User talk:Elcobbola

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Help from the master

Hello, ElC; I hope you are well !

I am working on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2, and need help from the master.

  • I can’t decipher the page numbers, but there are maps viewable very early on in Amazon’s “Look Inside” featured of David G. Brown’s 2004 White Hurricane. (Our article is cited to a 2002 version.) If you scroll just a few pages in, you will find them.
  • We have a map created in 2007 (best I can tell?) at File:Great Lakes 1913 Storm Shipwrecks.png, which seems to replicate Brown’s work very closely, including detail like how the legend is set up.
  • Have a look also at the Table of Contents of Brown’s book— it is organized by Prologue, then Storm dates, then Aftermath. Here’s our 2007 version when the article was promoted FA. We had pretty much the same structure, and what strikes me as a replication of the map. I don’t have a copy of the book.

Is the Image too closely copied? Did Wikipedia use too much of Brown’s work? The FA was promoted in 2007 and you can see how much work has already gone in to the FAR. What next? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sandy, I am well indeed and hope you are the same.
To overexplain both because it is my nature and to provide more basis, if needed, to assist discussion at FAR:
Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression (17 U.S.C. § 102), where original means owing its origin to its author (a prohibition on copying) and exhibiting some minimal creative spark. (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) The underlying map is verifiably from the USGS as purported (the image's source link is dead, but archive.org captured it), so we need only consider the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the other elements (labels, iconography, etc.)
For city/location labeling, Brown has used, and the Commons uploader has clearly copied, black bullets and Times New Roman (?) font. It has been found, however, that additions such as "labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity." (William Darden v. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, 488 F.3d 277 (2007)) Thus, even though there is copying, it may have been of elements not expected to be eligible for protection in the first place. Further, regarding arrangement, the Commons version appears not to have slavishly copied the labels (e.g., Milwaukee is over Lake Michigan in Brown, but over Wisconsin in the Commons version.) To get really in the weeds, there is also the potential of the idea/expression merger doctrine: ideas/data/facts are not copyrightable; however, in some cases, it is so difficult to distinguish between an idea and its expression that they are considered to merge. Accordingly, when there is effectively only one way to express an idea (e.g., in relation to arrangement, the geographical location of a ship wreck), copying of that expression is allowed as preclusion would grant a monopoly of the idea.
What concerns me are the wreck icons. A sinking ship icon (as opposed to say, a square, cross, or other common symbol--or even a non-sinking ship), especially with a westward bow, dark shade for crew loss, and light shade for stranded clearly are copied expression from Brown. (Changing the slope of the deck, the sail to a cross, and a line detail merely results in a derivate work and does not eliminate underlying copyright in the original.) There are also, as you note, similarities in the legend.
In consideration of the work (map) as a whole, a test is whether "an average lay observer would [...] recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." (Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d 759, 766 (2d Cir.1991)) I certainly would expect this to be so. The questions, then, may be: 1) are Brown's icons themselves lacking in originality (i.e., by virtue of lacking a creative spark, being "standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium", etc.) and/or 2) are the icons de mininis with respect to the entire work (on this I would argue no, as their inclusion is deliberate and fundamental to the purpose of the map). Related to this test, the Commons version also appears to have copied the specific selection of cities (i.e., the inclusion or omission of cites is itself, and especially in aggregate with other factors, expression.) For example, Brown included Waueksha, WI and so too did the Commons uploader. This seems telling; why a landlocked city on a shipwreck map, and one unnecessary for positional context given the close proximity of Milwaukee? Seems clearly to be slavish copying of Brown's (original) selections.
Ideally, the what next would be for someone to produce an alternative with alterative icons so as not to copy original expression from Brown. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, as always, are a gem. I suspected this was tricky and would need your IP expertise. Also, because I don't speak Commons, does that file need to be subjected to deletion ? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, handling is an open question. If Brown's iconography is "standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium"--which is not a judgement I can make; all I know about ships is that Olivers would make dandy anchors--they may not be eligible for copyright protection. This could also be the case if, for example, the icons had been published prior to 1978 without compliance with copyright formalities. These are things a content expert might be able to opine on. Somewhat similarly, if an alternative version is created, it could overwrite the existing file which would change the rationale/format of deletion. The Commons deletion backlog is nearly a year (!!!), so expediency on this end would likely be for naught. Эlcobbola talk 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the safest route here is to re-do the map, and overwrite the existing file. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO what is most likely is that Brown also used the USGS map. The inclusion of Waukesha is a pretty unique feature, and USGS certainly didn't copy it's map from Brown. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't parse. The USGS map is entirely blank. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, unless I am misunderstanding (which is a possibility), the solution is to take the USGS map, and re-do the icons and legends to something that clearly uses unique and freely available icons. While addressing Waueksha, WI. As an average lay observer, when I look at the two maps now, it is abundantly clear that to my eye, ""an average lay observer would [...] recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." To find a subject matter expert to opine on the rest of the problem could take a long time. And since the map is used in many places, uploading a new one and overwriting the old file is the most expedient way to address the problem everywhere. (Except the websites where I have already seen the Wikipedia file copied ... <sigh> ... ) An aside: Elc is an international IP expert, and chooses his words carefully; I have found it useful to always pay him heed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, yes. Think of this as transparencies on an overhead (although perhaps that is now too dated a reference): the bottom transparency is a geographical map and the top transparency is all of the labels, icons, legend, etc. (together, content) This is a case where the uploader took a public domain map for the lower transparency but then copied Brown's original expression related to the content for the top transparency. To be clear, more than Waueksha, WI needs to be addressed; that is just one good tell as, if the uploader had genuinely been creating an original work (rather than copying), it would not be expected to have been included. The top transparency should be recreated without copying of the original elements from Brown. Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if I did that, and in order to do that, learned about where the various wrecks are from reading multiple sources (but didn't use anythingfrom the Brown map), I'm legally creating a new work of my own which includes / is built on a public domain map? And then with the upload I'd release it into the public domain. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you needn't even go that far. Take the Brown map, and use it as a reference to place a mere dot for each of the wreck locations on the USGS base. The locations of the wrecks are facts of the world, so Brown's selection of positioning is not original, creative expression. Then place Brown aside and reference it no further. Add whatever labels, icons, cities, elaborations to the aforementioned dots, etc. you personally choose. If you happen to replicate something from Brown's map serendipitously (e.g., use of Chicago and Milwaukee as identified cities), that is okay. Copyright law considers independent creation, meaning that an author created a work without copying from other works, and does not require such creation to be new (novel). Indeed, Feist found "A work may satisfy the independent creation requirement even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.'" The United States Copyright Office explicitly says "if two authors created works that are similar or even identical, each work could be registered provided that the authors did not copy expression from each other." (The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices) Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough expert help and immense expertise. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 let me know when you have uploaded the new version, so I can re-add it everywhere I deleted it (commented it out). Thanks, Elc! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 and Elcobbola: if you would like, I can make a new version from scratch. I just need someone to point out where I can source the wreck locations from. Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, you are so awesome. One idea I had (not sure how practical it is) is that the size of the icons could correspond to the number of lives lost (bigger icon, more lives lost). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Cool. Regarding sourcing the locatons, I think that elcobbola's 21:08, 4 November 2021 post is important guidance. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Indeed per the 21:08, 4 November 2021 comment, it is perfectly fine to use Brown/the previous image as a source of the wreck locations. The locations are non-protectable facts of the world, so you may derive them from any source as long as the source's original expression thereof is not copied. The second paragraph in this section of my model essay might help explain the notion too. Эlcobbola talk 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: The blank underlying public domain map is (copied from above) at archive.org captured it). North8000 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) archive.org captured it)[reply]
@North8000 This is what I put together from the data in my datastore. It is going to be LGPL due to some of the data I used. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Wow!!!....both good and fast. Not sure if you're interested in any ideas for tweaks but if you wanted to add any cities that were involved in the 1913 story, (going just from memory) some ideas would be the twin cities of Port Huron MI/ Sarnia ON, Superior WI (twin city of Duluth), Port Arthur ON (now renamed to Thunder Bay) Also, is there a chance of squeezing in the names of the ships, even if in fine print? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can the lake names be in black? They are hard to see … you continue to be awesome, Guerillero. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking this on, Guerillero. Although I'm really just here for the IP, not the graphic design, would there perhaps be a benefit to reducing all font sizes so as to reduce the "busyness" and to allow the wreck sites (the true subject of the map) to have more focus? Even state/province abbreviations rather than complete spelling might help reduce visual clutter. Is the pink shading population? Contemporary or as of 1913? Эlcobbola talk 19:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000/SandyGeorgia: I have carried out most of the changes and uploaded a new version at File:Great Lakes 1913 Storm Shipwrecks.png. No dice on labeling the wrecks. It was too busy -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS:CAPTIONS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:CAPTIONS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#MOS:CAPTION until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ec, I cannot determine what that redirect discussion is trying to accomplish, but I use the shortcut all the time. Help me out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume I've only been notified as the creator (in 2008!) of the redirect. I'm similarly unaware of contemporary issues, but I'll take a look at the discussion and comment. Эlcobbola talk 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was clarified there ... thanks, Ec! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus cloud

Ec, it took me a long time to sort out what the original poster was saying, but I pinged you to an image discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cirrus cloud/archive1; if weather.gov is copying Commons images without attribution, that casts a reliable source in a poor light, so there is concern. But I don't know that we can be sure the image was "ours" first. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ec; you're still a star! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Ec, I removed a post from your talk page and requested attention at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. Эlcobbola talk 02:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A big mess

Ec, once again, I turn to the expert. There is a massive mess with many pieces, all of which can be found by looking at the main links at WP:DCGAR. Doug Coldwell's content contains not only copyvio, but one of every other kind of mess as well (OR, POV, failed verification, poor writing, you name it). And he was a prolific DYK'er.

It is my understanding (can't recall from where) that many of User:Doug Coldwell's images have already been removed for copyvio, but both Hog Farm and I suspect the problem goes deeper and that some sort of CCI will also be needed at Commons.

As you know, I don't speak images. As a starter example, how does

a flicker image from the San Diego Air & Space Museum become public domain? There is dubious stuff like this all over DC's images; Hog Farm might give you more examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a whole category to look at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MeL_books SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And File:Georgia Apollo 17 display.jpg is no longer on Flicker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a good license? https://www.flickr.com/photos/9161595@N03/4433689811 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More at Apollo 17 lunar sample display#Fate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Doug Coldwell, but found in the same series, what is freedom of panorama in Colombia ? Colombia_lunar_sample_displays#/media/File:Lunar_fragments_from_the_Taurus–Littrow_Valley.jpg SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing here, Sandy? Don't you know this is now a page exclusively for LTA buffoonery? Because it's you:
  1. The California flag, which I understand was standardised 1953, is safely PD by virtue of publication without compliance with copyright formalities between 1928 and 1977--{{PD-US-no notice}}. (The flag is generally claimed to be {{PD-CAGov}}, but this is dubious as the bear's designer, Donald Greame Kelley, is not, and was not, an employee of, the Government of California, and commissioned works are not to be conflated with works-for-hire, but I digress...)
  2. The photographs themselves are presumed to be a work of the Flickr account owner, the San Diego Air & Space Museum. I don't really see red flags; camera EXIF data are intact, common camera model to each other and to other images in the photostream, uploads to Flickr are proximate to creation, etc. Even the lower resolution makes sense, as it is not uncommon to freely license low resolution versions while retaining higher resolutions for oneself or commercial purposes. The only curiosity is the "No known copyright restrictions" "license" at the source (after all, if you're the copyright holder, you are expected to be aware of the status), but even this is commonly used by archives (e.g., Library of Congress) and may just be an efficiency measure--a single designation to spare the poor intern uploading images to Flickr the effort of specifying separate licenses for own and donated works. In sum, in the absence of evidence of ownership by another party, I don't see an issue.
  • For c:Category:MeL books, I also don't see a copyright issue. I'm not entirely sure how pictures of random, unremarkable books from an unremarkable library are in scope (essentially the Commons equivalent of WP:N), but I write (wrote) about antique typewriters, so I'm perhaps a poor judge of what is of interest to the world. The one I'd be most concerned about as being a derivative work is File:Mel book rearch.JPG, but Hog Farm has already raised the issue. If the person depicted in File:WikiPreparation.jpg is Caldwell, that may also be an issue if the photograph was taken by a friend (or any human being)--as opposed to being on a timer--as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject. Again, however, my real concern is not copyright, but how anyone would expect this blurry banality to be of genuine educational utility. (I didn't intend the alliteration, but hey, come from the grumpiness and stay for wit.)
  • The absence of File:Georgia Apollo 17 display.jpg from Flickr is okay; Flickr users not uncommonly shuffle, rename, and prune their streams. Creative Commons license are irrevocable and, here, a dispassionate bot verified its presence on Flickr with the claimed license, and we can confirm as it was archived. (That variant of the Georgia flag is safely PD as {{PD-US-expired}}).
  • The Flickr image is, like the specific images above, a derivative work. The photograph itself appears fine for the same reasons (intact camera EXIF, common camera model to others, etc.) The most prominent element, the flag (the coat of arms of Massachusetts on a white field), is safely PD as {{PD-US-expired}}). The overall compilation of components (rock, flag, and two placards) is unlikely to reach the threshold of originality either in composition or content (the lower placard is an unoriginal recitation of fact. The upper placard text is possibly sufficiently original, but I suspect would to be de minimis as depicted).
  • The images at Apollo 17 lunar sample display#Fate and File:Lunar fragments from the Taurus–Littrow Valley.jpg would be expected to be the same for similar reasons as above. For the latter, the text on either of the two placards (especially the bottom) seems unlikely to be sufficiently original and, even if one or both were, would likely be de minimis as the genuine subject is the complete display, not the placard. If a subject is not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, consideration of freedom of panorama is not necessary (although I don't believe Colombia FoP would apply as this is not a category identified by FoP-Colombia and may or may not "situated in permanent form" as contemplated by copyright ("permanent" generally meaning the natural lifetime of a work)).
I don't know whether this helps. For what it's worth, among copyright abusers there can genuinely be a cognitive "wall" separating consideration of images and text (i.e., one can generally have a clue about image considerations but be simultaneously utterly clueless about prose). I don't know why this is the example that comes to me, but it's perhaps analogous to politicians who bemoan the bailing out of Wall Street as privatizing of gains and socialisation of losses whilst simultaneously advocating student loan forgiveness as if that weren't the same thing. I've not looked any deeper than the examples here, but, from the above, it's plausible Coldwell is okay on images. Эlcobbola talk 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your page gets regularly LTA'd!
So it seems that, with the exception of Hog Farm's example, the ones I asked about are OK, and once again, I demonstrate that I'm nowhere when it comes to images. I never had to learn because when I was FAC delegate, I had the best help! Thanks, and I hope you are well and staying warm. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola, SandyGeorgia - any thoughts on File:Ludington library new wing plans 2011.jpg and File:New local book.jpg? My gut tells me both are problematic from a Commons:Commons:DW perspective. File:Ludington courthouse side 1.jpg and File:Ludington courthouse side 2.jpg may be problematic, but I'm less confident. Sometime I may go through the commons uploads and sort through some of the worse derivative work/freedom of panorama issues - most of his images are probably fine, although I've seen some fairly questionable ones like the New local book.jpg one. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from above, I'm hopeless on images :) I relied on Ec for everything when I was FAC delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mcdllogo-sm2.gif, too (just now opened by me). Licensed is based on US federal government creation, but it's the work of a local county government, which doesn't have the blanket PD in the US. Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree at least three (File:Ludington library new wing plans 2011.jpg, File:Ludington courthouse side 1.jpg, File:Ludington courthouse side 2.jpg) are irreparably problematic and need to go. The latter two, like the library logo, are state (GA), not federal authorship. They are too recent (2000) to be PD by virtue of non-compliance with copyright formalities, and there is no FoP in the US for literary works. File:New local book.jpg is unacceptable in its current state; the cover photo seems likely to be PD in truth, however, and thus may potentially be salvageable if cropped and provenance can be found (does anyone have access to that book?) COM:EVID requires "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain" but is in reality very seldom enforced if the image "looks old enough", an irresponsible practise with which I disagree, but it is what it is. Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinduoduo article help?

Hi, I’m an employee of Pinduoduo, one of the largest companies in Asia. I posted a proposal to make some updates about the company at Talk:Pinduoduo#Fixing problems with NPOV and PROMOTIONAL language on the Pinduoduo Talk page, but there hasn’t been any discussion so far. I was wondering if you as a member of the Companies WikiProject might be willing to take a look at the proposal? Thanks very much. Snowy2000 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account on Commons

I think since you accepted my abuse filter, you suddenly blocked me to be mistaken as a long-term abuser. Can you try to unblock my Commons account please? Thanks. Smugkosen (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This is Jermboy27. Эlcobbola talk 09:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and tagged. Could you request a global lock at meta?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Done. Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sobelogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sobelogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola&oldid=1210865661"