User talk:Elcobbola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Caution
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will usually respond on this page.
  • If applicable, please include links to the pertinent page(s).
  • I seldom edit on weekends and do not access Wikipedia email during the day (CET/CEST).


Archive

Image query[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review request[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. RlevseTalk 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. RlevseTalk 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral FAC nomination[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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![edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

[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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

Onthemorningtbutts1.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

The Winter Walk at Anglesey Abbey - geograph.org.uk - 862583.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Northern cardinal by Barnes, Dr.Thomas G.jpg 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)

Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg
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[edit]

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[edit]

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)