Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2017

Category:Commons talk archives#License%20review/Requests/Archive

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

BU Rob13

Comments
  •  Support Seems ok to me. --★ Poké95 08:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Having discussed the copyright status of images with OTRS tickets with Rob quite a few times, he definitely has a firm grasp. Reventtalk 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support − Excellent candidate. Wikicology (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Rzuwig► 22:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support MCMLXXXIX 23:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Promoted: Per consensus. --★ Poké95 09:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Noaabot

Comments

    ✓ Removed --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    WLUSS

    WLUSS (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)

    • Reason:

    I joined Commons many days ago. But till I don't have any rights. I know which license is compitable with Commons. So, I need license reviewer rights.. WLUSS (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

     Oppose. I honestly can't tell if this is cluelessness or trolling. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

     Not done Request was withdrawn. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Freshman404

    Comments
    •  Question @Freshman404: Are you planning to review your own uploads after receiving this bit? -- MCMLXXXIX 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @1989: As far as I know, image reviewers aren't allowed to review their own uploads under Commons policy.--Freshman404Talk 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    •  Oppose for a slight lack of knowledge in license and permission as seen in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pictorial carpet 54.jpg (derivative and how to give proper permission). This is not directly linked to the status, but isn't reassuring. --Scoopfinder(d) 19:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    •  Question Are you familiar with COM:FOP and COM:TOO? If yes, please explain them in your own words. Is a work based on another work (by a different author) considered non-free? --★ Poké95 11:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Ping Freshman404 ★ Poké95 02:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

    Considering that they didn't responded to my question before the expected closure time of this request, and the above concern by fellow LR Scoopfinder, I am closing this as  Not promoted. Feel free to re-apply for LR privileges once you are familiar with our policies and guidelines on copyright. --★ Poké95 11:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Daphne Lantier

    Comments
    •  Question Do Commons accept images of sculptures from the United States? Buildings from the United States? Public artworks from the Philippines? Buildings from Korea? Will you accept images from Flickr "licensed" under the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0? Please explain all your answers. --★ Poké95 12:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • 1. Guidelines for sculptures in the US can be found at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Originality requirement. I've noticed that the US has a lot of licenses that apply to sculpture and other artworks with narrow rules as to what is covered. When it comes down to it, the age of the artwork is usually the key along with copyright notices. The newer the sculpture or statue, the more the chances are that it's a copyright violation and that permission is needed; 2. Buildings in the US are OK; 3. There is no freedom of panorama for the Philippines, but the explanation on the FOP page gives me pause. I would likely consult a more experienced reviewer or admin in Philippines FOP cases; 4. There is no freedom of panorama for Korea (NC only); 5. PD-Mark is unacceptable. These images need to be tagged for permission and, if possible, the Flickr uploader needs to be asked to switch to CC-0 or another acceptable CC license.

      I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of freedom of panorama law is limited, and that I would have to look into FOP law for various countries on a case-by-case basis and consult more experienced reviewers/editors as needed. My approach if made a reviewer would be to work on simple reviews of works like Korean Pop blog images (I'm a fan of K-Pop girls and girl bands) and other simple images clearly labeled with CC licenses at the source at first, and only move on to more complex cases over time as I gain more knowledge and familiarity with copyright laws. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

    @Daphne Lantier: Use {{Flickr-public domain mark}} for such images. - Reventtalk 08:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    There is freedom of panorama in (South) Korea, but only for non-commercial use, which is unacceptable. However, I wasn't specific, since there are two Koreas. Since this is too obvious to ask, I would like to note that North Korea has freedom of panorama for all copyrightable works, and may be used for any purpose. --★ Poké95 08:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support Good answers. --★ Poké95 08:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support Special:DeletedContributions/Daphne_Lantier shows hundreds of successful deletion nominations for the type of issues that license reviewers should be looking for, and the answers are sensible. LRs should only be passing things they are 'sure' about. - Reventtalk 08:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

    ✓ promoted Grand-Duc (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Tiven2240

    Comments
    •  Weak oppose This user has requested autopatrol days ago, with the request being declined by Steinsplitter. Then this user has also mistakenly marked a file as "no source" on 11 March. I have some doubt on this user's judgement. Tiven2240, please answer the following questions below. I would be happily reconsidering my comment if you get these right.
    1. Is reviewing your own uploads allowed?
    2. In your own words, please explain what is freedom of panorama and derivative works.
    3. Is there freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S.?
    Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Per Pokéfan95: it seems that the user is lacking some experience. I might reconsider after Tiven2240 replied the questions above. --AntonierCH (d) 13:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks @Pokéfan95: for giving a brief introduction about me. As per your above question raised i would like to answer the same as best of my knowledge

    1) Is reviewing your own uploads allowed?
    Answer. It's absolutely not allowed. As per my personal experience I've always noted the thing that we always give our best but somewhere we lack that the other party shows us our mistake. If we review our own uploads than according to me it's misuse of our rights given. A brief explanation has be given on it in Com:LR#Instructions for reviewers
    2) In your own words, please explain what is freedom of panorama and derivative works.
    Answer The answer lies in the word itself der-ivative works means the works that is derived from a work which mostly has some modifications/upgrades to that work. According to me Human nature is to always bring a change to make something more innovative that makes it to make derivative work,but that work is someones Copyright so there must be a consent from the original work maker.A brief explanation has be given on it in COM:DW
    As said above there must be consent/permission for derivative of that work but in many countries there are exception to these this is known as freedom of panoramaA brief explanation has be given on it in COM:FOP
    3) Is there freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S.?
    Answer No it is not it only applies to building in the unites states.

    Hope I have answered atleast a part of your questions. Q&A are the part and parcel as we all know they must be some knowledge in order to review another's edits. I have been advised to learn about the above topics when I was leading the Copyright revolution on the marathi Wikipedia and I am great it is being useful to me today @AntonierCH: As per my knowledge I have answered the question hope you reconsider your vote --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

    Good answers, you have answered them all correct. But I still have one more question, and this is important since most of the license reviews I see are derivative works. Please answer the following cases whether if you will pass or fail, and explain why you would do so.
    1. A photograph of a packaging with graphics and design
    2. A photograph of a Coca Cola drink with its original logo (only shown in the photo)
    3. A derivative work licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 of another work licensed under CC-BY-NC-3.0 (changes from the original work are major)
    4. A derivative work licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0 of another work licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0
    Thanks, and I hope you will answer it right. ★ Poké95 12:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

    @Pokéfan95: Thanks for reaching back here. Again I won't hesitate to answer your question

    1. Packaging with graphics and designs are often copyrighted and mostly but not all cases are allowed.I would consider asking someone else in this matter but won't pass it's license as it may go against COM:PACKAGING
    2. Coca cola logo consists of only simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Hence it is in public domain with cc0 license so I would pass the image. Another reason is that it it symbolizing the image not the product according to the situation given above. So it's allowed on Commons. More information about the same is at Wikipedia:Logos.
    3. CC-BY-SA-4.0 cannot be licensed under CC-BY-NC-3.0 as the license conditions state If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. which doesn't allows CC-BY-NC-3.0 license more information can be found at it's official site so I won't pass the license.
    4. CC-BY-NC-4.0 doesn't gives permission to use it's content for commercial use but CC-BY-SA-3.0 permits it so the license will fail for this reason.

    Hope again not fully but at least a part of your question I have answered as per best of my ability.Lastly I would like to quote you from the bible "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

    For your answer in #1, you are correct, but don't forget to pass it if it is obviously simple and below the TOO of its source country and the US. You're correct that you should pass #2, but part of your explanation is wrong. The logo is not just simple text, it is copyrightable due to its design. However, the copyright for this logo has expired (and not renewed), so it is ok to pass images containing the original Coca Cola logo.
    However, it seems you misunderstood #3 and #4. Derivative works of works under CC-BY-NC-3.0 (or any other version) can be relicensed under any license, including CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC-BY-4.0, since CC-BY-NC-3.0 lacks the ShareAlike clause (SA), which requires all derivative works to be licensed under the same license. So it is ok to pass #3 (as long as there are major changes from the original work). For #4, CC-BY-SA-3.0 requires all derivative works to be licensed under the same license, so it is not wrong to pass #4 since CC-BY-NC-4.0 won't apply here and since the author of the derivative work doesn't relicensed the work to a later version (4.0), CC-BY-SA-3.0 will apply here.
    #3 and #4 are very rare cases we license reviewers we saw, and to be honest, these are complicated, so I will let these go. ★ Poké95 01:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Ok, I will reconsider my vote, but I am not confident yet giving my full support. I see that this user is willing to reduce the backlog of Commons, and I hope there would be more users willing to do so. I'd wish more knowledge for this user, but giving their answers here, it seems sufficient to me. --★ Poké95 01:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

     Not promoted No consensus for promotion. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Jimmy-bot 2

    Comments
    •  Question @Jimmy Xu: Is there a reason for a bot to become a LR? ★ Poké95 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Pokéfan95: Yes. Jimmy-bot 2 (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, why do you want this bot to become a LR? ★ Poké95 07:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    This bot will help me to deal with any copyright issues, reducing backlogs on Wikimedia Commons while I am busy at other works. Jimmy-bot 2 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    On how way the bot will reduce the backlog on Wikimedia Commons? Have you already requested a bot approval at Commons:Bots/Requests? ★ Poké95 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Jimmy Xu: Please use your main account to reply here, don't use your bot account for participating in a discussion. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Strong oppose. There is no reason to give this right to a bot : it needs human review and can't be done by a bot. Also, the response of the requester like a simple "Yes." seems aggressive and doesn't give me the envy to try to understand the request more than what has been already exposed. --AntonierCH (d) 12:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Strong oppose - The "candidate" here hasn't bothered to explain why their bot needs to a LR, Their bot hasn't done work here at all which makes me believe at present it's an unauthorised bot which probably should be blocked, I would suggest this gets declined and advise the candidate to read the various policies inregards to bots and licence reviews. –Davey2010Talk 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Question How could a bot judge whether or not an image is properly licensed? For example, here is the first image in license review: File:(이문세) 끝의 시작 (LIVE) 24s.jpg The source is a YouTube page. I can see there is a CreativeCommons license on the page - COM:WHERE LICENSE - and for a human being scanning through the video it's pretty clear the image is a screenshot from the video, so great. But how can the bot tell this image is from the video? Is it really going to go through the video frame by frame and compare pixel by pixel? Does it have some fairly sophisticated ML in there? Or here is the next one File:17-35105 Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay.pdf - here the claim is that it was made by a US federal employee. How is the bot going to judge that? --GRuban (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Question How do we know this account is legit? These edits here and to its own userpage are its only edits globally. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This account is not mine. Jimmy Xu (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

     Not done I've blocked the account for impersonation. Daphne Lantier 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

    For future reference, User:Jimmy-bot is the real bot account of User:Jimmy Xu. I actually suspected before that Jimmy-bot 2 is a fake bot account of Jimmy Xu, and I am actually gonna close this request, but I couldn't confirm my suspicion since the "owner" didn't respond. ★ Poké95 02:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

    Comments
    •  Question Please answer whether you would pass or fail license review the following cases, and explain each answer:
    1. Buildings from the United States
    Yes, because United States allows Freedom of Panorama for buildings.
    1. A Coca Cola drink showing the original logo
    Yes, because this statement of trademarks says so, "Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced"
    1. Artworks from South Korea
    No, because South Korea doesn't allow reproduction artistic works.
    1. A derivative work which is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 where the original work is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0
    No, NC stresses non-commercial use, and non-commercial is controversial in definition. Also there is a basic mismatch between the licenses.
    Curiously, why do you need the LR privilege for that competition you said above (you don't need to answer this)? Lastly, will you pass license review for your own uploads? Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Pokéfan95: Firstly many thanks for taking interest. See as the images are about the uniformed services, their licensing needs to reviewed. No, there is no way that I am going to review my uploads. As the old quote says "Physicians must not provide treatment for themselves". --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 09:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support Good answers, except for answer 4 though, since CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 cannot be applied to a derivative work whose original work is under CC-BY-SA-4.0 because 1) CC 3.0 licenses cannot be used for derivative works of CC 4.0 (in short the CC license version of the derivative work must be the same or newer than the original's) and 2) CC-BY-NC-SA is incompatible with CC-BY-SA, so CC-BY-SA-4.0 will apply to the derivative work, not the noncommercial counterpart. But I will let that go though, since case 4 is rare in license review, but atleast you now know how to handle such cases. I am confident that this user is trusted for the LR privilege. --★ Poké95 12:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Pokéfan95: Thanks for the support and thanks for clarifying. Actually, this is what I intended to say with "basic mismatch between the licenses" to some extent. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 12:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support --Yann (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support - Good answer to questions, seems they need the tool so why not, plus I like the "Physicians must not provide treatment for themselves" part too :), Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 02:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    •  Support - per Pokéfan95 and Davey. Wikicology (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    ✓ Promoted per consensus. --★ Poké95 08:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Lea-Kim

    Comments
    •  Oppose Lack of experience. Rzuwig► 21:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

    Declined Just 2 edits, first is this one and second is an upload. How the heck can I support you for that? I decided to close this now because it is very obvious this request is not gonna succeed. Please gain experience first by reading and understanding all our policies and guidelines, participating and/or creating deletion requests, and tagging obvious copyright violations. And those are what you didn't done first before requesting the LR privilege here. --★ Poké95 01:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

    This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

    Tiven2240

    Commons:License_review/requests/archive/15#Tiven2240

    • Scheduled to end: 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) or later
    Comments
      • Oppose per the last review which was closed as Not Promoted only 2 months ago, Also it wasn't closed because of "due to lack of consensus" - It was closed because you weren't suitable to do license reviewing just yet (and I mean that in a polite/nice way). –Davey2010Talk 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        @Davey2010: Armbrust has clearly given the reason for the decline which I have stated above. About your comment please be clear and most importantly as an experienced contributor assume good faith. You and me both volunteer in order to maintain Wikimedia Commons. It's not that I am suitable for reviewing as I won't step back in studying it and making it possible. You have more experience than me come join and clear the backlog rather than discussing my nomination no need to remind as administrator know their job. Atleast I have made an attempt and renominated myself (and I mean that in a polite/nice way) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I read the "lack of consensus" comment as not enough people replied which to me is how it sounded,
      Okay suitable was the wrong word but either way you have to know what you're doing and the review was closed because of lack of knowledge, I could help but quite honestly I prefer to upload and categorise and leave the reviewing to people who are more experienced than me, Well good for you, Why would I sign up to do something I have no interest in doing ?,
      FDMS4 is correct this is hat collecting but ofcourse regardless of all that if questions are answered to the communities satisfaction then who knows you may be successful. –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      Mostly it's because I left my weak opposition which I might have reconsidered after reading the replies (but I had no time to do so). --AntonierCH (d) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Not supporting due to the two problems raised today by FDMS4 on your talk page. Maybe you should focus on your own uploads + file moving policy first ? --AntonierCH (d) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose for now per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose: Copyright issues (from after your last application), smell of hatcollecting.    FDMS  4    18:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Doesn't know that MediaWiki and Android are free software and that content on the main page of a Wikipedia is free. Also not familiar with COM:DW. It seems you haven't changed from your previous LR request. --★Poyekhali!!! aka Pokéfan95 00:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment User:FDMS4 has raised issues on my uploads I have seen and as per appropriate given explanations on the deletion page. @Poyekhali: Before making statements please investigate the matter. That images must have tags of {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} and it were not android but chrome browser which I don't think it's in cc-0 or any free license as I have seen a administrator had uploaded the screenshot and it was removed stating that chrome is non free. @AntonierCH: thanks for yr clarification of last time👍. When we have almost 460 people in power to do even if 1 person contributes 4 images we will clear up backlog and if this was possible i wouldn't be here to request for right which some experienced called it hatcollecting. I have reasons for my uploads and my work I do filemoving only if I have knowledge of the subject or the requestor is experienced. Most likely i assume good faith which I seen of no use in my nomination because before granting rights there r future predictions.@Davey2010: my fellow volunteer it's not that he has more experience than you atleast you must try because unless you don't dive u may not know the depth. Thanking --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       Not promoted And ignorance of COM:PRP on a deletion request of their ogg file. LR is definitely not for you. ★Poyekhali!!! 04:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Seb26

      • Seb26 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
      • Reason: Want to help with the general review backlog at Category:License review needed. I try to contribute regularly to deletion discussions and nominate files I come across (usually when I am category sorting/diffusing) if anything visually or schematically looks 'off' (i.e. not an uploader's 'own work'). Most of the time this involves scouring the source URL, reverse image searching, observing EXIF data and otherwise investigating as much as possible. I have read through de minimis, derivative works, threshold of originality. My least strongest area would be country-specific knowledge of freedom of panorama, but coming across any photos of buildings, artworks or public spaces in general (especially in Europe), I would give good attention to the country's entry on Commons:Freedom of panorama and consult admins/village pump if there were any doubts (cases where it is borderline/unclear might benefit from a wider discussion anyway). Other Wikimedia history: I was an admin on en.wiki from 2007-2012, have returned to Commons this year. I would welcome any questions. Thanks guys, seb26 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Scheduled to end: 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC) or later
      Comments
      •  Question @Seb26: Hello! Are these pictures ok ? Why (not) ? Wine bottles, painting, pig family and EU parliament --AntonierCH (d) 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        1. User says: CC-BY-2.0. The branding labels are the main subject of the photo and they should be assumed to be copyrighted. This is a reproduction of copyrighted work and the flickr author probably has not cleared the rights sufficiently to be able to claim a CC license on his photograph of them. Verdict: image not actually free, not allowed
        2. User says: All rights reserved. This painting... doesn't exactly look like the other versions of the van Gogh that are online. I think it is a scan or a straight-on photograph that has been enhanced digitally. If I'm correct, it is then a 2D reproduction of an artwork that is in the public domain (in most countries because its author died over 100 years ago, and in the US because it was published before 1923). It feels to me that there might have been changes like enhancing the saturation, but it is not enough to consider it a derivative work of its own with sufficient originality. The flickr user was not really in the right place to to reserve all rights to their reproduction of the painting. (As I understand, this topic was the subject of threats of legal action against the WMF in 2008 and 2015 from some museums). Verdict: free image, allowed, PD-Art
        3. User says: CC-BY-2.0. Contains copyrighted works (toys) as the sole subject and focus, not likely that flickr user cleared rights sufficiently to claim a CC license on his photograph of them. Verdict: image not free, not allowed
        4. User says: CC-BY-2.0. The photograph is his original work, but it was taken of a building in France where the architect is still alive and holds the copyright for it. France looks like it is one of the strictest countries with regards to FOP law and in this specific example building there is plenty of consensus to support the deletion of it too: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg. Verdict: image free but contains non-free elements, not allowed
        • Let me know if there are any holes in what I outlined as I'd be happy to take on the feedback. seb26 (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support -- No concern. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Good answers. --★Poyekhali 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Strong support. Good answers and experienced. (further references COM:PACKAGING and COM:TOYS) --AntonierCH (d) 08:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support --Yann (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support. Strakhov (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Mabalu

      • Mabalu (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
      • Reason: I have been meaning to do this since before Christmas. I would be very keen to have image reviewing and licensing reviews. I have spent the last few years searching for good images for articles on Wikipedia and in the process, becoming increasingly familar with uploading images and making sure I understand licensing and when images may be added to the project. My uploads from Flickr and elsewhere have been carefully assessed and examined to make sure that Commons criteria are met, and that the original uploaders can be credibly believed to hold ownership over the images they have licensed. To the best of my recollection, nothing I have uploaded has been flagged as problematic to the extent that deletion followed, apart from a couple of images where I realised I had uploaded in error, and requested them deleted as a result. I would love to continue contrributing and supporting this great project. Mabalu (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Scheduled to end: 15:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC) or later
      Comments
      • Hey Mabalu, good to see you here Clin. Would you review your own uploads ? Cheers, — Racconish ☎ 17:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
      Racconish Can I ask for clarification? Are you saying my uploads meed to be reviewed, or are you asking me if I would review my own uploads after becoming a reviewer? If the latter, then I would say that doesn't sound appropriate - I would upload material that I knew to be acceptable, but would not presume to review my own uploads. Mabalu (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      I was asking if you would review your own uploads as a reviewer.
       Support Trustworthy and knowledgeable about iconography. — Racconish ☎ 13:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment. I am not sure at the moment. For example, this file is a photography of a pair of shoes. The webpage states that the shoes are PD, but it doesn't seem to say that the picture is under a free license or PD. Since this a not a two-dimensional work, {{PD-Art}} can't apply and the current license can't either... --AntonierCH (d) 21:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
      AntonierCH, per the source website, there is a very clear, very explicit "PUBLIC DOMAIN" tag with a crossed-out copyright underneath the image, next to a link from which the image can be downloaded - which seems to be a very clear assertion that they are providing us with the image to use as wished without repercussions. The same notice also appears on the left hand side of the page. Photography was commissioned by the institution, who own the copyright, and accordingly have released for use. (It is not a standard template - many items on the same database do not have the same clearance, such as this or this, and this has been released under a more specific license release. The curators/institution therefore deliberately marked the image as free from restrictions, and also provided an ability to download the picture file without any watermark or hoops to jump through. I did ask on the Pump before uploading to make sure that it would be OK, and to see whether there would be any problems, but because I was not entirely sure about the answer I got, I consciously did not upload any other material from the source website even though it seemed pretty explicit that the copyright holders had intended to make specific images (and not others) available. I hope that this shows that I made the upload very thoughtfully and made every attempt to make sure that it was legit, and this single file was uploaded as a test to see what the response was. As the answer was not totally definite, I did not add any others from the source, despite there being other files that could have benefited the project, but at the same time, was not really convinced that the one upload should be deleted fortwith either. Mabalu (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support after looking at contributions especially multiple good nominations for deletion. The Czech museum site picture is fine, I doubt they mean the shoes are PD, especially given the other images of old clothing that aren't marked PD, it's pretty clear they mean the picture. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support. Per answer above to my comment. --AntonierCH (d) 08:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Mr. Smart LION

      Comments
      •  Oppose 1300 edits, not even trusted enough to be autopatrolled. This isn't the resume of a license reviewer. Focusing on only one kind of file isn't part of the deal either. We need active reviewers with CSD/DR experience and community trust. I don't see that with this candidate. Daphne Lantier 03:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose I don't consider editcount, nor activity, to be very important when it comes to LR, but CSD and DR experience and trust is very important in LR. I don't see any change to you except the editcount since you filed your second LR request. --★Poyekhali 07:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      •  I withdraw my nomination. Now I don't know whether I will request again or not. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 08:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

       Not done Withdrawn. Daphne Lantier 14:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Speravir

      Comments
       Support Experienced editor. I trust him to use the right properly. Daphne Lantier 19:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support Trusted and experienced user. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 06:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support ~ Moheen (keep talking) 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support Jianhui67 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support - Trusted and competent editor - Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 13:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Guanaco

      Comments
      •  Support, user has demonstrated good knowledge of licensing and a cautious eye about being able to verify them. seb26 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support. Rzuwig► 22:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Good history of DR/CSD work. We definitely need active reviewers. We currently have 1500 images awaiting review, and this is with me averaging 150 to 200 reviews per day... Daphne Lantier 01:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support per Daphne. Wikicology (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      TBMNY

      Comments
      • @TBMNY: Do you intend to review your own uploads? Guanaco (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
        No, I know that's not allowed. TBMNY (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I see that you have about 50 edits on Commons, and your recent uploads from Vimeo have licensing issues. In particular, the Conor McGregor video has a CC-BY license, but there is no evidence that the copyright holder (likely Mens Health) gave permission for this (see Commons:License laundering). I'm sorry but I have to  Oppose until you have more edits and more experience. Good places to start would be COM:DR and Special:NewFiles which always need comments and patrolling. Guanaco (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      It does have evidence of CC. It actually seems as if I knew more about this than you did, which if anything is a positive for me. On Vimeo, to get the permission info, click "more" next to the upload date and the creative commons license is there. TBMNY (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Per Guanaco. Have the concern about less experience. ~Moheen (keep talking) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Per above. Rzuwig► 06:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose. I'd add serious issues with the candidate's attitude to the concerns raised above.    FDMS  4    07:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Strong oppose: Lack of experience and the answer given above, despite the link explaining what license laundering is was given just before, is very concerning. However, TBMNY, there is plenty of tasks to do on Wikimedia Commons and you can surely come back when you learnt more on our policies and how copyrights and license work. BR, --AntonierCH (d) 12:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

       Not done Not much experience and as noted there does seem to be attitude issues, NAC. –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Taiwania Justo

      Comments
      1: The author's website is broken, so I cannot confirmed the author's information. Therefore, I suggest it cannot upload to Commons until the author's information is clear. It's a non-commercial photo, and it cannot upload to Commons. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      2: The image was actually from here on Feb 28, 2007. Therefore, it's a copyrighted file. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      3: According to the Google image search, this image did not appeared before 2011-08-24. In addition, according to the author's information, he is actually an photographer. Therefore, I think that it maybe can upload to Commons, but the third-party review should be applied. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      4: It's similar with the first one, the author's website is broken. I suggest it cannot upload to Commons until the author's information is clear. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      Renew: According to the archive, the author has listed the Flickr link at the right side. Therefore, I considered that this image maybe can upload to Commons. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      Plus: According to the Google image research, the image was not appeared before the published date. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      For number 2, you're right, but there is also no COM:FOP in France (so it doesn't matter if the file is copyrighted, it wouldn't be allowed on Commons anyway). --AntonierCH (d) 10:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Competent and experienced user. Guanaco (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      •  Neutral Further improvements wrt the understanding of "freedom of panorama" are probably needed. Strakhov (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted: no opposition during the last 4 days, experienced user with good knowledge in licensing. @Taiwania Justo: It would be great if you could read (again) COM:FOP and other specialized license policies like COM:DW, COM:De minimis and COM:TOO. As I usually remind everybody here, there is no emergency to review files and it is better to take more time but do the job right. Also, feel free to ask questions if you have doubts. --AntonierCH (d) 11:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Luisalvaz

      Comments
          •  Comment There should always be a "show more" option to see some license, whether it's "Standard YouTube License" (non-free), CC, or something else. In some cases YouTube is buggy and doesn't show the license, so we have to work around it. Type the YouTube video ID (g74Yo1yp8XM) into the YouTube search bar, then choose Filter: Creative Commons. YouTube only has the one CC license, so if the file is still listed the license is CC-BY 3.0 ({{YouTube CC-BY}}). You're not the first reviewer this has tripped up.
            However, there is no evidence of permission to reproduce the musical performance. I would nominate this one for deletion as a derivative work if it were the video, but the photo is fine. Guanaco (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
          • File:Pastor Pulled To Safety At Charlottesville White Nationalists March - AM Joy - MSNBC.webm Not The youtube video shows a CC license, but there's a logo that probably has copyright, but I have doubts here
      I have my doubts, but I'll learn better the rules.--Luisalvaz (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Your handling of these files was conscientious. I think you'll do well. Guanaco (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Seems fine. Yann (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support   — Jeff G. ツ 14:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. Enough support over the past few days to give the right. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Jon Kolbert

      Comments
      • File:Capling in Orenburg (August-2017) 01.jpg has a comment from the uploader at the source, stating that the files are CC BY-SA 4.0. Google image search doesn't suggest another original source. I'd say there is some doubt as to who took the picture, but it's fine as there isn't significant doubt. Either way, it seems borderline, and it's more difficult as we're not Russian speakers.
      • File:Internet architects oppose U.S. SOPA online piracy bills.webm - I have to disagree with you on this one. NaturalNews and Infowars appear to be separate organizations, and I can find no evidence that Infowars uses a free license for any of its content. To keep this, we'd need evidence of permission from Infowars.
      Overall you seem to know what you're doing; you'll learn the nuances and how to detect license laundering with practice. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours I'll go ahead and grant the user right. Guanaco (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
      • ✓ Promoted. Guanaco (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Montanabw

      Comments
      Here is my assessment:

      First off, I am going to presume that there is not any Commons:License laundering going on, though I took at least a cursory look at the entities behind the uploads for any blatent problems, as I explained below for each case. The YouTube "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" license differs slightly from what is listed here, but COM:WHERE states that this YouTube cc license is equivalent to the 3.0 license listed at here, so it is acceptable.

      1. NOT OK. The first video is a problem. No license at all at the YouTube link. Even when I used the alternate method of searching for the video and filtering for creative commons, no luck. The creator appears to have a video channel where other videos with an appropriate license have been uploaded, but not this one. I'd flag it and see if the uploader can contact the creator and get the licensing fixed. The uploader appears to be a prolific and relatively experienced user with a clean block log, and appear to be uploading in good faith, possibly via an automated process.
      2. OK. The original site, though in Norwegian, has the appropriate cc-by-4.0 license on the photograph that matches the Commons upload.
      3. OK. On this one, I cannot read Japanese in the original source, so I am taking the representations in good faith that the document was published in a timeframe that complies with both PD- Japan and that its publication date therefore also falls under the pre-1996 (and pre-1946) copyright restoration dates to fall under PD-US as well. The applicable guidelines are at Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Japan.
      4. OK. This B&W film has a Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) but the original source appears to actually be PD-USGov. The group w:en:Public.Resource.Org is a 501(c)(3) group and appears to be legitimately uploading a film that is in the public domain due to being created by the US Government. So, this video does have a free license. Personally, if I could verify the original source more closely, I might suggest that the uploader might want to examine if the copyright tag should be changed to {{PD-USGov}}. The uploader appears to be a longtime user (since 2009) with a lot of uploads and a clean block log. Some images that this user has uploaded are challenged from time to time, but there appear to be no attempts to evade copyright or evidence of bad faith, just the usual reasons we review files.
      5. OK. This final video, with same uploader as the previous one, is a 19 minute video uploaded from YouTube, where it is identified with the creator and the organization sponsoring the channel, which match the attribution on Commons. YouTube has a link to the organization's web site, where there are no videos, only photos, but it appears to be a club of trainspotters who have a lot of content out there. There are other videos posted by this group on YouTube, most with a creative commons license, so looks like a legitimate YouTube upload. In short, the license as stated checks out and does not appear to have taken copyrighted video from some other party's web site and change the license. So unless there's a hidden laundered license in there, it looks OK to me.

      Hope that I haven't missed something here. On all of these, they are in non-English-speaking sources, so if I had questions, I might locate a fellow reviewer who spoke the appropriate language to double-check my review. I suspect that as I do more reviews, some sources will begin to quickly jump out from past experience as reliable (or not) and thus the review process would go faster. Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. All good answers. The only disagreement I have is that I could verify the license using the search method. Note that you have to search for "BqJyXcYTx". Guanaco (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Explicit

      Comments
      •  Support Trusted user, already a rollbacker and patroller here, 10K edits here, Admin on enwiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Jianhui67 T★C 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support excellent candidate. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Exceptional work with licensing on enwiki, Explicit's skills will be a real asset here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support - Trusted user, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Mhhossein

      Comments
      •  Support --Yann (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support -- Good luck. Wikicology (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support   — Jeff G. ツ 06:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Promoted. Rzuwig► 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Garam

      Comments
      @Jeff G.: Hello. For Korean Wikipedia's matter, already I explain it in MetaWiki and Engilsh Wikipedia. See the en:special:diff/800369593 and metawiki:Steward_requests/Username_changes/2017-07 (for why I hiding some user subpage, see the metawiki's link). And in 2010, I was newbie. So I didn't know about commons policy in the past. But now I have the autopatrolled in commons and no have matter. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Jeff G.: Also, I don't know whether to block or not in other wikimedia project is important, now. This request is just about license reviewer right. This user right isn't related to trouble between users. And if really I cannot write any language, how to explain my contibutions in Special:CentralAuth/Garam? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Garam: Being able to read and understand the text of licenses one has never seen before is a fundamental skill for License Reviewers. You professed in this edit to have a basic understanding of three languages, but not to be a native speaker/reader/writer of any language. Am I interpreting incorrectly? Is the situation different in some way? What is your native language?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Jeff G.: I can understand Korean and Japanese. (See the User talk:호로조#안내 and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-05#File:고리원자력발전소.JPG) And as you can see from my english now, also I can understand English. In addition, we don't always need to disclose our own "knowledge of language" or "native language" in user page. Then, what is matter? Also, babel is only information, but it is not always true. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Having a copyright violation on your user page indicates you didn't understand the licenses properly. --Didym (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Didym: For all works on Wikimedia project (The "works" don't include "fair use" etc.), we can use under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or others (e.g. Template:KOAL or Template:KOGL.) Sure, user pages also included here. Then, what is matter? Really I don't understand your opinion. Please tell me what is matter. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      The image on your user page is licensed under CC BY. You can't remove the link to the file page mentioning the author's name and the license. --Didym (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Didym: Then, how do you think about user Guanaco's user page? (Sorry for ping.) That page is same with my user page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      Actually, the one on my user page is public domain. It's an old drawing, which I myself converted to SVG and colorized. The difference is that public domain images do not have the same attribution requirement as CC BY. Guanaco (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      If click the edit button, we can find and know for who's image. I don't want to dispute. I only think how to help newbies. So I wrote this request. Today is golden week in my local. So I am happy before just now. But now I am so sad. Well, I undo my edit in metawiki. I don't want trouble this day. Thanks. --Garam (talk)
      @Garam: It's an easy mistake to make, and easy to fix; just leave out the "link=" field. I think you're a good user, and the review work you're doing is very useful. But it doesn't need the "license reviewer" flag. That is only required when using templates such as {{License review}} and {{Flickr review}}, for non Wikimedia sites such as Tistory or Flickr. I hope your week continues to go well. Guanaco (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Guanaco: Thank you. And I already know what is "license reviewer". For example, File:Patbingsu 3.jpg need the review template, like File:Danhobak latte.jpg. So many image uploaded by users (e.g. #1 etc) from Korean language Wikipedia left untouched in commons. So, I want to get this right for cleaning. But really I didn't know why many user object. (This is not like sysop right.) And I am not newbie. I know, how to use this right, and I already did this work (but no need flag) in Korean Wikipedia in the past. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Guanaco: Actually, your implementation of that image on User talk:Guanaco inhibits clicking on your "Archive 1" link, and on User:Guanaco it inhibits clicking on your userboxes (all top right corner matter).   — Jeff G. ツ 10:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      •  Neutral for now. Garam, your user talk page should be properly archived and not moved around. Would you like me to undo the mess and have it be automatically archived for you, with a bot? Guanaco (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Guanaco: The history in User talk:Garam/test contains my previous user name only. I don't want it to be disclosed. So, I requested and hid it. Except for that, I start to keep my talk pages now. (See the special:diff/261762060.) And thank you for your kindness, but I think, my user talk page don't need automatically move function using bot yet. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

      지역 시간대로는 한밤중이라 영어로의 의사소통에 어려움을 느끼는 관계로 한국어로 쓰게 되었습니다. 아마 기계 번역으로도 의미 전달이 되지 않을까 싶긴 한데, 혹시나 관리자 및 OTRS 분들 중 한국어가 되는 분들께서 따로 의미 전달이 필요하다고 생각하시면 번역해도 무방합니다.

      개인적으로는 단순히 라이선스 검토자 권한 하나를 얻기 위해 이렇게 많은 해명과 설명이 필요할 거라 생각치도 못했습니다. 그저 계속해서 늘어나는 신규 사용자들이 업로드한 파일들의 관리에 도움이 되고자 하는 생각에서 신청을 한 것인데, 단지 메타위키에 link로 파일을 하나 넣었다고 저작권에 무지한 사람마냥 여겨지니 왜 이런 걸 신청했나 하는 후회가 되네요. sysop 신청을 넣은 것도 아닌데, 또 권력을 쥐려고 이러는 것도 아닌데 그걸 스스로가 왜 일일이 해명 및 설명을 하고 있는지도 솔직히 잘 모르겠고, 하필 연휴에, 그것도 위키라는 취미생활에 새삼 회의감을 느낍니다. 이제는 답변을 다는 것도 다소 힘드네요. 피로감으로 인해 더이상은 따로 설명을 하지 않겠으니 권한 신청은 알아서 판단해주시면 감사하겠습니다. --Garam (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

      @Garam: I would have similar reservations about you at COM:RFA.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Jeff: Umm, maybe in the case, linguistic meanings (in some part) is different between Korean and English , I think. It is liberally like, "I don't want to get any powers in wiki". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose - Many issues that need resolving with this editor first (like copyright vios etc). –Davey2010Talk 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose as I have seen this editor in korean wikipedia, I oppose about giving right this editor. --호로조 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Now you oppose it for reasons of User talk:호로조#안내 and Commons:Deletion requests/logos uploaded by 호로조 etc, I think. --Garam (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Nope. There seems to be no possibility of improvement. Because you've warned yourself several times. But you ignored it. And you were blocked in 6 month. Blocking means to pause and reflect on the your activity briefly. However, it seems to me that you feel much better having your own way than you would reflect on yourself. Also, when you see what you did in Wikipedia, the role of reviewer seems inappropriate to you. This is why I voted against you. --호로조 (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Here is commons, not ko wiki. Please don't say for ko wiki, and I’m warning you for the last time that you don't lie to me again about reasons of block in ko wiki. It really gets me upset. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

       Not done Numerous concerns with user's behaviour and understanding of copyright. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Eurodyne

       Support - Experienced user. Wikicology (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

      Comments
      • ✓ Promoted. Guanaco (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Rhododendrites

      Comments
      •  Support a worthy candidate, already has 30K edits here.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support - No issues here, Easy Support. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

      ✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      Wikicology

      • Wikicology (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
      • I have been around for over 3 years with 10000+ contributions to Wikimedia Commons but I became active in May 2016. I mostly deal with copyright issues and out of scope files and I am familiar with our licensing policy. I want to help at Category:License review needed. I'll like to mention that I was banned by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee about two years ago for uploading copyrighted contents to the English Wikipedia among other reasons. Prior to my ban by ArbCom, I was not familiar with image licensing policy. I don't work in that area and I felt anything is acceptable, in fact there was never a time I read about image licensing policy. I just uploaded every image as own work, in fact I thought own work meant the person who uploaded the work here. Lol! Funny right? Well, this a characteristic of people who are naive about copyright and image use policy. Yes, I was really really naive about it then. So, I left Wikipedia to work on Commons, and my home Wikipedia, the yo:wiki. I am familiar with our licensing policy and FoP, I could be trusted with the license reviewer tool. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Scheduled to end: 07:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC) (the earliest)
      Comments
      •  Support, and recommend appealing the ban.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose - I truly wanted to support but you don't really work with images (you send a few here and there to DR but that's it) and you've only uploaded 4 images this year - Being completely honest I'm not seeing the need to give out LR to someone who barely ever works with images. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      off-topic
      Like for real? Davey2010, it is silly to say I barely work with images because I have not uploaded hundreds of images this year. Are you aware that I have uploaded hundreds of images here in the last one year? I encourage you, however, to avoid using blanket assessments like "you don't really work with images (you send a few here and there to DR but that's it)" . Considering how you have commented in the past on issues I had been involved, I have to admit that you have personal grudges against me. this is a welcome development anyway. Wikicology (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      No it's not - If you want to be an image licence reviewer then you need to work with images ...., Using Yann against me is utterly pathetic and says alot more about you than it does me - Yes I held a grudge against him and I begun to realise this and have since apologised but to use it against me and then to say "You have a personal grudge against me too" is absolutely and categorically fucking pathetic (and obviously completely untrue) - You either provide diffs of this now or you can strike that personal attack out (and also before you mention it yes I believe I did +my 2c inregards to you being banned from EN however this has absolutely nothing to do with this project or you - What happened at EN stays at EN as far as I'm concerned - I'm judging you based on your contributions not from past interactions on a completely different project!). –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      I am also very surprised that you took for deletion a Wikimedia event photo I uploaded few minutes after you commented here. Even when you know that Wikimedia projects and events photos are clearly in scope. Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      I nominated it because I personally thought it was out of scope however you eventually categorised it and I could see that maybe it was in scope. –Davey2010Talk 22:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose to much poor judgement at com:AN/U if you ask me. If this user would use the same judgement doing license reviews I'm worried. Natuur12 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      Wow! How is COM:AN/U in congruent with LR? BTW... Having a differing opinion in a particular case is not close to a definition of poor judgement. Unlesss you can link to a specific case I showed poor judgement , I'll consider your comment frivolous. Wikicology (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support I often see his name as a DRs nominator, nothing suggests that he is unaware of our licensing policy. Thank you for proposing a hand where there is often work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose It would be strange to have any trust in a user who demanded my indefinite block several times. --A.Savin 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      A. Savin, you already threatened to oppose my request out of your personal grudges against me which started when I raised concerned over your aggressive behavior towards Christian Ferrer in this thread. I bare you no malice and I only frown at your hostile behavior which is unexpected of an administrator. I supported your de-adminship in light of your legal threat against another user. As Guanaco pointed out in that thread, I can't overlook the use of implied legal threats. After I failed to join your crusade against Jcb, you wrote (obviously you are preparing your RfA, but you may guess how I'll vote then... just for the record) . That was a plain threat and intimidation. Now, you jump hear to oppose my request citing your personal grudges against me. What a pity! IMHO, this amount to gaming the system and that's a disruptive behavior. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Oppose per behavioural issues displayed above. Also no link to previous LRR.    FDMS  4    19:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
        There is a reason why the archive exist. If you need a link to my previous LRR, dig it out. Opposing because I didn't link it is senseless. BTW... What behavioural issues above are you talking about? The person behind the Wikicology account is human with emotion. I am not a robot and should not be expected to act like one. Wikicology (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
        Yes but civility is generally expected of all members of the community alike. The tone of your responses to oppose comments above tends to suggest you are not showing a collaborative nature or an interest in taking on their concerns raised by those opposing. seb26 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      Seb26, we are all human and we have bloods flowing in our vein. It is frustrating when someone dish out oppose comment with no useful feedback. Opposing based on personal grudges is difficult to accept and serve no useful purpose. My reaction to these may be a bit harsh but it's a reflection of how I felt. Wikicology (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      What you don't appear to realise is that out of the 4-5 years of being on EN and 2-3 years of being on Commons .... I've only ever had one grudge now bear in mind I have edited with thousands if not millions of editors in that time and as I say I've only ever held one grudge for someone ...... and that someone wasn't you, Now again I would ask you stop making these wild accusations because the next time you do I will take you to COM:ANI - I'd be more than happy to discuss this at either my talkpage or ANI but I will not have you going around saying "Dave has a personal grudge against me" because I don't. Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

      * Support Wikicology is experienced and helpful. We should encourage people who are willing to work on areas that needs attention rather than discouraging them. Regards. Kaizenify (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

      CU-confirmed sock; 5th edit in the Commons namespace.    FDMS  4    02:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      Struck comment/vote from indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Since Wikicology left Wikipedia and started editing regularly on Commons, have there been copyright or other policy violations? Guanaco (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

       Not promoted The outcome of the request is clear, no point in keeping it open any longer. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      TriiipleThreat

      Comments
      •  Question how would this flag help you with your work and do you plan to review your own uploads? Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support answer sounds good. And yes, license reviewers can use the feature discribed at Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support - Their rationale above is rather worrying as it states "This user right can greatly help my work." however their answer underneath states "I was hoping to use the Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr feature to more easily upload images from Flickr but I was not planning on reviewing my own work per the instructions for reviewers." so I don't think they'd review their own work and would be clearly trusted with the right so support. –Davey2010Talk 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Question Prepares to be yelled at. Since you specialize in Flickr, could you take a look at a couple of Flickr images, and say which you'd approve for upload here? https://www.flickr.com/photos/85217387@N04/8446216794/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisharte/2843644188/ --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Well the first image is obviously a commercial shot, which isn’t inherently bad but throws up a red flag. The lack of metadata is also worrisome and according to a reverse image search it is not the original source as there are copies that predate it. The second image seems passable as the metadata appears to match the uplaoder’s profile.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
          •  Support --GRuban (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

      Granted — regards, Revi 06:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

      This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

      TBMNY

      Comments
        Its been a while since then. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Oppose per Wikicology - This was a very poor move (You need to provide a source - I could easily upload an image from Flickr and just put the source as "Flickr" -That doesn't prove anything nor does it help inregards to licences), In short (and in a nice way) you shouldn't be making moves such as the one above and as such I don't believe you have much knowledge in terms of sources etc (If you're messing up something that simple then you could easily be accepting licences that are either non-compatible or are messed up in some way. –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
          • But if you look at my newer images, all of that has been appropriate, would you not agree. I'm sure most reviewers have made errors in the past. They corrected them, and you got the spot. (Also, I know it doesn't matter, but the file "Jeff Monson posing at Salyut Hotel.jpg" was completely legitimate, but it was taken down prior to review). TBMNY (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Support - Changing as per the reply above - Everyone makes mistakes (myself included) so I do think it's unfair to oppose based on one mistake (No one in the world is perfect!), Looking at the recent uploads it doesn't seem to be a growing trend nor does there seem to be anything problematic so support. –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Question Since you seem to specialize in videos, could you take a look at a couple and say which you'd approve for upload here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbuQAbG2AZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLvf907W2wQ --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
          • First one, not the second. First one is from the source, second is clearly copyrighted despite the CC tag. TBMNY (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
            •  Support Candidate seems to have learned from experience; that's all we can ask for. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Let me expound. Yes, candidate made some mistakes months ago. Copyright rules are complex. Our rules here at Commons are even more complex. We can't expect everyone to understand them straight off. All we can expect is that people learn. For example, the above candidate - who seems to be getting a lot of supports - seems to have uploaded File:Captain America statue.jpg. Which, umm, well, almost certainly falls foul of Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States - right? So the occasional blooper is acceptable, as long as candidates learn. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Support We all make mistakes and I would doubt anyone who says they don't. Wikicology (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Oppose Sorry I didn't check your edits. My original oppose was based on copyrights notices on your talk page. I later moved to support per Davey2010 but after Nuutur discovered that you have only made 101edits to Commons, I have to move to oppose because I cannot support user with 101 edits for file mover tool talkless of LR. Wikicology (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Oppose 101 edits is not enough experience at Wikimedia Commons. Copyright and Wikimedia Commons in general are complex and it takes a lot more experience to familiarize oneself with this project. As a comparison. We require 500 edits for autopatrol and 1000-1500 for file mover. Both user rights are far less complex and require a lower level of trust and skill. Natuur12 (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Oppose Per Natuur12. User hasn't shown any ability to hold a lot of trust which this right requires. Please do come back when you have more experience. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
          • That would have been true several months ago, but again, not recently., so when you say I haven't shown the ability to hold a lot of trust", you can only be basing that on old posts. If you look at anything within the past five months, everything has been perfect. TBMNY (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, you are partly correct because you haven't shown us much recent material we can use to evaluate you. Natuur12 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        Since you seem to be leading into it; It would have been nice to have known upfront about your 26 August 2017 LRR [] -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Question @TBMNY: Can you explain what you learned from Commons:License review/requests/archive/15#TBMNY and why you didn't mention that previous LRR?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
          • As far as I know, there isn't any rule when requesting a review. If there is, my apologies. Anyway, since then I've just gotten way more familiar with the licenses. If it's possible to see, none of the file deletions on my talk page were actually my files. I uploaded new versions of files already on the site, as I assumed that if they were up for a long time, they must be fine. I now know that isn't necessarily true and so I always make sure beforehand to check the source, reverse image search, etc..TBMNY (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
        •  Oppose 112 edits? No. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

         Not done. Minimal support, too soon.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

        This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

        Sixflashphoto

        Comments
           Support. Good luck, Sixflashphoto. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

          ✓ Done --Eurodyne (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

          This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

          Animalparty

          Comments
          •  Question OK, here are a few Flickr (more or less) public domain images. If they were submitted to "Flickr public domain images needing human review", which would you accept for our project? --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
            • I would approve the first (pre-1923 US publication) and last (official work of a US government employee) images. The other appear to be clear cases of license laundering. Animalparty (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
              •  Support --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
              •  Support - No red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
          •  Support Animalparty is a trusted user. Why not a RfA? Wikicology (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Random question - # Would you pass this one? It's only fair if I give you the location of the building - South Korea. — regards, Revi 07:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Well according to this table, South Korea has no Freedom of Panorama (or is limited to Non-commercial use), so assuming the large building is in copyright, this would not be hostable. However I would seek more certainty before passing or rejecting similar images en masse, as Category:Buildings in South Korea seems rather well-populated for a non-FOP country. Animalparty (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks good for me. — regards, Revi 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
          •  Support Jianhui67 T★C 16:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
          •  Support Looks alright to me. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

          ✓ Promoted Jianhui67 T★C 16:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

          Category:Commons talk archives