User talk:Elcobbola/Archive10

Manuel Rosales
Could I entice my fav image person to do me a big favor? Rosales is a well respected Venezuelan politician, the main opposing candidate to Chavez in the last Venezuelan presidential elections, forced into exile on charges by the Chavez administration of corruption, highlighted by human rights organizations as an example of political persecution by the Chavez administration. And yet, our article has an image of him that is so poor it makes him look like a criminal. Since he was such a popular politician, and now a human rights example, there must be a better free image of him somewhere that can be loaded up for the article. Could you help? Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The free options I could come up with are terrible quality:
 * File:Manuel rosales.jpg is already uploaded, but technical quality is very poor and, if one were to look at it from an FA quality standpoint, it has a lot of red flags (low resolution, no metadata, drive-by uploader, no assertion of authorship, etc.)
 * Agência Brasil publishes content under a free (CC 2.5 Brazil) license; They have this video from which one could obtain a screenshot of Rosales. Again, however, the quality would be poor and Rosales is largely obscured by microphones.
 * Flickr has two images with CC licenses, although they're not free (they don't allow derivatives or commercial usage); you might try emailing the authors to ask whether they'd be willing to change the license on Flickr, or release an image through OTRS:
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/periodismodepaz/2075542033/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/ervega/3263669200/
 * Flickr has other images, but they're fully copyrighted. The flick user Voluntariado con Manuel Rosales.com has many Rosales images, but I doubt that user is actually the copyright holder of many, if not all, of the images in their stream (and that website appears to be down).  Otherwise, I didn't see anything in the other typical places.  I'll try to keep poking around as time becomes available. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.  MfG,  Эlcobbola  talk 15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That you took the time to help me with this amount of work is enormously helpful; I'm swamped, and really appreciate all you did/do. I'll get to those as soon as I have time, but it sounds like you've found a dead-end street.  Thank you so much; you're a dear to take the time on this for me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ec, can anything be done with  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, another thought ... is it possible to clean up the contrast, brightness, whatever so that the image we have doesn't look so shady/sleazy? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sandy, there's no license or source - double whammy. That and it's almost assuredly a copyvio    (the last, a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki, at least credits an author - Chico Sánchez - but it seems a fictitious name and, again, there's no license or source in the WP:IUP meaning.)  I can try playing with the image, but brightness (contrast "improvement" would actually darken this image) won't remove sweat, semi-closed eyes or the open collar. :)  Эlcobbola  talk 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your work makes article writing look easy :) Thanks, you're a dear ... back to the drawing board.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wahrheit
Aye, you're correct, it's the exact same image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC Caesium
I left some replies for the image issues you brought up. Nergaal (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Scalia images
On rereading your comments at FAC regarding the images, I note that you speak about OTRS tagging. On what images do you think this is necessary? Surely the name of the photographer, some indication he was a federal employee, the place where the image is to be found, and a catalog number is sufficient? I doubt I can get the National Archives to start sending emails to OTRS! Thanks for your guidance,--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned OTRS because you indicated you would be obtaining information via email. OTRS tickets should be used for images for which information necessary to confirm the license is not  available at the source provided.  For example, if the NARA has emailed you confirmation of authorship for certain images, simply forward that email to OTRS with the names of the images to which it is applicable and you'll be done (the NARA needn't email OTRS directly).  Эlcobbola  talk 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good. The Archivist's office at the Supreme Court is being most helpful, as well.  I wonder if they asked Scalia whether to cooperate!  Anyway, I will forward the email from NARA to OTRS later today.  Can you find the ticket on your own or should I email you may email address to aid your search?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be able to find it using the image name, but having the address couldn't hurt. Let me know once it's sent and I'll fetch it.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent it right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Both are tagged!  Эlcobbola  talk 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that. Thanks.  I now await images from the Archivist's office.  With those in place, I think we will be good to go.  After all my work on politicians of the predigital era, it is a delight to be able to get free images relatively easily.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the Court sent no new images but they did confirm catalog or image numbers for the two we have in the article. I have sent the information to OTRS and I hope you can do the ticket.  I also added one more image, of the building, which should be routine.  I hope you will now be in a position to withdraw your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got mail. Эlcobbola  talk 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm ok with File:Supreme Court US 2009.jpg after this regardless of OTRS ticketing.  That appears to be sufficient support for authorship by a federal employee in the course of his/her duties.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Obviously the lead image is a problem still.  I'm trying to get info from them on this image which I am hoping is an federal shot.  The clerk and I were discussing getting about six images, but "Chambers" approved only two.  I'm kinda wondering if Scalia himself put the kibosh on getting me more, but they certainly wouldn't say if I asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a possible alternative source, are you at all able to contact Petteway directly through Linkedin? That may or may not be a crazy idea; I've heard Linkedin discussed at various conferences, but I have no idea how it works.  Эlcobbola  talk 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Petteway was cc'd on most of these emails sent by Ms. Morrell. I can't believe I would get a different answer, and I might see a drop in cooperation.  I've also emailed the Reagan library to see if they have any images of Scalia by himself from the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your upgrade of the group shot to higher resolution was good enough so that I just cropped the picture of Scalia to get the nogood image off the page. If the Court confirms that the Scalia at desk image is federal, I'll use that. But in any case, this should get it by FAC image concerns, and I hope either way you're good to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does it. Great work.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Quite a marathon as I've said.  Appreciate your being so helpful on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian copyright question
Hi,

Awadewit suggested that I should contact you. If you don't mind my bothering you I'll copy my question here.


 * The image 102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg that I'm using in an article doesn't have it's public domain status firmly established. I found the exact place it was copied from (though that was a copy from another credited source that I don't have direct access to) and updated the image page with the info. I have found copies of this image around different locations on the web but have seen no specific info on the photographer or the date it was taken. Since the photo is specifically described as the "Nobel wells" and the Nobels abandoned this site in 1920 (which would be the cutoff for the public domain justification for Russia) it seems likely the photo was taken before that year. However, I don't believe the wells were destroyed in any fashion after the Soviet takeover so it is not inconceivable that the photo was actually taken after 1920. I hate to take the photo out but I'm not sure how else to pursue establishing with certitude the dates/rights. Would you have any suggestions or should I just give up?

Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We would need to know non-speculative dates and/or authorship before we could even begin to make a consideration. Even knowing creation date (regardless of specificity) is not helpful, as the determinate for PD-RusEmpire is publication date.  Creation is not at all the same as publication.  As a possible alternative/replacement, however, I've found and uploaded file:Balakhani oil wells.png, which depicts oil wells in Balakhani/Sabunchi.  I didn't read to determine whether they belonged to the Nobel Brothers, if that aspect is necessary for your purposes.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, that'll work. I actually don't care if they are the Nobel wells. I only was looking for images of early wells in the Russian Empire. Thanks! --Mcorazao (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
A small degree of image help requested. Can you advise me whether there are any restrictions on the use of either Image:Head Odysseus MAR Sperlonga.jpg or File:Mnesterophonia Louvre CA7124.jpg? Both are photographs of ancient Greek artefacts, both appear to have been released to PD by their photographer. Yet I have a nagging uncertainty about three-dimensional images. I hope to use the pictures in Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, which is currently under peer review here. I'd be most grateful for your opinion, on the review page or here. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left comments at the peer review. Only very minor issues; looks quite good!  Эlcobbola  talk 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * So, for my efforts, I'm called gaseous and massive? Thanks ;)  Эlcobbola  talk 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But hot! Really really HOT! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Assistance requested
I'm unused to Creative Commons images. Can you comment or advise on this, please? I appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Moni, Creative Commons licenses are modular. There's the base (CC-by) which requires only attribution (thus the "by", e.g. "by Moni").  You can then add various conditions, such as SA ("Share Alike" - derivatives must have the same license), NC (No Commerical usage) and ND (No Derivatives).  So, unfortunately, Rambo's Revenge is correct.  Those images are CC-by-NC (you can see the "modules" in the black stripe at the bottom of the license image and, of course, the non-commercial condition appears in writing as well), which does indeed preclude use on Wikipedia.  We can only accept CC-by and CC-by-SA variants.  Эlcobbola  talk 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Got any advice or are you here to flamenco over all my hopes and dreams? --Moni3 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was heading out of the door when I responded, so I neglected to opine on the way forward. You seem to have the right idea, though.  PD-FLGov may also be your friend while searching for alternatives, although I've not read the Florida statutes/case law to determine whether this template is valid or the typical rubbish. I might be able to look, too, if you'd like (although I suspect you have better knowledge of FL sources).  Эlcobbola  talk 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright subpage
I noticed late last year you requested the deletion of the subpage that was contained at User:Elcobbola/Copyright. That contained some useful information, and I'm wondering whetehr you're hosting it somewhere else, or whether it's gone. BillTunell (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I retained a copy and can email it to you if you'd like. I requested deletion of the page because it was being used rather injudiciously and in ways I'd not intended.  It was originally created with the intention of correcting the PD-textlogo template (text is PD because it's a useful article, not because it's "not original enough" - as the template very wrongly asserts), but that's a battle I'm not prepared to fight.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mister K.
Elcobbola, please see (hoary's) note on my page, if you looked at my response before. Tony  (talk)  01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism FAC
Thank you for your advice. I removed all those images as a result, until I or someone else can find the sources. See my comment at FAC. Again, thank you! UberCryxic ( talk ) 19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're on images, I had a question about the one for Barack Obama. That says it was taken by someone close to Obama when he was campaigning, but I don't think it names anyone. Can that be verified, in other words? I want to resolve these image disputes now so they don't come up later. I removed the ones you brought up and I can remove this one too if it's a problem. UberCryxic ( talk ) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IUP requires a description of where the image came from and how that could be verified. File:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG has "own work" and "Bbsrock" as its source and author, respectively.  Bbsrock is also the uploader (i.e. author and uploader match).  For images created by Wikipedians, the link to their user page (and thus talk page) is generally considered a valid "method of contact for  the photographer", thus satisfying the "could be verified" requirement.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews
I know you're probably busy, but... would you mind reviewing the images at Featured article candidates/Mindomys/archive1? The lead image is PD on a slightly unusual claim (non-renewed U.S. copyright), and I'd like to make sure I am right in assuming it's PD. The other image should be a no-brainer. Thanks, Ucucha 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I've commented at the FAC.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article just got promoted, although you haven't had a chance to comment again yet. I'd still like to get the images right, so could you check again? Ucucha 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mindomys skull Ray.jpg - I'm aware of the renewal process; reliance on the copyright office archive, as opposed to a book-only archive, is indeed sufficient. There may be a caveat, however; is Ray indeed the author of the photo, or just the thesis in which it was used?  (You have me at a disadvantage, as I don't have access to the publication).  This would be relevant in terms of attribution and if author name is the search criterion you're using (i.e. if he was merely using someone else's image, a search for his name would not be expected to find a record).  That's all moot, of course, if he is indeed the author of the photo.
 * Sorry if it looked like I was trying to teach you copyright law there; I did not know myself that renewal has to be submitted in the 28th year and wanted to give my full reasoning.
 * I don't have the thesis right now, but I don't believe there was anything that suggested Ray did not take the image. At least, I am certain the image has not been published elsewhere. I searched the database for "oryzomys", "oryzomyine", and "hammondi", and none of those yielded any relevant results. Ucucha 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mindomys distribution.png is fine, although it would be nice if we didn't have to click through four (!) source images to find the work from which it was ultimately derived. Эlcobbola  talk 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is bad. I have put in the original source image in the Commons description. Ucucha 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota
Hi Elcobbola. A user kindly copyedited the whole article at Music of Minnesota. I wonder if you have time to revisit your delist vote? You had some strong feelings about this, and I am happy to see it in better shape. Thank you for trying to help. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I've commented there.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1957
Could you weigh in on the image issues raised here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion on the FAC page I'd be grateful for your feedback on. Also, if you open that wider discussion, I'd appreciate being told so I can weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I neglected to watchlist the page. I'll have a look.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied. If you could start the discussion, it would be appreciated.  Meantime, I will look for US federal shots.  Both St. Laurent and Dief probably paid official visits to Washington.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this image? It was taken in Ottawa in 1944 which makes it public domain no matter what Life says.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Hey, you seem to be good with pictures so I wondered if you could take a look at the Nobel Prize talk page Images Copyright (from FA page) and if possible help out with the problems there? If you have time if would really appreciate the help.

Cheers-- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best to get to it tomorrow. I just spent way too much time going through my contributions to find an acceptable Gandhi image for the article.  (Most of the Gandhi images floating around were uploaded by Yann and I've yet to see one with  acceptable sourcing).  It was a nightmare trying to find one that was actually verifiably in the public domain (see the bottom of Featured article  candidates/Anekantavada), but it did finally yield File:Bapu and Baa.jpg.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I can imagine that was hard. Tried to do that quickly before but it yielded nothing at all. I'll use this new Gandhi image instead. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: What about this one? File:Gandhi Juhu May1944.jpg found it on Anekantavada which is a FA. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that image doesn't have acceptable sourcing (again, it's a Yann upload). It was added after the article was promoted by an editor who apparently didn't consider the FAC discussion .  Эlcobbola  talk 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah true, should have looked more carefully. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help on the talk page; I've left some additional notes there on "File:AlfredNobel adjusted.jpg" and "File:NobelPrize.JPG". If you have time, please take a look :) -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked on the notes you have made and I have made some questions on Talk:Nobel Prize. If you have time, please take a look :) -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Note about Sholes and Glidden
I hope I'm not sticking my nose in where it's not wanted, but I happened to have Sholes and Glidden typewriter on my watchlist because of a single copyedit, and noticed the comments by user MarcsMark. It struck me as possible that he might have something useful to contribute, even though his comments were not phrased helpfully. I left a note on his talk page. He's replied, both there and at the article talk page, with a reference to Amazon, which indicates he doesn't yet understand what a reliable source is for Wikipedia's purposes. It's up to you how you react, of course, but he might be a productive editor if he could be brought to understand the standards we're applying here, so I thought I'd make you aware I'd urged him to try again, more politely. If you're able to get a polite and possibly even productive dialogue going with him, we may acquire another editor rather than an aggrieved commentator. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well appreciated. Thank you kindly for your efforts.  I see Shreevatsa has also left a helpful comment.  I myself am not going to engage until I see indication that MarcsMark is ready (and able) to conduct himself with some degree of professionalism and maturity.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Non free image use in Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria
May I trouble you briefly. My use in the above article of File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg under a fair use rationale has been challenged at FAC by User:Stifle. See link to FAC page for details. I am contesting his view. At the peer review, here, you didn't question the rationale, nor have other editors. If you feel that in this case the fair use is justified, would it be possible for you to express a viewpoint on the FAC page? I believe this image is important and would be very reluctant to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that the article was promoted over Stifle's oppose. I'd like to thank you particularly for your helpful comments in support of use of the non-free image and the soundfile. In my view both of these are important elements in the article, and it would have been a great pity to lose either. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on another fine article, even if it isn't as Teutonic as others. Эlcobbola  talk 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iravan
Any suggestions for Iravan are welcome. check sourcing will be a good start. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of FAR on article you reviewed
Please see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse says you are the guy to talk to...
if we need useful images undeleted. Is this true? The images I find that are needed but deleted are originally someone else's, mistagged, and once they are restored, I fix the tagging. Can you do this? Do you take requests? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kintetsubuffalo, I'm willing to consider reasonable requests, but would likely ultimately utilize the undeletion process, which would indeed be the preferred method and would not be dependent upon my availability and judgment. To what images are you referring?  Эlcobbola  talk 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, that's what I want, since I don't know how to use that process. The ones presently at hand are:


 * File:Falcon Crest.svg‏, which was deleted from Commons. This particular image was not my image, but was a lot of work on the uploader's time, it just simply doesn't belong at Commons, and I had requested both someone there and at the Graphics Lab have it moved safely to en:wp. Can you snag it to en:wp and I will fix the licensing tagging?
 * File:WopMay1.jpg‏, can you restore it so the attribution is intact, then I will fix the licensing tagging?


 * Those are all for now, but occasionally I come across other ones. Too often zealous deletionists will simply and often speedily delete images rather than help to find a better tag. Last week a fellow was helping us improve Girl Scout graphics, and another user was following his edits and speedy-tagging them within 20 minutes, before they had even been added to the article. I would rather properly tag useful and worthwhile images properly, when I find them, and encourage new users to stay here. Thank you so much! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Falcon Crest.svg‏ is a derivative work of this image, so it would need to be uploaded with a non-free license and fair use rationale. I don't know the article for which it would be intended or the expected contribution to a reader's understanding, so I wouldn't be able to write the requisite rationale. I would, however, be happy to email the file to you to do with as you see fit.
 * Rlevse already e-mailed it to me, I can't open/work with/upload svgs from my computer. If you will upload it, I will license it properly.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * File:WopMay1.jpg‏ is a local file, so I'm not able to see it (the global view enhancement hasn't been rolled out yet). Rlevse, however, can see it.  If he could describe the pertinent information and/or concerns, I'd be happy to offer an opinion.  Otherwise, you could always make a request at WP:UNDELETE.
 * Again, Rlevse already e-mailed it to me, it is a photo of the Canadian WWI aviator, again, if you will upload it to restore its attribution path, I will license it properly.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I understand that it's frustrating to have work deleted, but the other side of the coin is that uploaders are expected to provide the necessary information at the time of upload. When files are being deleted, it's best to ask the deleting admin to clarify the issue - without resorting to pejorative phrases like "zealous deletionists" - so it can be addressed going forward.  Files can always be restored and I don't know any admin who would refuse to restore a file if the proper, verifiable license is known.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but many of those users, including I believe these two in particular, are too new to know the proper license. I sure didn't when I got here five years ago, it was a lot of trial and error and guesswork. My first ones were uploaded without license at all, just a bare source description. Some were deleted, some were fixed by others kind enough to help me. Some were speedied, which is a hateful thing to do without notifying the uploader. I respect your option, but I stand by my wording. There are deletionists, who are merely worried about copyright issues and so on, and there are zealous deletionists, who see this place as a zero-sum game, and it is bad faith.
 * My point here is the same as it was two days ago, to ask you to restore the images so I can fix them, not to overdiscuss minutiae. Will you reupload these or no? I have my hands full undoing vandalism, I would like you to assume good faith in another longterm editor, that I will fix these as soon as they are uploaded.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had attempted to articulate the possible courses of action, as well as my technical limitation on the latter image, in my previous response. If you can only accept a black-and-white answer to "will [I] reupload these", then the answer is no.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)