User talk:Elcobbola/Archive13

Oliver Typewriter Page

Do you even own a copy of Beeching? I keep deleting an incorrect piece of the Oliver article, which uses Beeching as a citation when there is nothing on those pages supporting what was written in the article. If the citation does not apply to the real world physical book it is not a valid citation. Please just let that sentence go. It is totally false, it has an invalid citation, and you are simply coming off as an arrogant prick. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:8108:6561:1594:7BA3:A24A (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete my page and block me on Wikimedia. I didn't do anything- Block me right now

Image query

See here; there are numerous "Valued Image" awards on TonyTheTiger's talk page, that process seems to have lowered its !vote from 4 to 3 to pass images, one user is passing many of TTT's, but when I click on the source URLs on several of them, they go nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some are fine, some are rubbish - File:Court of Honor and Grand Basin.jpg, for example, has wikipedia as a source (!!!) and credits User:EurekaLott as the author (they were alive and taking photos in 1893, were they?). Obviously, deadlinks are an issue as well. On the other hand, WP:VP? says nothing about compliance with image policy, which is one of several reasons I believe that whole process to be worthless medal collecting. To go on a tangent, one of my biggest pet peeves is the creation of shine throughs (en.wiki page for a file actually on the Commons). They complicate the file history that I, as a non-admin, can see; they confuse editors seeking to update information (they see the existing page here, so they enter information into the blank en.wiki space, not the actual file on the Commons) and leave behind pages that Dabomb has to clean up if the real file is deleted, moved, etc. This process is a main offender (and that incompetent DYKbot). It's offensive, frankly - headaches in the name of decorating. To return to your point, there are indeed some issues there and several of those images would get an oppose from me if they appeared at FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Valued Pictures needs to go to MFD, along with WikiCup? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion in that regard. People need to start genuine consideration of the necessity and impact of these processes. The culture is too much creation for the sake of creation. Ask not whether something can be done, ask whether it should be done. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer an RFC/U to an RFC or MFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything but XfD. I haven't investigated the current brouhaha to know whether or not TTT's behaviour should be the focus (RFC v RFC/U). Obviously, however, I've been around the review processes long enough to have observed, shall we say, certain inequities. Would altering or removing certain aspects of the reward culture mitigate the problem? Эlcobbola _talk 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reward-seeking editors will just find another way to decorate their user pages. But Valued Pictures is a big waste of everyone's time, as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for calling my bot incompetent :) It was honestly designed to mirror the Featured Picture process; if you can convince them to change how they tag images, I'll be happy to switch too. Shubinator (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely what it is - incompetence. If tasked by DYK to append images so, a competent bot would determine whether an image exists on en.wiki or the Commons and then append the appropriate project page. If it is or was not technically possible to create a inter-project bot, I expect a reasonably conscientious programmer would realise the issues of creating local pages for files hosted elsewhere and refuse to run such a bot - "just following orders" or "just copied another bot" seem, frankly, lazy responses. That notwithstanding, to continue to operate the bot knowing about the issues, insisting upon community input before making a change (not vice versa) – as if this was ever a circumstance contemplated by the community when enacted – seems nonsensical and irresponsible. Эlcobbola _talk 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer "misguided" over "incompetent". The bot's doing exactly what it was designed to do, so it's not incompetent. A design flaw (in my opinion) is more misguided than incompetent. This circumstance was contemplated by the community when enacted; granted, pretty much no discussion happened then, but not for lack of trying. It's not like the change you're suggesting is free of faults (not counting the development time; I consider that my own contribution/responsibility to the community), hence why I asked for community input. (There are "issues" almost every step of the way in programming; some are more glaring than others, but quite often there's no "right" answer. Ottava Rima would prefer the bot didn't exist at all.) The fact that other projects do the same indicates that consensus hasn't shifted. Shubinator (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And that design is incompetent; following an incompetent design is incompetence. Please provide a link to support the claim that the community knew the implications. Provide a link to discussions that indicate contemplation of what would happen to the en.wiki page should the Commons file be renamed or deleted, what the implications would be for the unobservant who enter new summary information into the shine-through on the wrong project, and why the forgoing would be acceptable. And then, even those links exist, why someone with any sense would enact such malarkey (Nuremberg Defense is no defense). That it would take too much time to do properly is even further laziness, to say nothing of the intellectual laziness inherent to OTHERSTUFF (what other projects do is irrelevant). Эlcobbola _talk 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_42#Pics_and_the_archive. The overarching issue was discussed; the specific points weren't. You're welcome (and I'm not being sarcastic at all here) to start a new discussion on it.

Maybe this is a regional semantic difference...it seems like you're saying that if a company is incompetent, all of its employees are also incompetent. I didn't suggest that I didn't implement it because of the time it would take; rather the opposite (sorry if my previous wording was ambiguous). What other projects do isn't irrelevant at all. If other projects follow a certain process, it's a decent assumption that that process has community approval. So it would be safer to go with an approved process than make a whole new one. I'm still curious why you're specifically singling out DYK. Shubinator (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This has fragmented into several points, so I’ll bullet to assist readability:

• Not all employees, just those who follow incompetent directives. To use a perhaps esoteric example: when preparing financial statements (let’s say an audit is conducted for this example), accountants represent that the information is fairly presented. There is, however, a movement (by attorneys) to change this to “accurate and fairly presented” as better protection in case of litigation (i.e. to cover asses) in a financial crisis and a post-Enron/Tyco world. Anyone with any brains or financial sophistication knows there is no such thing as “accurate” in that context (e.g. depreciation, amortization, etc. are estimates and thus, by their very nature, cannot be accurate). To the point, a lawyer or board of directors requesting such verbiage is making an incompetent request; an accountant signing off on such verbiage is incompetent – that the request came from “superiors” or a client is not an excuse. Similarly, requesting a shine through-causing template is incompetent. A program (bot) that actually creates the shine through is incompetent – that the request came from “superiors” (community census) is no excuse. From that link, precisely as I said, the circumstances received no discussion whatsoever, so I'm perfectly happy to call it negligent, careless and thoughtless as well.
• What other projects do is irrelevant. Several projects (de.wiki, Commons, etc.) do not allow fair use images. Does that mean there's consensus not to allow fair use images here? That something exists or happens – on this project or any other – does not mean it has community approval.
• I’m aware that several other bots – at least some also operated by you, if I recall correctly – create these problematic shine-throughs, including for Featured images. DYK was not originally singled out intentionally, but it is perhaps the greater of the evils, as 1) DYK refreshes several times a day, not once as Featured Images do (thus more volume); 2) to my knowledge, there’s nothing preventing a DYK image from appearing on the main page multiple times, thus making a template for DYK images even more pointless than the Featured equivalent; and 3) DYK images are more likely to be new and, therefore, more likely to be renamed or deleted than the more established Featured Images, thus making the wayward DYK shine throughs more readily perceivable.
• DYK is the last place for this discussion. This is problem that should have been caught, if no where else, at the approval stage; a bot forum would be more appropriate. Why is discussion needed at all? To wit, why can’t you program the bot properly? If it’s an en.wiki image, add the template here. If it’s a Commons image, add the template there. At the end of the day, you, not the DYK process, are operating a bot that is causing problems - needlessly. I've brought that to your attention, and you've decided to take no action. Эlcobbola _talk 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free to call me incompetent, negligent, careless, and thoughtless if you want, but it's a bit odd that you're anthropomorphizing the bot.
• No, it doesn't necessarily mean it has community approval. But it's safer ground than trying something new. (And yes, if en.wiki was just starting up from scratch, and only de.wiki and Commons existed, it would make perfect sense to start with their guidelines and then mold them to suit our needs.)
• Your point #2 seems to be irrelevant. Whether or not you agree with the file tagging itself is a whole different issue than the one we're discussing.
• Why is discussion needed? Because there are pros and cons to switching. Because switching will break the way we do file tagging. Whichever way I do it, I'm "causing problems". (And as I've said before, this is well within my programming capabilities, so it isn't about "program[ming] the bot properly".) I haven't done nothing, I've asked you to show me that this change is desired. If you ask for a decently large change without spending the negligible effort to start a discussion, not to mention singling out one project out of many doing the same thing, you frankly start to look like a bully. Shubinator (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• You asked about my selection of DKY, not DKYbot. Point two is indeed relevant to the former. If you're so keen on strict relevance, I wonder why you found it necessary to comment on anthropomorphization.
• You were tasked with tagging. The community did not opine on the coding or the creation of shine throughs, despite your assertion to the contrary ("This circumstance was contemplated by the community"). The incompetent implementation is yours alone to resolve, and does not require community input. An unnecessary action requiring negligible effort is just that - unnecessary.
• "Singling out", a pejorative misrepresentation of what is merely addressing one issue at a time, is hardly menacing, and I'm uninteresting in entertaining more OTHERSTUFF fallacies. If you genuinely believe that "bully" nonsense, I invite you to observe the page on which you, at your own initiative, are commenting (my - not your - talk) and consider not commenting further. I've neither forced nor even invited your participation here. Эlcobbola _talk 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the hint and stay away from this page then (this will be my last post unless you reply). No, I don't believe that you're a bully, which is why I couched the word in two or three qualifiers. I came over here hoping to resolve this issue once and for all – either with a community discussion started or an agreement reached. It's unfortunate neither has happened. Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, Shubinator, and I meant only to suggest that you disengage here if you truly felt bullied. If that's not the case, I do welcome your input. It appears, however, that you and I see the world very much differently and I suspect we needn't continue to go around in circles here if a discussion at DYK is the only way you see forward. Эlcobbola _talk 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we are going in circles. I honestly don't see why you'd rather simmer on this than start a discussion. Your proposal has a decent chance of getting the support it needs. Shubinator (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mop on call

Hi Elcobbola, File:Court of Honor and Grand Basin.jpg has been deleted three times here, and none of the versions of it have ever had any source information. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And once was apparently precisely because it was lacking source information. Any clue why EurekaLott restored it outside of the cryptic "this probably shouldn't have been deleted"? Thanks for your help! Эlcobbola _talk 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it should be difficult to track down source information, it seems to be from here. That's obviously not good enough, but that website lists four books, all of which are pre 1923. It should not be too difficult to track down a published source. I'm too bored to do it myself, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm not necessarily concerned about the copyright status. First things first, however; best to start with investigation of the original circumstances and source, if any. Эlcobbola _talk 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say how much I respect a "I'm too bored to do it myself" approach. Well-played, Wehwalt. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding images and sources for my own articles is a tremendous pain sometimes. I'm always happy to help out others, but I did not volunteer to clean out the Augean Stables, which this has the look of. Besides, there's a drought on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So deep is your boredom that you come to Elcobbola's talkpage for diversion? Truly woeful. If Wikipedia were a mall, this would be the monocle and plaid store. Today we have a special on all things beige, and 20 percent off if your sport coat has patches on the elbows. Эlcobbola _talk 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Come now, Elcobbola. If this were the mall, you would be selling old copies of The Economist and volumes of books about the water properties of hard winter wheat grown in Manitoba. I'd actually go in an try on the elbow-patched jackets and monocles. Dammit! I hate being a stereotype. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I dare say you're right, Moni. Items related to fashion are far too stimulating and chic (Monocles angry up the blood). It's all a front for the clandestine Yugoslavian kazoo, taffy and bilge pump ring in the backroom anyway. Эlcobbola _talk 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'all having fun while I'm trying to fix an important election article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Sandy. We wallow in our constant misery. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) It was originally uploaded at 01:46, September 26, 2004 by Sledmaster, then deleted at 20:44, 2 October 2005 by JesseW with the message (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.") It was either uploaded again or more likely just restored by EurekaLott on 15:54, October 28, 2005 but the only edit summary by EurekaLott is the one you quote. Could a crat give you reviewer status? Reviewers can access deleted files and revisions here. Just an idea. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the review flag was for pending revisions (the one I have seems to be, anyway)? Thanks again for looking into this. It looks like I'll have to try to dig up information elsewhere. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Researcher, but I now see that requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation (and only allows access to the histories, not the actual content, if I understand correctly). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews at FAR

Hi Elcobbola - There are a few articles that could use your expertise at FAR, if you have the time and interest:

• WP:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Lion/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Premier League/archive2
• WP:Featured article review/The Catlins/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Tasmanian Devil/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Mário de Andrade/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/British Empire/archive1

There are obviously more articles than this that need image reviews, but these are the ones that have editors actively working on them and so the issues may actually get resolved! Thanks in advance, but no worries if you don't want to. Dana boomer (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dana, I got to all but British Empire. Lion had enough images for 10 articles, so it stole time that would have gone to the Brits otherwise. Эlcobbola _talk 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is awesome! As far as British Empire goes, it was just recently put up, but there are several editors lobbying for a close. However, I would like to get a couple of basic checks (images, prose) done before I close it at the request of involved editors. So, when and if you have the time, it will still be appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm traveling beginning 1. October, so I'll endeavour to get to it by then, if that's not too long of a wait. Эlcobbola _talk 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dana, I looked at the FAR and I'm not interested in commenting in that environment. I don't know what the nominator's history is, but the responses indicate an unwillingness to approach the article objectively. There are several criterion three issues that would prompt me to vote delist if it were at the FARC stage. You might want to ask Jappalang whether he'd be willing to weigh in. Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy that. Thanks again for the rest of the reviews. Have fun in your travels!~ Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence Seamans

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi Elcobbola, I think the article Hong Kong is ready for another FACR and there were some images change since the last FACR. Before I submit another request, would you mind taking another look at the images in the article? It would be great if you could add to the current peer review or the article talk page.

Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 04:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR revisit please

Hi Elcobbola, thanks for the image review on the Premier League article. Would it be possible to revisit the FAR when you get a chance? Many thanks, Woody (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisited. Эlcobbola _talk 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on an image

Hello. Thanks for your previous help reviewing images. I reviewed the article Coat of arms of Albany, New York as a Good Article nominee, and placed the review on hold due to File:Coat of arms of Albany statue.jpg, which I don't believe is appropriately licensed since it is a picture of a 3D work of art. If you have a chance, would you mind commenting at the GA review subpage on whether you believe my reasoning is correct? Thanks. –Grondemar 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Jappalang has commented in my absence. Let me know if you'd still like me to take a look. Эlcobbola _talk 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitterly, bitterly disappointed, but shouldn't have taken it out on you

• Elcobbola
• My first apology was actually of a completely different sort than this one. I did not then and do not now think I said anything wrong or even the tiniest bit excessive when I said, FULL, COMPLETE QUOTE: "You do everyone a disservice if you descend into jargon." I apologized out of respect for your feelings, though I think your response was excessive and unnecessary.
• Ah, this is different. I was and am bitterly, bitterly, bitterly disappointed that the Taiwanese aborigines article has lost the two images by Torii Ryūzō. They were easily the best images; that's why I put the Rukai prince in the sidebar. That image in particular is perfect in every way; noble, strong, somewhat handsome, etc. I said it before and I will say it again: regardless of what alternate image you place in the sidebar; it will be a staggering dropoff in the quality of the article. i said it before and i will say it again: every other image looks like garbage. In fact, "garbage" is too nice a word.
• I am personally invested in that article because I have literally worked on it for four years. Over four years ago, my first Wikipedia edit ever, here, was an edit to its talk page. My edit count for that article alone now stands at 851.
• I am bitter. Very. Bitter.
• I am disappointed. Very. Disappointed.
• However, in complete contrast to the previous incident, in which quite frankly you overreacted, I am completely at fault in this second round. I still didn't say anything beyond the pale of forgiveness, but I DID personalize the exchange, and I did say that opposing the image was not an adult act.
• So in this case, I actually DO owe you an apology. I am sorry.. i am now less bitter than I was before (or less angry, I suppose). I can backtrack and admit that I am the one who was in the wrong.
• I am the one who was in the wrong. I should not have taken my deep disappointment out on you. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Catlins/archive1

Hi Elcobbola - I think that the issues you had with this article have all been addressed now. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've commented there. Эlcobbola _talk 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image concern in TFA/R blurb

Could you weigh in here?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears this has been addressed. I apologize for not getting to it. Эlcobbola _talk 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have time

Hello, Elc! I know you're terribly busy as always, but there is a new image reviewer at FAC, and I was hoping you might find time to spot check a few of the reviews to assure me that all is covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Image help

My difficulty in understanding things like panorama and derivative works has bit me again. Can you chime in at User_talk:Rlevse#Picture_isn.27t_free? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears this has been addressed. I apologize for not getting to it. Эlcobbola _talk 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral FAC nomination

Good night, Elcobbola. I am having a problem in a FAC nomination and editor SandyGeorgia (Talk) told me that you were the best person to help me out dealing with it. Since I trust her judgement, I came here to ask you for your imput on that matter. I was also warned that you are quite busy, but I'd really appreciate if you could find a little time to share your thoughts. Now to what really matter.

I, along with Astynax, nominated the article on Pedro Álvares Cabral, a Portuguese explorer from the Age of Discovery, to Featured status. As you can see in its featured nomination page (Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Álvares Cabral/archive1), the article was very well received and gathered many supports (nine, in total). However, Jappalang (talk opposed its nomination due to what he perceived as copyright infringiment of the images that can be found in it.

All pictures in it (with the exception of a map made by a Wikipedian and two present-day photographies) were made in the 19th Century by authors who died more than 70 years ago. According to Jappalang, not only I'd have to prove that the paintings' authors died more than 70 years ago, but also that they were published somewhere before 1923 (a magazine, journal, book, etc...) and lastly, that their descendants allowed their reproduction.

Well, I was quite surprised with all those highly restrictive, if not near impossible, demands. I tried to warn him if all that were taken in account, at least 95% of similar images in Featured articles would have to be removed. For example, Albert, Prince Consort (as many other historical biographies) have their pictures simply with the "date of death plus 70 years" tag. None of them had to prove all those demands argued by Jappalang. In the case of the article which I nominated, the pictures' authors are:

• George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855) and Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898)
• Roque Gameiro (1864-1935)
• Francisco Aurélio de Figueiredo e Melo (1854–1916)
• Oscar Pereira da Silva (1865–1939)

Three other works were made in the 16th Century, that is, 500 years ago. Taken all that in account, I'd like to know what do you think of it. Thank you very much for your time and patience, have a nice day. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, I apologize, but I don't expect I'll be able to address this in a timely manner. Speaking generally, I've never known Jappalang to make comments that are either unfair or unreasonable. It's important to understand the distinction between indicating that a work is infringing and indicating that a PD claim does not yet have the necessary support; I see that Jappalang has done only the latter. United States copyright terms are determined using different measures for published and unpublished works. The author's date of death is not considered if the work was published lawfully and while still under copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I never dared to say that he was acting on bad faith, don't worry. What I'm trying to say is that if we take his thoughts in account, that is, 99% of the images that can be found in history-related Featured articles will have to be removed. All of them take in account simply the date of death plus the 70 years term. If the date of death plus 70 years is not enough by itself, then why there is a tag? Are we supposed to remove all images now in the featured articles, then? Is that the path which Wikipedia is taking? Can you understand my concern?

Nonetheless, I'd like to thank you very much for taking your time to answer me. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA remarks

• No sense in kicking a dead horse; I apologized at great length previously. However, even if you disregard my apologies, many other people appreciate what you do. So tks from them. That's all; I won't say more.. Cheers. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand this comment, if I'm being honest - either in terms of what you were attempting to convey ("many other people" - but not you, then?) or what, if any, response you wanted from me. I wasn't offended by the "adult" comment, and you'd commendably stricken it without prompting from me. I considered the matter closed and a non-issue and, accordingly, did not reference it at RfA or reply above. If the lack of such a reply has given you the impression I've disregarded your apology, it is an incorrect one. I understand there to be an important difference between personal and professional criticism and hope you understand my comments are the latter. Contrary to the implication of comments elsewhere, those who oppose are not necessarily enemies; while you're welcome to any opinion of me, that is at least not what I consider you. Your contributions are valued and appreciated, including by me. On mine, however, you seem to have gotten an impression alternative to my own. Эlcobbola _talk 23:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To authors of past Signpost article on plagiarism

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Suggestion; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. See also User:MLauba/Signpost definitions, an upcoming Signpost article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we discuss this at the User:SandyGeorgia/IPTemp talk page or at FAC? I'm very much against this idea, frankly. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're against it, that should be discussed at FAC, I think (although no one seems to be paying attention still, so maybe at my page? I dunno ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a comment at the latter. I don't want it to lose focus or get lost in the clutter of FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea-- I suspect everyone (anyone?) who is still paying attention will go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Inserting Images

Hi, Elcobbola. I asked Ealdgyth about this and I was referred to you. I'm working on an article entitled Shooting Thaler, and I was recently given permission by the owner of http://www.zumbo.ch to use some of his images in the article. Since the images are owned by someone, I know I need to add something to the image information when I upload it to Commons, but I'm not sure what. Thanks for your time!-RHM22 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S., is the image at the top of your talk page Friedrich Schiller?-RHM22 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind. I clicked on it, and it is Schiller! The only reason I knew is because he was on a coin of the Third Reich that I wrote about some time ago. Sorry to get off track!-RHM22 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi RHM22, you'll want to forward the correspondence to OTRS. WP:COPYREQ goes into the details, but the summary is: 1) ensure the copyright owner has explicitly agreed to a free license (meaning commercial use, derivatives, etc. are allowed; this is substantially different than merely saying, for example, "Wikipedia may use the images") and 2) forward that permission to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. The template to add at the Commons while OTRS is processing the ticket is {{OTRS pending}}. Hope this helps, and you need never be sorry for discussing Schiller - impressive that you'd recognize him from the terrible depiction on the 5 RM. Эlcobbola _talk 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll begin the process now.

As for the Schiller profile on the 5 RM, you're right! I'm not sure what the artistic movement was known as at the time, but all the depictions on the Weimar and Nazi coins were really poor quality. Goethe was also depicted on one (I think it was 5 RM, but it might have been 3 RM). Actually, Schiller has had quite a lot of coverage on German coins and paper. I know he was depicted on a number of postage stamps and notes, and I believe that West Germany issued a commemorative coin in the '60s or '70s. Anyway, thanks again for the help!-RHM22 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, turns out it was in 1955. If possible, the portrait is even worse on the '55 issue than the 1934.-RHM22 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Elcobbola. Sorry to bother you again, but I added two images (obverse and reverse of one of the coins) to Commons. I hate to ask, but could you please tell me if I did it right? I only ask because I don't want to add all the images if I'm doing it wrong. Here are the links to both images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solothurn1.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solothurn2.jpg

I forwarded the permission e-mails to Wikimedia already.

Thank you for your time, and I apologize for my general cluelessness!-RHM22 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You just need to add license templates: one for the coin itself and one for the photograph (whatever license the copyright holder agreed to). Эlcobbola _talk 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added all the images with the instructions you gave me! Thanks for the help.-RHM22 (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Flyer

I'm presently working on Flower Drum Song. I recently obtained a copy of the published script, from 1959. On leafing through it, I find a little flyer that apparently the book club, The Fireside Theatre, inserted,, one of those folded, four page ones, one sheet of paper. There are several images from the Broadway production in there, along with some sketches which are similar to the ones on the album cover (a pagoda with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background, FLOWER DRUM SONG in Chinese-evoking letters with a branch of cherry blossoms stuck through the word "FLOWER", a cutesy-looking girl in a sedan chair being carried by two coolie types, along with a fair amount of text I won't bore you with. No copyright notice, of course. Is any of this usable?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems a scenario not dissimilar to the Nixon election placard; it depends upon whether the various authors were aware of and consented to the publication. Works for which that is indeed the case would be expected to be public domain by reason of the lack of notice. Depending upon the nature of the illustrations, it may be safe to assume they were purpose made for this flyer (i.e. consent is somewhat inherent). Photographs of the production, however, may have come from the theatre’s archive/collection which may have had varied authorship. Another wrinkle may be that the flyer could be considered part of the script (i.e. the same publication) in certain circumstances, which would be problematic if the script was published in compliance with copyright formalities and its notice renewed. Ultimately I'd recommend against using it in the absence of more information. Эlcobbola _talk 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot Q

[1] Did you ever get this resolved? Gimmetoo (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, and I’m still curious to know what forum would be best (bot-related pages are not, to my eyes anyway, particularly well organized). If specificity would help, the issue is the current implementation of DYKbot which, among other things, adds a template to images which have appeared at DYK. The template is added locally, however, regardless of whether the image is actually hosted locally. As most images are hosted on the Commons, this creates a large number of “shine throughs”, which are problematic for a number of reasons. The bot operator insists that the place for discussion is DYK, but that seems entirely inappropriate to me, as the issue is not whether or not this templating should be done (although I personally find such templates unnecessary and tacky decoration), but the manner in which it is done (i.e. a technical, non-DYK-related issue). I don’t know how the bot approval process works, but it seems there should have been an approval level where this problematic behavior would have been caught/considered. Such a level seems, logically, to be the place to discuss this. Is there such a level? What is the appropriate/best forum for this? Эlcobbola _talk 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Rolle

Hello, I am asking that you do the image review of the above-mentioned article. It's only two, so it shouldn't be that hard. :) ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Editorofthewiki, both images are just fine. I don't see an open review for the article; is there somewhere in particular you'd like me to make this comment, if not just here? Эlcobbola _talk 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

I called Fasach Nua's behavior disruptive because another editor requested him twice to explain the reaons that led him to oppose the nomination of the article which I wrote. On both cases not only he refused to answer back, but he also erased those messages written to him (Here [2] and here [3]) If that's not a disruptive behavior, what is it, then? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those occurred at FAC. What preciously was disrupted at FAC? You seem to be unable to distinguish between disruption and poor communication. If I were called a DICK, I'd blank the comment too. Эlcobbola _talk 19:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not solve the main problem: it is not my fault if another editor who I do not know has issues with him. I can not be blamed for that. He did not bother to read the article. That's unfair. If he does not like the way the template was created, he is free to go in the template's talk page and request for changes. But opposing the article for that (when I have other 2 articles which has the template and passed) does not make any sense. It is more than clear that he did not bother to read the article, which was what truly matter. Worse of all was the fact that he did not answer back in the FAC nomination page why he did that. Because he disliked how an editor treated him? And because of that I am the one who is going to lose a nomination? What kind of behavior is that? If he is not mature enough to distinguish one thing from another, FAC nominations is certainly not the place to him to be around. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevance to this article has been explained. [4] Fasach has justifiably chosen to disengage in the face of editor who has repeatedly called him a DICK ([5] and [6]) and an editor who has called him childish on at least two separate talk pages ([7] and [8]). You might do well to read WP:NPA, WP:AGF ("he will 'punish'" me and the article"), re-examine who, precisely, is being immature here. You may wish to note that your nomination has not been archived and, instead of complaining to third-parties, confine your comments to the content of the oppose without the current slights, hyperbole and OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola _talk 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then. It seems that I'm not being able to sustain my point in here. He certainly did not disengage because I considered his behavior immature, since I said that a couple of hours ago, and he has been missing from the FAC nomination for days. So, that's not cause and effect. And I did not went to complain to third parties. I asked for an imput from SandyGeorgia (since she is one the editors responsible for the FAC nominations) and several other editors got involved even though I did not request their opinions (although I see no problem at all on them doing that). One of them, Laser Brain, missed my point and all I tried to do was to clarify the matter. Nonetheless, I am sorry for having bothered you. I won't happen again. --Lecen (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Spend less time worrying about the behaviour of others and more about worrying about your own. Other misconceptions aside, "That's childish and ridiculous", "If someone like him behaves like that, he certainly should not be reviewing articles around", "he is 'punishing' me" and "That kind of behavior tell much about him" ([9]) go well beyond "[only trying] to clarify the matter". Эlcobbola _talk 20:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another image question

Hi Elcobbola. Sorry for bothering you with another question, but I'm concerned that a few images were uploaded to Commons without proper permission. The two photos are file:Columbian expo 1892 obv.jpg and file:Columbian expo 1892 rev.jpg. The images were taken from www.coinfacts.com (I can supply the exact page if you'd like). I think the article could be very good with a little more information added, but I want to make sure that the pictures are ok. Thank you for your time-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion request

SandyGeorgia recommended at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009/archive1 that I ask you or Jappalang for a second opinion on the images in the article in question, so I'm asking both of you. If you're not too busy, could you please look into this?
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see

Noticed your comments on that image deletion discussion page. Glad to see you are still following events here, as I remember reading that Signpost dispatch and enjoying it very much. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallelujah!!! Here's my four cents. I was just about to ping you! In fact, I am going to e-mail you on a personal matter ... e-mail me since I'm not sure which e-mail to use these days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for the kind remarks. Sandy, I’m not sure I deserve that sort of reverence. I make my fair share of mistakes and (thoughtful and informed) re-evaluations should always be welcomed. While I believe at least one of Damiens’ recent nominations is rather irrational and obtuse, the majority is not necessarily unreasonable and I hope, albeit with certain futility, that commenters will evaluate (de)merits without consideration of puerile AN politics, inclusion in featured content or previous evaluation by any one editor. Ironic, though, that despite all this attention and strict image "scrutiny", no one caught the blatant copyvio I had to tag. Email is the same as always. Эlcobbola _talk 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting on a plane, will email when I'm settled. You're still the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, if you're so inclined :) or any of your talk page stalkers ... Cowik (talk · contribs)'s talk page and image uploads might need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Helga, I see you commented in the discussion for the Stonewall riots image (and I'm glad the blatant copyvio image was removed...it's not that I didn't catch it, it's just that I get so very tired of having to maintain the articles that sometimes I just let some shit slide because it's easier than fighting week after week). I appreciate your 2 cents although I'm not sure I understand it all.

I didn't want to call you in to comment because you've been away and I feel like imposing. I've asked Moonriddengirl to try to make things simple for me or explain the facts beyond the bluster. I mentioned you (post is here). Just wanted to let you know.

I'm glad you're back, kinda. I understand the desire to get the EFF away from here and I wish many days that I could do it. If you're happier away, I don't wish to put any pressure on you to make you stay, so I should just say I hope you're happy in what you're doing. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

She could be a Helga...

It's nice to know you're kinda glad I'm back. We wouldn't want you overstimulated with complete happiness. Jbmurray aptly and correctly observed long ago that my comments are circumlocutious, so Moonriddengirl is no doubt a wise choice regardless of my presence. That notwithstanding, you needn't worry about pressure; I'm always happy to answer questions (just email if I don't appear to be active). Also, in some fairness, I do seem to recall cautioning you that you were not cropping enough of File:Cover of San Francisco Examiner November 28 1978.jpg; J Milburn's comment/reiteration reflects my previous and current position. See what happens when you don't listen to people with spears and funny hats? Эlcobbola _talk 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My gosh, territorial

Wow, Didn't realize you OWNED the Oliver Typewriter page, JOKE? - You are very rude, plus who said it has too many images? You? And just exactly who are you? Really don't think it looks real hot the way you've got it, but OH WELL. User:Nconwaymicelli|Nconwaymicelli]] (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your offer

OK, I'm taking you up on your offer. Someone asked me how File:Design A-150.jpg could qualify for free use. The rationale is that the ship was never built, so no free alternative can be created. But ... this is the work of an artist, and if he created it, why can't another artist create it? I'm at a loss at FAC/FAR without your nuanced and knowledgeable participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:H class (Richard Allison).png is similar. Why is the artist's copyright not worth more to Wikipedia? I see situations like this often at FAC/FAR, and don't have the answers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:O class battlecruiser.jpg is another one. If the artists painted these works, and were presumably paid for them, and the books they were copied out of make money, why are we able to disrespect the artists' copyrights? Why can't another artist draw the ships? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If the artist were somehow involved in the design of the actual vessel (i.e., had a direct relationship, as opposed to a conceptual artist several decades removed), a case might be made that such an artist would possess a unique insight into the true design of the vessel and, therefore, his image would be genuinely irreplaceable. However, in the alternative of an artist uninvolved in the project(s), as appears to be the case here, I think your point is quite valid. Richard Allison is surely not the only person capable of drawing ships; someone somewhere could indeed draw a ship and release it with a free license. I noted in the non-free dispatch that Wikipedian-created renderings are perfectly possible and acceptable with the example of File:Aaflight96dc10.png for American Airlines Flight 96 (drawings would be equally acceptable). Ease of locating such an artist, time, etc. are not considered by criterion one.

I would caution, though, that use of these images on Wikipedia is not necessarily disrespectful (although lazy), as they may qualify for fair use in real life. That is a moot issue, of course, as they do appear fail Wikpedia’s deliberately more restrictive criteria (for example, Wikipedia desires to encourage the creation of free content; thus the existence of criterion one to prompt the aforementioned rendering over use of a copyrighted image). There is also, as you’ve noted, a possible violation of criterion two, as the images were presumably meant to illustrate reference works, a category to which Wikipedia belongs (i.e., use here indeed “replace[s] the original market role’). Эlcobbola _talk 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elc. So, I guess I'm not in a position to do anything about these particular images, although I can watch for similar situations in future FACs. We really need you :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand you'll soon be free of your delegate shackles; perhaps then you'll be less concerned about the unintelligent "groupie" accusations if there are FACs/FARs you think I should take a look at. :) Эlcobbola _talk 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is liberating, isn't it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Flickr query

I don't know how to read Flickr: File:Beyonce (New York).jpg on Flickr says "Some rights reserved", I don't see anything about Creative Commons, and yet it's proposed at TFAR for mainpage ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you click on the "Some rights reserved," you will be taken to a license summary. This particular image is CC-by 2.0, so everything is fine. The reserved right is attribution ("by", i.e., created by _________), which is indeed considered free enough for our purposes. Эlcobbola _talk 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see now the clickable link ... what happens then about the business that we must attribute the work? How do we do that if it's run at TFA? Does that mean we have to attriute the author in the caption? Thank you as always-- I don't tend to query you often enough, because I think you're really gone, but you're right here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The gist of the attribution requirement is that the author must be attributed in a manner "reasonable to the medium." What this means for Wikipedia has been subject to some debate (e.g., whether credit needs to appear in image captions, or whether credit on image summary pages alone is sufficient). It is generally accepted, however, that the summary page's credit of, in this instance, "CLAUDIO MARIOTTO from NEW YORK CITY, USA" and the link to the author's Flickr profile embedded therein are perfectly reasonable. I understand that Flickr-sourced/CC-licensed images have run on the main page countless times without the need for special accommodation. I've come to realise that observing the sheer lunacy of Wikipedia, the squabbling, political maneuvering, and the failures of governance, logic and decorum is far more entertaining than editing. Sociologically fascinating. So I'm indeed here, and still happy to respond to questions or requests. :) Эlcobbola _talk 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bwaahaha, reliable information plus entertainment all in one response! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Images query

Hi, do you have time to check the images in Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow) and comment on the article's FAC page? I might be wrong but I am concerned about Freedom of Panorama. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I've commented there (no FoP issues). Эlcobbola _talk 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I owe you :-) Graham Colm (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete contested

Hi, Elcobbola. I understand that you are an NFCC expert here at Wikipedia. Someone has put a Speedy delete" tag on this image: File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg. I believe that it is an historic image (as used in the Jackie Evancho article) that satisfies all of the Non-free content criteria, but in any event, I don't believe it should be speedy deleted. Since I am the uploader, I am not supposed to delete the Speedy box.

Can you please comment? I would also value your comment here: Here, at the Files for deletion discussion, where I have explained why I think the image satisfies all of the NFCCs.

Thanks for any help or advice! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Ferrier image

It's been a while since I sought your opinion on image licencing matters, but seeing that you are still active to some extent, I thought I'd raise an issue with you. The main page article for 22 April was Kathleen Ferrier, for which no free image could initially be located (she died in 1953). While the article was on the main page, File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg was posted in the belief that it is a free image. My experience of these things, such as it is, makes me uncertain that this image, which may be free in Holland, is also free in the US. I have therefore restored the non-free image that was previously in the article, until it can be determined that File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg is indeed free. You will find some discussion of the issue on the Ferrier talkpage. Your opinion on its status would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thaanks. I left a further comment on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your views on the Ferrier image, and on those related to Kristallnacht. On Ferrier, I propose to leave the situation as it is, until someone decides that File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg is indubitably free in the US and has to replace the non-free image. On the Kristallnacht images I proffered, I am not surprised by your view that they are unlikely to be free, and I will not be using them. On commons I found this page; the "Bundesarchiv bild" photographs seem to be properly licenced - do you think?. Incidentally, the relevant article I am working on is A Child of Our Time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ironically, the Bundesarchiv images have the same circumstance as the Ferrier image: a reputable national archive (Das Bundesarchiv and The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, respectively) has established a free license (CC-by-SA) for certain works for which it is the curator. I believe both Ferrier and the Bundesarchiv images to be licensed/sourced properly, and have no reservations about recommending their use. I apologize if my previous wording was too cautious. (In every work there is a degree of uncertainty. Just as Ferrier has potential wrinkles, here the Bundesarchiv was established in 1952 and could not, therefore, have been the author of a WWII-era image. If it's not the author, does it truly have the legal basis to establish a free license? For our purposes and in this circumstance, this line of questioning is unnecessary and overly pedantic. I mention it merely for the sake of thoroughness and out of intellectual interest - so too with Ferrier). Rambling completed, Bundesarchiv images ought to be fine. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for this detail, which is most helpful. I will certainly use some of the Bundesarchiv material. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Stover at Yale

Hey, Elc ... summer's almost here, it's lake time! Anyway, I had the occasion to visit this image recently, and I wonder if it's really PD? The book was 1911, but that doesn't mean that book jacket/cover was 1911. I checked amazon.com, and it looks like that version of the book was 1943, while the 1911 and other versions had different covers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, I should have acknowledged the little dweeb's need for attention ... by checking on what links to that picture, I found it in my archives and discovered that not only am I right about that image, but the little dweeb admitted it years ago on my talk ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Another piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a 3 hour flight delay last night due to a flooded runway; I'm thus antagonistic towards lakes at the moment. ;) I’m not exactly sure what feedback is needed from me. Comments on a few aspects:

• OTRS: The OTRS ticket is merely a comment from a website purveyor that “To the best of my knowledge this is the 1911 cover”. This is, of course, inadequate, and there are comments in the system to that effect. The ticket was closed as successful, which might have confused someone inexperienced with OTRS (successful closure in OTRS refers to successful administrative closure, not that the ticket’s correspondence was meaningful/actionable). The image was transferred to the Commons with the OTRS tag; I can’t see deleted revisions on Wikipedia, so I don’t know who (incorrectly) added that tag.
• Verifiability vs. Truth: This may well be the 1911 cover (truth), but I see no compelling evidence to support that claim (verifiability). A website purveyor is not a reliable source, in my interpretation. He hasn't even assert certainty.
• Derivative: This is a derivative work (a photograph of the book), i.e. the photograph, certainly not from 1911, would also have a copyright, the status of which has not been sourced/discussed. JMilburn added a comment (foolishly, I think) that this had been discussed, but there was no genuine discussion. Skier Dude's closure (if I'm reading who closed it correctly) is absurd. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not apply to three dimensional objects. A scan of the cover (2D) would be one thing, but this is a photograph of the book (i.e. 3D). Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example of casual, lazy, and ignorant handling of copyrights. Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're here ! So ... how do I get it fixed? I don't speak Commons, and I don't know who to call (Ghostbusters?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons has the same sourcing requirements as Wikipedia, so a deletion request there (from the image page, click “Nominate for deletion” in the toolbox menu) would have merit. That’s the “right” answer.

The caveat from one who is disenchanted with the project, however, is that Commons is often a place where users blocked on other projects congregate in an effort to exert some continuing influence (through images) on those projects and to carry on their conflicts. The core of genuinely knowledgeable admins got tired of this and left several years ago. Deletion discussions are based on truthiness and politics, and I have zero confidence in the project’s ability to reach proper conclusions.

My tact has thus been to get these sorts of images out of articles (or at least featured articles where WP:V actually has teeth) and then to hope they remain in that unused obscurity. This seems only to be used on TCO’s page, so how you wish to proceed is up to your cost/benefit analysis. I don’t know TCO from Adam, but the block log is concerning; deletions involving users with behavioral issues are always a headache... Эlcobbola _talk 18:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I took it out of articles, so I guess I'll let it be someone else's problem. Equally disenchanted, and it's not getting any better in here. Do you wakeboard? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave water skiing a go 15-20 years ago. It was... educational. Эlcobbola _talk 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwaaahaha ... I slalom, but wakeboarding is easy-peasy and fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. We miss you in here, and would love to see you back! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mir auch. (Actually I just wanted to turn your bar orange.) Kablammo (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you could have simply dropped a "t," the resulting "dito" being perfectly good German - notwithstanding its Italian origin, of course. I now must wonder whether this is an augury of a 2013 replete with orange bars... Frohes neues Jahr, KB! (To be less verbose was decidedly not my New Year's resolution). Эlcobbola _talk 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Medical images

El C, I emailed you back in July, but didn't hear back from you ... I hope I have the correct email. Have you seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-02/Op-ed? Avenue (talk · contribs) raised the question I've been raising about problems that have taken over in the name of editorializing at The Signpost for several years, but that aside, you are the only editor I would trust to adequately address the underlying questions. I hope you are well, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Sorry, I changed my address earlier this year (the German suffix seemed to be triggering some overly zealous spam filters); I’ll shoot you the new one. I have been following the RfC, but have abstained as I have no faith in the process. Doctors and the general public are as useful with copyright issues as attorneys and the general public would be during a kidney transplant. The Op ed, unlettered and irresponsible, reads and would be expected to act as canvassing, something which in my view invalidates discussions.

Copyright generally subsists in “original works of authorship fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression.” Radiographs indeed have authors and are indeed fixed in a tangible medium; the question, then, is whether they are original. Originality has two parts: 1) that the work was created independently (not copied) and 2) that the work has a minimal degree of creativity. (Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.) I’m not familiar with the process or considerations related to medical scans, so I’m not sure I’m sufficiently knowledgeable to opine meaningfully about the latter component. That notwithstanding, a photographer’s choice of subject, angle, lighting and timing – especially considered in the aggregate – are generally accepted to be sufficient. (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.) As a layperson, my impression is that the technician/physician/whoever is indeed contributing those decisions. For instance, I was at the dentist recently and, sure enough, she wanted to image a certain tooth from a certain angle at a certain time so as to compare it to a previous image.

The spirit of the law, however, is that there be a piece of the author in the work. Radiographs are undoubtedly technical in nature, so a jurist could very well decide medical imaging is tantamount to slavish copying and thus ineligible for copyright protection. The Op-ed cites a source that claims the US Copyright Office has taken the position that radiographs are not eligible for copyright, which may support that notion. However, 1) that site does not appear to be reliable, 2) that site provides no source for that assertion and I cannot find that assertion searching through the Copyright Office and 3) the Copyright Office is not authoritative. Jurists can and do ignore and find contrary to Copyright Office positions. Ultimately, unique facts and circumstances would be determining factors and what those may be are simply not yet knowable.

The point of the foregoing, which no doubt made your eyes glaze over, is that there is significant doubt regarding the copyright status of these images, both in my judgment and in that of WMF Legal. The precautionary principle disallows retention of images in this circumstance – a position with which I agree. Either we have a genuine, substantiated basis to believe an image is in the public domain, or we do not. To say, as some at the RfC have, that requiring explicit permission (OTRS) is cowardice, that free licensing in the absence of verifiable permission is acceptable because such images are routinely published in the absence of clear copyright status, that WMF would not be liable, etc. is, frankly, contemptible and unethical (this may be copyrightable; we don’t know, so let’s call it free so we aren’t inconvenienced). Either we make honest representations to our readership, or we do not. Either we are true to our principles, or we are not. Either we are respectful of the intellectual properties or others, or we are not. The mind boggles. Эlcobbola _talk 17:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so disappointed that you did not get my e-mail ... it was once in a lifetime! The mind no longer boggles-- I have become quite resigned to mediocrity on Wikipedia, and The Signpost has not helped in the downturn. I will ping @Colin: and @Jmh649: to your response, as I hold their medical work in the same high regard that I hold your knowledge of intellectual property. My best, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes a number of people have taken elcobolla's position that 1) we do not know if these images are copyrightable and 2) if they are copyrightable who owns the copyright. As we do not know the answer to the second bit we cannot get OTRS permission as who would we get it from.

While the rest of the publishing industry seems to ignore these questions some feel we should not and should delete most / all diagnostic images. Others think we should follow the publishing industries standards. Yes it is a mind boggling question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I view the situation as almost akin to members of an NPO opining on the benefits and advantages of for-profits. Those comments may well be true (as it is indeed true that medical articles are greatly enhanced by related images), but they fail to consider and to respect that the NPO has underlying principles that have caused it to accept voluntarily certain corresponding limitations (as the WMF has done with freeness). Thusly, part of my concern with looking to the actions of publishers is the inherent disregard for our proprietary policies, to which those publishers are not bound. Use of medical images by both publishers and WMF projects would generally be expected to be allowed by the doctrine of fair use in “real life.” WMF projects, however, have voluntarily adopted the principle, and indeed limitation, of freeness. Our proprietary precautionary principle is a related, self-imposed threshold of certainty for assertions of that freeness. The principle concern, in my view, arises from the assertion of licenses about which we cannot be reasonably certain. It’s not paranoia, as has been mentioned at the RfC; rather, it’s a desire for transparency and intellectual honesty. Issues of copyright are almost secondary in this situation; philosophically/ethically/etc., asserting a free license in the absence of reasonable support therefor strikes me as an irresponsible and misleading disservice to our readers. If an image is necessary in a medical article, host it locally as a non-free file (I am aware of the complications NFCC#1 would pose in that instance; a more productive RfC might thus focus on whether the community would grant an exception in such a case.) Эlcobbola _talk 08:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(outdent, rant-mode-on) I don't wish this to become a secondary RFC would like to rant a bit if you will permit me.

Let me quickly note that much of the legal arguments cite the US situation (which I agree is unclear and may never be made clear). There is an additional problem with a few European countries that have "related rights" offering slightly lesser protection for "photographs and similar" without any creativity/originality. It seems very much that for those, the situation is clear that they are certainly protected (for 50 years, say). I don't think we should behave unethically and I would certainly oppose the idea that we claim public domain without some confidence or claim "own work" when it isn't or claim "CC licenced" when we have no permission from the copyright holder to do so.

What I am very upset about is that complete amateurs decide out of the blue to nominate for deletion widely used and educational images on Commons on the basis of their ignorance of copyright law + precautionary principle. Policy should not be built on the basis of what a few amateurs found on Google. This isn't something I believe the community should decide upon at all -- for the "crowd" is most certainly not "wise" here. I'm also opposed to Commons making quite a serious decision on the basis of such amateur theory, hence my efforts to investigate how professionals are doing it. This is ongoing.

I have found that publishers most certainly do regard these images as copyright -- so we may be foolish to consider otherwise no matter how much a Google search or random legal speculator may suggest otherwise. I have also been told by one publisher that they do not feel "fair use" is applicable for them either, so they aren't relying on that. They believe they have the permission to publish and some publisher moreover believe they actually own the copyright to these images as part of their contract with the author. I'm still investigating exactly how they have achieved this because it isn't clear at present. From the POV of authors, in the US at least, there appears to be ignorance of any need to get permission for these "free" images.

For Commons to host any such copyright images at all, we need to establish who the copyright owners are and offer advice as to how to get the necessary permissions from them. I'm trying to find this out at present. We believe it is nearly always the hospital where the image was taken, but exactly who in this hospital (or hospital trust in the UK) has the responsibility for these image assets, is unclear. Before Commons starts deleting all radiographic images, it needs to give the uploaders a chance to get the necessary permissions -- but so far offers no guidance as to how to do that. I don't believe that is a satisfactory situation and I am pissed-off that nobody is making any effort to help. Just more and more amateur speculation and unreliable sourcing.

We are in the same boat as the Open Access journal publishers. We have the same model for licensing our work. WMF should engage in dialogue with such publishers to see if together they can find a solution. Currently, I'm not convinced these publishers' procedures are as rigorous as people want ours to be. So should we delete their images too?

I'm not sure there is a "non-free" solution because ultimately truly free alternatives can be found once we work out the practicalities. Maybe one could argue this for an image of a one-off disease or accident. But I think it is worth exploring what the options are, including a change to Commons policy if required. I just want people to have an open mind to other options. I do accept the argument that Commons and WP have to live with the limitations of their model (such as banning non-educational licenses or "for Wikipedia" publishing permissions, both of which would open up a huge amount of material for WP to use).

(rant-mode-off) -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, and I do wish one of Wikipedia's sourcing experts would explain to Eleassar what a reliable source is, and why that opinion piece on the law for archaeological specimen scans is useless.) Colin°^Talk 13:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On respecting intellectual property

Above you say "Either we are respectful of the intellectual properties or others, or we are not" This isn't as straightforward a choice as it sounds. Suppose the US decides these aren't copyrightable but the UK does. Does that mean the US disrespects the intellectual property of the radiographer or their employer? Or does it mean the UK wrongly considers the radiographer or employer to have intellectual property in such images? Or perhaps for complex problems, rational people can come to different conclusions, and we can respect that?

For my opinion, I think the radiographer has done their job if they provide accurate and clear diagnostic data for the physicians to treat and assess their patients. Their skill and talent should be respected for what they bring to the quality of treatment that patient receives. But no further. Copyright law exists to protect the livelihood of creative artists and the industry that publishes their works. It is only getting involved here because we have an image that looks rather like a photograph and an operator whose role is somewhat analogous to a photographer. But I don't get to make the law. I doubt very much the law will be clarified or amended simply because those who may make use of the law to sue are interested in treating patients rather than making money through litigation and rights management. One hope perhaps is that Open Data efforts may encourage governments to formally declare the work of hospital radiology departments to be public domain or CC-licensed. After all, my taxes paid for the CT scan of my head (say), and why should some random journal think it has copyright rights over that which let it charge for re-use just because my physician wrote a paper for them. -- Colin°^Talk 15:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual properties are monopolies granted by governments in pursuance of certain social and economic objectives. In a very real sense they are necessary evils, not fundamental human rights. Accordingly, when I advocate respect for intellectual properties, I am perhaps cold-heartedly concerned only with the rights granted by jurisdiction(s) germane to a given work. This is distinct from respect for the efforts or desires of the authors, which you might be conflating. As it would be nonsensical and unduly burdensome to ascertain copyright status in every jurisdiction, I agree with the Commons’ pragmatic approach of considering only the status in the United States (the location of WMF servers) and the county of origin, if different. In your hypothetical of the US considering a radiograph ineligible for copyright protection and the UK the contrary, respect for intellectual properties would mean allowing radiographs from the former and disallowing those from the latter. We are thus merely respecting the rights that have been granted, not opining on whether a given government’s decision to grant or deny those rights was itself proper or respectful.

For what it's worth, I expect you and I are of the same mind in terms of what ought to be the case. I don't believe copyright protection, in principle and spirit, was meant to extend to medical images. That said, however, United States law does not consider what part of the electromagnetic spectrum was employed to create an image. Copyright is also granted to any yahoo who, without thought or artistic and creative intent, has clicked a photo with their cellphone. Those realities and the broad scope of copyright ("original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression," not "art") are potentially ominous for our desired position. Эlcobbola _talk 18:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right and wise as usual. Ethics and the law are not necessarily aligned, however. Just because some people feel the law is, or might be, mistakenly applied here doesn't mean their wish it were different or could be conveniently ignored means they are unethical. Rather than "contemptible", per Hanlon's razor, I'd prefer to say most people in the discussion, myself included, were ignorant, confused and rather naive about the law and how it works. I don't really understand why the WMF don't, like Flickr and stock agencies, just define clearly and explicitly define what they believe is acceptable in terms of content, licence and evidence, and tell the community to like it or lump it. They seem to have forgotten they own Commons and in regards to these aspects of the project, the Crowd is Stupid, not Wise. -- Colin°^Talk 19:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject of “contemptible” and “unethical” was “to say […]” (i.e., the statements, not the person making them.) My condemnation was meant only to refer to the statements as, indeed, thoughtful people have the capacity to say thoughtless things and vice versa. Those descriptors, used after a string of positions I believe to be erroneous, were also not necessarily meant to apply to each position individually and certainly not to individuals by virtue of their overall position on the issue. However, to pick one as an example, I interpret the rationale of “we would not be legally liable” as tantamount to “an action, even if unlawful, is validated by an ultimate lack of culpability.” I do find this wanting for ethics and deserving of scorn (contempt), but would hope the person saying it was merely guilty of not thinking in that moment. In any case, we again agree that the WMF has not provided adequate, if any, guidance or leadership. The laissez faire approach is just bizarre, and is wasting ever more time and creating ever more ill-will, if you’ll pardon the health pun. Эlcobbola _talk 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014! And thank you for all you do around the Project! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I do these days besides be curmudgeonly, but thanks, Sandy! Best to you and to the less refined piece of cloth! ;-) Эlcobbola _talk 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons deletion

Although you have not edited wikipedia in nearly 2 months, I am notifying you since you were the image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exelon Pavilions/archive1. File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg is part of a mass deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate (note that you have to scroll down past a couple of closed discussions at the top).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. I have also been informed that your image review from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2 was upheld at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism dispatch

Hi Elcobbola, given recent discussions, I'd like to re-run your old "Let's get serious about plagiarism" dispatch from 2009. Would you have any objections? If needed, I'd love for you to make any pertinent updates or changes. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

By all means. The dispatch is of course under a CC-by-SA license, so you are free to (re)distribute it at your leisure. I appreciate the note all the same. Эlcobbola _talk 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but I thought it would be a basic courtesy! Thanks very much. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha, ha ... dragging you back in here !!

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 participant (images only), I am hoping you might give some comments (at least on the images).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elcobbola. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pearson's Candy Company

Pearson's Candy Company, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Tren Ligero GDL/Mexicanwiki

Please unblock my acount Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Mexicanwiki is my brothers acount we have the same school and classrooms I Told him if I could use his account we are not the same person and he is not my Sockpuppet Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC) and i will not do that agiain and i will not copyright any more or use others and i wont do any more block evasions Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Elcobbola. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Locked because of editing from URLZone

Hello.
Look at m:User talk:علاء‎ #31.192.111.161 and 66.133.78.115 please – a registered user (and contributor to) en.Wikipedia had his/her account locked because had a point IP match to one of (numerous) socks of this cross-wiki abuser. The IP in question presumedly belongs to the URLZone malware botnet. Behavioural analysis makes coincidence of owners very unlikely. Note that I only share some intelligence and by no means am proxying for people using cybercrime infrastructure to edit Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the Signpost article on Reviewing non-free images

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you very much for writing this Signpost article on how to review non-free images. It is very informative and I learned a lot. I am just returning to Wikipedia after a long absence, and working to learn more about how I can either properly use and justify non-free images, or avoid it by selecting more appropriate images and uses. The section discussing Significance, and the examples of how to write poor and great Purpose statements are especially helpful.

Thank you for writing it! Happy editing! --Culix (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind note, Culix. I'm glad you found it helpful. Эlcobbola _talk 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

2008 and still kicking !!! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Albeit with red links, and grey hairs--well, even moreso. Hope you, and loved ones, are happy and well. Эlcobbola _talk 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:National Treasure Movie Logo.png

Hello.. How can I contact you Elcobbola. Please reply Arun RJ (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Anschauung

Thank you for quality articles such as Pearson's Candy Company and Son Goku (band), for excellent work around images, especially in featured articles, such as Kathleen Ferrier, for service in English and German, for considering fellow editors and missing, for "we seek not only to acquire knowledge, but to disseminate it to others", - repeating (from 10 years ago): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2067 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Elcobbola. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Block on common

You are very rude...--Paris Orlando (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have blocked me on my talk page at commons when I asked you for an answer on whether you approve the block reason. I am disappointed to say the least.

I wanna ask this last question like I've said before. I really don't understand you refused to answer it and then blocked me from editing my talk page. I will ask here one last time. Why do you think it is an edit war that, I have reverted an user once and reverted another user who reverted me without explanation and got a week block at commons. If you believe this is edit warring just say yes. Rather than blocking somebody on their own talk page. Here is the link [10] of the discussed article for any other unfamiliar person reading. Jim7049 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Autoblock

Hi. Please turn off autoblock for 107.242.117.0/24 with block ID #355988 on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For what reason? Why are you contacting me here instead of the Commons? Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am caught in said autoblock, and my membership in "Global IP block exemptions" doesn't help. :(   — Jeff G. ツ 16:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Try it now. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

True North

Hi there! I want to update the True North (disambiguation) page with a bullet point under "Brands and enterprises." It had previously said "Find Your True North," Explore Minnesota Tourism's 2019 marketing campaign. You removed it because of COI, but it's still an enterprise. I don't understand why it can't be allowed on the page if it is a true statement. It is information that is public knowledge and I am trying to update the page to be accurate. I do work for Explore Minnesota, which is why I am a subject matter expert. Please let me know if I can re-update this page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaminnesota (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danaminnesota, I have never edited the True North (disambiguation) page and have not removed your content on en.wiki. Your additions to True north (disambiguation) were reverted by Finlay McWalter, so you will need to address the issue with them. As you acknowledge working for Explore Minnesota, you may wish to read WP:NPOV and, as I advised you, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Эlcobbola _talk 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Göbbelschen

Thanks for reporting this user at WP:UAA. I have blocked the editor for the username issue, but I also share your additional concerns about this user's edits. So I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Göbbelschen_and_possible_antisemitic_edits if you would like to weigh in further. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: hi sir sorry for say when i see your name i seems that person is my enemy why you delete my picture again and again i am not fraud i have right to upload my own picture with government rights why dont let me my one picture that picture will be use on wiki article i am not Sockpuppetssockpuppets if you want to remvov this kind of this and i just want to upload only one picture i will not upload countineusly and your thing that you dont want to unblock me then please tell me i will leftwikipedia for forever i am tryings to for 5/6 days and i couldnot sleep

yash crap

I wonder if there's a way to filter to catch this jerk in action and stop it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I've kept a list of ranges here if you think a range block would be workable, although I suspect there are too many ranges, and the ranges too wide, to make the potential collateral palatable on en.wiki. I don't know the coding or syntax, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could create an abuse filter to disallow edits from accounts with less than x edits (say, 100) attempting to add some combination of Y[y]ash, G[g]awli, Y[y]ashtech, N[n]ewsWorldfact, etc. Эlcobbola _talk 14:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Rifat Hadžiselimović

The additions to this page look legitimate. As a fellow reviewer (who's still learning) I was just curious about the reasons for reverting them. WQUlrich (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I think I answered my own question: blocked user Yahadzija trying to slip around their block? They created the article, though, why not just delete it? Anyway, one more reversion! WQUlrich (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got it - every substantive edit to the article (indeed, even its creation) has been Yahadzija or a sock. (FWIW, Yahadzija is not merely blocked, but globally banned.) I don't know the considerations for notability of academics, which is why I've not nominated it; it's a WP:SELFPROMOTE either way. Эlcobbola _talk 14:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

About Unblock

Hey, unblock me in commons, I am waiting you from June,2019, When I was blocked I learn how to make photos and upload free files, I learn edit--ჯეოMan (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Smithpremier.png

The file File:Smithpremier.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanks

	Heartfelt thanks
	... for your many years of considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

About block

Unblock me on commons--ჯეოMan (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello, I have mistake,download file source website https://imgur.com/gallery/8hn0pwG Filele:Daniel Bedingfield 2011.jpg I have big mistake i used description this website https://www.zimbio.com/photos/Daniel+Bedingfield/Champagne+Launch+5th+Annual+BritWeek/QGe-hFCK12I please forgive me! Mithila Madawa (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Now they've pushed my buttons

Elcobbola, should you have a moment to look in on User talk:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat? He lifted four articles from Wikipedia, including dementia with Lewy bodies, that I wrote 90% of ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you...

Can you send me your email?--ჯეოMan (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

I have pictured photo with some writers, and I want to give them to Wikipedia to use it global, to pages about them, but can you guess what happend? I can't export them, I also want upload my picture on my user page but can you guess what happend? You are right :)--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC) for example [11]

Please unblock me on Commons and I promise you that I will do nothing at commons if you want. Just unblock me, I want to start translating of some captions in Georgian, cause nobody from Georgian wiki users is doing it, I was only one who has started it, u can see it in my contributions on commons, please unblock me--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Growth team "add an image" idea

Hello Elcobbola! I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the WMF's Growth team, which works on features to help retain new editors. Lately, we have been working on this set of ideas called "structured tasks", which break down editing workflows into steps that make sense for newcomers and make sense on mobile devices. We're currently thinking about an idea for a workflow in which newcomers would be recommended images from Commons that might be a good fit for unillustrated Wikipedia articles. One of my colleagues recommended you as someone who has a particularly strong grasp on the usage of images in articles. Since this project is in its beginning phases, we really depend on community members to help us think through the feasibility, opportunities, and pitfalls. If you have time, it would be really helpful to us if you could check out the project page and weigh in on the discussion. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:MMiller (WMF), I sure hope you aren't encouraging new editors to add images, and if you are, that you make sure they stay away from Featured and good articles, since MOS:SANDWICH (images being crammed in everywhere with no regard for layout or image licensing) is a HUGE problem already. I think this is a very bad idea overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Marshall's proposal concerns "unillustrated Wikipedia articles", so that concern is at least facially irrelevant to his proposal. I think the overall point is well-taken, though. The general idea of "structured tasks" seems to be to minimize the complexity and cognitive overhead of certain operations, so that they can be done with very little thinking. For short and poor-quality articles, there's probably a lot of low-hanging fruit to be picked there, but in general, as articles become better developed, it's less and less likely that improvements will be made without some level of deliberation on the part of the editor. Choess (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia and Choess! Thank you for thinking this through and weighing in. SandyGeorgia, I think you're bringing up an important point about making sure not to clutter or confuse the article when adding images. Like Choess says, we would only be giving the opportunity to add images on articles that are totally unillustrated, so the newcomer would be adding the first/only image to article. And these would only be images already in Commons (as opposed to uploading new images of their own), so they are more likely to be within scope of the projects in terms of copyright. I think we could also see if it's possible to filter our Featured and Good articles to make sure that this potential feature doesn't disturb them. SandyGeorgia, do you think those things help?

I think at the core of this is the question of "where in the article to place the image". I think we would want to do it automatically, instead of prompting the newcomer to choose where in the article to place the image. The MOS that you linked to gives some hints about how to do this best: align right, place below templates but above content, etc. Perhaps we would also be able to place the image into the infobox, if there is one and it has a slot for an image. Do you have ideas for what a workable set of rules could be for placing the image, or maybe what some of the pitfalls or edge cases could be?

Another question is about captions: from looking through the MOS and from my own usage of Wikipedia, it seems like images generally are expected to have captions. Does that sound right? i.e. if we were to build this idea, should we require a user to write a caption in order to add an image to an article?

I invite both of you to join the full discussion on the talk page, but also happy to continue it here for convenience. Thank you for taking time on this; this is a big help because we only want to build things that are going to be positive for the wikis. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Elcobbola, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Crimea

[12] [13] Мен Ахалский (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Where's the yellow bar? Мен Ахалский (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир:, @Don Alessandro: Explain the yellow stripe, no. Мен Ахалский (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Typewriter Company

ElC, Z1720 has raised concerns at Talk:Oliver Typewriter Company#FA concerns about the article, based on three new sources, and a few other areas in which FA requirements have evolved over the years. I have incorporated one of the three new sources, but the other two will probably require your help. Z1720 has been looking at company articles, while FAR is also processing through WP:URFA/2020. If you recall the circumstances of my first recusal as FAC delegate (which I did with great trepidation), you know I would really dislike seeing this FA defeatured-- sentimental attachment! But I don't think I can incorporate any useful new material from these sources without you. Are you on board? If I don't hear from you soon, I will try email. Best, and I hope you are staying well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an attachment I more than share, but I unwatched a great while ago. The majority of Z1720's concerns are mere personal opinion statements untethered to the FA criteria, policy, or guidelines or critical reading thereof--that is precisely what caused me to unwatch in the first place. I can certainly try to answer specific questions, but I won't be back in the states for the foreseeable future and thus effectively have no access to sources. I apologise for my disenchantment, but am otherwise indeed well. I'm terribly sorry to have read of your arboreal mishap and am glad you had such a capable responder. A speedy recovery, and my best to all. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		I understand why you thought I was a sockpuppet. My actions were very puppet-like. You did an amazing job, however, on the Valkyried nomination. Thank you. I didn't even realize they were sockpuppets. But you did. And that's an accomplishment. Good luck on your endeavors, I hope to talk again. Cheers. Tucker Gladden 👑 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Why you give utterance to me in Wikipedia Commons?

Why you Elcobbola (talk · contribs · logs) give utterance to me in the Wikipedia Chinese?I need to nail up photos in their. If you ‬Elcobbola (talk · contribs · logs) says spoiled words which bewrite me again,you Elcobbola‬ (talk · contribs · logs) will be seal in Wikipedia.--點蟲蟲 (talk) 8:40, 5 February 2021 (HK Time)

Sorry for this thing 🙇🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️because I am a new user and I don't know how to post new photos.Can you teach me how to post new photos in Wikipedia Commons,thanks!--點蟲蟲 (talk) 9:25, 5 February 2021 (HK Time)

Some points in my Commons account.

Hi, I don't understand why did you block me for ever and nominate for deletion, the pictures that I published which were published fpr the first time prior 1951.

I ok that the picture of the Queen Mother, which I inspired with it at NPG, ok it would be a copivio and I'm sorry for it.

I was learning those previous months to do better contributions for Wikimedia and, this is the thank you get?

All the photos that I have configured (published before 1951) and some made photomontages for educational purposes and others that I have colored myself would be deleted as well? I don't understand it.

Don't worry, because I'm not going to do more activities for the project, but I did it with the best intentions.

Delete all those that are considered violations if you prefer. But please, I beg of you, those that have clearly support that they were taken before 1951, and others that are my own work, (which I put on Flickr so that at least their prevalence can be better guaranteed as others do) please keep them. It has taken me a lot of time that I inverted to locate them, to document their copyright status and, in some cases, with the coloring and photomontage works.

I promise you that if you can allow this petition, I will forever abandon this project and promise not to contribute again.

I appreciate your answer, since I cannot contact you because you have blocked me even for that.

Best regards. --HefePine23 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you deleted in Commons all my work and accuse me to be a sockpuppet?

Good night Elcobbola (talk · contribs), I don't understand why did you delete all my files in Commons, when the copyright was clearly expired. And there was a lot of files that I had retouched and colored. And also accused me to be a sockpuppet!! It is true that I live with HefePine23, but he is my brother and we collaborate together with Wikimedia. I think that it so unfair. I understand that my brother have done some errors with copyright. But Block us and delete all my good faith work is so exagerated.

I'm hurt by this. Ok, I understand that copyright is limited but I do not understand why remove everything. After all, you should also delete everything uploaded by the user Wikipedino88, who also contributed in good faith to improve the Titanic page, as well as I helped him and also the Olympic one, were my brother also helped us sometimes. And too much users. I was just trying to help fix the problem my brother caused. Well, if this is how the efforts of other users in good faith (like my case) are appreciated, I don't want to continue with this project. Best regards. --SandyShores03 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Han0211

Hi, I know for some reason and my mistake has resulted in me being blocked on Wikimedia Commons, I don't really understand nor know how to write the best information and description of the posts on my Wikimedia Commons resulted in me being blocked. I hope you can unblock and I will try to learn more so that I can understand and post a complete post on Wikimedia Commons with correct and usable content.

Please unblock me on Wikimedia Commons

Hello Elcobbola, can you please unblock me on Wikimedia Commons, I have changed since two and a half years ago and am ready to be a contributing user. Please unblock me on Wikimedia Commons or at least reinstate talk page access so I can make a unblock request there. Angelgreat (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've restored your talk page access and you may make a normal request there. Please review our policies and guidelines and note that our blocking policy requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue, not mere apology. Эlcobbola _talk 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Elcobbola. I accept that I had created an alternative account on Commons, but there seems to have no major issue with it. So, please unblock it. You can mention on my user page at Commons that this user is using an alternative account. I agree that the block was relevant on the former account, so I created another one as a new start. I promise that I won't repeat anything that led to my block. Thanks and regards. Peter Ormond 💬 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A prompt reply will be appreciated. Peter Ormond 💬 19:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Dear User:Elcobbola, Although I have been working on Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Wikidata (English and Persian) for a short time, but I have always tried to obey the rules. This is clear from the edits and articles I have created. Recently my Wikimedia account has been blocked by you. Of course, it was a mistake on my part because my newcomer wife unknowingly removed the labels and I was unaware of this. I have always worked for the development of Wikipedia sports. Please accept my apology and activate my account. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo Nomination and WP:DNB

Hey Elcobbola, regarding your comment here [14]: The EXIF data clearly shows the photo was not the copyright of the uploader. That speaks for itself. The rest of the nomination content is a tad heavy handed. I don't personally believe this user is a malicious image launderer, or purposefully attempting to circumvent copyright. Their past interactions have shown that they try to do the right thing when pointed in the right direction, and they are making an effort to learn Wikipedia policies. So I guess I feel like this is WP:DNB territory. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Users with more than 400 edits and tenures over 17 months are not new. No wiki experience is required to make, or to understand the necessity of, truthful statements. I don't know what you're talking about, and you appear not to either. Эlcobbola _talk 18:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: 400 edits sounds pretty green to me. This is the user's first page creation. They are clearly new to the photo upload process. They don't qualify for extended confirmed access. They are new. It takes years to learn all these things. Even if we disregard WP:DNB, consider that it is an intuitive extension of WP:AGF. Just be nice. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome credulity and infantilisation of others, but rest assured I'm not interested in your opinion or you patronisation. Эlcobbola _talk 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Dear admin Elcobbola, Please kindly and unblock my account. I am photographer and journalist and I really need to upload my photos to my recently created articles. I'm trying to help raise the level of Wikipedia sports by writing articles that I look at closely. Please help me in this way. I assure you to follow Wikipedia rules from now on. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Reason for remove

Unfortunately, you blocked my account and I appealed many times, but I did not receive a response. A few days ago, my workmate created a new account (User:Cotler1964) and uploaded the photos He had taken himselef. But you deleted them for no reason and because of copyright. This is really unfair. He took these photos himself and I can easily prove them. You seem to have a personal problem with me or my country. If so, please tell me honestly to get out of Wikipedia. I work wholeheartedly on Wikipedia to increase its athleticism. But this behavior of yours has upset me a lot. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Socks

FYI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramsaranmehta overlaps with some CU blocks you handed out on Commons. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Sorry to interrupt but you suddenly blocked Gohkenytp723 on Commons thinking it's a Jermboy27 sockpuppet but it's really not honestly. I think Fry1989 wants sources for the road signs and I showed those to him but didn't listen to me and thought it's a Jermboy27 sockpuppet. Could you unblock Gohkenytp723 for me and tell Fry that this source is really serious? Thanks. 98.110.246.161 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)