so understanding! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MihalchukL
Dear Ellin Beltz,
My name is Lyubov Mikhalchuk. I am 85 years old, a retiree and I live in Saint-Petersburg (Russia). Having some doubts about my authorship you nominated for deletion the following files submitted by me:
All these photographs (except two of them) were taken by me within 1948-1991. Since 1948 till 1991 I was studying and then working at The Leningrad Medical Institute of Pediatrics (now Saint-Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University). In those photographs (nominated for deletion) are depicted only my colleagues of the above mentioned Institute. There is no any photograph taken before 1948 and no one has ever been published anywhere. Because of the poor quality of photo paper produced in the USSR, all photographs after scanning were edited by my assistant, therefore sepia is artificial.
The author of other two photographs: File:Emmanuil Fridman.jpg and File:E L Sklovsky prof.jpg is Mikhail Kaufman. He perished with the hands of fascists during Kiev’s occupation in 1941 that is more than 70 years ago. These files were published with licence:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.
You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
These two were presented to me by the daughter-in-law of Emmanuil Fridman.
All photographs I submitted for illustration of the articles written by my fellows.
I ask you to remove the nomination of these files for deletion.
Re: File:Alexander Garnet Brown.jpg: I have a letter addressed to me from AG Brown with this signature on it. I posted the letter as my own work and outlined it on the file? Not sure what you mean when it's not correctly featured on the site? Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: File:Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg: I took this picture and this is the orginal? What is missing in the file to make this my own work, I added comments to the file when I uploaded it?Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi : I've converted both of them to deletion nominations to gain more time. All discussions of DN's should occur on the individual Deletion Nomination so that the closing administrator (not me) has as much material to work with as possible. In summary...
Please add to that page itself, not the discussion page, what you put here on my talk page. Whatever is put on a talk page, has no bearing on the discussion about the image.
I outlined the problems with this file, same as previous image, please discuss at the DN. I won't close out either of those files, another administrator - based on what they see on those pages - will make the decision.
There is an appeals process too at COM:UNDEL should an image of yours be removed and you feel it was done incorrectly, a third admin will take a look at it for you. Most of these are procedural; files need to have proper information right after upload so that in 10 years some other poor admin doesn't have to pull the plug without you around to provide information. You might also want to read COM:EVID. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, Re: File:Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg: you seem to be assuming bad faith here. Obviously, the original photo was not taken with an iPhone. Our incredibly shitty upload tools make it almost impossible for a user to correctly upload a photo like this. The solution to that problem is not to open DR's on images like this. It's to fix our upload tools. Please make that happen. It's urgent. It's important. In the interim. you shouldn't DR's as bludgeon. --Elvey (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am in the picture and was attending the event when the picture was taken by an in-law(not sure who, no one remembers). The picture was printed poster size so I couldn't scan of it and I don't have a negative scanner. I used an iPhone to take a picture of the poster print and uploaded that version to the site. So yes I am in the picture and I took the picture of the picture. I hope that clears those conflicting statements. My when my grandmother died they were going to place the print in the garbage, I saved it. (presumably Jbignell, signed out) 18:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you properly (14 November 2015), you have removed your claims for the deletion of my files uploaded. But at the same time, the tag notifying their deletion is still remaining. I am concerned about their deletion.
Understanding when PD-*Gov* applies - e.g. to unpaid work.
As User:Clindberg recently said on his talk page, "If a work was done in the course of their employment, paid or not, it's a work for hire and the government entity would own the copyright. It's only works made for personal purposes which would still be a private copyright. Carl Lindberg 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)" You seem to be unaware that, IIRC, there's an informed, consensus view 'round here that it generally doesn't matter whether the creator is paid or volunteer, when it comes to PD-USGov applicability. Please educate yourself. Feel free to ping me if you can't find confirmation of this, e.g. via google, or in related discussion currently on Carl's talk page. I don't think anyone 'round here has a better understanding of copyright law than Carl. --Elvey (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Elvey Be so kind as to give me so clue what file/s you're talking about? The discussion on Carl's page is specific only to the images he was discussing and I don't see that I was any point of the discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about any specific files. His point is valid for any work for the US Government. Do you dispute its validity? You weren't involved in the discussion. But you recently claimed (incorrectly) that PD-USGov doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government.--Elvey (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in the discussion that you mention, therefore there is no reason to rise to any challenge at this point. As for the "you recently claimed (incorrectly)", that's nice but the process is a self fixing one, there's no reason to appear a month later and try to restart the same theoretical discussion. Deletion nominations are concerning the files attached to the DN, not hypothetically, in midair, arms-waving discussions. Please find someone else to get worked up about old news or with whom to start long discussions. I also removed your "do not archive" tag here. This is my talk page and if I wish to archive a discussion, I will and that is my right. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you seem to see attackers / "challengers" all around you. I asked you, Do you dispute its validity? It's pretty clear you feel asking you is/was some kind of attack rather than the attempt to reach consensus - a shared common understanding that it was. The "do not archive" tag is for the bot, so that the question wasn't archived automatically, unanswered. Likewise, you seem to be so fearful (or perhaps closed-minded and/or think so little of my ideas and constructive advice) that you refused to even respond to them. That makes me sad.
Do you dispute that admins should have as a goal to act from a correct understanding, not making incorrect claims? You seem unwilling to hear that the reason I spoke up here was that you recently claimed (incorrectly) that PD-USGov doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government. You seem closed to the idea / unwilling to hear that I seek to encourage admins to act from a correct understanding. That makes me sad too. I hope you find some peace. --Elvey (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you seem not to realize that you're unwelcome here, and that you sound like a snarky confrontational bully. If you want Ellin to have some peace, a good start would be you leaving her alone and finding something constructive to go do with yourself. INeverCry06:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
How does that comment serve the project? If that's true, then you sound like a snarky confrontational bully, but more so. Ellin's peace could have been obtained by a cordial response to my initial request - say, "Thanks for sharing your views. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't want to discuss it further." Instead, Ellin responded with hostility and cast aspersions on my comments, by insisting, twice, that there was "no reason" for them. INC: Do you dispute that admins should have as a goal to act from a correct understanding, not making incorrect claims? You seem unwilling to hear that the reason I spoke up here was that she recently claimed (incorrectly) that PD-USGov doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government. You seem closed to the idea / unwilling to hear that I seek to encourage admins to act from a correct understanding. That makes me sad as well. I hope you both find some peace. --Elvey (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabelina: I thought you were getting help from other admins? Please ask whoever it was that made the request for advice, I don't know anything about that political party. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin - apart from you I am not at all sure who is helping me. I requested a gallery for UKIP simply for the sake of balance - the Greens & LibDems have one, so why shouldn't UKIP given how many MEPs they have in the European Parliament. We should also get back to the coats of arms issue if it has not already been resolved... As ever, many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabelina: The 1882 edition, "The Helsby edition of Ormerod... As Helsby made extensive revisions to the original, it's the 1882 editions that should be consulted first." Brad Verity
The 1882 edition title is "The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, incorporated with a republication of King's Vale Royal and Leycester's Cheshire Antiquities, by George Ormerod, 2nd Ed., revised and enlarged by Thomas Helsby, Esq., published by George Routledge and sons, Ludgate Hill, London, 1882." Note: "This is now available from the Family History Society of Cheshire on CD ROM. A reprint of the work was published by Eric Morten of Didsbury." A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CHESHIRE HISTORY
The original book Title/Author is: "The history of the County palatine and city of Chester: compiled from original evidences in public offices, the Harleian and Cottonian mss., parochial registers, private muniments, unpublished ms. collections of successive Cheshire antiquaries, and a personal survey of every township in the county; incorporated with a republication of King's Vale royal, and Leycester's Cheshire antiquities. By George Ormerod, London, 1819, (Wilmslow, Knutsford, Congleton and Alderley FHS).
So whichever version you are using, please identify it in the file template and provide a link in the source field at time of upload and it should be fine. Use the largest file version you have, be sure to scan it at a very high setting, or use the professional scans from Internet Archive. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I knew you'd like these, especially this one here. If I can get the descriptions polished up on some of these, we may have some featured picture material. I'd also love to find some quality hairless cat breed pics. Not an easy find.
I fed the kitties tonight, and pet all three. At first, they were trying to decide whether caution or hunger was more important; but I pet them gently, and they decided that the food was well worth some petting from a big baby-talking old sot... I may see about taking them in once it gets really cold. The mother's so wild though, and she's a great mom... We'll see... INeverCry08:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ellin, I have been having trouble getting approved images uploaded to my Wikipedia page. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Wilson_(American_artist)
I work for the Ben Wilson Foundation and we have selected images we would like to make available for creative commons, in order to include in our Wikipedia listing.
The first round was marked for deletion and before I resubmit, I wanted to reach out for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyartist (talk • contribs)
Hi Newjerseyartist: The question is who owns Ben Wilson's copyright. If it is the Foundation, then the proper authorized signer can fill in and return the simple COM:OTRS form prior to any uploads. As part of the approval process a number is issued. You will then use a special "otrs tag" with that number inside the file template of every upload and all are covered by the single OTRS. If it is not the foundation who owns the copyright, then it would be the heir who signs the OTRS form. Is that helpful? If you need even the slightest help do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. we sign our names with four "tildes", like this ~~~~ and it puts your name, the links and the datestamp automagically.
Loganberry question
Hi, is it possible that your image File:Loganberries Loleta CA.jpg is actually of Category:Rubus 'Thornless Youngberry'? I've been looking at the two kinds of plants lately (while eating berries) and your photo has the slightly furry look of the Youngberries. Of course, Loganberry is a species, so presumably is somewhat variable, but it seemed worthwhile to ask you whether there might possibly have been a misidentification. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent: It certainly could be misidentified, I was going by what the lady who lives there called them. Please feel free to recategorize and rename as needed !! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I will take the plunge and re-label because I've come across people getting plants from someone else under the wrong name, including Japanese wineberries under the name Loganberry, so the lady growing them might well have received them mis-labelled, rather than bought them from a nursery that one might hope would use the right name. Thanks! Nadiatalent (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent: Thank you so much for the relabel! She may never even have bought them, this is an old orchard/berrying area so they might have just been there. Now I have to get you a photo of some on a different fence which taste different (next summer when they are ripe) to find out what they really are as well! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Could it be that the duplication and imbrication of the closing templates for this DR and the duplicate entries in this list is keeping the the archiving bot from finishing to archive that day? Can it be fixed? -- Asclepias (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This has now run 10 days and has had no new discussion in the last four days. I have provided a summary at the end of the discussion. Can this now be closed? - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That is kind of an odd solution. Sure it no longer shows any copyrighted components, but it is now not a browser screenshot, but simple a picture of a website. What do we do with all the other screenshots of Google Chrome, based on this solution? - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm Alberto Prats Rodríguez, webmaster of AAE (Agrupació Astronòmica d'Eivissa) and also processing author of the image of NGC 1333 I uploaded today. Following this link you can check the image's credits as appeared when NASA published it as APOD on november the 5th.
I've received an alert about you requesting its deletion because you doubt it's my own work (though I am its author both personally and also more widely as representative of the AAE) and that it should be sourcing to AAE. I included in the info of the picture that the AAE captured the image using the Cala d'Hort Telescope but didn't include a link (the reason being I didn't see the way to do so in the upload form).
I appreciate your help and understand there's been some problem in the way I uploaded or described the image. If you could point to me how to mend the problem or demonstrate in some way I'm its legal representative, I'd do so.
Yours,
A.P.R.-AAEIVISSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAEIVISSA (talk • contribs)
PS: By the way, this is the second time I upload something to Wikimedia and also the first time I discuss something about it, so please forgive me if I'm not following the correct procedure.
Hi AAEIVISSA: I just withdrew my nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1333.jpg based on my promise to work with you on the details of filling in the file templates. It's really easy to edit file templates after upload.
Click here for larger version This image shows the edit and history positions on every page and also a reasonably well filled out template. The way to put in the information after the upload is to go to the correct page, push "Edit" and then go into the file template itself.
On your file:
I added Wikilinks inside the description and moved up the text about the telescope from below the template to the end of the description. The description is what the search engines use to find the images, you can be lengthy in describing what you see and how it was made here.
Then I added the link to the APOD source as well.
Next, I changed around the categories you had from under the description to outside the "int:filesec" template section. They usually go below the "int"license-header" section, after any other tags and with all the other categories. I also searched "NGC 1333" and found we had other images of this and added "Category:NGC 1333" which takes the user to the rest of the images.
To help the sister project, I went over to Wikipedia and made sure they had a "Commonscat|NGC 1333" tag so that users of the encyclopedia can find the category of all images.
I think I am done editing this image and also removed the "no permission" tag that another of your images had acquired. Please leave any questions you may have here, or on your talk page. If the latter please use {{u|Ellin Beltz}} somewhere in your comment or talk page. That causes a system notification and clickable link instantly. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, lots of thanks for all your help and work! I take note of all the changes and corrections you've made and will also update my user information to avoid further problems. I've seen you helped me with the comet video I uploaded, which was also nominated for deletion because of my inexperience. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAEIVISSA (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz,
I am very confused as to why you nominated my two files, Wiki wyatt comp and Wiki wyatt comps to be deleted. These files do have the correct source and license. However if you go to the attached page you can see that the two comparison photos were uploaded and are being used only in a "talk" discussion as to decide whether a photo that I added of Wyatt Earp is legitimate or not. The caption under these comparison photos states "Comparison photos for wiki users only. Not for public viewing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OSMOND_PHILLIPSOSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi OSMOND PHILLIPS: There is no such thing as "not for public viewing" of an image on Commons and composite images are required to have each image uploaded separately (with proper source). Then you can use them anywhere on the project by creating a minigallery of all the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The word "jihad" did not directly refer to anyone who commented on that deletion request, but rather to two other users who got bees in their bonnet on the subject of "special or fictional flags", and went on indiscriminate rampages against them, and thereby stirred up much turbulence and turmoil which pretty much ended badly all around. Unfortunately, BrightRaven used the same modus operandi in making his deletion nomination as one of the bees-in-bonnet users (now blocked) did, and refused to give any assurances that he would not go on an indiscriminate rampage -- so unfortunately BrightRaven is a moderately annoying person from my point of view... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi AnonMoos: I'd suggest that if someone else is "wrong" it is not best course of action to take second "wrong" action to attempt to change anything. There is some quote about how "two wrongs a right do not make." I realize that deletion nominations can get heated, but I still request courtesy and professionalism in all discussions, not religiously charged words which only further inflame situations to which no fire is needed for solution. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to replace "jihad" with "indiscriminate rampage" if it makes you feel better, but my level of annoyance with BrightRaven would remain exactly the same... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Series deletion
Dear Ellin,
I am quite confused due to nomination of my images for deletion which you have done recently: 1, 2. They both have a link in description directing to the source site where Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license is clearly shown: please, see links at "deletion requests" pages mentioned as 1 and 2.
You have also deleted several files taken from the same source: 3, 4, 5. Since they have similar licensing from the same site, could I ask you please to undelete them? --Shao (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shao: Please do not remove Deletion Nomination tags from images as you did at the two covered by these Deletion Nominations:
I've put comments on each of those, please keep the discussion to those exact pages because nothing we write here will influence the outcome of the deletions. If you wish to have images undeleted, please leave a simple message at COM:UNDEL and an different administrator will take a second look at it. If you wish, you can link this discussion in your UNDEL request. In brief, the peacekeepers webpage appears to gather images without too much concern who took them, making their 4.0 license questionable. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
yaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhkha
Being a 'crat (wait, shouldn't that say cat?) is soooooooooooooooooooo boring....
I finished cropping and cleaning up my Russian cat show cats: Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (Cats - checked). It came up to 859 images, and took three full days of work to do the crops, but it was a labor of love. This yawning cat here just caught my fancy, so I thought I'd upload it. F2C wouldn't recognize the ID#, so I had to do it the old-fashioned way with flinfo...another yawn... I hope you're well. I've got two dentist appointments myself. I'm hoping a cancellation will get me in with the oral surgeon quicker (I'm getting three molars and a wisdom tooth out by him on the 17th), otherwise I'll have to reschedule the fronts, which were supposed to be taken out by the plain-old dentist on the 16th. Those don't hurt often, so I could wait till the new year... (I've gotta smile while I still can...) INeverCry03:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, hours and hours of [Delete] - [Delete] - [Delete] never get boring, as long as you throw in a [Block] or two now and then... INeverCry04:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@INeverCry & Jkadavoor ... Thank you for a very big smiiiiiillllllleeee first thing this morning. I really needed that!! And then my inner cat said "Streeeeeetch" and "Yawwwwwwwn" just like the photo! Being a cat is never boring, honest! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC) PS. INC your Cat Photos are gorgeous and the sharpness you're getting from your newer setup is really great.
I'm just the uploader and cropper. I wish I had the camera outfit that the photographer, Nikolai Titkov, has. Maybe someday, but I don't have the funds I used to have when 35mm was the thing. I still remember when 5 megapixel cameras like the Nikon D1X and D1H were 6,000$. All I have left is a great Bogen tripod, but nothing to put on it... I was very lucky to find Titkov's Flickr stream, since he's a cat show judge in Moscow. My latest upload package is 4000 aerial photos from across the US by a fellow Reno native named Jim Lund. I may take my little Nikon Coolpix out and take a few shots around town after my teeth are out, but for now I'm getting all my photos 2nd hand from Flickr. INeverCry21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I had a big Minolta outfit, with an XE7, SRT303, a couple SRT101s and an SRT101b, five Rokkor lenses (the one I used most was a 50mm 1.4) and a Celtic 28mm, and about a dozen Hoya filters, including split neutral density and circular polarizer, and a Mamiya RB67 with 80mm lens and waist-level finder. I sold them piecemeal for a loss on EBay... That was years ago, and I still miss all of them... I still have a book of negs and slides that I'll get scanned on to disc and uploaded when I can afford it. Some of the negs are 20+ years old from my first camera, a Nikon EM. Funny to think that when I first started out, a Nikon F3 or a Minolta XK were my dream cameras. The digital revolution arrived before I could get either one, but the XE7 was a workhorse anyways, and the Mamiya was wonderful when I remembered to wind the film to the next frame... INeverCry01:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Ellin Beltz:
My experience of engaging in discussion on Wiki Commons has become increasingly time consuming. I trust you are aware that everything I uploaded has been in good faith (yet still the West Hall image is not there). My only concern is about Wiki's veracity thus I have been attempting to give a detailed precis about how the right to use armorial bearings works. This happens to be a subject I know a lot about & you don't need just me to reassure Wiki Commons about the law of arms - I can call upon many others. But there seems to remain complete confusion about artists' rights and holders' rights regarding COAs, which I trust can be resolved without delay. Could you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor COA.gif just so that not much more time is wasted on this matter? Await yours - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabelina: Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor COA.gif, which is a "Coat of Arms" (COA), that nomination is less than 3 days old. I see polite discussion and useful information being transmitted. I see several people who aren't confused attempting to be very helpful. Let's let the DN run its entire course of at least seven days to see if during that time enlightenment regarding the Wikimedia Commons uploading rules is achieved. And then again, please keep all discussions about deletions limited to the actual deletion nomination page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Nomination For Deletion - Charles Corm Image
Dear Ellin,
I have just uploaded a scan of the original image: less blurry and original colors, brightness and contrast. The image is from the archives of the Corm family who personally asked me to upload it and was taken by Daoud Corm, father of the subject. It's a family photo and there are no copyrights on it in addition to it being over 100 years old. There is absolutely no reason to remove it. I have amended the source and author to reflect the above and kindly ask you to remove the image's nomination for deletion. Kind regards.--Infideus (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you reffering to File:Sad tab of death.JPG? As you noticied , I didn't uploaded the file, just cropped it to remove the non-free elements (the Windows XP UI), and Codename Lisa added the Speedy tag after the copyvio issue was resolved; I don't know why Codename Lisa reported to me in addition of the original uploader. If you have found my revertion problematic, you should reverted the edition of file instead of my User Talk Page (that clearly does not corresponds as I'm not the original uploader).
Also, as you noticied, I'm participating actively in the DR and the general issue, so I already know what files are nominated and what of these ones are or not copyvios.
And finaly, the most productive action that you could taken as admin is deleting the previous version as copyvio, why you didn't done that instead? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That sad tab is too tame. Mine would be an angry tab of death, and would say something like "your browser's fucked up again, the worthless fucking piece of shit!"INeverCry07:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Amitie 10g, it helps to leave the tags for other people who are not as in the know as yourself. As for what I do - productively or not - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I had very little time then, and I wasted a pile of it trying to find the file because you removed the tag. As I requested on your talk page, please don't take the tags off until the files settle. TYSVM. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Uninvited guests...
Have a look at File:Сосед забежал (8668826356).jpg. I got a chuckle out of this; especially the description. I've got two neighborhood cats who try to do the same to me. I can't afford to feed the mom & youngsters, and these two giant males, so I have to chase them off four or five times a day. Now, when they hear me start to open the door, they go running without me needing to do anything; but they're back again in a little bit, trying to creep up on the food bowls... INeverCry07:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
User talk:INeverCry That's hilarious. I love the caption... for breakfast... for dinner, whenever!! I have cats like that too... I feed them at the "neighbors who don't live here all the time's house" so they go over there for their beggins. Can't wait to see the lady finally move up here to move in and discover she has a ready-made cattery! I hope she likes cats. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the three "kittens" are now just about as big as the mom. I have an old tree stump next to my porch where the three kittens used to nap. Now two of them have a hell of a time squeezing onto it and not falling off... INeverCry21:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Question about restoring photograph of Garry Trudeau that was removed 4-17-15
Hi Ellin!
Last Spring I submitted a photograph of Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau to replace the one that was displaying at the time. The new photo was up for a bit, but was removed on 4-17-15 by you (correctly, I came to understand!) because the simple email permission the photographer, Linda Cicero, had given was not adequate.
Over the summer I tried to get in touch with Cicero, and in the Fall she responded, and agreed to fill out the proper permission forms. On October 8th she wrote and told me she had done so and had submitted them to Wiki.
So now I (a very inexperienced Wiki person and relatively low-tech) am writing to ask if you, as the person editing the page, are in a position to connect the permission she sent with the photo, and re-activate it.
And if, as I fear, you can't do that, do I have to start from scratch and re-submit the photo? If so, how can I be sure the permission she has sent to Wiki will be recognized, so the photo won't be removed again?
I thought I'd better write to you for advice before doing anything!
With thanks for your counsel, and best wishes,
David
dstanford@uclick.com -- David Stanford, Duty Officer -- Doonesbury Town Hall -- themanagement@doonesbury.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Stanford, DTH (talk • contribs)
Hi David Stanford, DTH Thank you for your note. I'm assuming Ms. Cicero filled out a COM:OTRS page... so the next step for you is to leave a message at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, also called COM:ON with the link to your image File:Garry_Trudeau_2014_stanforduniversity.jpeg (type this [[:File:Garry_Trudeau_2014_stanforduniversity.jpeg]] )... and ask an OTRS editor to look in their received mail / approval queue to see if this is done. When the OTRS is approved, the OTRS administrator will restore the image. Thank you so much for writing, thank you for your understanding! BTW, to autosign your name, just type four tilde characters, like this ~~~~ and the system will automagically sign and date. To get user's attention fast, type {{u|Ellin Beltz}} where what occurs after hte "pipe character" is the user name you wish to "ping". Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Antoni Koper image
I'm a new contributor to the Commons, so I'm not sure where I erred. Perhaps I merely used the wrong license when I uploaded File:AntoniKoper.jpg. I hope I have not misunderstood the parameters under which I believed the original art work depicted in the photograph to be in the public domain. It was painted in Warsaw in the 1930's by an unknown artist. I would be grateful for any assistance or guidance you might offer. Thank you so much. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It appears that under Polish law the anonymous painting would be out of copyright if it was “disseminated”, i.e. made available to the public, before 1945 (70-year term). I don‘t know what it says about unpublished works. However, Commons requires compliance with US law as well, under which an unpublished, anonymous work created in 1930 remains in copyright until 2051 (120-year term) unless it was already PD in its country of origin as of 1996. That’s where I guess the problem lies.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
== Email and holiday travel ==
Due to recent travel and computer issues,''' I've lost my email inbox contents.''' If you wrote me in last week and haven't received a reply, please email me again. Thank you! [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz#top|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable" cellpadding="12" cellspacing = "10" align = "center" width= "100%"
|-
|style="background:#DAA520;text-align:center" colspan = "4"|
<big>'''Welcome! - Replies may not be instant, this user also sleeps, eats, works & goes to school all year.'''
|-
|style="background:#FFEBCD;text-align:left" colspan = "4"|
Hi! I'm one of the admins and bureaucrats here on Wikimedia Commons.
If I can help, please leave a message here!.
I work in a spirit of [[COM:AGF]] with [[:Commons:Deletion requests|Commons images for deletion]], as well as categorizing and sourcing images.
Please do not be offended if your images were [[:Commons:Deletion requests|nominated for deletion]] or even deleted.
There are processes to [[COM:OTRS|provide copyright permission]] and [[COM:UNDEL|undelete]] even images which have already been removed.
If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at [[COM:VP|the Village Pump]].
To contact me, please leave your message </big>
|-I would like to know why this is assigned to be delete
! style="width:20%;background:steelblue; text-align:center;" |
{{user admin}} {{user bureaucrat}} {{User signs posts}} {{User civil}} {{User geologist}} {{user en}}
! style="width:20%; background:LemonChiffon; text-align:center;" |
[[File:Licensing tutorial en.svg|250px|left]]
! style="text-align: left; width:40%; background:lightgoldenrodyellow;"|
*'''Medieval Wisdom'''
''You can please some of the people all of the time,''
:''you can please all of the people some of the time,''
::''but you can't please all of the people all of the time.''
:::<u>{{w|John Lydgate}}</u> (1370–1449) <sub><small>source: [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17341968 BBC]</small></sub>
! style="width:20%; background:#8B008B; cellpadding:5;" align="center"|
{{archive box |image=[[File:Sleeping bicolor cat.jpg|center|225px]]|
<center><small>
[[User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 0| Pre-Feb. 2014 ~]]<br>'''2014'''<br>
[[User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 1| February to December 2014 ~]]<br>'''2015'''<br>
[[User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 2| January to June 2015 ~]]<br>
[[User talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive 3| June to ____ 2015 ~]]</small></center>}}
|-
|style="background:white; text-align:center;" colspan = "4" align="center"|{{Mbox|image=none|text='''Please leave a messages by clicking <font color = "blue"><nowiki>Add topic above for new conversation or use the [Edit] to add to ongoing discussion. If you wrote before but cannot find the conversation, please see the Archives. >>>>>> }}
This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain in its source country for the following reason:
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:
it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date (1 January 1996).
To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.
It is also in the public domain in the United States for the following reason:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:
it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.
particularly portrait of Antoni Koper by unknown artist and |source=I took this photograph of a work of art in the public domain . Since you don't know the artist, we can't tell if it's out of copyright due to span of time since artist died. Since there is no locality data on the image, we do not know the location of the painting and cannot try to apply any loopholes. There is nothing on the upload template to indicate why this image would be considered in the public domain or eligible for any of the licenses you applied {{PD-Art-two|PD-Poland|PD-1996}}. And as stated by Odysseus1479, the servers for Commons are in the United States so we have to honor U.S. Copyright law. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, then, I must identify the artist and establish the date of said artist's death in order to determine if the original work is indeed in the public domain. Thank you for the explanation. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz: I reached out to the portrait subject's son, currently in possession of the work, to ask him to examine it more closely for signature, label, or other information found on the work itself. While I await his reply, I thought I'd ask about another possibility, in case we can't identify the artist. I am able to document that the portrait was painted and displayed in Warsaw before 1939. Would that information suffice to establish the work as public domain under {{PD-old-70-1996}} license tag as per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights dates of restoration and terms of protection table and the Commons:International copyright quick reference guide? Thank you again for your ongoing assistance. I am eager to learn to be an effective contributor to the Commons. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk)
Hi there, you deleted the image "Voigtlander Bessa II medium format.jpg" based on copyright concerns, but the image was produced by myself (i am the photographer) and I added it to wikimedia commons in the right way. Please review that. --Awikimate (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the picture I posted in the "Burnhamthorpe Road" article on grounds of "copyright violation". I had permission from the photographer and the info was very clear. Transportfan70 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Transportfan70: The File:Burnhamthorpe road in mcc.jpg was uploaded once, nominated by Secondarywaltz on 28 November 2015, then the same deleted image which was previously removed was nominated again by Jarekt 29 November 2015 and which I deleted. The way you put the permissions is not valid. Your buddy needs to follow the steps on COM:OTRS prior to you reuploading that same image again, otherwise by the rules of Commons you'll end up blocked for continuously uploading copyrighted material - which is what you're doing. Just putting someone's name and email address (lack of confidentiality much?) on a file to say "go contact him if you have questions" isn't how it's done here. You're the uploader. COM:EVID says you get to provide this information and if the information is lacking, the images will be deleted. I am certain our upload forms are clear on this, and I know we have pages and pages of instructions including COM:L which are very clear on the process. Not to say that maybe all that information is too much information, so we have that cute info graphic at top of page which clearly says "if it's not yours don't upload it." Since this image was not taken by you, it's not yours to upload to Commons and license - without an OTRS from your friend. An OTRS email doesn't take very long, when you get your authorization number the image can be uploaded again with that number appended and the problem is over. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Transportfan70 The rules about only uploading your own work are very carefully stated on the upload form. It asks you "did you take this picture" and the answer here was no. The image was deleted once. Rather than discuss anything, the image was merely reuploaded which is an automatic delete (as it had previously been deleted). There's instructions everywhere including on a link list at the top of your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I just saw, you want to delete my file. It is created by me, I draw it by myself. You can search for it in the web, but you won't find even a similar one. And I think it isn't forbidden to recreate a logo, or if so, please inform me. Thanks in advance. MrSilesian (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm a new contributor to the Commons, so I'm not sure where I erred. Perhaps I merely used the wrong license when I uploaded File:AntoniKoper.jpg. I hope I have not misunderstood the parameters under which I believed the original art work depicted in the photograph to be in the public domain. It was painted in Warsaw in the 1930's by an unknown artist. I would be grateful for any assistance or guidance you might offer. Thank you so much. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It appears that under Polish law the anonymous painting would be out of copyright if it was “disseminated”, i.e. made available to the public, before 1945 (70-year term). I don‘t know what it says about unpublished works. However, Commons requires compliance with US law as well, under which an unpublished, anonymous work created in 1930 remains in copyright until 2051 (120-year term) unless it was already PD in its country of origin as of 1996. That’s where I guess the problem lies.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{Custom license marker|year=2015|month=10|day=22}}
{{PD-Art-two|PD-Poland|PD-1996}}
[[Category:Born in Warsaw]]
[[Category:Academics of the University of Warsaw]]
,
particularly portrait of Antoni Koper by unknown artist and |source=I took this photograph of a work of art in the public domain . Since you don't know the artist, we can't tell if it's out of copyright due to span of time since artist died. Since there is no locality data on the image, we do not know the location of the painting and cannot try to apply any loopholes. There is nothing on the upload template to indicate why this image would be considered in the public domain or eligible for any of the licenses you applied {{PD-Art-two|PD-Poland|PD-1996}}. And as stated by Odysseus1479, the servers for Commons are in the United States so we have to honor U.S. Copyright law. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, then, I must identify the artist and establish the date of said artist's death in order to determine if the original work is indeed in the public domain. Thank you for the explanation. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz: I reached out to the portrait subject's son, currently in possession of the work, to ask him to examine it more closely for signature, label, or other information found on the work itself. While I await his reply, I thought I'd ask about another possibility, in case we can't identify the artist. I am able to document that the portrait was painted and displayed in Warsaw before 1939. Would that information suffice to establish the work as public domain under {{PD-old-70-1996}} license tag as per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights dates of restoration and terms of protection table and the Commons:International copyright quick reference guide? Thank you again for your ongoing assistance. I am eager to learn to be an effective contributor to the Commons. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk)
Hi there, you deleted the image "Voigtlander Bessa II medium format.jpg" based on copyright concerns, but the image was produced by myself (i am the photographer) and I added it to wikimedia commons in the right way. Please review that. --Awikimate (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
OTRS volunteers, like myself, are mostly not Commons admins. It is two different things. OTRS only answers email and store email. Whether such an email is a reason to restore a file or not is a decision of a Commons admin. The ticket I link to provides confirmation that the uploader is who he says he is. The ID of this person is confirmed by OTRS. It is up to an admin to handle things further and make decisions on whether or not to restore, based on this information. As deleting admin I thought it would be best to ask you first. I have now instead forwarded the request to Commons:Undeletion requests. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary
DescriptionEllin Beltz/Archive 3
English: Photograph of a portrait of Antoni Koper by unknown artist
Date
Source
I took this photograph of a work of art in the public domain
Author
Unknown artist
Uploaded images, please review
Hi Ellin!
You marked 3 of my uploaded images as copyright violation ones and those were nominated for deletion. Your notes I think are also applicable to some, if not many, of my uploaded images. All of my uploaded images were shot by my camera. My intention was to contribute images of rare things (not only on the net, but also on Wiki); all pics are mine.
I would be grateful if you may kindly review all of my uploaded images and delete them directly, if they are eligible. Please, I don't want the labeling of "copyright violation," as this strongly questions my credibility. For instance, many people don't know that uploading images of "my" Fellowship Diplomas of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Ireland imparts a copyright violation (according to Wiki)! Please, I don't want headaches; please review and delete. Honestly, I don't mind. Do whatever you think appropriate.
Hi Neuroforever: The copyright of a diploma is not in the hands of the person who received the diploma, but in the institution which granted it. The process here is that one person nominates an image for consideration of deletion, everyone has 7 days to discuss it, and then an administrator will decide. You can archive, or delete the tags on your talk page if you wish, understanding that it makes it harder for administrators to help you during the time the nominations are open. After they close, there is no problem whatsoever removing them (or archiving them) from your talk page. If you need help setting up an archive, please let me know... I can set it up and archive those tags for you in one move. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ellin!
Please note that the following images of mine violate the copyright thing and till today no one has nominated them for deletion (similar pics of mine have been nominated, though):
These are only examples. And, once again, please I would be most grateful if you and your colleagues review all of my uploaded images and delete accordingly.
Hi Slowking4: This: ''{{No permission since|month=December|day=12|year=2015}}== {{int:filedesc}} =={{Information|Description=Tragic Prelude by John Steuart Curry, illustrating John Brown and the clash of forces in Bleeding Kansas|Source=Wikipédia in english|Date=2009-04-13|Author=Utopies|Permission=|other_versions=}}== {{int:license-header}} =={{GFDL-en|migration=relicense}}'' is entirely what we had to go on. Source is "en:wiki", Author is claimed as Utopies, 2009 date, and nothing about being employed by federal government. It could have been an original, a copy, from a book, whatever with that file template. It was in no permissions for 12 days and I zapped it. I looked up the painter just now and do not find federal employment related to this painting, https://epeoplesofkanas.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/the-controversy-surrounding-tragic-prelude/, in fact it was not hanging in the statehouse when he died. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
shifting the burden of copyright investigation to the uploader is shown not to work, since the average uploader could care less, and is long gone. for artworks before 1978, it is likely they are PD no notice. you would agree this work is published in 1942 [12] (works place in public places are published [13]); there is no notice; there was no registration [14] (search LOC copyright "Curry John Steuart") Prophylactically deleting things is not a functional investigative process.) Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge15:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Slowking4: Wouldn't it take less time to find a high-quality image, attach all the information you know about it to the template and reupload on top of the one which was removed? Users and admins spend hours adding sources, artists and so on to images - the occasional one which is unfindable or unfixable from the template given is usually best given to an expert - like yourself - for reupload. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't seem very exited about the holidays...This guy's not into it either...
Another Xmas is upon us, and three unimpressive inches of snow is upon my property. Not a lot of Xmas spirit where I'm at, but I guarantee my neighbors are no slouches when it comes to New Year's parties...and drinking...and more drinking...and drugs...lots of drugs. Did I mention alcohol and drugs? I don't indulge of course, except in half-remembered reveries of Xmasses and New Years gone by. We trotted out the three-foot tree a few weeks back, but nobody wanted to unbox it, so back to the shed it went. I ordered a couple books (I order my own presents - I always get exactly what I wanted), including an old quarto volume of Charles Reade... Fuck, I'm yawning at myself before I even get to show you the cool yawning cat pics...these are getting to be an obsession with me... INeverCry02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I slept in and got up early - the benefits of no kittens or children! I'm reading an interesting book and watching the sunshine between the giant rainstorms. Last night it sounded like they were dropping swimming pools full of water on the roof for hours on end. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz:But the artists allow me to use them?
Question on why my files are being deleted
Is it because of copyright issues or because they are split up between many pdf's. See the below question I posted on commons helpdesk to see what my problems were:
I asked a question earlier but I don't see it here. Possibly because I edited the page like a normal wiki page instead of using the question box that I just discovered, sorry about that. I'm having trouble uploading full pdf's as a single entity. They are showing up in the commons as 1 page 1 page of a PDF that was only one document on my computer and here it becomes 30. How do I ensure that the PDF's are uploaded intact? I tried to re upload the same documents that I thought hadn't been uploaded before but system said they were already uploaded. How long does it take for uploaded material to show up under my uploads button on top right of screen? When I go to this link which is my contributions page main page I only see a few articles when in actuality I uploaded at least 100 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Notgoingtotellyou&ilshowall=1 . Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated :-) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgoingtotellyou (talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble uploading intact pdf's. They are being split upon upload and categorized as individual articles within the commons instead of just as one article. I uploaded at least 100 and I can only see a few of them under MY UPLOADS BUTTON where are the rest? Do they need to be checked approved of first? I uploaded them about 4 hours ago so long does it take to approve them? How do I erase the ones that got split up and replace them with the intact pdf? My contributions list only lists about 3 articles also where are the records for the other 97 that I uploaded? I know they uploaded because when I tried to re upload them it says they were already on file with the commons. Thanks in advance for your help :-) P.S. Sorry about asking the questions wrong several times it's my first time here.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC) UPDATE I searched for the ones that the system said were already uploaded and thus wouldn't let me upload them again and I couldn't find them on the commons. Are they being sandboxed somewhere for future checking and inspection or was there an error somewhere? ThanksNotgoingtotellyou (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgoingtotellyou (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Notgoingtotellyou: The files are being nominated for deletion because you do not hold copyright to the papers. Even if you did, Commons is not the place to deposit whole documents. PDFs are not a preferred file type, I'm not surprised you're having trouble uploading a non-preferred file type. Please leave any other comments here where the file list is located. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
At least 25 years have passed after the photographs were created in Argentina, and were published at least 20 years ago, so its in the public domain for Argentina. (Law 11.723, Article 34)
My question is, what evidence I need? The first photo was created in 1978, during the FIFA World Cup Argentina 1978 (37 years ago).
The second is before the World Cup, because the Sivori stand wasnt finished (more than 37 years).
And the third is clearly before the stadium inauguration in 1938 (more than 77 years).
Hi FairWinds: I didn't see any information about the dates of the photos on the source given. Is there any way to confirm the dates? If you could put those comments about why just by looking at them they are those dates on the description lines of the file template (use edit)... I wouldn't have a problem with you also removing the "no permission since" tags, because with that knowledge of the dates of the photos - as you say - Argentinian law would be ok with it. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
This photo is mine!
I shot when I visited the trophy room Palmeiras in 2009!
All the photos we headed here on Wikipedia, were taken by me!
I hope you have a proper understanding not to make a big mistake. Leonef (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Leonef: Taking photos of copyrighted objects doesn't automatically transfer the copyright of the object to the photographer, for all the obvious reasons! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
My Uploads
I have talked to a admin to delete my not own pic that uploaded by me. but he don't care about it. and now. i am blocked and i cant upload me OWN PICTUREs TAKED BY A DIGITAL CAMERA AND NOT PUBLISHED IN ANYWHERE . how can i talk to people and they return face and description me as a bad user. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
No se porque eliminaste la foto de Melissa, siempre cuando subo una imagen de ella la elimináis y encima en la información os he puesto de o donde he traído la foto y la pagina web también ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelglam (talk • contribs)
Hi Axelglam: Because "el propietaro de los derechos de autor publico su foto en Facebook con la licencia correcta" doesn't give you the right to upload someone else's photo on Commons. Please read COM:L before making more uploads to Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Naveencm: There's nothing wrong with that deletion nomination! There is no way to tell if the random email account which sent the image has anything to do with the image itself. Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS for permissions for your images if you don't take them yourself. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi ReneeNal: The process for undeletion is at COM:UNDEL. Personally I would want to know the source of the base image, did they buy it from a stock agency, who took it, etcetera as it's obvious Mr. Loudon didn't take it himself. These sorts of Flickr pages are problemattic, who knows if the flickr uploader had the rights to the images. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
My uploads
My replies can be read on the appropriate pages but I have to note that you all were inconsiderate to delations of two pictures File:KF-2.jpg & File:KF5.jpg because these pics were allowed for me to upload into Wikimedia commons by itself National Theatre of Szeged. How can I prove my truth? They have given their permission via a message.Borgatya (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
File:KF-2.jpgThis was a halftoned image of a woman labeled "Kadar Flora", dated 1957, author given as Unknown, "picture from National Theatre of Szeged, 1957/58 yearbook", Author=unknown
29 December 2015 Krd deleted File:KF-2.jpg ..."it's not under ccbysa, source needed"
File:KF5.jpgThis second image was a halftoned image of a man and woman in fancy dress, also from 1957, "Copyrighted material published in a newspaper in 1957. There is no sign of Cc-by-sa 2.5 licence." Source=Hungarian language newspaper Népszava (former Népakarat) published in Hungary, and unknown author
29 December 2015 Ellin Beltz deleted File:KF5.jpg.
As noted on COM:L, if you're not the author of images, you cannot upload them to Commons without permission. In this case the actual authors of the images can send permissions via COM:OTRS by following the very simple instructions on that page and sending an email to Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
INeverCry 20:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy 'crating! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the headsup! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy response to the copyvio. --Tokorokoko (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
_-_Croped.jpg){kind=link}
![82 File:"Niagara" électrique, dispositif anti-grêle.jpg](#File:"Niagara"_électrique,_dispositif_anti-grêle.jpg){kind=link}
![99 Request to reconsider: Commons:Deletion requests/File:01.1Sketch "White Eustis House".png](#Request_to_reconsider:_Commons:Deletion_requests/File:01.1Sketch_"White_Eustis_House".png){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:Pierre_Nantel_participe_aux_commémorations_du_11_novembre_à_Longueuil.jpg){kind=link}
![124 Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg](#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:"Michael_Laucke_Couldnt_Be_More_Convincing"_Montreal._Canada_Eng_translation.jpg){kind=link}
![143 Why did you delete my picture "File:Bodenprofil.jpg"](#Why_did_you_delete_my_picture_"File:Bodenprofil.jpg"){kind=link}
,_2015.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Croped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Croped.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Jun15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_3#c-Wieralee-2015-08-29T21:00:00.000Z-File:"Niagara"_électrique,_dispositif_anti-grêle.jpg){kind=link}
_e_a_costa_do_M%C3%A9xico.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![13:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_3#c-Amica_2467-2015-10-13T13:12:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_my_picture_"File:Bodenprofil.jpg"){kind=link}
![17:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_3#c-Amica_2467-2015-10-13T17:44:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_my_picture_"File:Bodenprofil.jpg"){kind=link}
![12:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_3#c-Amica_2467-2015-10-14T12:01:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_my_picture_"File:Bodenprofil.jpg"){kind=link}
![19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz/Archive_3#c-Amica_2467-2015-10-14T19:06:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_my_picture_"File:Bodenprofil.jpg"){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg)
