User talk:Ellin Beltz

Welcome! Please poke around and leave me a message! Replies may not be instant - we are probably in different time-zones! Hi! I'm one of the admins and bureaucrats here on Wikimedia Commons. If I can help, please leave me a message!
Please do not be offended if your images were nominated for deletion or even deleted. There are processes to provide copyright permission and undelete even images which have already been removed. If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the Village Pump.
	Medieval Wisdom You can please some of the people all of the time, You can please all of the people some of the time, But you can't please all of the people all of the time. John Lydgate (1370–1449) BBC Need to change something? Use the [Edit] button. To see all the changes to the file or page, use the [History] button.	Please leave a message by clicking Add topic above for new conversation or use [Edit] on the section to add to ongoing discussion. If you wrote before but cannot find the conversation, please see my Archives. class="toccolours floatright" style="width:300px;text-align:center" Picture of the day Interior of the Canterbury Cathedral. Thomas Becket was martyred at the altar on this date in 1170. Today is Thomas Becket's feast day. +/− [en] Archives Pre-Feb. 2014 ~ February to December 2014 ~ January to June 2015 ~ June to December 2015 ~ January to June 2016 ~ July to December 2016 ~

|- |style="background:PowderBlue;text-align:center" colspan = "3"|

This user believes in assuming good faith and civility.

en

This user is a native English speaker.

~~~~Ellin Beltz signs her posts and thinks you should too!

This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

This user is a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

This user is a geologist.

|- |}

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I noticed the talk page semi-protection - that's a definite sign of an active admin! Keep up the great work! INeverCry 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Also, if it makes you feel any better, at least you don't get messages like these. That's this guy... INeverCry 04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of certain images by Mihaiprunescu1

No problem. If they are not interesting enough, you may delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiprunescu1 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting emblems of United States Air Force emblems

It appears that you have been busily deleting images of United States Air Force emblems. Yet, I cannot find that any of these have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Is there a reason you are avoiding listing these pages there? Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing some examples as I have uploaded a lot of USAF images. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lineagegeek: Forgive my confusion, please see my [1] Contributions to see that the most recent actions regarding emblems were to close two deletion requests for Air Force emblems as kept.

*Commons:Deletion requests/File:31 MSS.jpg

*Commons:Deletion requests/File:31 MSG.jpg

There were several more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research but I ran out of time. I had previously searched for sources and found none for several other emblems which were sent to "no source" and had been there for a week. I don't think any were Fæ's uploads. I would have been delighted to find sources for the ones I removed. There is a major source page at [2] which has to be searched visually over multiple pages to find any matching images. If any of the ones I removed are later found to have a source, I certainly won't oppose a COM:UNDEL. I do the best I can with what I have at the time of each action. And with apologies, again I have run out of time - it is the weekend and family first. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion puts a stop to anyone who is not an administrator doing any research. The "no source" deletions for likely public domain material remain contentious, as demonstrated by the lengthy recent Village Pump discussion. It would be great if you could avoid the temptation to delete after just 7 days, especially for images which have been hosted on Commons for years without challenge or incident.

Valid USAF emblems (and their simple derivatives) are certain to be public domain and there is no hard requirement to provide a source link. In some cases a textual explanation may be sufficient. I don't know the figures for how many USAF emblems have been later discovered to be fakes, but my presumption is that it must be rare or never.

I would like to examine these, along with the image page text that went with them, but to do so I would need to be able to see the images in a list. When you have time could you or perhaps @Lineagegeek: make that possible for the good of the project? If needed you could email me the files and I'll host them on https://www.flickr.com/photos/wikimediacommons so that anyone can have longer than minimal default of 7 days to review them. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one looks at a deleted image to review it. I assume admin permissions are required to view one. Part of my concern with these deletions lies in the fact that there was no notification for them. Similar images were transferred to commons from en:wikipedia (see the 31st Wing units) by a bot, and unless a human being visited the image page during the seven days it was posted as having no source, no one would have the chance to comment on the proposed removal. (Another admin used the proposed deletion route for similar problems with the 31st Wing units, so there was an opportunity to comment). The second problem is that when the bot moved the images to Commons, it hid the sources that were originally listed for the images. In the case of the 31st Wing units, if you look in the Original Upload Log in the comments, you will see that among the comments is "Source: 31AW/PA." Although not an internet link (no requirement for that), I believe this sufficiently identifies the source as the Public Affairs Office of the 31st Wing (which happens to control the content for the Aviano Air Base web site, where these particular images are available online). I have a little less confidence than @Fæ: that some of these may not be officially approved emblems, but I think at least some of the removed images may be victims of a "hidden" source because of a bot's inability to list the source in the proper place. I have seen this problem with emblems that @Jcb: has listed for deletion, and I'm afraid that another editor has failed to assume good faith in commenting on Jcb's proposals for similar removals. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lineagegeek: As an administrator here I do a lot of deletions. Your concerns are valid, but the "31AW/PA" is in no way a valid source, and would not be retained if that were the only source. There is no way to "know" by looking at "31AW/PA" all the information you provide above. I do look at the histories, I replied to you above. There was notification for the "no sources", the system autogenerates it. I did not nominate these images for deletion or for "no source." I merely closed them - as I close hundreds of other "no source" images... because they had no valid sources, before or after they were transferred from Wikipedia. After looking for them, I found sources for some of them - but the rest were not there. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fæ: The same administrator who took some to Deletion Requests, was the same administrator who put "no source" tags on the other images. Perhaps the person who should be hearing your complaints is Jcb? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The process you suggest would be against the Commons norm, which is to approach the administrator taking responsibility for the deletion action, not the person who marks a file with the no source template. I am following COM:UNDEL which states "If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion."

I have not made a complaint or complaints here, my apologies if my text looks this way, or you are feeling put upon. I have asked to be given the opportunity to see the files and the image text pages. As you have already clarified that you had no time to research the files before making your choice to delete them, I am interested in helping the Commons mission by taking a look based on my few years of experience with licensing DoD images and corresponding with different military agencies. If you are not interesting in helping, then the next normal step would be to make the request on AN or go to UNDEL. Though it seems a bit extreme, the first option may be more successful than the latter as UNDEL is intended for undeletions and more complex requests tend to get quickly archived, especially if the deleting administrator has already been asked to assist which makes other administrators reluctant to take action. --Fæ (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fæ: You misunderstood what I wrote (There were several more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research but I ran out of time.) above. The time sequence is this... Do "no source files"... research their history, and hit google search on each one. Find nothing... finish that day's "no source." Go to that day's Deletion Nominations, see two more USAF emblems. Research those... find those, mark deletions as kept and add source information to the actual file templates. As stated above, there were more on that day's deletions which I hoped to research, but I then ran out of time. I told you who nominated them in case you had more questions about the process by which he created the nominations. I didn't try to go against any Commons norms - I can't even see how you got that out of what I wrote! I don't see that the reasoning for the deletions is unclear at all. Jcb nominated them - looking for a source and finding none. They sat around for a week as always, and I didn't find a source either after searching the history and google searching and removed them. I am totally interested in helping you with this, however all the normal procedures were followed. I think it's not a good assumption "if you are not interested in helping" and considering we're talking about approximately ten (10) images, could it all relax please until I have time to go dig out the list and accomplish what has been asked for before? Every time I have to spend time talking about prior actions - and/or explaining to you what I wrote previously - is time I can't spend working on the actual issue, but instead corresponding repeatedly with the same person on the same easily resolvable issue. I am at work all week, I will do my utter best to get to this in a timely manner. Would you be so kind as to let me accomplish what has been asked for previously as soon as it's possible for me to do so? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with whatever calendar you want to set. I was on my knees too long today cleaning floors and windows, something I really have no stamina for. So I'm not in a hurry to pick up things to chase around this week, and these would sit in a backlog, hence the idea of parking them on Flickr where they can be All Rights Reserved and so there would be no special time limit. --Fæ (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

List of "no source" files which I deleted last week. None of these are Fae's uploads, instead MGA73 bot uploads from Wikipedia where there was no valid source information provided.

Army Infantry sewn patches

• File:34th Red Bull Infantry Division (34 ID) Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (SSI) ACU, Subdued, Embroidered.png
• File:34th Red Bull Infantry Division (34 ID) Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (SSI) Desert, Subdued, Embroidered.png
• File:34th Red Bull Infantry Division (34 ID) Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (SSI) Full Color Embroidered.png

• Other Files
• File:351 ARS.jpg
• File:353cts.jpg
• File:354MSG.jpg
• File:355tfw-takhli.jpg
• File:363rdaew.jpg
• File:36tfw-emblem.jpg
• File:37 CONS.jpg
• File:37 CPTS.jpg
• File:37 CS.jpg
• File:37 LRS.jpg
• File:37 MSS.jpg
• File:37 OSS.jpg
• File:37 SFS.jpg
• File:37 TRG.jpg

And I'm totally out of time today, no lunch time instead was entirely looking up files for you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Take your time Ellin. However, if there's a way to see the already deleted images to see if they can be rescued, I'd like to know how it can be done. I believe the use of functional address symbols and standard USAF abbreviations does identify the 31st Wing sources. The 37th Wing units are probably lost, since that wing lost its support functions when the US combined Army and Air force support functions in San Antonio. File:37 OSS.jpg is a small loss, since the same image is still available, but the others would be lost, since the units that replaced them would be the ones available on official web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like we need some formalization of different types of grandfathered images, similar to {{Grandfathered old file}}. This has been mentioned on the Village Pump several times, but I'm not sure many people understand it or why it's appropriate based on legal issues experienced elsewhere; I'm no expert in this area. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hiya Fæ, I sent you an email link to the files in my dropbox via Wiki-email. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Illustration pictures for articles dedicated to Christian Defaye

Dear Ellin,

My name is Claudette Defaye, I am the widow of Christian Defaye.

I have shared my life with him both on and off screen. We have co-hosted events, tv shows and covered cinema related news on the swiss national tv for 3 decades together, totaling between the two of us over 3000 shows. We co-hosted "Special Cinema from 1975 until 1997, when Christian passed away a few weeks after having recorded his last show from the stairs of the Cannes Festival. I took over and hosted another show dedicated to cinema for another 10 years. http://www.rts.ch/archives/tv/culture/special-cinema/

He was a passionate journalist, which has lived before the times of the googles and their likes, which makes it very difficult to share easily documents and substantiate his work. It is hardly a 4 liner which can show the breadth and depth of the work and contribution which he has made of the cinema: http://www.rts.ch/emissions/archives/50/biographies/953973-christian-defaye.html

I have uploaded part of the archives I own, and for which I detain the rights, when the pictures haven't been released as "libre de droit". All the material I have contributed to Wikimedia commons is made available as "libre de droit". Now how can this be translated?

My project is to ensure the legacy of Christian's work and illustrate the articles pertaining to his life, and work (the shows Specal Cinema and others) with pictures and references, such as scanned material which isn't made available online by the press.

Best regards,

Claudette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudette1944 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 03 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Claudette1944: Your desire to publicized your husband is commendable, but can cause a problem for the project. Your archives may contain physical images you own, but if you do not own the copyrights, they cannot be uploaded. I'd also caution you against editing only on your husband's pages, which could be considered promotion or self-promotion. I totally understand your desire, but I urge caution to be sure you really do have the rights before making uploads here. The appropriate license are on COM:HIRTLE and COM:L. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of File:V hachinski.jpg‬

Hi Ellin. I saw the deletion request you submitted for this file but did not have time to address it until today, and now the debate has been closed and the file deleted. I wanted to avoid the file being deleted because express permission was given some time ago to Wikipedia/Wikimedia by the original owner of the image. It was released under an appropriate license, and as far as I can tell all necessary protocols were followed. Yet something slipped through the cracks. Can we work together to remedy this? I have a copy of the original email sent by the original copyright holder to permissions@wikimedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcn (talk • contribs) 23:39, 04 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rmcn: There is a very large backlog of permission emails. This appears to be ticket:2016080910016771, and at a glance it appears OK. Usually I would say "please wait your turn", but the email was received on 9 August, so it's not an unreasonable request. In the future, please tag the file as {{OTRS pending}} and/or mention in the DR that permission has been sent. @INeverCry: and Ellin: any objections to restoration? Storkk (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping @ Storkk: No objections. The OTRS pending tag suggestion is a really good one; we have no way to know there's OTRS pending unless it's on the file template. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: No objections from me. INeverCry (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! What happens now? Is action required from me or does the restoration happen at the request of an admin? --Rmcn (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The image has now been restored. Thank you for your patience. In future, when an email has been sent, please tag the image with {{OP}}. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ellin, Less known history had uploaded a few images which came up on 'deletion-debate' recently. Though an invitation to discuss the issue was posted, it could not be attended to immediately upon seeing the friendly notice. Inexperience in posting reply in the right forum/place quickly and lack of time resulted in a delay. However, by the time Less Known History returned to discuss the matter (in just a few days), the pictures were deleted. A notice was made in red on the concerned Wikimedia Commons page saying: "This deletion debate is now closed". Kindly review the matter. Pl ref: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Lessknownhistory

Now, the images were genuine and did not involve any copy right violation so far as Less Known History's understanding goes:

1. The two photographs (bust) put up were photographs of the original photos in print owned by relatives of the "protagonist". It was with their full permission that these were photographed. They had no objection whatsoever to using them. Any evidence required can be furnished if need be. (Photo-credit can still be given where applicable though it may not imply copyright).

2. The photograph with Gandhi taken seemingly in 1937 is a public-interest photograph not covered by the British copy right Act etc (Section 171 (3) of the Copyright, designs and Patents Act 1988 pertaining to public-interest photographs in public domain). Again what was uploaded was only a photograph of that public-interest-photograph found on the internet. In any case there was no copyright notice or symbol on the photograph. Considering all these, it cannot be a violation though 70 years have not passed after clicking the photograph. [It is also very much possible that this is a case of 'copyright orphan"]. If any claim comes up, in spite of all this, it will surely be looked into..

3. The photographs of the pages of the printed article: These were from the pages of a publication which was not priced (not for sale). The implied copyrights were vested in a committee of which just two people or so are alive today. These people have no interest in the articles or the book and there is technically no reason to obtain their permission. Yet they were consulted before the photographs of the pages were uploaded and they wished to have no claim over any article or content on the publication. If necessary written permission can be obtained.

Kindly therefore re-upload these pictures or cause these to be uploaded. If anything further needs to be done about these images, pl advise.. Also it is clearly undertaken that any claim raised by anyone shall be considered and honored by Less Known History ........

It is hoped that this note (clarification) is being put up in the right forum/ discussion page and the response to this will help Less Known History to be better informed. There is absolutely nothing dubious about these pictures as it was mentioned in a comment. However, this clarification could have been offered earlier by Less Known History.

Kindly help.... With kindest regards and many thanks,

................. This note was posted under Tea House also. Lessknownhistory (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lessknownhistory (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)