User talk:Elcobbola

Hi. Thanks for formatting the description. As for en:Image:Prambanan.jpg, given that the user says in the description that he owned the copyright and releases it under GFDL, can we simply tag it as GFDL-self? (I think there was no template called GFDL-self back then). -- Sundar 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me; see Image:Prambanancomplex.jpg. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, Rocket000 have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers and add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. You can ask me, or Rocket000 if you need any help. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 10:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_uploading_copyrighted_material_despite_warning- this user's images were previously deleted, he then uploaded them to Flickr AFTER they were deleted so there is no doubt he is lieing and all the images should be speedy deleted. Regards Gustav VH 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbla, are you interested in adminship? You've done a lot more (and a lot better) work than when I got the tools, and I think you'd be great - your work here and at EnWP FAC has shown that images are really a forte of yours.

What do you say? giggy _(:O) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you think I have a chance, I'd be glad to give it a go. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll start writing. giggy _(:O) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Elcobbola. Sign your acceptance and transclude to Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes when ready. Good luck! giggy _(:O) 04:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. "Protip" means something akin to "here's a hint". In this case, Mutter Erde is opposing every RfA where the nominated person supported the deletion of Susan.jpg, using the strawman argument that we all wanted to see it gone because she's "too old". That is what the "too young" was about. Good luck. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
. Thanks for helping & please do ask if you have any questions. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! giggy _(:O) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg). On "reasonable enquiry" On their official website (in Canada) there is no email to join them. Would a phone call to ask be sufficient? Or does it have to be written (i.e. by mail)? I would be happy to either call or write to them, but what questions should I ask apart from "Do you know who is the author?". Pro bug catcher (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this on the basis that the image was of a copyright work. That was not an issue. The key point is that it was taken as a press photo at the official opening of the exhibition, the Turner Prize, and there was not, according to the original permission, any restriction on subsequent use: "Photo taken at the official press launch. No restriction specified on use of images."[1] I don't think this aspect has been addressed. Tyrenius (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two copyrights: 1) the sculpture and 2) the press photo. The press photo is GFDL per that source; that is not contested. The photo, however, is a derivative work of the sculpture and, as such, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be respected. The deletion request ran for almost two months with no evidence forthcoming that the sculpture has an acceptable (i.e. free) license. The existence and importance of dual copyrights was articulated and considered in my closing comment. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that's going straight to my thighs. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what was the source on this deleted one here? I'm only asking as the subject caught my eye, and the name of the image sounded familiar somehow. rootology (T) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only source information was "Own work by uploader" (which was part of the problem, as the image was such that this was quite unlikely to have been the case). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

How can a make a valid upload? Sway 2 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Sway_2[reply]

Commons:Upload (in Portuguese here) does a reasonable job of walking one through the upload process by articulating the information that needs to be included and providing some general guidance in determining an appropriate license. COM:L (in Portuguese here) and COM:PS would be helpful background reading. Эlcobbola _talk 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying. I have checked and rewritten the author's information. However I think this is not enough for the reviewers' claim yet, because "verifiable source" has not been specified now. I'm going to recheck my textbook and confirm it in a few days' time. Please wait for a while. Thanks. --Y tambe (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]