User talk:Ellin Beltz

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 10:49, 29 September 2015 by Ras Benjih (talk | contribs) (File:New Userboxes Develope.png)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi I am A. Perumal Thevan (Apthevan). I am a copy writer and freelance translator. I am doing some corrections in the article Muthuramalinga Thevar in Tamil Wikipedia and uploading some pictures of Mr. Thevar. And I have sent the permission letter to Wiki by mail [Ticket#2015092610011501].

I ask you have to I send mail every time I upload for each photograph's a particular owner?

Regards

A. Perumal Thevan


Welcome! - Replies may not be instant, this user also sleeps, eats, works & goes to school all year.

Hi! I'm one of the admins and bureaucrats here on Wikimedia Commons. If I can help, please leave a message here!.

I work in a spirit of COM:AGF with Commons images for deletion, as well as categorizing and sourcing images.

Please do not be offended if your images were nominated for deletion or even deleted. There are processes to provide copyright permission and undelete even images which have already been removed. If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the Village Pump. To contact me, please leave your message

This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
This user is a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
~~~~Ellin Beltz signs her posts and thinks you should too!
This user believes in assuming good faith and civility.
This user is a geologist.
en
This user is a native English speaker.
  • Medieval Wisdom

You can please some of the people all of the time,

you can please all of the people some of the time,
but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
John Lydgate (1370–1449) source: BBC

Pre-Feb. 2014 ~
2014
February to December 2014 ~
2015
January to June 2015 ~

June to ____ 2015 ~

Commons:Deletion requests/ :File:Alexander Garnet Brown.jpg

I have a letter addressed to me from AG Brown with this signature on it. I posted the letter as my own work and outlined it on the file? Not sure what you mean when it's not correctly featured on the site? Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/ Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg

I took this picture and this is the orginal? What is missing in the file to make this my own work, I added comments to the file when I uploaded it?Jbignell (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-HK-PR

Hi, You closed this as deleted, but it is still there. Also the images which use this template should be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you could do that for me. I am sorry, I didn't realize the images needed to go at the same time and now I'm out of time because I have to go to work. I really appreciate your help. Also could you take a look at [1] and see if you think this person has uploaded from too many cameras? Thank you so much for your help, sorry to ask you to finish this for me, but otherwise it will be 8 to 10 hours (or tomorrow) before I can do it! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then it may have to wait. Most other nominations by this user were kept, and I think that his/her copyright understanding is poor. I don't know myself about this one, and I don't want to delete these files without more expert opinions. Anyway, this template was created 5 years ago, it could wait for a few days. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I assumed that deleting the template would remove it from all those pages, doesn't it autoremove? Also not all those pictures seem eligible for deletion, would it not be best to put them for individual DNs if they seem controversial? As always your advice greatly sought. I have reverted my incomplete deletion to give more time to examine the photos. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, May be a list of impacted images would be useful. I requested more opinions here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-HK-PR. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Deletion requests/File:DSC 7983.JPG

Hello! Please specify, why do you think that the file is out of scope? It depicted the directors of presumably notable movie, so I suppose the photo can be used in that article. --INS Pirat (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi : Did you read the Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC 7983.JPG? The nomination says specifically why it was nominated for out of scope, and my close reads "unused, out of scope". The image had no names, no link to the movie, no information of why this picture of two guys heads is any more important that two other guys heads. It was nominated on 27 August and deleted nearly a month later after (a) no one fixed the description to explain why the image is educational and (b) no one used the image in any articles. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Football club logos uploaded by Nemigo

Hi, I want to talk about that deletion because I think that the files are correct, perhaps I could fullfill the information of the files:

Is needed more information to restore the files? Thanks, --Elisardojm (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Elisardojm. You'd need a statement that the logos were public domain to begin with before the derivative works. The pages you link do not show the license on the logo given by the sports clubs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That files aren't logos, it are coat of arms, and the files created by Nemigo aren't the same that uses that sports clubs, that files are created based on the description of the coat of arms, and that descriptions hasn't copyright because it don't surpass the Threshold of originality.
The description of the coat of arms of Deportivo da Coruña is: "Cinturón de caballero que rodea el pendón morado de la Sala Calvet y bandera de Galicia. Corona Real en el centro del pendón y sobre el escudo." "Man belt surrounding purple standard of Sala Calvet and flag of Galicia. Royal Crown at center of standard over the coat of arms" [2]. I think that that description is in PD because it doesn't surpass the threshold of originality. The same is for the others coat of arms. Thanks, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elisardojm: I'd suggest that you file a request at COM:UNDEL and let a different admin take a look at your request? That provides checks and balances. There were no sources for these descriptions of the "coats of arms" you describe linked from the pages. The sources you've linked above are actual images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you very much! :) Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photos tagged as PD-FinlandGov

Hi! Could you please be more specific about how most of these images seem to be covered under PD-FinlandGov tag? And about how these a few that you deleted seem more problematic than the rest? I think it's clear that one of the users that voted for "keep" had his argument based on a misinterpretaion of the law. Other user who voted for "keep" on the other hand made very vague claims that make it almost impossible to say something solid about the copyright status of these images. I could nominate images separately, but all of them would be nominated for the same reason as in this mass nomination. The images that I picked for nomination are those that seem most likely to be independent works not covered under PD-FinlandGov. Possibly for a few of these nominations we could find some evidence that make an image seem like not an independent work. But then again per precautionary principle it should be shown for each image that they are really free to be kept, not the other way around, isn't it? 90.191.109.9 08:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon: As stated in that close "I would not oppose individual re-nominations of any additionally disputed image of this large group; large batches of variable situation images are not usually easy to close." It is nearly impossible to close out dozens of images under one reason. If you'd like to renominate in smaller batches that may actually be possible to find 100% similarity in images/licenses, I would not oppose such and would work on each of those individually.
The most significant statement for me in the discussion was
"All the images here are from documents qualifying under Article 9 and are properly used. The issue has been discussed earlier in Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rajavartijoita_passintarkastuksessa.jpg. --MPorciusCato 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This earlier DR repeates the same baseless claims for "keep" as the recent DR. It only refers (see citation in recent DR) to an opinion which questions if the law should have provisions that it has on independet works. But the law hasn't changed regarding this matter ever since this opinion was voiced. Also, this specific image being an "integral part" part of the document was discussed in recent DR. It's not cited in the source document, publishing the document without this illustration could not affect the message of the document in this specific case. So it's unclear in what sense is the work an "integral part" and overall it remains unclear why this earlier DR was dropped in the first place.
Well, it's common to all nominated images that they are wihtout any explanations why the attatced license tag could be considered appropriate (i.e in what sense on solid grounds are the specific works not independent works). The evidence is pretty much missing. 90.191.109.9 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to renominate - but I suggest doing so in smaller batches more applicable to the images contained within, rather than a giant mass nomination. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came here so that you could perpahs help me figure out why the larger batch wasn't applicable to the images contained within. This being unclear, I don't see much of a point renominating. Currently it seems that our policies on precautionary principle and on providing evidence are just being ignored. 90.191.109.9 16:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. All I can suggest to you is to not nominate several dozen images of various types under a single deletion nomination. If you really feel strongly that your position hasn't been listened to, there's an administrator's noticeboard, a Village Pump and other avenues of communication. But based on the nomination you presented with a large number of files attached, and after the prior deletion nomination referenced above, I didn't see any reason to delete those files. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC) PS: Have you considered getting an account? It does speed up communication.[reply]
Could you please at least try to sum up some actual solid reasons to believe that nominated images are actually free (i.e why they are not independent works in sense of the law) and that PD-FinlandGov tag applys? Refering to a claim that is either already disproved or simply baseless doesn't really explain anything, does it. Closing nominations like this just messes things up more than they already were messed up. While per precautionary principle the goal is that copyright status for every uploaded image has to be clear. Also, you deleted for instance File:Elisabet Rehn.jpg. Why was the nomination more applicable to this image than to the rest? 90.191.109.9 19:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point you upward on this discussion :The most significant statement for me in the discussion was
What I'd suggest now is that you nominate Just One Image for deletion and let us discuss the copyright situation of Just One Image. You will get a much more cogent discussion if we're not also having to review dozens of photos as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already replied to that upward quote and I showed why this makes no sense.
In recent DR we aleady discussed some specific images: File:Rajavartijoita_passintarkastuksessa.jpg, File:Level crossing accident in Nivala.jpeg, File:Conscript duty NCO wearing a gorget.jpg. We could of course discuss all other images one by one too to see if they could be considered non-independet works. But all in all it's the same case for all of the recently nominated images: in a set of images which being free is highly doubtful all the images lack an evidence that they are free. Again, per COM:EVID the burden of proof lies on those in favor of keeping the image, not the other way around. Current experience is that on this matter our policies or simply ignored. So what would it really change if I nominate smaller batches or single images? 90.191.109.9 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it would change, but neither do you until you try it. A talk page is not a venue for this discussion; a Deletion Nomination is. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamil flag.png

Hi Ellin, I forgot about this one when I did Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Tamil Eelam.svg‎ and meant to add it later but again slipped my mind, but it's the same logic and image -- the source of the image is the deleted one and the flag is that of a private organization. Can it be deleted as a copyvio referring the earlier discussion? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup User:SpacemanSpiff, Just reference the previous discussion and nominate! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

75 images tagged for deletion & deleted

Hi ... an individual was "suspect" of the copyright of an image that I had put up at Wikimedia Commons (the copyright was righteous) that person then tagged for deletion all 75 images I had uploaded since 2007. Now all of those images are gone. I think it is terribly unfair to tag all the images at one time. I would be happy to email and to explain to the group that checks copyrights for one image, but 75! Come on ... that's just plain mean! For me to write and send 75 emails, that is really too much to ask. However, the person who did this terrible thing most likely is sitting back in his / her little dark cave ... enjoying the fact that he / she ruined the pages of some very talented musicians, actors, & artists. Shame on Wikimedia and Wikipedia for allowing creeps to become editors. Editors need to be vetted. Chaos4tu (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Chaos4tu: I look on your talk page and see that you already have an admin trying to contact you, pingDidym. You would not need to write 75 emails, just one as stated on COM:OTRS. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaos4tu: Let's keep the discussion on my and your user talk pages instead of spreading it over dozens of pages. And please also stop your personal attacks, your comment above would be enough for a long block on it's own. --Didym (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me to send an email to "OCT" something. I read that the volunteers that run that link are overwhelmed with work. Perhaps, it would take more than a month and that they must have very specific information, but the information they want is not specified. So, how do I know what to send? Do they want my birth certificate, my driver's license, credit card, or what? Please tell me what exactly to I put into the email? Thanks Chaos4tu (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Chaos4tu: I did give you the link, it's about 1 inch above this just look up and click on it. The instructions over there are complete, there is no reason for me to retype their whole page of instructions here as well. Everything you need is on that page and thousands of people have managed to send in the information merely by reading that page. All the Commons volunteers here are behind, what else is new? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Topic

Gentile Ellin Beltz, sono io e solo io l'autore delle foto eliminate da Commons, in particolare quella di M.La Spina, tomba Geremia. Le foto dell'affresco di Paolo Vasta sono pure mie, con la differenza che esse, scattate intorno al 1926, sono della mia famiglia e incollate su carta, non appartenendo ad alcun volume pubblicato. Perchè avete distrutto tutto? Tra l'altro è sparito il mio nome (Giancaxio) dai registrati di Wikipedia. Che fare?--82.53.99.155 14:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

google translate Dear Ellin Beltz, I'm just me and the author of the deleted photos from Commons, in particular that of M.La Spina, grave Jeremiah. Pictures of the fresco by Paolo Vasta are also mine, with the difference that they, taken around 1926, are of my family and glued on paper, not belonging to any book published. Because you have destroyed everything? Among the other it is gone my name (Giancaxio) by registered Wikipedia. What to do?

Hi 82.53.99.155: Your request seems to relate to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giancaxio. The user talk page of that uploader is at User talk:Giancaxio and has not been removed. The problem with the images was stated at the Deletion nomination "Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giancaxio". The uploader, User Giancaxio could now go to COM:UNDEL and give reasons, for these files to be restored. As it is now, we have an anonymous editor claiming ownership of images previously claimed owned by Giancaxio. I am assuming the fresco to be by Pietro Paolo Vasta (Acireale, 31 luglio 1697 – Acireale, 28 novembre 1760) so that is old enough, however the photographs... the question is who actually took those before they were put on paper, not in a book? Most of us are not old enough to have been taking photographs in 1926. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bn bt ec01

Ellin, I came across this nomination of yours through some images on en.wiki that I wanted to tag. Now the uploader left a message on my talk page and on looking again I found that he has gone and removed the deletion discussion tags and changed the licenses on some files (e.g. this set of edits. Joining this editor is User:Sunny singh9128 who I blocked on en.wiki about 12 hours ago for persistent copyvios over four years. He is also involved in this business of randomly changing the license tag of the files. I can't say for sure if there's socking involved, but this is a major mess right now as the copyvios are creeping into multiple articles on en.wiki and I can't figure out what to do with it. Can you please take a deeper look on this and/or request action here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

en:User talk:Sunny singh9128 is for reference to the copyvios on en and my block of the account there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed an SPI on en.wiki en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunny singh9128 (my last post before you reply, I promise no more notifications because of me!) —SpacemanSpiff 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg

Deleted images from newspaper La Presse "may be freely distributed on the internet..." (La Presse)

I am writing, first of all, for the user Mlaucke since his health is not perfect at present. My name is Dave and I have been his assistant for many years.

The present communication concerns the following document, which is an article that appeared in a French newspaper called La Presse. Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg

Our resource is here; sorry that it is in French by I will translate the essence of it's purport immediately below. http://www.vteducation.org/fr/articles/droit-dauteur/7-reproduire-des-textes-tires-de-eurekacc

The two pertinent paragraphs are:

1) Toutefois, la Loi sur le droit d’auteur permet aux enseignants et aux étudiants de sauvegarder, de télécharger, de montrer, d’échanger et de transmettre les ressources librement accessibles sur Internet dans leur environnement pédagogique. Les textes sur Internet ou sur des sites Web qui ne comportent aucune interdiction de reproduction peuvent donc être intégrés au recueil à distribuer aux étudiants ou à verser sur une plateforme sécurisée. AND 2) interdisant la reproduction en plusieurs exemplaires des articles provenant d’Eureka.cc pour d'autres personnes, les documents repérés dans cette base de données peuvent tout de même être intégrés à un recueil de textes et reproduits à des fins d’enseignement.

In a nutshell, this says that, regarding reproducing articles from La Presse, "the Law on copyright allows people to save, upload, display, share and transmit them (newspaper articles from La Presse) freely on the Internet for educational or informative purposes." One is NOT allowed to reprint and distribute La Presse articles for personal financial gain (obviously not our case). ...thus "prohibiting multiple copying of newspaper articles for other people. Furthermore, La Presse newspaper articles may be integrated into a collection of texts and reproduced for educational and informative purposes".

I hope this helps somewhat to clarify the use of this newspaper article and other newspaper articles, (and our good faith :), articles we uploaded to contribute to users' material in the realm of the classical guitar.

I understand that there was also an issue with our highlighting certain phrases to help users save time and get to the most interesting parts of these newspaper articles. If you wish, we can upload original, un-highlighted versions, of these newspaper articles, if need be.

Thank you so much for taking the time, and applying your attention to making Wikipedia the magnificent achievement that it is! all my very best wishes, Dave Bradley 74.56.38.175 04:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Mlaucke (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MongkutChulalongkornU.png was nominated for deletion since 27 September 2015.

Dear Ellin Beltz,

Thanks for checking my file. I think that File:MongkutChulalongkornU.png is emblem of thai public university and this university is operated by Royal Thai government. What should I do with this deletion nomination to remain this file. How can I do? Please tell me and I will fix it to the right way.

Thanks --BunBn (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)BunBn[reply]

Your file

On your file File:Barbershop Quartet at Victorian Days.jpg your source was "Own work." Prove that you created that file. I put own work on my files, but you delete my files. Why? Chaos4tu (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Userboxes Developes.gif

Hello! I added where this file were from. Can you please check it. I lost one file, a yellow box with green cross on it. Thanks

Ras Benjih 10:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ellin_Beltz&oldid=173724853"