User talk:Elcobbola

Gliding FAR

Hi Elcobbola! Would you mind revisiting the Gliding FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1)? It looks like the main editor has addressed your concerns and is awaiting further comments. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dana. There are still numerous issues; I've updated comments at the FAR. Эlcobbola _talk 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and thanks again for all of your recent work at FAR - it is much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image inquiry

Hi Elcobbola - is the licensing on File:Alexander Cameron Rutherford - Elliott And Fry.jpg, which I've recently uploaded correct? If I can calculate correctly, both creators have been dead for over 100 years, but I'd just like another assessment. Thanks. Connormah 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If those dates are correct, the license is correct (assuming it's unpublished - which should indeed be the assumption unless proven otherwise). The problem, however, is that the source is a link directly to the image (something that should never be done unless the image itself contains the information necessary to support the license - e.g. File:Liberty Bell 1872.jpg). Where can we verify that these men are the authors and that those are their dates of death? Эlcobbola _talk 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll adjust the link. Connormah 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image check

Ec, would you be able to add a second check at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherlock Holmes Baffled/archive1? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed some issues on the Commons side. It's now good to go. Эlcobbola _talk 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- I like to check in with you when I don't know certain image reviewers' work ... it gives me a review on the reviewers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. The ones to be cautious of are "reviews" that summarize image information; they're almost always superficial and mere mechanical exercise. Эlcobbola _talk 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi Elcobbola, I'm preparing Ezra Pound for FAC and thought I'd ask for a preliminary image review before I list. I'm not in a hurry; will be a day or so until it's fully ready to go. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88, I've left comments on the article's talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Was worried about these - had a look at the files myself earlier and gulped. Responded on the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elcobbola, thanks for the review. I've decided not to bring to FAC until I can locate more information on the images we have, or new images with better licenses. I'll email the Sun Valley Center for the Arts; perhaps they have more information on File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg. Specifically what do I need to know? Publication dates if they exist, or whether a copyright holder exists? Also, if the PUF determines File:DorothyPound.jpg is not free, can it be used with FUR for the Dorothy Shakespear article only? Also, would an image such as this be allowable? First publication date was 1925. Thanks for your time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The best approach probably would be simply to ask for whatever information they have available. Particularly meaningful would be the author and date of first publication. If they claim to hold the copyright (whether such belief is true or not), perhaps ask whether they'd be willing to freely license it. Yes, I do believe a non-free File:DorothyPound.jpg would be appropriate for Dorothy Shakespear, assuming, of course, there is no free alternative available. It would be very strange indeed for someone who had obtained some degree of notoriety before 1923 to not have had an image published somewhere; I suspect one would turn up with more research. This image wouldn't be ok because it is was published in France (to use {{PD-US-1996}}, it must have been PD in the country of origin as of 1.1.1996. Ezra, of course, died in 1972, so it won't be PD in France until 2042). Эlcobbola _talk 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Again thanks for your help with these images. I realized the image of the cantos couldn't be used because of the publication in Paris - although that page was also published in the 1970 biography. I did find a passport (File:EzraPound Passport.jpg); I hope it's okay to use. I've temporarily re-added File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg to the article to prevent the image being deleted and added to the FUR - in my view it is a valuable image. I don't think I can adequately convey in words the transformation from the boy in uniform to the crazy man in the mugshot. I'll send an e-mail to the Sun Valley center. So glad I had you look at these before FAC! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, File:EzraPound Passport.jpg doesn't work for the same reason the other passport image doesn't work. The physical document is property of the Department of State, but the photograph was not necessarily authored by the government. Giving the photograph to the government for use in a passport is merely a transition of physical property, not intellectual property (similarly, when you purchase a book, you obtain ownership of the physical object; you don't, however, obtain ownership the copyrighted literature therein). Even if copyrights were transferred, the government is allowed to hold transferred rights; it just can't create them itself. Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What a shame! I've commented it out, and will remove from the article. How do I go about deleting the file? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On an online database I've found an image of Pound in Paris in the 1920s, attributed to National Archives. I sent them the image to perform a copyright search and in the response they've verified that There are no known copyright restrictions on the image. I can send you the entire email if necessary, but it's quite short. Would it be okay to upload? If so, which license would be best to use? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be safe to upload the image to English Wikipedia. (If it's from Paris, the statement likely applies to its United States status, as France is 70 years after author death. So let's avoid the Commons for the time being.) If you could, forward the correspondence to OTRS at permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org with "Ezra Pound" somewhere in the body (so I can search for it) and with the initial email with the attached image (so the Archive's statement can be connected to the work). If things look good, I'll tag it and you'll be set. Эlcobbola _talk 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent the entire conversation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Let me know once you've uploaded the image and I'll add the ticket. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: File:EzraPound Paris.png. I found it on a subscription database (Credo Reference) - not sure how to add the link. Thanks again for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the sourcing (and other) information available from the ticket. Feel free to add any other information present at the Credo site (I'm not able to see it, as it needs a library login - I'm a bit too far removed from my university days and, even then, the only German cities are Munich and Oldenburg. Schade.) Эlcobbola _talk 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had to change the url - but the rest of the information is correct. Added publisher. Will send you a follow-up email regarding the url change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan FAC

When I contacted the National Archives about images related to the event, they sent me a few of the 100+ photos they have on file. One of the images is exactly the same as the opening scene in File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv. The image is tagged with the same Signal Corps symbol that the Mucci image has. As I suggested on the FAC page, would it be sufficient to state on the videos' pages that the Signal Corps photographers were there to document the event through photos and video to cover the author issue? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Nehrams2020, for not getting back to the FAC (I missed it on my watchlist). I'll respond fully here to keep the FAC less cluttered. At this stage, it's just a verifiability over truth issue; I'm hoping to get Ts crossed and Is dotted, as they should be in a FA. If you still have that image and could upload/reference it in the video's summary page, that would be sufficient for me. Even if not, however, I'm going to strike because the case seems so obvious. The YouTube links resolve the sourcing issue, which was the real holdup. (They are indeed copyvios, as they consist of more than just PD footage. I realize there's potential conflict with WP:COPYVIO, but that's only in letter, not in spirit. We need to document sourcing and I don't see any legitimate issue in cases of sourcing for extracted PD content. Perhaps, instead of a link, say something like "PD material extracted from YouTube file aP3X239Q2WA". That's verifiable and avoids linking to a copyvio.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that may of happened. I'll upload the image that I received, but it will probably be at the beginning of next week since I'm in the process of moving and currently don't have any Internet service (currently editing from family's house). That's a good idea for the source, I'd prefer to keep it in text form, rather than link to the copyrighted video. I'm still contacting the National Archives to see if I can get access to their 100+ images, but I'm trying to find a way to do it for free and bypass their fees. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to review the images, your comments were helpful. This was the first FAC I worked on that had only free images, and although there were a few issues, they're much easier to address than defending non-free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

killer7 FAC

Thanks for your review of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive2. I was wondering if you had any comments about the article as a whole, or whether you are willing to lend the article your support. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to review video games for content. My experience with that topic consists largely of having played Myst in the 90s (as an excuse to try out the then-new-fangled CD-ROM drive), and having played Durak on a long since discarded iPhone. You might want to try asking David Fuchs. Эlcobbola _talk 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Eva-nansen.jpg

Since I last asked for your guidance on the Fridtjof Nansen article images, I have added the above, which appears to be free of copyright in Norway. Can you let me know if it is OK to use it here? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was worried you were going to ask about this image. Norway is a problem. It can run into subsisting copyrights because it has long-standing copyright relations with the United States (since at least 1.1.1923) and the copyright term here (50 years) is shorter than the period between 1923 and restoration (1.1.1996 for Norway, so ca. 73) - 50 is indeed less than 73. Thus, there exists a small possibility that it is copyrighted (if, for example, it was published/registered after 1.1.1923). Long story short, the current information does not indicate the status in the US, and the non-U.S. copyrights guideline directs us to assume works are copyrighted in this circumstance. Эlcobbola _talk 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. I will (with obvious regret) delete the image. There are more than a dozen valid images in the article, so I'm not unduly depressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As a last throw of the dice, could I ask you to look at the foot of the Fridtjof Nansen talkpage, where some Flickr images of Nansen and Eva have been drawn to my notice? Do any of these, to your expert eye, look promising? I don't want to hold up the FAC nom for long, but an appropriate image can always be added later. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As a proponent of the concept of verifiability over truth, I have no issue with those images. If the National Library of Norway says they're CC-by 2.0, then they're CC-by 2.0 in the world of Wikipedia. Эlcobbola _talk 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On the strength of that, I have uploaded File:EvaNansenskiing.jpg to Commons. It needs to be reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that its license is valid. Can you do this? I am not including it in the article until that point is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot beat me to it [1]. That should be all you need. Эlcobbola _talk 21:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review

Hiya, could you be convinced to do an image review of FC Barcelona again? I know it's the third time, but I've added a tricky image which could use some expertise. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented at the peer review. Эlcobbola _talk 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding crest, is a photo of a player with the crest on his shirt considered publication? See here Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. To be publication, it must be distributed to the general public. If the crest was copied, but then only distributed to a "closed" group (e.g. the team, managers, etc.), then it is considered a "limited publication" which is the same as no publication. If, however, they sold objects with the crest to the general public at the time, then it would be considered published. Эlcobbola _talk 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I've responded to the PR comments. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Image question

On the FAC for Kent, Ohio a question has arisen about the status of File:Kent city wards streets.png, in particular about its copyright status from the original map I made the file from. Any additional insight would be helpful. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR reviews

There are a couple of new FARs that are probably going to be keeps, but need an image review first. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive1 are the links for the two. Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Commented on both. Эlcobbola _talk 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Everyone's dead 70 years or more, in fact much more, so I don't think this one will be complicated. If you have a chance would you mind doing a pre-FAC check on it? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an open peer review, or do you just want comments on the talk page? Эlcobbola _talk 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page is fine. I've asked User:DrKiernan to comment on the text and he's agreed, and he's one of our leading royalty experts. I'm content doing it informally.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What does PMA mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA is Post Mortem Auctoris (after the author's death). Эlcobbola _talk 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of terms

Hi Ec. After responding to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1, an idea occurred to me: it might be useful to create a subpage in your userspace called User:Elcobbola/Explanation of terms. I think it would only take about an hour to make, and then you could add new terms from time to time as you do reviews... that page would be a one-stop resource to help people understand terms such as PMA, underlying distribution data, subsidiary source, und so weiter. You could link to it once at the top or bottom of your reviews. Saves time and trouble for everyone. Cheers. • Ling.Nut 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yours is the first "complaint" in ages. You may find issues -- image or otherwise -- easier to address if you dispense with the sarcasm and hyperbole and temper your reactions with the understanding that reviewers volunteer their time because they want to see articles improve. Your approach has been very disappointing, Ling. Эlcobbola _talk 02:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those diffs show neither sarcasm nor (especially) hyperbole. I see Wehwalt, in the thread immediately above this one, asking precisely the same question about PMA; why is mine the first complaint? Moreover, I looked at PMA in Wikipedia, dictionary.com, etc. These definitions are not so in-plain-sight as you would seem to suggest.
• I think my reactions have been extremely mild and restrained, and extremely well within the bounds of fair play on Wikipedia.. in fact, the only thing I have done is simply question your facts... if that is offensive, well... there are two explanations: either I have been too offensive, or you have been too thin-skinned. Not sure which is Truth. In fact, I don't think there is a truth in this matter. It's all a matter of perception... However, if my words have somehow offended you, then I apologize. • Ling.Nut 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not been offended. As I said, I've been disappointed by your approach. You appear to believe intertwining reasonable questions unintelligent nonsense allows the latter to be disregarded. This, for example, is apparently only "What is PMA?". Are you unable to grasp the difference between Wehwalt's polite question and your complaint "You do everyone a disservice by lapsing into jargon"? How exactly do you believe that is merely factual ("simply question[ing my] facts")? Those are rhetorical questions; I'm uninterested in a response. PMA, by the way, is front and center in the prominent guideline for these works; "underlying distribution data" and "supplemental license" are not copyright terms, but English - this isn't Simple Wikipedia. That you perceive "Perhaps the fact that the pictures were taken in 1897 might be a tip-off?" and "This image was published in 1877... if it isn't PD, then PD does not exist" as devoid of sarcasm and hyperbole is lamentable, if genuine. Эlcobbola _talk 13:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• And I can only repeat, I think you have responded more than a little out of proportion. I guess that leaves us there.• Ling.Nut 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Work for hire - UK

Hi Elcobbola. I was wondering. UK laws bestow the copyright of a work upon the employer if it was a "work for hire" (done in the course of employment). As such, would the works printed in Punch be considered "works for hire", and hence, are copyrighted for 70 years since publication instead (if so, should Commons template PD-UK-unknown be used)? Would this also apply to comics where different artists are employed? Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an add on, as far as I know, Punch prints only its artists' works (no freelancers or pieces commissioned from those outside). Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily as simple as that. The underlying legislation is "Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary" (11(2)). Problematic, of course, is the "subject to any agreement to the contrary", as it removes the notion of universal applicability. Did certain illustrators, for example, have contracts that allowed them to retain copyrights? So if you define "work for hire" as "done in the course of employment", then yes, they are; "done in the course of employment", however, does not necessarily mean the copyright transfered to the employer.

Whatever the case, however, I don't believe PD-UK-unknown would be appropriate, as the author, be it employee or employer (depending on the contract), is still a known entity (perhaps I'm incorrect, but I'm not aware of a section that indicates corporate copyright holders should be treated as anonymous holders). If Punch was an international organisation -- "an organisation the members of which include one or more states" (178) -- it might be subject to a certain miscellaneous provision: "Copyright of which an international organisation is first owner by virtue of this section continues to subsist until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made" (168(3)). Эlcobbola _talk 15:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review, please?

Hi, Elcobbola, would you mind doing an image review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1? There's only two, so it shouldn't take you that long, and from what Sandy said, ti appears to be the bottleneck in this one. Thanks in advance, or let me know if you can't/aren't interested. Courcelles 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Courcelles 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Elcobbola for improving typwriter articles in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Well done, click Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image advice

I would appreciate a little advice on images. It is a real struggle to find suitable images for English cricterers, due to the difficulty with finding a publication date for them. I asked Brianboulton for advice and I think I'm a little clearer now. However, I thought I would ask for your opinion on this image from an auction catalogue. The picture is anonymous as far as I can see, but the company which published it went out of business in 1904, which can be verified quite easily from a couple of sources, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The picture itself is anonymous and would have been published in England. As I understand it, this image would be acceptable on Wikipedia. Would it also be OK on Commons? Any help is greatly appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The caveat in the PD-UK-Unknown license is the requirement that a "reasonable enquiry" must be performed. That a particular source neglects to mention an author is, of course, a separate notion from the author genuinely being unknown, and an effort must be made to confirm the latter. That being the case, I am of of the opinion that it would not be acceptable on the Commons in the absence of such an enquiry. If it was published before 1.1.1923, however, it is PD in the United States and indeed acceptable on English Wikipedia. Эlcobbola _talk 14:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. In terms of an image like this, where it is most likely impossible to determine an author (and if they were identified, even unlikelier that their death was recorded), I take it that they would never be PD-UK until a ridiculous amount of time had passed? --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for what is again a too belated response (your query hit a strange location and got lost with the image above - I need to archive). I don't know of a correct answer or precedent from either "real life" or Wikipedia. If it were me, I'd just treat it as non-free content and side-step the issue altogether. Depending on how married one is to the concept of verifiability over truth, however, I suppose I wouldn't scoff at the assumption of an 18-year-old author who died at age 90. That's of course somewhat extreme on both ends, but it leads to what I think is a very safe assumption. One could perhaps draw some guidance from the United States statutes, which do not have the provision requiring "reasonable enquiry": for anonymous works (defined as "work[s] on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author"), the terms are either 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, if unpublished (17 USC § 302 (e)). Again, however, I don't know that there really exists an answer. Эlcobbola _talk 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

An image question

I've been working on Andalusian horse and have come across some images in Commons that I would like to use, but am unsure of their licensing. The four (all with the same situation) are:

• File:Fotografias-de-caballos.jpg
• File:Fotografo-caballos-pura-raza.jpg
• File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza--español.jpg
• File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza-andaluz.jpg

Apparently, when uploaded, they were on Flickr under a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license. However, they are currently on Flickr under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Per Commons, non-commerical licensed images are not allowed. Does the change in Flickr status since the upload to Commons remove our right to use the images? If we're still allowed to use them, are we allowed to modify them (I want to remove the watermarks)?

Forgive me if this is a stupid question - I just want to get my ducks in line with this article, as I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. Also, if you had the time, the rest of the images could probably use a quick check. I think they are all OK, but I usually miss something arcane (and sometimes something obvious!) in the licensing. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr review templates appear legitimate (added by the bot and uploaded by an established user), so I don't see reason to doubt that the images were once (and thus always - Creative Commons licenses are not revocable) CC-by 2.0. To answer your question, a change in the Flickr license doesn't impact uploaded images iff they have had a valid Flickr review. The CC-by 2.0 license does indeed allow derivative works (i.e. you may freely remove the watermarks or make any other alterations). This, of course, is independent of possible ethical implications, if any, of holding the author to a license they may have chosen by mistake, or otherwise no longer wish to use. It's a grey area and something on which I don't have an opinion, but it might be something to consider. I'll gladly check over the article within the next day or two (apologies, I'm very short on time). Эlcobbola _talk 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I probably won't end up using them then, due to possible ethical implications. It sucks though, because they're some of the nicest photos of that breed that we have. There's no hurry on checking the rest of the images, as I'm not planning to nominate the article until after Labor Day weekend (the first weekend in September). Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't let concerns of ethics weigh too heavily. After all, one could just as easily argue that it's as unethical to rescind a license as it is to use a rescinded license. Do whatever you're comfortable with and what is, in your good judgment, best for the article. Эlcobbola _talk 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Wintjiya Napaltjarri 2006 work.jpg

Hello Elcobbola. I am about to include the above image, which I have just uploaded, in an article to nominate at FAC: Wintjiya Napaltjarri. Would you be willing to check out the non-free fair-use rationale for me and see if you think it is valid and sufficient? I'd be grateful. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe use of a non-free work in an article about its artist is valid conceptually. I don't think, however, that this work is supported. The only discussion of her style is in relation to the Watanuma piece. I don't really see discussion of style (e.g. shapes, colors, textures, subjects, etc.) outside of that particular work or even discussion of the iconography mentioned in the rationale. That said, I don't see the contextual significance (NFCC#8). Alternatively, however, use of Watanuma would supported, at least minimally (an artist article with so little style/technique discussion?) That aside, minor issues are that 400x487 isn't really low resolution (ca. 300 is the rule of thumb, and this could easily be reduced without impairing its ability to convey information) and {{Non-free 2D art}} is the correct license for these images. Эlcobbola _talk 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, as far as I know an image of Watanuma is not available. Ditto the prints held by the NGA. I could get an image of the NT award finalist. And yes, it is unfortunate that there is not more discussion of her actual technique etc. Will have another scour of the sources. Thank you very much for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this Watanuma? Эlcobbola _talk 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a watanuma, but probably not the watanuma. A common occurrence with Indigenous artists is that they create a large number of works with similar or identical titles, resulting from the fact that they repeatedly paint interpretations of a very small number (sometimes just one) dreaming for which they have ceremonial responsibility, or representations of one aspect of the country for which they are custodians. However, after some further research, I think I now have an adequate NFCC#8 for the work in question, when i finally located a text that discussed her symbols, and her specific colours, all of which are represented in this work. Thanks for your assistance. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attribution Question

Wehwalt suggested I ask you a question regarding copyright and attribution. The discussion begins at Talk:Antonin_Scalia#New_Picture. My pursuit of an answer continues at WP:Media_copyright_questions#Attribution_Manner.

You're my last try. If I'm unsuccessful here, I guess I'll have to give up. :-(

I don't want to repeat everything I've already said, but you should know that I have a legal mind. A copyright license is similar to a contract. The terms of the license must be spelled out. For example, if I write in the license that my work may be freely distributed as long as any use of the work is accompanied by the phrase "original work by Bbb23," the attribution condition in the license is fairly clear. However, if I write in the license that my work may be freely distributed as long as it's attributed in the manner I wish, no one would understand that. In a nutshell, that's why the description of the license in Wikipedia makes no sense to me. Thanks for any insight into this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a copyright license is not similar to a contract, it is a contract. Contracts, of course, need not spell out terms - either literally (e.g. verbal contract) or figuratively (e.g. implied-in-fact contract). It is important, then, to divorce what may merely be considered best practice ("absolute" specificity) with what is general/accepted/ordinary practice. Also important is understanding that {{cc-by-2.0}} is not a license, but a license summary (with all imprecision inherent thereto). The real underlying license is here. Attribution is addressed in §4(b), which provides the basis for the "manner specified" verbiage, specifically "You must ... give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable..." (emphasis mine). Эlcobbola _talk 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Others have pointed to another real license. However, I believe you're correct. You're the first to connect the dots for me. Starting with the Scalia picture, I had clicked on the Attribution 2.0 Generic link. However, I did not notice the line at the bottom of that page that says this is a summary with a link to the license from which you quote. I now have a much more complete legal document that makes some sense to me. Thanks.

One more question. When someone looks at the Scalia page (not the Scalia picture file itself), the author of the picture is not displayed. The only way you know the name of the author is by clicking on the picture. Do you believe that complies with the license? Why isn't it "reasonably practicable" to display the author's name with the display of the picture?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The license requires a licensee ("You") to "give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". As a website is a navigable/interactive medium, a system which requires only a single click to access attribution information is reasonable in my judgment. I do not believe that a person of reasonable intelligence exercising reasonable care/diligence would be unable to find the attribution information. I, further, do not read "the extent reasonably practicable" as meaning "every extent reasonably practicable" and am thus content that there is compliance with the license. As something of an analogue, it might be worth considering the numerous books which provide image credit in an appendix, as opposed to directly accompanying a given image in the body of the work (i.e. there seems to exist accepted precedent for some degree of separation). Note, also, that when Wikipedia pages are exported to a new medium (e.g. the "Export to PDF" function), attribution information is extracted from the image summary and appended to the resulting document. Эlcobbola _talk 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable conclusion, although I'm not sure I agree with it. One thing that bothers me is that most links are noticeable because they are colored or underlined (or both), whereas unless you move your mouse over the Scalia image, you don't even know it's clickable. Nor is there any indication that a user can click on the picture to obtain additional information. I also think it is reasonably practicable to do more, without pushing the phrase to its outer limits. All that said, it's a matter of interpretation, and I appreciate yours. Thanks again for helping me figure out the license terms and responding to my questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Contracts are always open to interpretation and reasonable people can indeed disagree. While I personally believe that we should credit authors in captions and/or provide more indication that an image is clickable, that is not the test. The test is whether the attribution is reasonable, which is a distinct notion from, say, "fullest extent", best possible, etc. Our current system is indeed merely adequate, but it is nevertheless reasonable (a perhaps relatively low threshold). Эlcobbola _talk 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rukai chief.jpg and Atayal.jpg

• Image:Rukai chief.jpg and File:Atayal.jpg can confidently be attributed to Torii Ryūzō, who passed away in 1953. By the life-plus-70 standard, the imgs are not PD. However, they were taken/published in Japan somewhere around the turn of the century. So, then, are they PD by {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, together with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}? • Ling.Nut 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Those tags would be correct if it was indeed published before 1.1.1923. I'm not sure what is meant by "taken/published", however. Be careful, as publication is not the same as creation ("taken"); it requires that a work be both copied and then distributed to the general public (distinct from distribution to a closed group, such as distributing copies of a manuscript to publishers or Oscar statuettes to actors). A source, then, identifying that they are indeed published would be necessary to support those licenses. Эlcobbola _talk 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

These images were published in departmental bulletins of the University of Tokyo. Tracking down individual images would be a nontrivial (let's say, daunting) task, since

1. I cannot read Japanese or Chinese, and
2. No one really takes the time to document such meta-info.

I mean, I'm sure if I went to the University and asked in person (probably requiring fluency in Japanese), I might be able to find the info. But using the Internet, and not being able to read Japanese... the odds are very much stacked against me.

However, many of the images found their way onto postcards that have been published and re-published for a century.. I do not know if these in particular are among them. Postcards are promiscuous; they are published by everyone and their granny. Tracking down a publisher.... would be... again, a formidable task. • Ling.Nut 11:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to go so far as to identify a publisher, only that publication occurred (and the date thereof, of course). For example, something like this -- a dated postcard -- would be perfectly acceptable sourcing. Эlcobbola _talk 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture copyright question

Can you weigh in Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Picture_choice here. There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes "publication" of a sculpture that was created and installed in a public park in 1920. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. Эlcobbola _talk 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Elcobbola, sorry to be a pain, but could you check back in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1? Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for your opinion on non-free images (cartoons)

Hi Elcobbola. I have written Lat, an article on a prominent Southeast Asian cartoonist—indeed, a Biography of a Living Person. As he is an artist and much critical comment is available about his work, I have uploaded five instances for his article. If you have the time, could you appraise the use of images (free and non-free) in the article, giving your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lat/archive1‎? Comments on the article are also much welcomed; I plan to bring it to FAC. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to look it over, with the caveat that I might not be able to make time until next Monday (6. Sept). If you need/plan to go to FAC sooner than that, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Эlcobbola _talk 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Next week is fine, Elcobbola. BrianBoulton is giving it a copy-edit. I have a tendency for weird and convoluted sentences, especially in huge articles, so I am spending time to get it looked at by several others to weed out potential stumbling blocks before sending it to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a ping to keep this from being archived for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever managed to implement an archive bot successfully, so no need to worry there. I haven't forgotten this; it's just the type of thing for which I need an hour or two to spend on it, and getting that time together (as opposed to 15 minutes here and there) is a bit of a trick. Эlcobbola _talk 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

Are you interested in a requests for adminship, the tools could come in handy deleting unsourced fair use images here. Secret ^account 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support in a second, or even conom. Btw, look for an email from me,we have consent on some images for Shield nickel and I'm going to send an OTRS email I hope tonight.- See below-Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Get Sandy to nom. Success=guaranteed. • Ling.Nut 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that edit summary, and if Elc ever runs, I have dibs for more reasons than one! (And he doesn't need anyone's help to pass Rfa :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And don't be shy about saying, "I don't plan to be involved in area x", and politely setting aside all questions about that area. • Ling.Nut 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jokes about needing a wheelbarrow and a rag of ether aside, here are concerns:

• My edit count is low (I break 10 edits on good days). RfA seems to demand administrators with much more time to devote to the project. My edits drop even further during the months of the year in which I'm in Russia. I still watch the account, of course, but I am not and will never be a highly active user.
• Demonstrating "need" is perhaps difficult. I don't want to be involved in bureaucracy, politics or behavioral issues. It's foreseeable that I could be convinced to participate in IfD/PUI, but I'd frankly much rather continue to focus my time on featured content. In that regard, the inability to see deleted images that have since been transferred to the Commons (i.e. to obtain information lost in the move) is utterly vexing. That ability is the only reason I would even consider adminship.
• It's my understanding that I'm perceived as harsh/strict, and I'm the first to admit that I can be terse - especially in writing and especially in the English language. There's an expectation implied by typical comments at RfA that admins handle everyone with kids gloves. I've not done that and I'm too old and too stubborn to begin. In my view of the world, nonsense is to be called nonsense (civilly, of course), but that doesn't bode well for supports at RfA.

That said, I'd only consider it after fairly substantial convincing that my concerns are incorrect/unfounded or are genuinely expected to be non-issues - that or the tri Elco/Ling/Malleus curmudgeon-ticket we discussed when this came up several years ago. In any case, I sincerely appreciate the offer and the support. Эlcobbola _talk 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're viewed as "strict"; I think you're viewed as the best. On need, I wouldn't worry, since your needs and area of expertise are so specialized. And, even if someone does think you're "strict", they'd be hard-pressed to find an example where you were 1) wrong, or 2) uncivil. I'd like to see you go for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

May I weigh in here as well? Elcobbola, I do wish you'd run. You are not the "typical" candidate, but your history shows quite clearly where your interests lie, and the tools could be quite useful for you in those areas. I think you are right that some feel that your interpretation of image policy is strict, but I'd argue that the strictness is necessary given WP's commitment to offering free content. I haven't hung out at RFA enough lately to be able to give odds on how your candidacy would do, but I think you have a decent shot. If you feel the tools would be useful, I hope you agree to run. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you include me in your Elcobbola/Malleus/Ling.Nut triumverate, but I think the truth is that you're the only one of us with any chance of getting through RfA. You have a good chance as well, because you're well-known to specialise in image licensing. Why not go for it? Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speciallist adminstrators usually has the best shot at RFA Secret ^account 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Just tell everyone up front that you wanna specialize in image-related areas, and you have little or no desire to delve into other areas. Deflect irrelevant questions very politely and obsequiously (you'll never have to be obsequious again). Get Sandy to nom. Get another heavy-hitter to co-nom (do you interact with Geometry guy?). Bob's your uncle, as they say. • Ling.Nut 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA actually passed an image specialist who didn't check the traditional boxes not two months ago, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MGA73. Now, granted you don't have the advantage of a checkuser flag on another project; but even someone like me who opposes slightly more than he ought can see a clear advantage to the project in giving you the tools; in the work you do at FAC, a sysop flag here would be a very nice compliment to your sysop flag on Commons. Given the mood at RFA at the moment, I'd say your chances are fairly good. Courcelles 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That "mood at RFA" could change at any moment though-- some marginal candidates are getting through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I got through somehow. Don't make me attack your manhood for not running. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, don't run and delight in the comedic stylings of Moni or do run and get a decidedly un-manly suit of feathers? How ever am I to choose? :) Эlcobbola _talk 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. This then is my obligatory insinuation that your testicles are hairless and can only be found with a magnifying glass, and perhaps they have retreated into your abdominal cavity. And your new name is Helga. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that as if hairless testicles are a bad thing; that that! And, what would you know, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no good or bad judgment here, only qualifications of masculinity. It is my general understanding, peripheral as it is, that large, hirsute testicles are more masculine than small hairless ones, and therefore preferable when proving one's manhood in say, a communal shower. Homoerotic overtones notwithstanding. I am attempting through subtle psychology to goad Helga into running for RfA out of shame and to save face. She will not know that she has been manipulated in such a way unless you call attention to it, Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want me to be part of your coy plan, you should know better than to goad me with talk of testicles-- you surely know how I feel about them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. An ode to their loveliness would illustrate it for me nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There once was a man called McCool

Found a red ring round the end of his tool

He went to the clinic

His Doctor, a cynic

Said, "That's only lipstick, you fool".

If you take the -ola from elcobbola, it's very close to Олья (Olya), which is the nickname for Ольга (Olga), which is, of course, the Russian form of Helga. Эlcobbola _talk 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Well, there you have it. You can face RfA, or you can face the wrath of Moni. I know what I'd be doing in my free time if I were you... • Ling.Nut 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Strike a bargain with Moni: if you do run, she is obligated to entertain you for life (we all benefit :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Helga, so now that we've pulled out all the stops to entertain you and make you blush, let's get to work. I normally despise three co-noms, but Karanacs and I seem to have a fairly decent track record and you might want a third nom from an image or copyright person who can vouch for your acumen in that area. Who might that be? Moonriddengirl or anyone who worked on the Plagiarism dispatch (Kablammo?), or one of the other image reviewers (Stifle, Jappalang, Awadewit, et al)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So much for dodging the issue. I'm not sold on the idea, in fact I'm about 55 percent against it. Give me until 10. September to decide. In the event I encounter either sufficient libation or head trauma as to lead me to the alternative conclusion, we can talk logistics then. Эlcobbola _talk 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey-- better for me as well, since I'll have high-maintenance overseas guests 'til then. You Will Not Escape-- or at minimum, Moni will continue to entertain Helga :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shield nickels email

Hi, I have sent OTRS just now an email regarding five images of Shield nickels, taken by Howard Spindel, an authority in the field, which he has given consent for us to use. I hope you can help me jump the queue, this is my next FAC and may be nominated as early as tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Review for Hong Kong

Hi, now that the review is over, I think I still have some question on the images in the article. I never got any responses on the fixes I added, so I still feel a little uneasy about them, but better than before about the images. Maybe except for File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg and File:Hong Kong SAR Regional Emblem.svg. I updated the file info on commons, but I'm not sure if I got them right this time. Also on File:Hong Kong Location.svg, I'm not sure what else to add since it already pointed out where User:Joowwww derivative the image from. I want to resolve any potential issues that will prevent the article from satisfying criteria 3 prior to the next nomination. Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tavatar, I'll do my best to comment on outstanding concerns, if any, on the article's talk page (assuming you haven't opened a peer review) by sometime tomorrow. Эlcobbola _talk 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona FAC

All concerns adressed I believe. Sandman888 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll be able to check back in sometime in the next 24 hours. Эlcobbola _talk 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's only being one image used which you had a problem with, the others are removed, it's been through PUF and is FP so it should be good. Would you be willing to cap your comments as long text tend to put of reviewers? Sandman888 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Capping (as I know how to do it, anyway) involves adding a template, which can negatively impact the load time at FAC. Issues are indeed resolved, so I've moved the comments to the talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid user Sporting1905 reverted the version meant for review due to a disagreement over flags. The picture of Franco replaced with another which needs review. Sandman888 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for you

Can I assume that campaign fliers, etc that are distributed to the general public either free or at a nominal charge are "published" for purposes of copyright law? I have spent the day at the Nixon library taking photos of campaign materials from the 1946 and 1950 campaign. Of course they lack a copyright notice ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Remuneration isn't required, only a transfer of ownership. Эlcobbola _talk 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll get them uploaded soon. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Songs concerns

How to make two songs in the Selena article not violate the fair use rules, one is in english and one is in spanish. I'm fixing all the concerns but late. Thanks Secret ^account 01:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time I noted the concern -- and it may or may not still be the case -- the two clips had identical purpose statements. NFCC#3A precludes the use of multiple non-free items when one will suffice. As these indicated the exact same purpose, they were indicating that one was redundant, thus the failure. It may well have been lazy (i.e. copy and paste) rationale writing. If each clip is indeed providing a unique understanding that the other does not, articulation and explanation of that point in the rationale would resolve the issue. I don't believe, however, that one being Spanish and one being English is sufficiently meaningful ceteris paribus. If there are different styles, there is probably support, but we don't need additional non-free content to understand she was a polyglot. Эlcobbola _talk 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate fair use anyways so I removed one, I'm going to try to contact the family to provide some free images of Selena I doubt they would object, but I can't find their contact information. Everything else with the FAC (with the exception of the prose, which I tried to fix but I'm mildly dylexsic so I can't copyedit it). Secret ^account 03:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Haruna

Would you have time to weigh in on images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Haruna/archive1? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eshmun Temple/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And another ... sorry for the abuse :) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Sedin/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm really abusing: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1 See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Quebec (1775)/archive1. Should I point Jappalang to this list as well? Sorry for the abuse, but image reviews by reviewers whose work I don't know are growing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Haruna and Battle of Quebec (1775) had issues (Quebec many), but I've fixed them on the Commons side. All are fine now. Do you actually need me to comment at the FACs, or will this suffice? (I've very limited time, which is why I just fixed issues instead of the usual, lengthy oppose-debate-wait for fix process). Эlcobbola _talk 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)