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.
Thank you for the guidance on Jim's talk page. The OTRS ticket for Project #1 in the 2nd week of January worked well, thanks to Krd efforts. I uploaded another set of photos from Project #2 over the last few days, sent its OTRS email/ticket last Friday and that one is pending (2021012310000094). I am sure the OTRS volunteers will get to it when they are able to.
I have a question unrelated to these projects. I wanted to change the CC3 or CC4 license to CC0 (public domain) of some of the photos I took and uploaded quite a while ago to wikimedia commons (pre-2020). Is there a special process to do this, or a simple edit will suffice? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!
Dear Ellin Beltz
Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.
After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.
The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.
As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.
Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.
Hi, Ellin. Amitie requested unblock and it is unanswered for 2 months. I do not want to reply, because I once declined unblock and even blocked him without talkpage access, and Эlcobbola does not want to reply, because he declined unblock 3 times in row. And others ... do not work in unblock requests. Please reply him, I don't care how, grant or decline unblock as you like. Taivo (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Taivo I didn't block Amitie. I think since I was the one he was hassling, that it would not be right for me to block him. Besides, he is already unblocked, has been told multiple times no, and there's no reason to change it. We know he'll be right back to picking on me the instant that block is lifted. I am not replying to him because there is no need for victim to confront accuser. Any action on my part would be viewed as provocation Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Please take a short survey regarding UCoC
Hello Ellin Beltz,
I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.
As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.
You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.
Hi Ellin, Could you please wait before deleting files from this user? Most are probably OK with the proper information. I am trying to help him, as he doesn't seem to speak English. Thanks and regards, Yann (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Yann: I am working through saving a bunch of his images from actual author Ballu at this moment. Some are unfortunately copyvios. I won't oppose restoration of anything if you get actual sources & authors. I totally see the problem!! HUGS!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Most of the images seem to be from World War I, so old enough with a proper license and information. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yann: Agree and I really thought long and hard about some scenes with sailing ships in the background too... but the overall pattern was "upload everything saying 'own work'" and I did take some of them. As I said, I won't oppose any restoration if you can help him with sources other than "own work" :) Right now I am saving a pile of his images from a book whose author died in 1939. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Why exactly did you rule & write the way that you did in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gromov Mihail Mihajlovich 1934.jpg? I did not nominate the photo for deletion for being out of scope (it is a photo of a famous pilot and hence in scope, not dispute there) - the problem is that the photo does not meet Commons licencing requirements. Unfortunatly many Russian users are ignorant of the fact that the lenient Soviet copyright law that rendered almost all Soviet photos PD is officially revoked and henceforth invalid, and now Russian photos have quite long copyright terms. Nowhere in the filepage was there evidence that the photo in question met the requirements for PD-Russia status, ie, early enough publication, ergo the photo cannot be on Commons (since Commons does not allow fair-use) even if it is "in scope". Please amend your ruling and delete the photo. We do not need so many copyright violations polluting PD-Russia categories on Commons. PD categories should not come to mean "possibly but probably not public domain", but unfortunatly that's already happened.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi PlanespotterA320: Please see https://glukovarenik.livejournal.com/2780991.html where you can see a longer version of a very similar photo most likely taken within seconds of the one we have. I found dozens of copies of the one we have - some larger, many older. This image was open as a Deletion Nomination for many months. No one but you commented on it. The image is in wide use. It was uploaded in 2009. Our template requirements in 2009 were not what they are now. I will not oppose you if you renominate it, but I'd like to see a little more data than "I don't think this was published early enough" when the event depicted is pre 1929 (see the article in Russian) and there are multiple photos from same event floating around. See the poster at the bottom of that page as well for derivative works. To remove this would break a lot of content. The image is older (and kind of small). If you find the publication date, there are larger and better copies out there. I think it if was nominated and not acted on for several months that it won't kill the project to stay on until we find out the story behind the image - or until you renominate it and someone else takes it out. I could not do that based on what I found/did not find. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
it seems to be an exact copy of an image posted on Twitter several months ago
this is misleading misinformation about a story that scholars believe is fictional story (see the wikipedia article on this where scholarly sources are cited on this; disclosure: I have been recently been working on that article and have read the scholarly sources)
the photo has no GPS or external source or other information to verify
the uploader added categories such as "History of Karnataka", "History of Andhra Pradesh" etc, when Madurai is in Tamil Nadu and quite far from either of those two states (perhaps the uploader knows nothing about the location or details of this image, is likely not the one who took this photo, or why else would they add those categories)
the uploader added text such as "rejecting the supremacy of Vedas and Brahmins", which is just dishonest misinformation (the mythical story has nothing to do with "rejecting the supremacy of Vedas or Brahmins", and the uploader seems ignorant of the context; see the wikipedia article and the peer reviewed scholarly sources I have added there)
the uploader does not specify the temple or specific location for verifiability, nor does he or she provide an external link
I cannot find a different version of this image or any similar image for what is an important and religiously sensitive topic in that part of the world.
I am linking the user's ID above, assuming it will ping them and encourage them to explain. I am not sure what our procedures on discussions/deletions and such behavior. Requesting your attention, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ms Sarah Welch: I sent it to "copyright violation." Probably on left side of your screen when you are on a "File" page, is a line which reads "report copyright violation." For a clear cut case like this one - that is the best choice. Provide the URL there as you did here, and no extra explanation is needed. If you are at all unsure (unlike this time) use "Nominate for Deletion" and give the full explanation of why you feel it is a COM:COPYVIO, or out of COM:SCOPE. There are many subcategories of copyvio, there's COM:FOP, COM:TOYS, and so on. You do not need to go look it up, merely offer your explanation and the system will do the rest. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC) PS Someone else will remove it from the copyright violations page, it's not good form to both nominate and zap! eb
Hi. What do you think of this file and other uploads by the same user? I gather when you take the photo of an autographed photo that is a DW, unless you are the original photographer. (Which is quite complicated in the case of a person who appears -probably, not sure- in the image.) Best. --E4024 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, I saw you asked user:Ecummenic why he slaughtered all these categories to put redirects leading to the decades but I couldn't find any answer from him. I think these changes were a bad idea and unmotivated. Anyway, when I recategorize the paintings, I add these categories back. Have a nice day. --Birdie (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about you today and thought I would stop by and say hello. I hope that you are doing well and everything in your part of the world is safe. I have been working on a few projects and am not that active here anymore - but I do from time to time still contribute. How have you been. I have a major copyright question for you, but would rather keep it private, so I will shoot you an e mail.
Hi, Ellin. I am at the vandalism board! Have you got a minute to handle the complaint? (You know, if my head is going to be cut, I would prefer female hands to do that. :) Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi INS Pirat: As part of the nomination, it read "(Marking as possible copyvio because Between 35:25 and 39:16 the video contains a bunch of clips that are very unlikely to be own work of the Youtube channel.)" Which is entirely true. The video contained clips of other videos and we have no idea how those were licensed as no sources were given. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
A1Cafel didn't followed your order to reduce his deletion request spam and did it again: [3]. All of these 52 files are having now the missing URL. At all, 495 files, which were marked by A1Cafel for fast deletion are now checked and are waiting for admin decision to remove the DR. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Greetings JPF: It seems like Tuvalkin converted them to Deletion Nominations? I am recovering from vaccine shot, and would like a TPS help on this. Thanks everyone. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Feel better, Ellin, and congratulations on your immunization! As for the deletions dicussions, I am of course in favour of keeping all these files and created them all in separate because I could not fin a way to create a bundle discussion that would remove the speedy tag (unless it’s okay to do it by editing the wikitext, instead of using the button?, in hind sight, maybe it was…) -- Tuválkin✉✇11:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no easy way to batch-convert speedy tags to a single DR. I usually end up using VFC to nominate them and then remove the speedy tag in another edit. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uploading issues
Hi Ellin. I have another version of the sailing video I am trying to upload but it will not allow the upload? My file is 1.7 gb and the servers now only allow 100mb, I have a copy online here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmyFn0U7_rmJpAr8kIaBiqG3pRXd?e=MXgPAm but that gives another error when I try to load from the URL. Any ideas? --Don (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh my, I hope your feeling better. Would you please delete the old version of this video J Class World Championship - Newport Shipyard by D Ramey Logan and scrub it so that this new one transcodes in its place. @Jeff G.: was nice enough to upload it yesterday after I changed out the music. Hope you are feeling better, thank you for the assistance. --Don (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ellin,
I was hoping you could take a look at this deletion nomination for multiple fictitious / fake Cuban Province flags. Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Cuban Province Flags. I'm not sure if the delete request was done correctly but it seems like a straightforward case. I'm afraid that maybe it's being overlookedif it wasn't cretaed correctly. There is a template at top of the request that makes it look incomplete, to me, but I don't know. These flags have been propagated all over the place on various wikis. Please review, if you have time. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I removed the fake Cuban flags from all the pages and also need Trujillo Alto coa deleted - please. TY.
Hi Ellin! Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Cuban Province Flags I've removed the fake Cuban flags from all the pages. It seems someone posted a bunch of flags on some blog and someone uploaded them to Commons and other users added them to articles and other editors recreated them as .svg files and on and on and on. Until someone on Reddit came in and created the mass deletion request (linked here). They are ready to vanish. Please do your magic and thank you so much! There is also a file which was created which does not represent the Trujillo Alto coat of arms that I would like deleted. Cheers! The Eloquent Peasant
Faça um grande, mas um grande favor: elimine todas as imagens do Bigdata sem nenhum pudor.
Se não há alguma utilidade para a Wikipedia, Wikimedia e seus usuários, faça o que tem que fazer.
Ainda que eu tenha certeza da questão autoral, visto que os originais estão comigo e foram por mim executados, não vejo mais porquê ficar explicando mais nada a vocês. Agora realmente é uma questão pessoal. Eu não quero ficar dedicando meu tempo a explicar e a justificar mais nada. Assim que o fizer, por favor me avise.
Eu não sei se você também pode cancelar o meu perfil e minhas informações pessoais. Se puder fazê-lo, será um favor extra e me poupará mais tempo e aborrecimento. Grato, Pedro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Celso Cruz de Souza (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pedro: The drawings were created based on copyrighted photos... the first one "Johanna" is based on a photo from "Embrapa Agrobiologia" but we do not have permission from Embrapa Agrobiologia to use the image which you copied. Please see COM:DW to understand the limitations under which Commons operates in regards to images such as these. Cheers! Os desenhos foram criados com base em fotos com direitos autorais ... o primeiro "Johanna" é baseado em uma foto da "Embrapa Agrobiologia" mas não temos permissão da Embrapa Agrobiologia para usar a imagem que você copiou. Consulte COM: DW para entender as limitações sob as quais o Commons opera em relação a imagens como essas. Saúde!Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Summer is Here
Hello Ellin, I hope that this beautiful photo find's you well
Hi, I came to know that you had removed image File:R. Velayudhan.gif from the article "R. Velayudhan", since it was taken from a public domain, I would like to know the reason. Could you please explain me ! So that I can avoid the mistake in future uploads. Have a nice day... Mehboob Nambrath (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mehboob Nambrath: Certainly! The license for that photo was found at the source's license website page: http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Copyright.aspx?linkid=1 which reads in part "All copyrights are reserved with the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed. For any other re-use of the material you are required to seek permission by sending a mail to us." The "Non-commercial" restriction in the forgoing makes it incompatible with Commons licenses, please see COM:L. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Why?
Hi, I came to know that u had removed an image from File:ARJUN THERMOBARIC ROUND.jpg from the wiki commons. That file officially belongs to DRDO and the DRDO had made licence free of th documents, that file was found on one of their documents. Could u provide an proper reason for removal of the files? It had created huge chaos in the Arjun tank Wikipedia section. Thank you Helios007 (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I am aware that no consensus is required, but if your decision isn't based on consensus, I expect an explanation. Just claiming that some people are wrong isn't it and won't give me an opportunity to either learn and agree or post an effective undeletion request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm TTP1233, you have tagged most of my contributions as possible delete, which is not a good sign. If I ignore all of it, but I can't tolerate one of my contributions. The last deleted one, File:Raj Chakraborty 2021.jpg, which you had deleted maybe, without seeing the permission part, where an OTRS member has verified the copyright person. Still you have deleted. Did you check Exif file comparison with the Twitter link you said in nominated for deletion. My observation is when I uploaded it, thereafter it went to Twitter but we don't know when it was uploaded. So being a bureaucrat of this Commons, how can you guarantee that this file is deleted for copyvio, where the film's attribution person has talked to OTRS member and verified this file. And the person is no other but one of my family members. I would request you that next time dont make any mistakes...I didn't came here for undeleting my file...TTP1233 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded this image about two years ago. (A greeting card by artist Paul Martin, who died in 1932.) I just noticed today that it was deleted from Commons, a few days ago. A link in a WP article is now broken. It took a bit of time to upload and write up its detail in "Summary." I would appreciate it being temporarily restored to allow me to upload it to my Flickr imagine uploader instead. It will otherwise be lost to history. (I was not able to enter the "deletion or save" discussion, since not aware there was any copyright problem until today.) Re. 1:05 June 3, 2021 deletion date. JimPercy (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the file pages, not just the images again? The images were identical, but the file pages were not: the nominated file page contained no source, while the not-nominated file page contained a source which lead me to the Flickr URL I gave above. Do you think https://www.flickr.com/photos/62937028@N02/50236896003/ is not its original publication (or the Flickr image is different from the deleted one)? I believe it passed license review. Who was the reviewer? whym (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Whym: If you look at the source above you will see the photo is credited, and not to the flickr account. Therefore the flickr account uploaded something that wasn't theirs, and we can't keep it. I have no idea who reviewed it, that's not really important. It could have been a bot. Flickr reviews are fairly regularly overturned when people take a serious look at the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't you think it's possible for www.3bmeteo.com to make a mistake in the credit line? Many web pages misattribute photographs. In this case, it's the International Maritime Organization, a well recognized organization whose specialty is ships, who owns the Flickr account and is (at least indirectly) claiming authorship here. Nikkei Asia attributes the same image to the International Maritime Organization. [5] Is there anything that makes 3BMeteo.com more trustworthy than Nikkei Asia and the IMO on this matter? whym (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Whym: It's precisely that uncertainty which means we can't keep it. Notice that the actual source image is larger that the one which was uploaded here (1280x853 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Efd3u_FWkAE8u10?format=jpg&name=large & https://twitter.com/guillaumegouges/status/1294635129055444993/photo/1. Guillaume Gouges is a journalist. The original upload template reads: {{Information
|description={{en|1=On top of the COVID situation, this tanker ran aground on the pristine lagoon of Mauritius spill out its black poison. The area is still reeling from the effects.}}
{{fr|1=En sus de la situation delicate causee par le COVID, ce navire-citerne deversa son poison noir dans les lagons de l'ile Maurice. Les effets furent devastateurs.}}{{Wiki Loves Africa 2021 country|MU}}
|date=2021-04-12|source={{own}}|author=[[User:MARCELSPES|MARCELSPES]]|permission=|other versions=}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
I asked Guillaume Gouges whether it was his work in a reply to that tweet. Also, since it seems that the uploader (or rather the importer from Flickr) was never notified about the deletion, I'll ping them: @B2Belgium: . whym (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Movie Posters of Old Indian Language Films marked for Possible Deletion
Hi Ellin:
Thank you for your recent message about the following files I had recently uploaded on Wikipedia Commons that have been marked for possible deletion: AnkhMicholi.jpg, NightClub.jpg, Sagai.jpg, Parbatmovie.jpg, Laadla.jpg.
All of these files are theatrical movie posters of Indian-language films that were released about 70 years ago. I obtained all of these posters from the internet and my understanding was that these old posters are now in the public domain, and therefore out of copyright. Is my understanding on this matter not correct?
I notice lots of Wikipedia articles concerning 70-year old films with movie posters in the articles. Did I by any chance do something incorrectly when I uploaded my posters to Wikipedia Commons? Please let me know.
Movie Posters of Old Indian Language Films marked for Possible Deletion, two
Hello Ellin:
Further to the note I just sent you I note that that the Copyright law of India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_India) indicates that all cinematograph films fall in the public domain sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.
The release dates for the films for which I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons are as follows:
AnkhMicholi.jpg (1962), NightClub.jpg (1958), Sagai.jpg (1951) Parbatmovie.jpg (1952), Laadla.jpg (1954).
Hope that helps in understanding why these posters (except maybe the one for Ankh Micholi) should not be deleted.
Movie Posters of Old Indian Language Films marked for Possible Deletion, three
Hello Ellin:
Sorry to send you still another message today. I just noticed that two of my images...Laadla.jpg and Pooja.jpg... have already been deleted. Is there a way that these can be undeleted? Many thanks. Scholar165 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Theatrical Movie Poster}}
|date=19540101
|source=Theatrical Movie Poster
|author=Theatrical Movie Poster
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}== {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} [[Category:Movie posters]]
With the information you provided and the licenses you applied, these images were copyright violations. You still are not providing sources for me to check where they came from, which movies they are for, and the dates of those movies. It is not possible to undelete these without full information.
I saw your message and have contacted the artist about using their images. I am awaiting a reply. What should I write on the image if they grant permission? Should I ask them to send me the image again even if it is online?
the images you just removed (recently)from the wiki don't have any copyright, they are widely used and if someone tries to claim copyright it is extremely fake, that Buddha image cannot be copyrighted and the content Its content is free for everyone. for whatever reason you always like to remove the images of gods, fairies, saints, Buddhas of the east. if you don't know exactly then you don't have the right to remove and you have abused your authority and images like some jesus god img have copyright etc then please do your good. Lolvatveo (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
spread out leaff
find caterpillar. If you don't identify it clearly, it's very harmful because the Buddha image posted for everyone to admire is deleted, it's a pity. Lolvatveo (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, as well as for your attention.
In accordance with the COM:L regulations, I can "upload someone's else artwork if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell it".
Artist Diana Malivani, the copyright owner of the concerned images, granted such permission for several art galleries, for instance:
To make things simpler while uploading images, I mentioned one of these art galleries (Singulart) as source of all the images.
Therefore, contrary to what is being asserted by the User 'Vexations', there is nor "copyright by Singulart", neither such copyright violation, since the copyright owner is Artist Diana Malivani, and not Singulart.
If you agree with this argumentation, kindly remove the mention "For deletion" from all the concerned images.
Otherwise, please do let me know what exactly I should do, i.e., what I should modify in the mentions related to the images.
Finally, kindly note that I'm ready to provide evidence that the copyright holder (Artist Diana Malivani) has given permission to publish these files under a free license, by sending an email from her personal electronic address to [email protected].
Please advise.
Many thanks in advance, and sorry for my "perfect" English :))
Hi @Michel Modigliani: I absolutely do not agree that your method "Singulart" is acceptable to Commons because at the bottom of every one of their pages is "C SINGULART" which means those pages are considered to be copyright to Singulart. You cannot hand away their claim. For third-party permissions, there is a process and a simple email form at COM:OTRS. I would also point out that Commons is not a place to try to get famous, to promote a person or a cause. Please read COM:NOT. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Photos
Hallo,
All my photos are o.k., I have agreements in my emails, or I made that pictures by myself. I probably badly informed about it. Photos of Dagmar Doubravová, Daňa Horáková, Jitka Kopejtková, Agentura GAIA that were demolished were personally given to me for use of Wikipedia. --Marie Haisová (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Marie Haisová: : While your friends may have said "it's ok" to you, that's not how Commons accepts third-party permissions. Please read the page COM:OTRS and have your friends fill in the simple email form. Other admins work on that process and if it's ok, the images may be restored. Also please read COM:L. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo from a Flickr user on the bad authors list, and the photo was reviewed and marked for deletion. However, this photo looks perfectly legitimate to me, along with all the other photos from the same album, shot with the same camera on the same day. I make my argument about this photo on the talk page.
I don't know the procedure from here. How can I protect the image from deletion? It's really fantastic; professional quality. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
You deleted File:Snow In Crawley.jpg as a copyright violation. I believe that editor has uploaded the same image to the English Wikipedia. See en:File:Snow In Crawley.JPG. Is that the same photo? What was the basis for the copyright violation? If the image has problematic licensing, I will nominate it for deletion on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Whpq: It was removed as part of a general cleanup of copyvios for the uploader. The uploader [6] was found to be a sockpuppet [7] and the images removed. As for how English Wikipedia will deal with it, I have no clue. I am not up on their policies and cannot offer guidance. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Eloquent Peasant: It would seem the uploader collected an encyclopedic collection of Hispanic heraldry as stated on their user page. Personally, I don't really like giant deletion requests for this kind of topic. Personally, I would have nominated one or two, seen how the arguments went and then - if applicable - gone back to the gallery. But that's just something I do because while - in the old days - these types of large deletions were common, they have become less so and perhaps more nuanced. I hope that is what you were seeking, if not please write again. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a photo I took of Miguel Algarín outside the Nuyorican Poets Café in 2007. I'd like to add it to his page. Can you help me with instructions. Thank you. Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgytje (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Sgytje: , Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Algar%C3%ADn&diff=1043966922&oldid=1032493161 to see how I did it. The left is the Old, the right is the new. Also when you write people here, please sign your writings with four tilde characters, like this ~~~~. That makes your signature and time appear automatically! The way to talk about an image without showing it is [[:File:Miguel Algarín in front of Nuyorican Poets Café 2007-08-08.jpg]]. The way to show it so you can see it is explained in detail at my English Wikipedia User Page, here Welcome to Commons, Brian! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Blason de Bagnols-en-Forêt has been removed on september the 14th. It was the correct coat of arms which represents the city. It doesn't belong to anyone, is public, no grand nor commercial. It stands as a symbol, like a flag, and has been voted by the municipal counsil. I am deputy mayor of the town and there was no good reason to remove the PNG I put on commons. Vincent 83600 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
First, please take a look at your talk page User talk:Vincent 83600 and notice that you were notified on September 6th about this issue and the full explanation is there. Please see COM:EVID if you have questions about that part of the process. Seven days later, I removed the image because I verified that no one was able to fix this but the uploader - and the uploader had not replied to the message sent. Being new to uploading, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the requirement that each image have a "Source" and a "License" as well as Description, Author/Creator, and Date.
The following is a text copy of the template you filled out when you uploaded the information
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{fr|1=Blason officiel de la commune voté par le Conseil Municipal en 2008. Un rempart à deux tours, deux branches d'olivier et un bandeau avec l'inscription "Bagnoou" (provençal) ont été adjoints aux anciennes armoiries datant de 1696.}}
|date=2008
|source=Documents internes de la Municipalité de Bagnols-en-Forêt
|author=Municipalité de Bagnols-en-Forêt
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
Domaine public
[[Category:Héraldique]]
The points to note are as follows.
(a) Date 2008 is recent. If it was created in this century, there is a copyright on it of some sort.
(b) Author is given as a government, but with no link to show the actual source of the image. The name of the author and the name of the uploader do not appear to have any point of contact. So what we consider is that you didn't make it, you say they did, but we have no source to verify the license you have given. The source is not able to be followed to the source of the actual image, so we are unable to assist with verification through that route.
(c) There is no recognizable license. "Domaine public" with no source of the original image is not able to be verified.
(d) Because you say it is the official seal based on a vote of the Municipal Council in 2008 - which is well within the period of time when authors have copyright on their works. It is not an ancient work that would be automatically in the public domain due to age. So we cannot change it to PD-old because it isn't. We do not know the actual author, but they cannot possibly have been dead for 70 years if the emblem was just voted in this century. Please see COM:L for "License" where all this is explained in great detail.
(e) There is no information on your user page which connects you with the municipality in any way. Your user page, being empty and uncreated makes your name appear in red. Users who do not fill in their user pages may sometimes seem as if they are here to contribute to a "point of view" or "personally important" project - perhaps not interested in the project as a whole or being part of the community of uploaders. I really hope you are planning to be part of Wikimedia and that I can help you with this issue and that you will - once you understand the limits of the images we can accept for free webhosting - will be an active contributor of street scenes of your town, events - perhaps even a council meeting photo! My user page (just click on my name) is full of information for uploaders about licenses and shortcuts to information in Commons. You may find it helpful. Just click on my name anywhere in the project to go to my user page. It is the same for any other user!
I will be happy to work with you on potentially restoring this image if we can find that it truly is Public Domain - which it may be, I just have to be careful about promises to uploaders. Please write here below my message to keep it all together. Thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
"For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images (see also Censorship)."? I could've requested a undeletion request, but since the GIF seems to have been published on Toyhouse earlier as copyrighted, I'm going to side with the precautionary principle and let it remain deleted in peace. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted File:Neotrogla spp. from Revue suisse de zoologie (IA revuesuissede12212015gene) (page 128 crop).jpg right after it was automatically tagged as copyright violation, since I corrected the Biodiversity Heritage Library template which was previously falsely claiming it was public domain. You were right to do so given the real licence used on BHL. However, the journal is published in "open access", and stores its PDF on Zenodo. The one of the publication containing the deleted picture can be found at this link, and is licensed as {{Cc-zero}}. It is thus acceptable on Commons. Could you now restore the picture with the appropriate license please? Thank you for your help, Totodu74 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Grenz - Tiny problems: (a) Some of the images are Facebook. (b) I'm not an OTRS volunteer and can't read the permission slip to know the coverage. I do not disagree with restoration, but you need Jim or one of the OTRS volunteers to confirm the images. If you need more help, please let me know. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Grenz: I can't read if the Facebook files are linked to you or not because I'm not an OTRS volunteer. So very sorry. The OTRS admins can undelete images that they recognize as ok. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Alamo 1824 flag
Dear Ellin, I heard you nominated my file for deletion, but I heard you say it has no educational purpose and HOW DO FLAGS EVEN HAVE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES?! But first of all, I uploaded the file because I couldn’t find a file for the flag. Secondly, I would like to ask you if you could please edit my file instead of nominate it for deletion. This is my own work, but however, please ask me first before nominating my file for deletion. I would like you to re-consider your actions. Yours truly, Shay Ebanks-McDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMGShay 92 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi OMGShay 92 Please follow the clickable link to comment on the deletion nomination because nothing discussed on talk pages is considered by the closing administrator. Yes, Flags have educational purposes. Please see COM:SCOPE. Since the flag of the Alamo originally was from 1824, how does that become your own work? Please notice the actual flag exists on commons here File:Alamo_Flag.JPG with a SVG file here File:Texas Alamo Flag.svg. Either one of those is correctly licensed, well sized and available for use. The "1831" flag was obviously drawn with some kind of computer program, accurately it was entirely red with no numbers on it, making that image historically inaccurate and without educational purpose. Thank you for reaching out, please do follow the process and discuss nominations on the nominations themselves. The process works by one person nominating, and another administrator keeping or deleting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ellin Beltz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Ellin Beltz, you recently thanked me for working to keep my photo uploaded. I believe you are referring to the Jack Orrison photo. One of my quirky interests is trying to preserve the history of the DuMont Television Network, which ceased to exist before I was born. I spent months researching the life of actor Jack Orrison, then it became important to me to ad a photo to that article. Yikes, did I ever mess up with that, and nearly had conniptions trying to figure out how to correct my mistakes. At times I've found Wikipedia Commons to be intimidating, but through my difficulties I was guided by kind people like yourself. I appreciate your open-ended offer of future help. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in Commons! If I have a tough moment, then I go into nature. Virtually or in reality. Please look this video and by first seconds try to guess, what you are seeing and how big the objects are. The answer comes later. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ellin Beltz! You have deleted the file with the argument "copyright violation". Please have a look to Template:PD-TLGov. Images of the government of Timor-Leste are free of copyright and generally TL is not part of the Bern agrement. Could you restore the file please? Thank you! --JPF (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@J. Patrick Fischer: : I do not oppose valid undeletions, but I do have a question before doing this one. Why would the Template for East Timor cover a police star from Portugal? The template read
=={{int:filedesc}}=={{Information|description={{pt|1=Badge da Direcção Geral de Segurança 1969}}|date=1969|source=http://livrariacanetaazul.blogspot.com/2008/05/histria-da-pide.html|author=Direcção Geral de Segurança|permission=
|other versions=}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{cc-zero}}[[Category:Coats of arms of Portugal]][[Category:Police stars]]
As you see, the source was a blog, it was licensed cc-zero which was unsubstantiated, but it is shown as a Coat of arms of Portugal - hence my curiosity about the applicability of East Timorian Copyright as Portugal does not seem be be part of Indonesia - or am I missing something? Awaiting your advice. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ellin,
I'm enquiring about the removal/deletion of a number of original images - my own photography, that have been removed from Wiki Commons and Wikipedia on the above page:
Specifically, these five images which are my own original imagery, and for which I own the copyright.
I would be grateful for your guidance on how to avoid such original images being removed for alleged 'Copyeight' issues.
With thanks
Patrick......— Preceding unsigned comment added by GaelicSource10 (talk • contribs)
File:ConorMoynagh AllStars 2019.jpg Shows a man standing in front of a display or backdrop with words and a logo. Since you didn't create the logo or the 3D backdrop, you can't license it.
File:ConorMoynagh AllStars 2019.jpg Has an inset photo, a trophy, a logo in the corner and printing on top. The inset, the trophy and the logo are COM:DW, and you cannot license them.
File:Conor Moynagh - Ulster - Interprovincial Railway Cup Winners 2016.jpg Appears to be a rephotograph as it has a strange white border, it's smaller than Facebook size, has no metadata and with the rest of all these small photos of "Conor Moynagh" seems to create a promotional gallery about this person.
If you feel I have deleted these images in error, please feel free to go to COM:UNDEL and ask for their restoration. Please remember to use four TildeCharacters ~~~~ to autosign your name and date. They get a lot of requests and it's harder to fix things for you if they have to research who you are first.
Regarding how to not get stuff deleted: Large file sizes, accurate metadata, no COM:DW and no funny borders, JPG artefacts, dot printing, strange dates, watermarks, overprinting, logos or odd claims of own work. Not that you did/do any of these but those are the big ones. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
?
Hey, I noticed that you just deleted a few of my images, which I had permission from the authors who took them, why were they deleted??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke848 (talk • contribs)
Reason? (1) You are not Ms. Rendell. (2) We do not have her written permission. (3) The website where it came from was clearly marked (C) so you cannot take an image from there, say it's yours, upload it to here, and expect it to stay here. Same with the two more I just nominated from your uploads and same with the others I deleted. If you wish to get her permission, or from any of the other photographers whose work you tried to license as your own, have them send permission to COM:OTRS where other volunteers will review the situation. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Aha, alright I'll go do that. I'm new so im trying to figure out how this works. Thanks I reuploaded that file again before I saw this, feel free to take it down again. I'll get her permission before I reupload it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke848 (talk • contribs)
@Luke848: No need to reupload. Just have them all send permission via simple email form at COM:OTRS and the OTRS editors will make it magically reappear when all is ok. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC) PS to magic sign your name (please) type four TILDE characters, like this ~~~~ and the system will replace with linked name & timestamp!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Back in ‘17 you deleted some second life zoophile porn in an image set as “oos” and “bad quality”, so I nominated the rest of the lot for deletion. But now a user is passionately disputing this even when I used the exact same rationale and cited precedent. So does consensus trump precedent on whether an image nearly identical to a deleted one is in scope, or vice versa? Dronebogus (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: I must have had a good reason back then, but let the community debate and see what happens. We may end up having an UNDEL on the old stuff too, although - with apologies, I don't remember the actual images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ellin! Saw your name on the crats' list. I'm an admin from SqWiki and my community is organizing a photo campaign these days. I was dealing with the technical details and I saw that apparently to deal with the translations and upload wizards you need special rights. I've already made a request for UWC editing rights but I was wondering how common is to make a request for the admin translation flag in these situations? If I had the said tools, it would be way easier for future events but maybe those rights are reserved for special cases? I wanted to ask before I made an official request. Thanks in advance for providing any information! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@DGtal: The file has been waiting for Confirmation for a quarter of a year, since October of 2021. If/when OTRS validates the license they will restore it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I will happily UNDEL it if you would be so kind to tell me what to use on the template to make it correct. As it is, we have the following =={{int:filedesc}}=={{Information|description={{pt|1=Símbolo do Partido Socialista Português em 1930s}}|date=1930|source={{own}}|author=[[User:RicardoSilvaRDM|RicardoSilvaRDM]]|permission=|other versions=
}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{self|cc-zero}} I do not see 1875, I do not see a source. I see own work. I see 1930s. I have no serious disagreement with restoring this image, but I do not have correct information for the image and do not feel good about restoration without source, date, author and license. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
At pt:Partido Socialista Português it’s clearly indicated that this party was created in 1875 and effectively supressed in 1927 with formal extinction in 1933. Are we to believe they created their emblem already in that final phase of their history, under dictatorial persecution, after they lived happier decades without one? I think not. As for source, maybe {{scan}} would be a good start. If it was marked for DR instead, I could have checked the possible provenience, but not like this. There are literally millions of obvious rubbish in Commons you can use for speedy deletions — files in use should always be subjected to a DR, unless they are obvious copyvios or the deleting admin knows exectly what’s going on. This kind of haphazard deletion of files in use in other projects only creates confusion and distrust of Commons among users of other projects. (Meanwhile I asked the uploader to clarify the matter: Therein I remark that you did well, nonetheless.) -- Tuválkin✉✇01:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Tuválkin: : Restored. Please take a look at the template and see if you can help it out. Then please spend some time in the categories for No Source, No Permission and No License as we have 1,000s if not 10,000 images backed up in there. Any you can fix before I get there can be removed from the pile. This one did not give me enough to go on to save from there. There was no source, neither google nor tineye found anything. Could have been a joke, how could I tell? In any case, based on your statements, it is restored. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! It looks like a modern trace-over of a typical late 19th cent. pseudo-heraldic emblem. I requested the uploader to inform about the source of this image; will try to find it myself if needed. -- Tuválkin✉✇17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Help regarding licensing
Hi Ellin Beltz, I'd like to get some guidance from you regarding recent deletion listings and copyright licensing, but I think it would be better if I could reach you over email. But from your user page, seems like there might be some issues sending an email to you, so I wanted to notify you beforehand. Could you please provide me with your email? That would be great, or you could also send me an email to my email address and I will reply from there. Thanks, WikiLinuz (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Should I need to make the photographer send this templated email filled to "[email protected]"? And how should I make him link the [the media work]? Should that [the media work] contain links to the uploaded photographs at Commons? Links this, this, this, etc? Sorry, I'm a novice dealing with. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
And since you're an administrator, once I make him send that email, you will modify stuff manually right? (so that I'll not have to re-upload them) How can I avoid this procedure in the future? The guy is actually a friend of mine, and he's pretty much open to his photographs being used on Wikipedia, so should I make him post a small copyright notice under his Instagram bio? Like, "all photographs are released under the public domain" or "all photographs on this Instagram page is released under CC 4.0" or something like that? Would that be sufficient? Or, what would you recommend? WikiLinuz (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@WikiLinuz: : I don't personally do OTRS permissions but there are editors who specialize in it. The posted on Instagram will not be accepted on Commons, he could state in the OTRS letter that he's ok with anything of his from Instagram being covered by the OTRS agreement, and then you would just add the official OTRS number/template to subsequent uploads, with a link to his instagram, and credit to him as author. Cheers!
Murder of Shamil Odamanov pics deletion
Ellin hi, the pictures on the page Murder of Shamil Odamanov are taken from the murder video itself. Using these photos doesn't violate anyone's rights because claiming
ownership of these photos means taking responsibility for the murder. It's like the photo of the Jihadi John on this page:
Here's another example, the execution of [ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl Daniel Pearl]:
If you scroll down you will find a screenshot from his execution. No one gonna come and claim his artistic rights were violated by Wikipedia by using this screenshot. Same with our page. Don't you agree? I would really appreciate if you could reconsider and undelete the photos. None of the photos posted violates commons. Cheers! Ghost of Shamil (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ellin, I just saw of your deletion (File:Hermann Gutzmann sen. (1865-1922).JPG). Unfortunately the user who puplished it at Commons has left Wikipedia, the account is dead, so I couldn't ask details. But I remember we discussed the copyright conditions in Commons an he/she uploaded it some times later. Don't you think the photographer will be dead more than 70 years? Gutzmann died in 1922, the photo will be from about the century change, so it might be very probably he is dead for the requested time. Or do you have any other informations? Thanks --Phoni (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that was a bit hasty. First, you got the wrong Adolf Eckstein, de:Adolf Eckstein (the one who died in 1935) was a rabbi from Hungary who had been living in the South of Germany since 1888. He was not a publisher in Berlin. The publisher in Berlin was this guy, who lived from 1842 to 1904.
But in any case, the publisher is not the author of a photograph, at least not under German law. That is the photographer, and so far I have not seen a photographer named, and I don't see the justification for a license tag that says that the author is dead for at least 70 years if we don't even know who the author was.
Now, given the fact that the publisher died in 1904, the photo could be from 1901 or earlier, so old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. You can find similar cards from the same publisher on the internet, dated ca. 1900 (here are some more portraits from this publisher, and for a few the actual photographer is noted as well). Gutzmann doesn't look very old in this photograph, so he could be in his mid-30s or so. But the Eckstein publishing house was apparently continued by others after Eckstein's death, so I'd like to have at least some more solid clue about the age of the photo before accepting that it is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Regards --Rosenzweigτ12:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
What a pity, I pinged the German Society of Phoniatrics to contact the grandson of Gutzmann. Maybe it's possible to get an information about the date of this photo or to get a private photo from the family... --Phoni (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Please feel free to nominate the image for deletion. I assumed that @Phoni: had it correct. This isn't a win/lose thing, it's a good faith effort to keep good content and remove obvious copyright violations. The subject died in 1922 at an older age than he's shown in this image, so the image is prior to 1922. Cartes-de-viste are assumed to be published and it has a publisher's name. My bad on finding the wrong one. Thank you for fixing that. As said, please feel free to nominate this for deletion. I did the best I could with what I have, you all can argue it out on the DN which I promise to avoid entirely. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Juandev: There was no license at all on the file since 21 January 2022. The metadata reads "Imported media from uploads:96f31402-7ace-11ec-be33-56dbdb266599" Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So I guess its my file. If its a file I have uploaded, could you undelete it and I will tag it with a license? Juandev (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ellin. You marked several images that I uploaded as copyright violation. This is my own work. These are original concepts or designs that I have created and I used myself in my PhD thesis. The source of the images, that you mention as being a ”book”, is actually my PhD thesis, finalized last year at KU Leuven university, Belgium. For each of the pictures, I provided fair and correct references and links, as well as correct attributions to both my PhD thesis, as well as to the scientific context and related concepts. The attribution and reference style follows exactly the scientific standards required for scientific research and publications, enforced by KU Leuven university. I dont see any reason for this request for deletion, and especially speedy deletion. In fact, I just saw that another picture was already deleted - same reasons. Can you help with it being recovered? File:Engineering_cycle.png. Thank you. Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stemrv (talk • contribs) 09:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Stemrv: The easiest way is to fill in the simple email form at COM:OTRS. The admins over there can restore images after the email is processed. The reason for deletion was that the source was credited to a named person, your account is of course anonymous, so we have no way to correlate the "you" of your account to the "you of your book" - and obviously people who aren't the source do this all the time, so we do speedy delete anything credited to publications. They weren't marked erronously but because Commons only accepts freely licensed images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) PS please sign your name with four "tilda characters" like this ~~~~ and the system will add your name and timestamp!
|description={{en|1=An old advertisement of the company}} {{it|1=Una vecchia pubblicità della ditta}}
|date='80
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:IlCommenda|IlCommenda]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
{{Uncategorized|year=2020|month=May|day=2}}
:<nowiki>== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-Italia}}{{PD-1996}}"
It is impossible to have "an Old Advertisement of the Company" and "own work" at same time. Then a pile of tossed on licenses that don't apply to Old Advertisement without date or proper author. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your reply. About four months ago someone wrote to me on Wikipedia for the problem with the license. I'm not expert on Wikipedia so I wrote to an administrator and he told to me to place the "PD Italian" license for those pictures. I have place it on all of the pictures. I thought the problem was solved.
What have I to do now ? All of those pictures are mine and I have all of the right about them. I would like to reload them, please can you help me to do that ? What have I to do ? Thank you. ( Today I'll be at work, I can reply when I come back ). IlCommenda (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi IlCommenda: My best suggestion is to go to COM:UNDEL and ask for a second opinion. I couldn't sort it out from what was on the template - let's get a second administrator to look at. My formal statement here is "I don't oppose you taking this to COM:UNDEL nor will I comment against your request." OK? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you please undelete a few images?
Hi,
I got 3 diagrams deleted, even if i replied to the deletion notice.
The pictures were erroneously marked as a copyright infringement from a book.
Yes, they were copied from a book, but it was a book that I wrote (my PhD thesis), so I have the copyright and obviously the right to publish them. Stemrv (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Since they were from a publication and your account is anonymous, we have to request that you fill in the simple Email form at COM:OTRS and work with an OTRS-Administrator who will restore them after verification. This is to protect the copyright holder.
Also, I have no idea how you expected me to reply to your talk page. By just writing my first name, there's no automatic notification even though the system provided you with a clickable link. We can only work with what we know is out there. Please be sure to keep replying here, or use a {{Talkback|your username}} to let me know there is a message for me on your talk page. Either way works. Not linking to anything doesn't work at all! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for your reply !
My account is not anonymous. I am fully authenticated. I had a profile page on wikipedia which I just realize is not automatically linked form wikimedia - which is strange, but ok, I duplicated it here as well. You can check my profile with full name, links and personal details.
The ”simple email form at COM:OTRS” has about 10 pages of explanations on how to use it.
It would be easier to simply re-upload the files.
Could you kindly let me know how to make sure that the reuploaded files wouldnt get deleted again? What did I do wrong?
I was trying to clearly explain, in the media description: the source, and the fact that they were my own creation.
Also, when I received the deletion warning, I replied wherever I found a reply button. I was trying to reply directly on the discussion, but I dont remember where exactly i managed to reply. I understand that the reply was probably in the wrong place.
I have 2 more files marked for deletion. Did I reply correctly to them now? I replied on the deletion request page, but wikimedia/wikipedia being so "simple", you never know if it is the right place...
You are probably frustrated by all novices moving around chaotically, but believe me, I've been trying for quite a while to be a contributor to wikipedia and wikimedia, and you cannot imagine our frustration as new-comers. My contributions are systematically received with contradictory, completely unreasonable feedbacks such as "not too relevant", "covered by a similar article", "not enough details", "doesnt deserve a separate page", "already has a separate page" etc.
And now, I just had my own work deleted for aleddged copyright violation, because the images were uploaded by me, from a book/phd thesis that I wrote myself - this is again super frustrating. Stemrv (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
PS. i was pretty sure that I wrote to you on this talk page as well, when i first saw the deletion notices.
@Stemrv: You say above that you are fully authenticated, but I cannot find any information on this on your user pages, and I assume neither Ellin Beltz couldn't find the authentication. A link to the authentication from your user page would probably solve the issue. It is easy for anybody to register an account in somebody else's name, and link to their user page elsewhere, so your telling your name and providing a link just tells who you claim to be. The linking would have to be the other way round, linking to your username here from your user page elsewhere, the stefanmorcov one, or, as its about your thesis, preferably from a user page at the university, if you still have an account there. You could also send an email from your account there to the VRT e-mail address (such as [email protected]) and link the ticket number from your user pages, when your identity has been confirmed. –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Stemrv: @LPfi: : User: LPfi has answered your question. But one more thing. Commons isn't wikipedia. I am sorry that you're having editing problems over there, but that's not us. We are only interested in getting correctly licensed images for Wikimedia Commons. I see your Diff-link above. But please tell me what I was supposed to do with that message? There's no names of files, there's no information. I get dozens of "Why DID you TAKE my IMAGES" notes with nothing attached. I looked at the images, they were credited to a book without COM:OTRS permission or an authenticated account (I couldn't find it either), they went. And one surprising thing from your answer. You have degrees, you've published a book, but OTRS was too hard? It's one email; you'll do fine. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
PS if you reupload the files without fixing the problem, your account might get temporarily unavailable. Please do not do that. Work the problem not make more. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems the ticket has been handled now, so there should be no problem with those files, or uploading more files (although the RFDs haven't been closed yet). As I don't have access to the ticket, I don't know whether it was about these specific files or about Stemrv's identity. –LPfi (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for your patience and replies.
I just sent a reply to my previous email, from my university mail account.
Thank you for pointing out that there was, in fact, a source for this image. I must have just overlooked it since it was the single line and not a template. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Public domain This work was first published in Tunisia and is now in the public domain because its copyright protection has expired by virtue of the Law No. 94-36 of February 24, 1994, on Literary and Artistic Property, enacted 1994, amended 2009 (more details). The work meets one of the following criteria:
It is an anonymous work or pseudonymous work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)
It is a photographic work, and 50 years have passed since the date of its creation
It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last surviving author)
It is one of "official texts of legislative, administrative or legal nature and their official translations"
Before July 5, 2009, a photographic work was protected for 25 years. Pictures created before July 5, 1984 have already been placed into the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnen1985 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.
Hi PreserveOurHistory: Owning the art is not the same as owning the copyright to the art unless your purchase agreement with the artist included the copyright - which would be very unusual. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I have this work transcribed at en.wikisource. I transcribed it faithfully knowing that it was okay to be here, copyright-wise, because there is a rule about publications that does not involve looking things up. That rule is: "Any book published in the United States before 1927, even if it was also published in Great Britain/United Kingdom -- the printed US publication on the cover makes it a US pub and therefore within the public domain. This book was first published in 1912. W. Heinemann and Doubleday, Page (London and New York) published together often.
I happen to know (but cannot actually prove) that this 1912 publication is pretty much not worth the sourcerers time to discuss at the copyright discussions. Far more interesting discussions are found about books from the years between 1927 and 1960-something, in which the laws require a publication of the copyright renewal. s:Goblin Market (Rackham), 1933 and s:Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination, 1935 being examples of this. The first required proof that the publication appeared in the United States within 30 days of the UK publication. That was found in a newspaper from Minnesota. The second required a renewal notice found in one of several very large books, and it wasn't there. Raggle-taggle from the same year was there, so PD-US-no-renewal is the license. If Raggle-taggle had not been found, PD-US-no-notice would have worked.
Hi SVTCobra: Some history. User "INeverCry" and user "DaphneLantier" were (by their own statement) the same human person. Both accounts were admins because the community did not know that Daphne was the same human as INeverCry. This human did a lot of great work here, but also violated community rules and has been blocked. My read on this is that
1) The first upload was incorrect information and was nominated for deletion by INeverCry.
2) I deleted the image.
3) Daphne found the right info and reuploaded the image which is still here.
Yes, of course it helps, but the {{LicenseReview}} is by a blocked user and the source link is dead. But if you are confident that it is not a copyright violation, I will leave it alone. Cheers, SVTCobra18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
giving permission to use photos
Hello Ellin,
I am new at Wikipedia. I noticed my photos on Michael Alig's page has been removed . Maybe we can work something out . I am a photographer. I own the photos because I took the photos or they were taken on my phone. I was Michael Alig's manager from 2014-2020. I attended the June 25, 2015 event. I added the James St James photo as proof World of Wonder attended which added credibility to the page. What clearance do you need so the photos are not removed? Like I said , I am new to editor world of Wikipedia so I am open to learn. I am not receiving any pay or privileges for doing these edits on his page. As for the cropped photo I submitted, I have the original uncropped. I removed Esther Hanyes because I do not have a way to get ahold of her to see if she wants to be in the photo.I lost contact with her.Please advise. MissHollywoodNYC (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi {{u|MissHollywoodNYC}:
Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are part of the same project, but are not the same. You can upload photos at both places, but Commons is the one with the toughest copyright rules.
File:Michael Alig hosting virtual party.jpg Posters are copyright the creator. However this one contains no images, so if it were ever needed, it could be typed in text. It doesn’t seem to be particularly notable event, more like promotional. Deleted 04:12, 26 July 2022 by Herbythyme
File:Michael Alig artshow.jpg This is a photographic reproduction of art by someone else. It’s not “own work” it’s a Derivative Work. See COM:DW for more information. You need COM:OTRS permission by the artist/s and/or graphic designer of the reproduced article to retain it here.
File:James St James, Ingrid LaLa.jpg has no useful metadata. I see you’ve uploaded it to English Wikipedia with a comment “I own the photo.” Ownership is not the same thing as owning copyright. The photo was also formerly published with Michael Alig/RuPaul on a page that was deleted from the internet and due to the ambiguity cannot be hosted at Commons.
I realize this may be confusing, but if a photo has been previously published, it raises the question of "who took it and who owns the copyright." I hear your statements about these being original photos, but copying a printed invitation or a poster is not "original work of the photographer" the copyright still remains with the poster designer or invitation artist. The last one which is actually a photograph of three people was published before the upload here, so it raises the question of "who owns it." Obviously "MissHollywoodNYC" is anonymous. Therefore since it was published with ownership statement before, you need to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to resolve it.
Hi Ellin Beltz, I saw that you deleted some of the images I uploaded, specifically File:Avestan_geography.png, avestan_geography_vendidad_witzel.png, avestan_geography_vendidad_grenet.png, and Avestan_geography_mihr_yasht.png. The older version of one of these images (Avestan_geography.png) was flagged in early June for possible copyright infringement with the notice "Source of derivative work not properly indicated." The source I used was for the topographic background of the image, which I had originally taken from OpenTopography.org. That website explicitly states that their maps can be used without restriction. I notified the Wikimedia user who had left the message, but received no confirmation as to whether or not this would resolve the copyright issue. I was therefore concerned and decided to replace the background with another source of topographic maps, namely http://demis.nl/. I used this source because I saw that several other images on Wikimedia use this website as a source for topographic maps, and the website explicitly states that all data can be used without restrictions. After switching to this other source, I created several more images with this background and uploaded them. I included the source in the description of each image, following the template I saw on the file description page of these other images. Can you please explain to me why you deleted all my files anyway? Fhesse (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fhesse: The source given for your images www.demis.nl is very clearly labeled copyright. Since that is the source given, and since that's how the page reads, the images are not available for Commons. I did not find the statement " the website explicitly states that all data can be used without restrictions" anywhere at the link given. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- - -
Undeletion request 6 Sept 2022
I note that you deleted File:Jyväskylän junaonnettomuus vaunu.jpg back in 2015 as "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing". However, I assume that the image is from the accident investigation report, a statement from a Finnish public body and thus {{PD-FinlandGov}}. The article 9 does not cover "independent works", but if this photo, as I assume, was taken by the investigators, it can hardly be regarded as an independent work. Statements by several bodies show that the interpretation of "independent" should be very narrow. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi LPfi :The template read {{Delete|reason=not covered under {{tl|PD-FinlandGov}}|subpage=Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov|day=25|month=July|year=2015}}
{{Information
|Description={{en|1=An overturned first class car after the Jyväskylä rail accident}}
|Source=Accident Investigation Board of Finland http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/2456.htm
|Author={{unknown|Author}}
|Date=1998-03-06
|Permission={{PD-FinlandGov}}
|other_versions=}}.
Please tell me why you think it should be undeleted since it says it provided by the Board, but nothing says who took the image? ( Specifically Author=unknown Author doesn't seem like it could be PD-FinlandGov, or why you think it could be.) Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry that the automated messages are a little more aggressive than I'd like, but I found a high-resolution copy of the file and was cleaning things up while sorting that out. After all, it's a lovely image. There's some sort of editing, either montage or editing out a seat - look just left of where she's sitting on the moon and you'll see - but it's gorgeous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted properly licensed file as copyvio
This is a bit old, so apologies. According to my talk page, it seems you deleted File:Imaizumi Yui 2019.jpg as a copyright violation of an unlicensed YouTube video. But the YouTube video was originally uploaded with an appropriate (and irrevocable) CC license by the owner of the content, which you can confirm at https://web.archive.org/web/20200212024928/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX0PSigwBhE, and in fact at least one other version of the file extracted from that video remains on Commons for that reason. So, is there another reason my upload was deleted as a copyright violation? Perhaps an incorrect license tag or similar? Thanks in advance. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
My mistake! It's been replaced anyway, so no need for undeletion. I just wanted to make sure it was a data entry issue and not an actual copyright violation. Thanks for getting back to me. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Message
You invited me to continue a discussion on your talk page, so here I am. I have several points.
1. Peppers Ghost. I uploaded an image of a Peppers Ghost illusion which you have nominated for deletion. As I stated in my response, the apparatus shown in the image was built BY ME in 2007 for a Hallowe'en event, named "Scaresville", at Kentwell Hall, England. You mention protecting the rights of creators. Well, the creator (as in, builder) of this illusion was me. If you are referring to the original designer of the illusion, that was Giambattista della Porta in his book "Magia Naturalis", published in 1589. The more modern attribution was to John Henry Pepper, who died in March 1900. Either way, I think the design may be a little out of copyright by now.
2. Scaresville skeleton. I photographed a hanging skeleton taken at the same Scaresville event, in 2007. The image was widely shared among those of us who designed and created Scaresville. Back in 2010, another user uploaded this image to Wike Commons. This was done with my knowledge at the time. I since uploaded another copy, having long forgotten about the existence of the original. I could have easily provided this expalanation if you had contacted me. Instead, you nominated this for deletion, using the words "WORST KIND OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION". So, this was not a copyright violation as I took the picture, and can prove it. My question, though, is this: how does language like "WORST KIND OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" reconcile with the Wiki Commons principles of Commons:Assume good faith, courteous behaviour and general guidelines for Wiki Commons administrators? I would be genuinely interested in your response, as I am seriously considering a formal complaint to question your suitability to continue as a administrator.
3. You have also nominated two further images of mine for deletion. One was a photograph, taken by me, of the National Westminster Tower viewing gallery in the mid 1980s; the other is an organisational chart, created by me, of the Saudi Central Bank in 2013. These files are unrelated to the Scaresville images. So what's going on? Why the apparent witch hunt? Lord Mauleverer (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Lord Mauleverer Hi. Please do not confuse "nominations" with Witch Hunting, Persecutions, or any other issues. They are the only method we have to resolve licensing issues. You have clearly stated the apparatus was made by you. Good! That means that the closing administrator (not me) will take this into consideration and likely keep the images. Scaresville may be different outcome, I am unsure, which is why these are "nominations" not "copyright violations - deleted" which we also have a mechanism to handle. It is not the method to contact people here prior to doing nominations. The method for everyone - including some of my pictures which have gotten nominated and some which got deleted is the same. I am sorry if this is in some way a problem for you, but please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE and then consider the thousands of uploads per day and smile. No one is out to get you, this is a process not a persecution and it will go easier and faster if you're not upset. "Worst kind" refers to the complication of some of the U.S. copyright laws due to the servers being in the U.S. there are certain situations dreaded by administrators and nothing to do with you personally. Since that would be out of scope, I would hope that would never enter your mind, but apparently it did and it was a comment on the system not the uploader. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You have not answered the first question I posed. It was your decision to use the aggressive phrase "WORST KIND OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" (in capitals) - and you are right, that kind of libellous statement is indeed a problem for me. I will ask again: how does this language reconcile with the Wiki Commons principles of Commons:Assume good faith, courteous behaviour and general guidelines for Wiki Commons administrators. Lord Mauleverer (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I thought I had told you that it referred to a situation dreaded by adminstrators, but if you want a total word for word dissection, please shelter your sensitive feelings and read on. "The WORST KIND OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION... COM:DW from Wikicommons.." The image was copied from a prior Wikicommons upload. I personally find those humorously bad-funny and cannot imagine how people want to upload an image From Commons To Commons, and I delete a lot of them all the time. For some reason people think this is ok "but it was free before, so now I will put my name on it and claim it is mine." This one went to nominations because your other images had issues. You decided to cut out the reason which follows it directly.
Specifically, in this case, the original image 2012 upload File:Kentwell Scaresville.JPG reads "English: Remains of hanged man displayed at Kentwell Hall's Scaresville event, Date 3 November 2007, Source Own work, Author Achilver". There is no COM:OTRS to show that anyone but Achilver created it. Metadata reads: Camera manufacturer CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD Camera model EX-Z1000 Exposure time 1/30 sec (0.033333333333333) F-number f/3.4 Date and time of data generation 17:33, 4 November 2007
Your 2021 upload File:Scaresville_skeleton.png English: Hanging skeleton used in the 2007-2009 Scaresville events at Kentwell Hall, Suffolk, Date 1 October 2007, Source Own work, Author Lord Mauleverer is smaller, lower resolution, has no useful metadata and was uploaded nearly a decade later.
Usually photographers upload images with quality, large size and useful metadata so the appearance here is that you copied from the other version which was on Commons at the time, and which was credited to Achilever without any controversy for over 10 years. Hence my belief that this was copied from the one we already had: (a) uploaded later, (b) smaller, (c) lower quality, (d) no metadata.
I will not be nominating the 2012 image for deletion as I have nothing but your word a decade later that it's your photo.
In the clearest possible English, Administrators on Wikimedia Commons have to assume good faith, but we also have to weed out obvious copyright violations. Conversation here is now over, please continue any discussion on the deletion pages. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
"The image was copied from a prior Wikicommons upload." That's a lie. It was uploaded from my personal directory and I have provided an explanation.
"There is no COM:OTRS to show that anyone but Achilver created it." Indeed. I said it was uploaded by another user. I should have said another user account. Achilver is an account previously used by me, now in disuse. It is my photo and I can prove it.
"because your other images had issues." Another lie. There were no issues with any of my other images. There was, for example, no rational reason for you to nominate my SAMA image other than your statement "Why would a random person have made org chart for[SAMA]" It seems beyond your comprehension that there are people out there who do create content for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. An example is the image I created to illustrate the Hillsborough disaster, for which I was awarded a Barnstar. I'm surprised you haven't gotten round to nominating that for deletion as well.
"Conversation here is now over" It is now. I will now be making a formal complaint about your repeated lies and obsessive and libellous behaviour. Lord Mauleverer (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now!
If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.
User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : MathXplore.
Sorry about lack of administrator activity for last month, I've been laid up! (Jan. 10, 2023) I have been uploading pictures from the disasters: Earthquake, Landslides, etc. I should be back full strength in couple of weeks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete my pictures?
what the hell is copyright infringement? If I am the author myself, and personally made images in Photoshop with my own hands? Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How can I infringe my own copyrights? If I created a picture or an image, then it's not mine anymore? What kind of nonsense is this? Fascism Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) I have read the wikipedia License Requirements from beginning to end. I have not committed any violation, unlawful and unjustified deletion. what specific rule did I break? specify the exact item. Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about lack of administrator activity for last month, I've been laid up! (Jan. 10, 2023) I have been uploading pictures from the disasters: Earthquake, Landslides, etc. I should be back full strength in couple of weeks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete my pictures?
what the hell is copyright infringement? If I am the author myself, and personally made images in Photoshop with my own hands? Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How can I infringe my own copyrights? If I created a picture or an image, then it's not mine anymore? What kind of nonsense is this? Fascism Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) I have read the wikipedia License Requirements from beginning to end. I have not committed any violation, unlawful and unjustified deletion. what specific rule did I break? specify the exact item. Сёгун Чуваш (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Не надо притворятся не понимающим. Ты прекрасно знаешь о чем речь. Википедия это свободный источник, и моя авторская работа не нуждается в лицензии. Ты диктатор как Ким Чен Ын, только в рамках Википедии, своевольно решаешь что можно загружать в вики а что нельзя во преки правилам, и не надо строить из себя блондинку. Я говорю за фото не из этой страницы.
TPS - Please read the translations
Greetings, I am copy pasting translations of the foregoing messages "Latest revision as of 20:49, 29 January 2023
Been laid up - Archive
Sorry about lack of administrator activity for last month, I've been laid up! (Jan. 10, 2023) I have been uploading pictures from the disasters: Earthquake, Landslides, etc. I should be back full strength in a couple of weeks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
LONELY FAT SHALONDER SHVAL UNDER THE FENCE CHEAP SKIN - Preceding unsigned comment added by Shogun Chuvash (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Stinking fucking Pindos, die fucking shit, damn you freak! Shogun Chuvash (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Why did you delete my photo again? Shit you fucking burn in hell you stinking bastard, PIDARAS shit Shogun Chuvash (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
You are a lover of male smelly pussy, go lick the ass of your grandfather Shogun Chuvash (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
You funny homosexual, cocksucker, after I wrote that you delete the photo without rights, you decided to fuck again and delete it again? Ridiculously you pimply freak dwarf fat fat sucker Shogun Chuvash (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete my pictures?| Archive what the hell is copyright infringement? If I am the author myself, and personally made images in Photoshop with my own hands? Shogun Chuvash (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How can I infringe my own copyrights? If I created a picture or an image, then it's not mine anymore? What kind of nonsense is this? Fascism Shogun Chuvash (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) I have read the wikipedia License Requirements from beginning to end. I have not committed any violation, unlawful and unjustified deletion. what specific rule did I break? specify the exact item. Shogun Chuvash (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Shogun Chuvash: Please provide links to the picture files which were deleted, nothing shows as deleted on your user contributions/deleted history page, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/%D0%A1% D1%91%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BD_%D0%A7%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%88 Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You know very well what it's about.(*) Wikipedia is free source and my work of authorship does not need a license. You are a dictator like Kim Jong Un, only within the framework of Wikipedia, you arbitrarily decide what can be uploaded to the wiki and what cannot be contrary to the rules, and you don’t have to pretend to be a blonde. I'm talking about a photo not from this page."
I am not sure what a Shalonder or a Pindos is but I am fairly certain this conduct is unbecoming to Commons users.
(*) I still have no clue what photographs are referenced by this correspondence. I am documenting here, and hope that soon this will be archived where no one can see it.
Also please note that all my content was blanked by the foregoing user. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Still not in peak condition :(
Sorry about lack of administrator activity for last month, I've been laid up! (Jan. 10, 2023) I have been uploading as I find interesting images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, they have removed these images without even checking the description. These images were taken with my Honor 7S cell phone (DUA-LX3 camera), and the deletion description said to delete it because it was taken with an iPhone, which is incorrect. I know you just deleted it, but I don't know if you can restore the images.
Another volunteer, @King of Hearts: has bundled both of those into a new deletion request which seems as though the discussion is going in favor of keeping at this moment. Thank you for pointing it out. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I do wish you had contacted me before dumping a proforma on my article stating your desire to have the photos on the article deleted. If you had contacted me first then we could have cleared up the matter. Yes, the photos came from a book. A book written by a local (to me) author. I asked him if he minded that I used some photos from his book for the article. Of course, he said, "Yes". Otherwise, I would not have used them. Now, the best thing to have done was to have offered to assist me in the best way to tag these photos with regards to licensing. Wouldn't you think? Prudens Hominem (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Your participation requested in Commons moderation research
Hello,
I’m a user researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are working on a project to improve Commons and we want to learn more about the experiences as an Admins on Commons.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and we would greatly appreciate hearing about your experiences. Interviews will be conducted online, in English, using Google Meet, for a duration of about 90 minutes. If you wish, we can offer a thank you gift for completing the interview.
To join this study, please fill out this short form. You may view the Privacy Policy here.
Following your response, I will contact you by email to schedule an interview. Interviews will take place from September 6th-22nd.
If you have any questions about this research, please feel free to contact me.
So sorry to have missed reading this in time to reply but with the requirements of your Privacy Policy and Google Meet - I would have said "no thank you" anyway. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@D6194c-1cc: They seem to have archived it without response or assistance. Meta never lets me login. Commons has messed up my email. There are days I wonder why I even bother. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Also if you have any idea how to reach a Meta admin who has a clue what this Aditor thing is, I'd be really happy to meet them. Best. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ellin Beltz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
~~~~
Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.
Thanks for your work checking copyrights, as on File:Social Media.jpg! Pixabay is one of a few sites that previously released its content as CC-zero, but at some point changed its mind and switched to a custom licence that's incompatible with Commons. There's a bit more context on the basic template at {{Pixabay}}. It's only uploads after 9 January 2019 that can't be uploaded here. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
We corresponded back in 2015. I've been working with Garry Trudeau since 1980, as book editor and general assistant, and serving as the Duty Officer of Doonesbury.com since we launched it in 1995. From time to time we have added info and made corrections to Wikipedia's "G.B. Trudeau" entry, and to the "Doonesbury" entry.
Garry recently reviewed the G.B. Trudeau page and asked me to put in eight additional awards, adding them to the third sentence in the second paragraph of "Creative Works."
I tried doing it myself (adjusting the previous sentence to allow the addition, and making the final two awards a separate sentence. It ended just before the sentence that begins "In 1993, Trudeau was made a fellow....") but after I did it -- wow, I couldn't figure out how to do the links. So I re-edited, undoing my changes and putting it back the way it was.
And I was glad to find in my files a copy of an email exchange with you in 2015, when you were guiding me on getting permission for the photo of GBT speaking at Stanford (the one atop the G.B. Trudeau entry) from the photographer who took it. And I am glad you are still here!
Would it make sense to, and would you be willing to, post this new material yourself? If so I would be happy to just send you the list of awards (and the web site urls that confirm all of them), by email or however you like!
With thanks and best wishes on a snowy night in rural New York,
@David Stanford, DTH: Greetings again! Sure please post it here and I will do my best to fix it. Or you can use my personal email [email protected], just don't send from your wikipedia account directly - I get/got too many wikibot messages and my webhost blocked all Wikipedia.email addresses LOL :) Best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
English Wikipedia
Hello, Ellin Beltz,
You left a message on my user talk page a few days ago. On the English Wikipedia, SPI is the area of the project used for sockpuppet investigations. If you have evidence of socking, you can file a case and a checkuser can investigate your complaint. It helps if there is already an existing report to compare results to. That's about all I have to offer you on that subject. I assume there is a similar process on the Commons. Liz (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Liz: - I am sorry I really don't know how to do what you said, because I do not know how to get to SPI and I do not have any existing reports. I don't do it at all on Commons, so I have no idea of the process, sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Just realized that I hadn't answered your question ("And it's Mr. Mihelič's drawing too, right?"). You're right, it is Tine Mihelič's drawing. Tine drew the drawing on a piece of paper, so it's his drawing. But he gave me that piece of paper, so I guess the drawing is also mine.
Hi. I would like to apologize for these talk messages on April 30, 2020. Back then, I was 13 (I'm 17 now), and I thought that by uploading anthem performances, especially the copyrighted ones by Peter Breiner, I would "help" the community by making them know what they sound like. But I was acting immature on those talk messages and cared about my edits than the actual process. Again, I apologize for those actions and those talk pages from back then. Thanks for listening and I hope you have a good day! :) Adamnewwikipedianaccount (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2024 (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!
Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Done & restored! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
![49 About the Success of the Deletion Nomination of "I'm so lucky lucky.gif"](#About_the_Success_of_the_Deletion_Nomination_of_"I'm_so_lucky_lucky.gif"){kind=link}
