Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2018

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

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

Artaxerxes

Comments
  •  Neutral While I appreciate anyone wanting to help me go through that backlog I have concerns when a user is not even Autopatrolled and has recent copyvios on their talk page. You do have plenty of edits but only 21 are in the commons namespace (13 of which were in 2008) and 16 are user talk space. So while I can't see your deleted edits I am lead to believe you do not have a lot of DR/CSD experience. These things worry me. This right requires trust, experience, knowledge of licensing and knowing how to find out if the license is authentic. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Autopatrol is not necessarily a big deal. Having it means "Hey this guy is not a vandal". I know many valuable editors without autopatrol. Wikicology (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. In addition to the concerns highlighted by Sixflashphoto, I found your recent comment about Flickr a little troubling. Flickr-users are not bound by Wikimedia policies and guidelines, so it is important to examine a file fully before uploading it here, rather than trusting the Flickr-user. Many of those users are great at understanding copyright but a considerable number don’t have a clue. This is one of the reasons we have the license review process i.e. to double check that the alleged license is correct. A small number of Flickr-users are unrepentant copyright-violators, enhanced by the very poor copyright-checking procedures on Flickr. For this reason, we maintain a list of bad Flickr-users, whose uploads are not permitted on Commons, even if they might actually be genuinely correctly licensed, because we have lost trust in them. You can find that list at User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. I would suggest helping out in other ways, becoming more familiar with policies and guidelines and gradually building up our confidence in you. A good six-month period of positive activity will enhance a future application. Green Giant (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Sixflashphoto and GG - The copyvio tags are a major concern and is an indication you don't have knowledge with images etc. –Davey2010Talk 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there are too much concerns about your knowledge of copyrights. Wikicology (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted. Please take the above concerns into consideration before re-applying. Green Giant (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Majora

Comments
  •  Support: overall track record appears to be very good (including 88 successful speedy nominations in the last six months, suggesting a good level of due diligence), plus I’m somewhat familiar with their work as an OTRS volunteer. Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support competent --Eurodyne (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Geagea (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - No issues here. –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose made the request at the wrong page. Should be requesting for rights here. Natuur12 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Trusted user. Wikicology (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted by Green Giant (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Anarchyte

Comments
Hello Wikicology. To be frank, if I were to stumble upon an image like this while I was still learning the ropes, I'd leave it to a more experienced user. With this said, I am leaning towards accepting it because Pixabay only allows "free" images and I see no reason to doubt that in this case, though I am sure not every one on that site uploads copyright-free images. I looked through Google Images and I was unable to find a version posted before early 2017 ("11 months ago") and the user (earthroom) has previously posted images that been awarded Editor's Choice. It's also under a Commons allowed license: CC0 or "no rights reserved" (and could use Template:Pixabay). Hope this answers your question adequately. Have a great day. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt the pixabay user is the copyright holder of this work. Most of the user's uploads are screenshot of a copyright protected works. See here for example. User:Green Giant comments in the request above summarized my points. Wikicology (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, actually Wikicology, I just found the image being used here way before 11 months ago, so I'm not sure why that didn't come up the first time. Perhaps you get a different image link depending on where you right click the Pixabay image. It's also been uploaded to PXhere (under CC0) as well as being used various times on Beatport. Seems I was right by saying "though I am sure not every one on that site uploads copyright-free images", annoyingly enough. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. Good luck. 13:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - No issues here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 16:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

SuZumiya

Comments
  •  Oppose I see no evidence that you are familiar with our licensing policy here. Wikicology (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wikicology. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wikicology and removal of the HTML comment from this page upon first edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wikicology and Jeff G - Edits such as this are a quick way of making your request fail!, I've reinstated the coding. –Davey2010Talk 13:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. As you’ve pointed out, the long list of notifications on your talkpage doesn’t help at all, especially since the most recent one is from barely a month ago. This shows that you have struggled to understand copyright until quite recently. It is good that you have initiated a handful of regular deletion requests over the last few months and an increasing number of requests for license reviews over the last few weeks, but it is insufficient right now. Keep this aspect of your work going because a future re-application will look better with significant contributions of this nature. I haven’t got the time to look through all your uploads but I picked one at random: File:Signal logo.png, which you correctly re-tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} but you’ve claimed it as your {{Own}} work. It wouldn’t be difficult to attribute it to the production company (JYP Entertainment) and as a courtesy we would expect correct attribution even for PD images. Please feel free to re-apply in a few months with more evidence of copyright knowledge (and just in case it isn’t clear, it is absolutely fine to archive those sections of your talkpage that are more than a year old). Green Giant (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - No support at the moment. --AntonierCH (d) 17:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

JiiQo

Comments
  •  Oppose You registered 2 days ago, have 127 edits--nearly all of which were DR's some of which were simple to be seen as wrong (came from flicker). Yeah beyond not even being able to be Autoconfirmed somethings not sitting right. - Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Hope no one minds me closing this but this is not gonna happen anytime soon - You've not uploaded (or transferred) a single file here in the 2 days you've been here and as noted below you've only been here 2 days .... Obviously not gonna happen so wrapping this up. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

B dash

Comments
  •  Oppose due to questionable judgement, including this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way, way too many valid copyvio notices have been posted to your talk page. Some as recently as last month. We can't have license reviewers that upload copyvios. Even if it was just a mistake. Due diligence is required for this else it would decrease the integrity of the entire system. --Majora (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Majora. Wikicology (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Majora - The copyvio notices are very worrying and even if these were taken from FLickr you still need to be able to spot the difference between a legit image and a reuploaded one - I've twice had Flickr accounts deleted because they were uploading copyvios so it can be done, If you cannot spot these images then it's extremely worrying to think you could be a reviewer who accepts these images.... Strong oppose. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No support at the moment. --Didym (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Artix Kreiger

Add on comment, I am more interested in a review of my conduct, editing, and knowledge displayed rther than the userright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 23:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Strong Support: I have followed Artix's work here for a while, and I am impressed. 30k edits here, Admin on test, and Bureaucrat on test2? I trusted Artix enough to promote to a full Admin on Admin Tools Wiki, and I have not been disappointed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • LRR is not a place for feedback, IMO. This place is ONLY for License Reviewer status. If you are not interested in LR status, this request should be closed, and if you're interested in LR status, you'll have to be more specific what you would do after getting LR flag. — regards, Revi 03:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah...we, literally, have tens of thousands of images that need image review. Are you going to help out with that at all? This isn't the place to gauge your conduct on Commons. This is for requesting a user right that you intend to use. --Majora (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm willing to help out in reviews. Assuming that I don't get it now, I was hoping for feedback for improvements before I apply again. To answer revi's question. Im gonna start with Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review by source. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done "Add on comment, I am more interested in a review of my conduct, editing, and knowledge displayed rther than the userright." is a quick way of having your request speedy closed! - The editor themselves admit they have no interest in having the rights so to save everyones time being wasted on this pathetic request I'm closing. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Tiven2240

Comments
  •  Strong oppose as per both of your failed requests at Commons:License review/requests/archive/15 (Those that are interested when you're on that page hit Ctrl + F and search Tiven - 2 requests will show) - Stop with the requests!, I would suggest someone speedy closes. –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: The request are of past now I have more than 12,000 edits on Commons. Y should the past be the reason for the closure? It hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I can't request back again for the right. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
You should wait a few years and demonstrate to the community that you understand LR in your next LR request...., I agree the past shouldn't be held against someone but at the same time reapplying every few months isn't helpful and doesn't demonstrate you have an understand LR. –Davey2010Talk 16:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose per Davey. Wikicology (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted No consensus to promote at this time. --Majora (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Gamaliel

Comments
  •  Support - I don't see any red flags, Although I assume the OP knows they can't review their own uploads ? ... Anyway support. –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I do. But I can help clear the rest of the backlog. That helps Commons, and also gets mine reviewed quicker. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per GRuban - I'm no fan of copyvios but tagging historic images because they don't have an author or date is a no no for me, We should preserve images especially historic ones, I highly object to those DRs so I'll have to oppose for now. –Davey2010Talk 02:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not tagging things willy nilly, if it was obviously a historic image I wouldn't tag it. I've added hundreds of historic images to Commons from museum and historical websites. But these could just as easily be 1960s book illustrations. I think the onus is on us to prove that the images we present to the world as public domain are legitimately public domain. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Gamaliel. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Both images should be deleted because the webpages that they were taken from contain no authorship, date, or copyright information about these images. The assumption was made that they were out of copyright because they looked old to the uploader, but it could have easily been a copyrighted image from the 20th century drawn in an style that looks archaic to some. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Drat. I hate to oppose, since you're clearly a productive experienced user and admin, and just found an absolutely wonderful subtly modified image for deletion. I'm almost going to be glad if you get reviewer permission despite my oppose. But, in my humble opinion, you're trying to be more catholic than the Pope. These are two portraits of politicians who died in 1829 and 1867, and come from historical or government web sites. Yes, it is theoretically possible these sketches were made 75 or 100 years after the subjects' deaths, and that a government and a historical site would fall for it, but it's not reasonably possible. So I'm afraid I agree with the Commons admins who closed those two nominations as "keep" as public domain due to age. (FWIW, here is the likely original of one of them; made in 1888). Since a non-negligible fraction of the Flickr images you are interested in reviewing are going to be "Public domain mark" and "No known copyright restrictions" images, I am worried that you'll be marking clearly PD-Old images for deletion because their provenance is insufficiently detailed. --GRuban (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I get where you're coming from, but "clearly" is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen images that are clearly 20th century Bible illustrations passed off as Renaissance paintings here and marked as "clearly" PD. I don't think we should assume that every pencil-drawn portrait of an pre-20th century person is automatically a contemporary illustration, 20th century books are full of similarly drawn pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support. Gamaliel's nomination of those images for deletion on the basis of no author, dates etc may just be that they have a significant doubt about the freedom of those images and felt they should be deleted per COM:PRP. I haven't look at the DRs but community discussion is an integral part of deletion requests and not all deletion requests result in deletion. So, I am not going to oppose Gamaliel based on those examples alone as I believe they are familiar with our licensing policy. Unless, someone else can prove me wrong on Gamaliel's understanding of copyrights, I'm incline to support them at this time. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Support. Trusted user but I agree with User:Davey2010 that historic images with no author or date should not be tagged for deletion. 159.192.235.253 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support— Bukhari (Talk!) 09:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted: Unfortunately, a consensus to promote did not emerge even after leaving this open for quite a long time. --Majora (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

BukhariSaeed

Comments
  •  Question, you were blocked for uploading copyvios. What have you learnt from that block? Wikicology (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question: where is the United States public domain tag to indicate why File:Our Lady of Laus.jpg is in the public domain in the United States? You seem to assume it is ok to upload files with unknown authors and dates, that are somehow PD-old, why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    I have been thinking of asking this user questions to gauge the users understanding of copyright but on the photo Jeff showed, as someone who does a lot of PD-US needing further review I would reject that based on the information provided. If more we're provided then possible it could be alright but as it is it has a lot of issues. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The user is indefinitely blocked on enwiki and simplewiki and constantly trying to evade their block as evident from enwiki talk page. Copyvio is a big concern. 159.192.235.253 07:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination Yes, you are right (unknown 159.192.235.253), i'm indefinitely blocked on two wikis. I am withdrawing my nomination because i think i am not suitable for reviewer. Thanks — Bukhari (Talk!) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted Withdrawn.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Comments
  • You have to replace {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard}} with the standard flickr review template ({{Flickrreview}}), the feature at Upload Wizard has still some bugs. Or you use flickr2commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks! Let me give it a try and see if I understand what you are suggesting. RAN (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    There is no option to do what you suggest during the upload: "Release rights. The file is under the following license on the source site "Flickr": No known copyright restrictions." There is no option to change the review template or the license during the upload. Do I need different rights, so that the Flickr button I click on gives me ({{Flickrreview}} automatically? RAN (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Nope, you can only do it (replacing Flickr(long template) to FR) after UploadWizard process is over and it is published. — regards, Revi 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can I get the review rights temporarily to see if that solves the problem, then when the the upload wizard is fixed, I will not need the rights anymore. I mostly just upload Bain images and corresponding public domain obituaries and government documents like passport applications. RAN (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • In upload wizard the review is done with a js script on client side, thus the *automated review* is restricted to admins and LR. Please use the bot to do the review as suggested by Revi. Btw, your block on enwiki is a bit concerning so i wouldn't support adding this flag to your account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • This resolved the issue. You should be able to upload now, the bot will be used. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wikicology (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steinsplitter and Wikicology - Editor doesn't seem to have much knowledge inregards to what LR is ..... Oppose for now. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at BAIN as part of User:Fæ/LOC#Bain_Collection_(ggbain). These are likely to be better resolution than the versions on Flickr. --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per the concerns raised above. ~riley (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Bastique

Comments
  •  Support as nominator. --B dash (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Until they actually post acceptance of this I don't think this is a good idea. They haven't even edited since August. If they want it sure but just assigning rights to them when they aren't even on the project anymore seems a little silly. --Majora (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Will it cause any damage to the project if they have the rights? Wikicology (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Potentially. If they don't have TFA turned on and their account is compromised like so many former and current admins have been across all the projects. I don't like the idea of giving rights to people that a) don't need them or b) won't use them. Giving a right that allows images to exist here, potentially without further review, to someone that hasn't edited since August nor actually shown any desire for the right seems silly. If they desire it I see no problem giving it to them. But only if they say so. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As I wrote elsewhere, I don't see why we can't add reviewer, file mover, rollbacker, and patroller automatically to account of users who have their admin privilege revoked due to inactivity. Wikicology (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Majora. Bastique is a known trusted admin. But if they aren't interested any more... --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Good standing user that has transitioned from admin to user, no community vote required. Considering we have gone ahead and given this user every other non-admin right without their consent, one more is not a security hazard. ~riley (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Rubin16

Comments
  •  Support as nominator. --B dash (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As I wrote elsewhere, I don't see why we can't add reviewer, file mover, rollbacker, and patroller automatically to account of users who have their admin privilege revoked due to inactivity. Wikicology (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rubin16: Do you want this right? --Majora (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Good standing user that has transitioned from admin to user, no community vote required. User accepts right. ~riley (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Tsca

Comments
  •  Support as nominator. --B dash (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As I wrote elsewhere, I don't see why we can't add reviewer, file mover, rollbacker, and patroller automatically to account of users who have their admin privilege revoked due to inactivity. Wikicology (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tsca: Do you want this right? --Majora (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • yes, tsca (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Good standing user that has transitioned from admin to user, no community vote required. User accepts right. ~riley (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

SlowManifesto

Comments
  • Why do you think you can help with reviewing licenses? Wikicology (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 - "I think I can help with reviewing licenses" isn't enough - You need to demonstrate how you can help and what your understanding of it is. –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Reducing the backlog by reviewing Flickr images, Tasnim and Fars images (which I see it's just Leoboudv who is mainly reviews them). SlowManifesto (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the above response to Davey's comment. User failed to explain why they think they have adequate knowledgeable of our image licensing policy and the use of this tool. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the question. Is it the matter of understanding licensing policies? (so please ask a clear question or see my contributions). I thought you're asking me that how I can help. I have read licensing policies and I think I know about FOP, DW, De Minimis, etc. Regards, SlowManifesto (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "I think I can help" is a fine reason to request such a right. That is the entire point really. We just need to make sure you actually know what you are doing. Flickr images are plagued by license laundering which, in my mind, you would need to show that you have some experience in spotting. Have you ever tagged such an image for deletion in your patrolling? Also, since you are focusing on Tasnim, if you saw a license review with images from what would your response be? Pass? Fail? What actions would you take? --Majora (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
"I think I can help" is a fine reason to request a right but not a reason to grant a right and or for others to support such a request. I am not under any obligation to support a user simply because they said "I think I can help". Thus Davey2010 is correct that "I think I can help" isn't enough. Wikicology (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikicology is absolutely correct and is exactly what I meant - Putting "I think I can help" is fine but then they need to expand on that .... It's no different to someone starting an RFA page saying "I want to be an admin" ..... –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked for permission in some cases like File:TW Kinmen Passenger Service Center.jpg (which I think has been added to blocked Flickr accounts). For license laundering I check Tineye, Google images and the picture's metadata and also other pictures in that flickr account. As khamenei.ir is a CC website I nominate them for deletion and ask the uploader to address the exact source. If I see that a photo is not taken by Tasnim photographers (like here I tag the photo for Speedy deletion. SlowManifesto (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose as per Wikicology, No understanding of what LR is and I feel granting the right would be more trouble than its worth. –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to promote. Feel free to re-apply after you gain more experience. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Caulfield

Comments

 Support as a nominater.--√Jæ√ 10:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you ask the user if they agree in the nomination? --Krd 10:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination When I see the talk page there are lot of copyvios.--√Jæ√ 15:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Post close comment - Jæ please don't nominate editors - If editors want this right they need to request it themselves, This isn't RFA. –Davey2010Talk 16:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, withdrawn.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Ellywa

  • Ellywa (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I would like to become a file reviewer and get involved more into this work on Commons, because Flickr, Picasa, etc. are a huge potential for useful images. It would be very bad if somebody reuses the image elsewhere trusting on our licence and would get a copyright violation. Therefore, I consider this usefull work. I noted on Category:License review needed that the backlog is rather large. I am aware people on Flickr or elsewhere might use a free licence, while they are not the author of an image, so I would carefully check. The last year or so I uploaded many images which were licended with CC-BY-SA through OTRS. I always explain to people what they should do when licencing an image. For instance that they cannot licence old images scanned from their family photo collections etc. Elly (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 09:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  • Er - a couple of questions about your statement:
    • "they cannot licence old images scanned from their family photo collections" Should File:William Kunstler and Gregory Lee Johnson.jpg be deleted, then, you think?
    • "Picasa [is] a huge potential for useful images." Where can you find Picasa images? --GRuban (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Hi GRuban, below answers to your questions:
        • The File:William Kunstler and Gregory Lee Johnson.jpg should not be deleted. The photo is made by the deceased father of the uploader, so it can be reasonably assumed that the uploader is the owner of the copyright at the time of the upload. He may therefore publish the photo here and elsewhere. In case of old images sent to OTRS, my first question always is: "who was the photographer of the image?".
        • Sorry, Picasa is gone indeed. I was confused because (i) Picasa is still mentioned on the template on this page, and (ii) my own open uploaded photos including the copmplete albums are still to be seen for anybody if one knows the url.
      • Kind regards, Elly (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
        •  Support --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I am aware people on Flickr or elsewhere might use a free licence, while they are not the author of an image, so I would carefully check. is enough for me to support - They have clue and knowledge and if they've seen flickr copyvios then they obviously know what images are and aren't copyvios, The scan thing I don't really have much understanding of that but from what I've read they seem knowledge and clueful etc so support. –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Wikicology (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

SuZumiya

Comments
  •  Oppose per this. No enough experience to use the tool. Wikicology (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question We definitely need a Tistory expert, since most of us don't read Korean, and the Tistory backlog gets huge. But the recent deletion notices on your talk page that Wikicology noticed do worry me. Can you explain? Also, can you give a couple of examples of a "bad" Tistory image, that we shouldn't be able to upload? (There are plenty of bad Flickr images, YouTube videos, etc., I'd be surprised if there aren't bad Tistory ones.) --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment What you see in my discussion is like "my past" since at the beginning I upload many images without knowing how Commons was correctly used. As for the images that erased me that came from Tistory, it is because there was a discussion about the images of Solkka where it was concluded to delete all the images that some users, including myself, uploaded. There was another case of Tistory where the images of Flower Bed were erased since a person discovered that the images were not of that author and therefore they were all erased. In a label trying to delete an image of Kim Chung-ha that another user made apparently did not bother to enter the original link of the photo and check that he had information about his license. In the case of Jung Eun-ha I had a serious oversight and did not read a warning that was in Korean which said that "Secondary processing is not allowed of any picture". In the last image of Jessica Jung that I deleted for copyright it seems to me that this was unfair since I had previously uploaded images of the same author with the Creative Commons license of YouTube (which had Jessica Jung's). Since those accidents I have had more concern when uploading images and before I do a little research to verify that the image belongs to its true author. Please try to collect the good of someone who tries to help and not about their inexperience that happened at the beginning. --SuZumiya (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Can you give an example of an image on Tistory that has a Creative Commons BY or BY-SA icon but you think should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? To show that you know the difference? --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Here http://mang2goon.tistory.com/685 --SuZumiya (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Any normal reviewer should be able to spot that. It has clear non-comm restrictions on it. I think GRuban is asking for something a little bit more obscure but I could be wrong. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Slightly more to the point, you uploaded File:El_Acontecer.jpg 3 months ago. It's a photo of a 2017 Uruguay newspaper front page, reasonable detail, large central image. I'm not a specialist in Uruguay law, but I find it hard to believe that's not copyrighted, and am highly tempted to nominate it for deletion on that basis. Can you explain? --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
            • 2 days without a response, I'm going to have to  Oppose. Which is a shame, since we do need Korean readers, so I'd welcome you to try again in maybe ... 6 months of active contributions without any problems? --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Wikicology. You have a valid copyvio notice on your talk page from two weeks ago. Even if you did answer GRuban's question correctly we can't have license reviewers uploading copyvios. --Majora (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    Despite the good intentions that I have in helping, they continue to pay attention to the human errors that one can make. Apparently I can never offer my help because they will always be rejecting me on my talk page. I'm sorry I'm not perfect.--SuZumiya (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    A mistake from two weeks ago is quite different from a mistake a while ago. This is a job that has to be done correctly. The recentness of the mistake is my concern. Not the fact that you are human and you make them. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    From that point of view then it is understandable. However, months before I uploaded two images with the same source and the same license which was verified so I uploaded the deleted image so I think it was an error of the person who nominated it for deletion. --SuZumiya (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wikicology and Majora - Mistakes happen I get that but in my eyes you need to know what is and what isn't a copyright violation, Many copyvios exist on Flickr and many are easy to spot .... if you cannot spot them then I'm afraid this is where it ends, I'm by no means saying "That's it you've made a mistake you can never have the LR right" but the fact the copyvio notice was posted only 2 weeks ago would suggest you still don't have the knowledge required, You'll get there tho the more you use Flickr and whatnot the more you'll get the hang of it. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wikicology, Majora, and Davey, plus GRuban @13:55. Not enough experience yet.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

AlvaroMolina

Comments
  •  Question Do you plan to review your own files? Can we keep files taken in Germany from inside buildings? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Steinsplitter: Hi, I don't intend to check my own files because it is not allowed according to the policy; on the other hand, the images taken inside buildings in Germany should not be conserved because the German Law only allows photographs taken from public and accessible places, and in the case of buildings it is only allowed on the external facade. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support —Green Giant (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Trusted user. Wikicology (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Rzuwig► 18:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. Rzuwig► 19:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Frank Murmann

Comments
  •  Oppose Just two weeks ago, this user uploaded File:Wassmer logo.svg, knowing full well that a file with that name and probably that content had already been deleted. That file is now at DR. I don't think this user has enough experience here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same. — Racconish ☎ 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above - Uploading that file confirms to us you don't fully understand TOO which could be problematic when dealing with images here, Easy oppose. –Davey2010Talk 18:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jeff G. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 00:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry to oppose this request but we do not want someone without adequate knowledge of copyrights as license reviewer on this project. T Cells (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requester withdrew --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Hammersoft

  • Hammersoft (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I do a fair bit amount of work regarding the copyright of images that are uploaded here, in concert with work I do on new pages at en.wikipedia. Periodically, I run across images that are tagged with {{LicenseReview}} and of course do not take action as I am not a reviewer. For example, today I ran across File:2016 전소연.png. After spending a fair bit of time to determine if it was an outright copyright violation (verified the YouTube channel belongs to tenasia.co.kr, the video is their property, and the screenshot in question actually exists in the video, etc.) I found it not to be a copyright violation, but legitimately licensed under the license stipulated. I was a bit dismayed that I shouldn't take action to clear this as I am not a reviewer, and now someone else will have to do the same work. I think I've proven myself knowledgeable about copyright. I checked through my last 100 nominations for deletion; 99 of them closed as recommended and 1 I withdrew after the uploader was able to satisfactorily prove who they were. If anyone is concerned about the one block I had 4+ years ago, I can expound on it. I have read and understand the instructions at Commons:License review. Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 18:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Comment I know this user do some good works on the English Wikipedia and they can be trusted. I'll review their work here and comment later. T Cells (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I've interacted intermittently with Hammersoft for more than 8 years on the enwiki concerning image copyright and non-free image uses, and have no hesitation in recommending as a reviewer here. Certainly knows their stuff and from their reviews here will no doubt do more. Ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems be trusted. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 01:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support- Never usually say this but them being a well respected editor over at EN is enough for me to support. Easiest support of the century I think. –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Davey said it all. Hammersoft won't you review your own uploads? T Cells (talk)
    No, because you're not supposed to, per Commons:License_review#Instructions_for_reviewers :) Trick question, maybe? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Lol. No worries, I just want to be sure that you have read the instruction for reviewers and you understood it. T Cells (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Rzuwig► 20:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

T Cells

Comments
  •  Support as competent editor who deals with copyvios and as such knows the licensing policy, It's worth nothing their last LR request was 2 years ago and that seemed to mainly focus on EN issues so I think it would be unfair to oppose based on that, Anyway easy support!. –Davey2010Talk 19:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
GRuban, thanks for your question. I am not a photographer and I don't own a personal camera equipment. This why I primarily focus on maintenance works on Commons. For the first image, the license under which the photograph was released is acceptable on Commons but there is no freedom of panorama in Burkina Faso, so this image cannot be uploaded to Commons without the permission of the architect. The second image can be uploaded to Commons since the license under which it was released is acceptable and there is freedom of panorama in Tunisia. The third photo appears to be a photograph of an old building. The building is probably in public domain by now, thus we can accept the photo. T Cells (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 Support --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Didym (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Küñall

Comments
  •  Question User:Majora found 11 videos from a Vimeo user called Kinomotel (Special:Search/insource:"Kinomotel") and they were about to DR them since this is a work for hire for various companies but then they did some searching and found http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129663. If you look at article 99 #3 you'll see the section in question (search for work for hire to make it easier, it is only mentioned once). If they go by US rules then the work for hire would belong to the client but Slovenia apparently does the opposite? Unless specifically outlined in a contract. There doesn't seem to be anything about this in our copyright info on the country (which is much more in depth than many other sections already) so they wanted to double check. What is you thought? T Cells (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi T Celis. It seems the author of a work for hire in Slovenia retains all its rights except the right to distribute their work. In that case, in my opinion, the author cannot license their work to third parties. I would not upload them here. (That being said, only if the author and the contractor both agree to release the work under a free license, it would be good to upload on Commons) --küñall (nütramyen) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Majora please help me to understand what this user is saying. T Cells (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC) OK. I think understand you now but I don't know if Majora is okay with this answer per their questions at VP. Regards. T Cells (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Didn't he answer your question ? — Racconish ☎ 07:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done No opposes within 48 hours. Their response to the question is fine with me. Assigning right. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

4nn1l2

Comments

✓ Done No oppositions in 48 hours. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 12:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Alexis Jazz

Comments
  •  Oppose I'm sorry but your positions on certain topics along with your extremely vocal anti-administrator views makes me very concerned that you will accept material that should be removed because of your feelings towards certain areas. For example, your desire to block any and all use of Getty, along with a host of other stock photo sites, in deletion requests is one of my many concerns. Would you actually put aside your extremely strongly held views and take the time to properly review such images with the impartiality that is required? I actually have my doubts and for that reason I don't think granting you the ability to license review is a good idea. --Majora (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no desire to "block any and all use of Getty", if Getty is used as a source for a painting that is in the public domain I'm fine with it. I have strongly defended keeping the photos from Commons:Deletion requests/Getty Images photos from the TechCrunch Flickr account, and those were made by photographers working for Getty working for TechCrunch. I don't take any copyright claim from a stock photo site for granted. What you are probably referring to are the Dalida "simple photographs" from Italy. Getty probably does have a license/connection with the copyright holder. Some of those photos would be public domain as simple photographs, some of them would not. That does make them a potential risk to re-users and I'm not a big fan of that. That's why I preferred (actually still do) to closely scrutinize such photos.
Are there any areas you would want me to stay away from? If you want me to stay away from anything that is in any way related to or also found on stock photo sites, no problem. If nobody trusts me with any pictures, perhaps I could be limited to video. Some sort of evaluation period also works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. Thank you. T Cells (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I might as well withdraw this request before this turns into a humiliating list of oppose votes. (not actually withdrawing yet, but in case it really does become humiliating) I may have had (more than) my fair share of indifferences, but I don't recall abusing my edit rights and I wouldn't abuse license reviewer rights for my opinions or politics either. I've even offered to stay away from anything that has any remote possiblity of being controversial, but apparently I can't be trusted to click a "license ok" button on files like File:Dark Souls III The Ringed City DLC Gameplay Video .webm and File:De Taxi Terug- YOUP VAN 'T HEK - DWDD Extra.webm. No questions, no conditional support, no tryout period, I just can't be trusted. Period. It's somewhat baffling.
I'll be completely honest about the scope of how I "abuse" my edit rights and would "abuse" license reviewer rights. On rare occasions, I would spot a file that technically has some sort of minor license issue and all I do is not nominate it for deletion. If I found a file that should be declined due to some minor license issue but I feel there is little harm in accepting it, perhaps I won't decline it myself - but I won't accept it either. I would leave it, and maybe silently hope whoever reviews it will overlook the issue I noticed or be bolder and ignore it despite noticing. Perhaps you will now use this against me, but I'm just being honest. I think many editors, including our most trusted ones, do this kind of thing every now and then. If that disqualifies me, I doubt anyone would qualify for license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you brought up your defense at Commons:Deletion requests/Getty Images photos from the TechCrunch Flickr account is actually part of the very problem that I am describing. I too originally tried to save the images but I changed my opinion as circumstances evolved. You couldn't even see the OTRS ticket and yet you continued to defend something that you couldn't possibly fully appreciate. This is the very problem I described in my oppose. You stick with an opinion, even though you don't know all the relevant parts, and no matter what that is it. You can't take an impartial view of matters and you even use your impartiality to try to refute claims of your impartiality. I'm sorry but my oppose stands and I'm really very much concerned that if given this right you will use it to further your own opinions. --Majora (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Majora: Reviewing licenses isn't much a matter of opinions. It is purely understanding copyright, and checking that the file source says about the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually there are quite a few opinions in quite a few different cases that license reviewers deal with. Does this meet TOO? Is this de minimus? Is it flickrwashing? Did the tistory blog actually take that image from Twitter or did it happen the other way around? License reviewing is full of opinions. Alexis Jazz talks about reviewing videos, there are so many parts to a proper video LR that all those options multiply rapidly. To accept, speedy, or send to DR is the entire point of a license review. Not just mindlessly checking licenses. If we were just mindlessly checking we should just expand the role of the flickr review bot and eliminate all of us entirely. My concern still, and will continue to stand. That Alexis Jazz's opinion will taint their ability to properly review files. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything I can say or do that would help. If offered everything I could think of. Limiting my scope, staying away from difficult cases, evaluation period. If you want to judge me tougher than the average LR I could accept that as well. I don't consider a license review to be the same as a DR or edits in other areas. In a DR, I will often just give my view of how I think the policy should be interpreted. And sure, I can be a loudmouth. Because I'm not making the call. When someone does a license review, they do make the call, and that changes everything. You can't use the same approach for a license review as you do for a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes but your actions in those DRs, on the noticeboards, and at the village pump is all we have to go on. There is no way to know that you will approach license review in a completely different manner. I like to think that I judge everyone with the same standards. I don't think I hold anyone to any higher or lower standard than anyone else. I hold this right to a high position because of the implications of it. That tends to trickle down to my words here. I am sorry if I seem harsh. That really isn't my intention. I'm fully open to supporting you in the future. I'm always open to changing my mind. It really wouldn't take much to ease my concerns, I just don't see how you can accomplish that change in the short two day period of this request. It is about being able to show impartiality even when you have strongly held views. --Majora (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"You couldn't even see the OTRS ticket and yet you continued to defend something that you couldn't possibly fully appreciate."
So everyone without OTRS access should shut up? Why even open a DR if that's the case? Deal with it on the OTRS noticeboard or even off-wiki and decide without public discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If there is specific evidence that only OTRS agents can see than those that cannot see it really can't make an informed decision. It is an imperfect system. I will completely admit to that but that is the system we have to work within. --Majora (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Because Davey2010 is a regular voter for license reviewers but currently on a self-requested wikibreak wikibreak, enforced with a self-requested block that would cause him to miss this, I asked him if he wanted to vote. He expressed his wish to abstain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I found this very disturbing as there is no reason to ask people if they wanted to vote here. This is pointless and does not make any sense to me. People comment here without been told to do so or asked if they would like to comment here. GRuban often comment here and mostly with questions for candidates. One would wonder why you wanted User:Dave2010 who is currently on a break to comment here and not Gruban for example. It just seems to me like a canvass tactics which is enough for me to oppose you. Regards. T Cells (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Canvas tactics.. that's.. kind of funny, not funny, but.. Well. I apologize for the incorrect wording I used - Davey2010 has a self-requested block, he's not just on a break. There has been a conflict in which several users were involved, including myself and Davey2010. This ultimately resulted in Davey2010 requesting to be blocked for a month on Commons to focus on other things/projects. At least part of the reason for him requesting that block were things I had said and done. So if anything, it would be more likely that Davey2010 would oppose my request rather than support it. Admittedly I can't be sure, if he would vote based on nothing but my ability to review licenses perhaps he would support. But this is more like the opposite of canvassing. I'm not trying to cheat him out of voting against this request with my timing, so it only seemed reasonable to inform him I made this request and offer to vote by proxy for him. There are plenty of people I could ask to vote here who would be more likely to support me. I didn't.
In the interest of full disclosure (before someone thinks they have a scoop): I mentioned this request on User talk:Leoboudv#Can I help? I did this after the first two votes as it felt like the first two oppose votes had set a trend, so I wanted to see if maybe I could help with parts of license reviewing without actually being a license reviewer. My question would have been rather strange if I hadn't mentioned this request. I didn't ask Leoboudv to vote. But if this worries people anyway, I don't mind if (in case Leoboudv does decide to vote) it is decided a support vote from Leoboudv does not count while still counting his vote if he opposes. (so I can only lose) In fact you can apply the same to any vote you think might have been canvassed directly or indirectly. I'm okay with that. I want to avoid any appearance of collecting votes, if that means losing support votes that weren't canvassed but anyone suspects were, so be it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Leoboudv is not an admin. There are plenty admin you could ask this question. Again, one would wonder why you didn't ask this question before your request for this right. You were moving from one talk page to another after myself and majora opposed you. What's the point of moving from one talk page to another? T Cells (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ask Leoboudv as an admin. My idea was some sort of collaborative effort in which I could do a partial LR (doing whatever parts Leoboudv in this case would ask me to that they feel I could be trusted with) to allow Leoboudv to be able to do the actual review faster. Obviously it's rather cumbersome, but maybe some way could be found. Why I didn't ask it before making this request? Because it would be a poor solution. I didn't expect my request to start with two strong oppose votes. I didn't "move from one talk page to another". There was no relation between what I said to Davey2010 and what I asked Leoboudv. The moment that I asked Leoboudv I had already lost virtually all hope this request would be granted, so I started to seek out another way. Given your persistence, it would seem I wasn't wrong. The way I remembered it, I asked Davey2010 before Leoboudv but the timestamps tell me it was the other way around. I should have told Davey2010 directly when I made this request anyway, but I simply didn't think of it. I don't know why I didn't think of it any earlier. I told him when I thought about it. But it doesn't matter. None of it does. You and Majora have already made up your mind. No matter what I say or what I offer, I'm unfit, and should not be allowed to prove I can do it. So you're right. I will never be a good license reviewer, because I'll never be a reviewer period. Regardless of any votes that follow, with two users opposing this request to the point of not even considering to allow me to prove myself, I don't really see right now how I could be a license reviewer. I won't seek out a collaborative method with an existing license reviewer either, because this discussion has become far too toxic and anything I touch even indirectly would be distrusted by you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"You and Majora have already made up your mind. No matter what I say or what I offer". No, you don't have a direct access to my mind. My oppose comment was "No. Thank you " because Majora already made the comment I wanted to make, thus I didn't see any reason to repeat what have been said. Users are required to demonstrate evidence of good judgement and knowledge of our licensing policy to be trusted with the license reviewer's right. T Cells (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And I can't vote on this because I'm a sock of Jazz. Alexis Reggae (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't let people get you down. Keep up the good work. küñall (nütramyen) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I don't want to let them get me down, but if this discussion is any indication the work environment will be so toxic it will be unworkable if my request would somehow be granted. As long as T Cells and Majora have this unconditional distrust towards me, I just don't really know how it could be made to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Why not? This is a straightforward task and, when done properly, one’s specific opinions do not affect the outcome. (And when they do, it’s easy to spot and revert — and cause for immediate unflagging.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Essentially for the exact same technical reasons Majora cited, but in the end it came down to trust. Do I trust that you will take an impartial view to every file? Do I trust that you will look at every aspect of the file, the whole file? In regards to video, do I trust that you will go through the entire video when doing every review? No, I'm sorry at this time I don't. Oh, and I've seen real canvassing on commons, what Alexis Jazz with Davey2010 was a gentlemanly move to remove any future animus. That was not canvassing. I do hope this LRR doesn't discourage you. In my opinion if you showed a consistent measured and detailed approach when dealing with a variety of work over a period of time demonstrating a tactful understanding of policy I do think this would go differently. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, I trust that Alexis has a firm grasp of licensing issues and can review licenses fairly and impartially.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe there is a 'severe objection' to the candidate. So  Not done. — regards, Revi 15:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Clpo13

Comments
  • @Clpo13: I see that you are an admin on English Wikipedia. Your nomination here looks promising. However, let me ask you a question: What would you do with an image from Flickr under Public Domain Mark 1.0? 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @4nn1l2: Thank you. I would take extra time examining the source information for an image tagged with the Public Domain Mark to see if it really is out of copyright and why. Following the guidelines at {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, if the image has verifiable source information that puts it into the public domain, I'd retag it with an appropriate public domain template. If it's lacking source information or an explanation for why the image is public domain, I would ask the Flickr uploader if they can provide that information. For an image that appears to have been created by the Flickr uploader, I would ask if they'd be willing to use the CC0 license instead, as that has actual legal force, unlike the PDM. If no source information can be found or if there's any other doubt as to the public domain status of the image, I'd ask for assistance on COM:VPC, unless it looks like a case of Flickr-washing, in which case I'd seek deletion. clpo13(talk) 00:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Thorough reply to my question. Good luck 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive recent edits, I'm not even going to ask my usual test questions. I especially like File:Ingrid Bergman, Gaslight 1944.jpg, nice edit. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Clpo13 will be an asset to the team. I am familiar with their work here and on the English Wikipedia. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per all of the above, great answer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Achim (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Promoted. I believe there is a clear consensus to promote. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Rodrigo.Argenton

Comments
  • What do you mean, "import"? This isn't an import right. This is for reviewing uploads for license compliance. --Majora (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question: Could you specify which (or whose) files exactly you intend to review?    FDMS  4    21:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to be more clear, I'm a former "trusted user", and OTRS volunteer, I'm here since 2007, and being advocating about free license since 2008. I know the tools, for example the Flickr importation tool embedded here to the license reviewers. I know about license, and identify issues, check the whole work of the publisher, for example.
I can help in the daily work as a reviewer, as helping with Finna files, but I'll probably bring more material them review the already existent. Especially about Brazil, as I already know what we need and have a deep about the current copyright rules here.
That's what I mean. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'll take that as a "no" regarding the implied question whether or not you intend to review your own uploads. Not sure we're comfortable making users LRs for the primary purpose of letting them use the UploadWizard's Flickr feature, especially given that it seems quite unsuitable for your batch upload projects (last time I used it files had to be entered one-by-one rather than batch-selected like in flickr2commons).    FDMS  4    22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as extended uploaders can also use the upload by URL feature, I would imagine we are not comfortable for that purpose either. --Majora (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Not what I said.
I said that I know the tools, not that I'll use in this way, two different things.
I didn't answered the questions because was not relevant, you will understand, the problem was that I assume that some of you remember about my contributions, and I didn't wrote something like:
"I'm here since 2007, I have important participations on free license discussions here in Brazil, solving license issues during 4 years as OTRS member, priority contribution there, being a photographer and importing files, and negotiating with a lot of photographers to they opening of a pool of photos, I developed the ability to identify problems in files, and know the way to check if photos belong to the author or not.
That said, I'm a former OTRS member and 'trusted user', my tools are removed at 2014 motivated by a WP-pt problem, that had a reflex here, at the time a sysop removed the tools without discussion. As I'm avoiding political discussions, I didn't request the tools back after the attempt at 2014.
But motivated in helping in the project idea (not mine) to bring all files from 500px, I'm requesting again; announced here:
Commons:Village pump#The 500px website will delete all its photos under Creative Commons license
To help out, I could import all photos as suggested by Donald Trung, and them review it licenses and educational purpose.
After that, I probably will use more the tools to import specific photos to illustrate gaps that I have knowledge, in this case is not a massive, but selected, normally I'll have to negotiate with the Flickr photographers to change their license, and them import.
But I can also help out with daily work as a reviewer, nowadays not that demanding as before, so probably I'll use the tools more in this importation work than reviewing already existent, as in volume the possibility to import files is bigger than review needed. We have less than 2000 files to be reviewed today."
Why I didn't wrote this before? I assume, presumably wrong, that was not necessary.
The tools to import all of it, is not what I'm asking, but without this flag I'll not dedicate myself to this 500px project, as I believe that is irresponsible to bring a lot of files with the possibility of copyright issues. I'm also very critic to massive importation and massive deletions request to solve issues after the importation, this floods the community, but in this case is a exception, different from Flickr that we cannot select catalogues, this will be a more bold import, and to not create a problem to others, I would assume the responsibility to verify, and this could be more harder to verify, as we will not have the same structure of a social media to check the rest of the work...
That's it.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. Thank you.Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it appears you intend to use this to review your own uploads. Any license reviewer should know that this is not allowed. With or without the flag, you would need to tag them with {{License review}} and let someone else complete the review. That said, I will grant you extended uploader so you can do everything else. Guanaco (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Guanaco, so in your view is different to me run a bot, and than evaluate the pictures, to a third person run the same bot, in the same database and than me evaluate it?
If you are running an approved bot which checks the licenses and uploads the files, then you review, I believe it would within policy, although I would discourage it. License reviews often become the only evidence that a file is freely licensed, so having multiple people involved can protect against false claims. Some have lied to us in an attempt to revoke the CC license on their works. Guanaco (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Above. The user can't check their own uploads. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted per objections above.    FDMS  4    20:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

IJReid

  • IJReid (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I think this user right would be especially useful as I am one of a handful of editors here who reviews or looks over many of the thousands of paleontology-related images, hundreds of which come from external websites that require reviewing. Having this right would allow me to take up the task of formally reviewing these images allowing for their indefinite stay here on Commons. While my early record with uploading files was spotty (a few unknowing uploads of unfree files) I believe I have learned enough in my few years here about Public Domain and Creative Commons and Freedom of Panorama to be trusted with this authority. IJReid (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 04:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
I don't plan on reviewing my own uploads at all because that is a Conflict of Interest, but there are uploads of others from websites such as Deviantart, Spinops (a blogspot.com page) or Flickr that should be reviewed because licenses can easily be changed on those websites, and once changed we have no way of verifying the license is valid, and as such images will be deleted. I might also help on the general License Reviewing depending on my schedules. IJReid (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. – Kwj2772 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Oaktree b

Comments
  •  Oppose - Editor hasn't uploaded any images outside of their own which would indicate they have no knowledge of the licences here, Their rationale above doesn't fill me with much confidence either. –Davey2010Talk 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Davey. All the best. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose He haven't given a valid reason to be License Reviewer. Doesn't have enough experience. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 22:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Did not expose a motivation as a reason to get this right. --AntonierCH (d) 07:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not promoted. No valid reason to be a license-reviewer. – Kwj2772 (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Arthur Crbz

Comments

✓ Promoted. Guanaco (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

علاء

Comments

✓ Promoted. – Kwj2772 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

BevinKacon

Comments
  •  Question --- On your user page, you wrote "I enjoy finding spam, accidental uploads, and stolen images, which are usually not used anywhere. 2000+ images detected, over 99% correct rate".
  1. . How did you arrived at this figures and why did you think it should be mentioned on your user page?
  2. Compare and contrast the FoP in Nigeria, South Africa and Somalia. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Any files that were tagged for deletion incorrectly remain listed under Special:Contributions/BevinKacon, it can be calculated from this. User page is to describe your edits.
  2. I would consult COM:FOP. Nigeria - only permanently placed and publically accessible works can be used. SA is the complete opposite end of scale, nothing is acceptable. Somalia, Template:PD-Somalia could be used, however it's a grey area as described at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Somalia.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No Consensus. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Biplab Anand

Comments
No, I am aware of that-Biplab Anand (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question Compare and contrast the FoP in Nigeria, South Africa and Somalia. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your question about COM:FOP, It is refers to the right of individual to publish photographs of the public buildings and the public structures which are attached to the public places permanently and is one of the exception of the Copyright law.
  • Nigeria- Yes, for any artistic work permanently situated in a public place and is viewable. See this
  • South Africa- Not Ok, there is no FOP in South Africa. According to RSA Copyright Act 1978, section 15(3) indicates very limited form of FOP exemption but it is not sufficient for Commons purposes. See FOP and this and SA FOP cases.
  • Somalia-Unknown and Unspecified, According to Somalia Copyright law 2017, Article 38 doesnot specify anything regarding FOP and is unclear. See CRL and this

Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you pass image of a building situated in a public place in Somalia? If yes, why? And if no, why? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Well as per Somalia copyright rules by territory, It is unspecified & unclear. So, assuming it as no Freedom of Panorama which effectively means passing image of a building situated in a public place in Somalia would not be hostable (assuming the building is in copyright unless they are extremely old {{PD-Somalia}}). However, I would seek more certainty before passing or rejecting such types of images. Regards, Biplab Anand (Talk) 07:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions: Would these 3 Flickr photos of African buildings be acceptable on Wikimedia Commons or not, and why?  . Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional questions. AFAIK, The license under which the 1st photo was released is acceptable on commons. (Verify it here) Since, there is no FOP in Burkina Faso, the photo cannot be uploaded to Commons without the permission of the architect where as the 2nd photo is taken under concerned it can be uploaded to Commons. Since, the license under which it was released is acceptable and there is FOP in Tunisia & lastly the 3rd one is taken under concerned it is so far acceptable on commons. Since, It is a photo of an old building. Probably, the building is in public domain. If you have any further additional questions, Please feel free to ask. Regards, Biplab Anand (Talk) 12:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted --Majora (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Jayantanth

Ok, I introduce myself, about 10 years I am in Wikimedia movements in India and around the world. Former president and secretary of WMIN ( India Chapter). Longtime Administrator Bengali Wikipedia and Wikisource Project. founder member of the West Bengal Wikimedians, who are organizing WLM from India and OTRS member. Presently I am working with CIS-A2K Team. I have a basic minimum knowledge of Copyright policy. The commons image reviewer user community mostly review the FlickR images. But my works will be mostly at Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India or if time permits at FlickR. Being an Indian am very much knowledge about Indian Copyright act. So I can judge/review the images, which would be uploaded under {{GODL-India}}. If I have any doubts during reviewing any file, I should consult the commons community. Thank you for your understanding. Jayantanth (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 09:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
@T Cells: , Thank you for your valuable comments.Jayantanth (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@T Cells: why oppose, and why before ";Comments"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Comments
  •  Support. I trust this user's judgement and license work. He is a Global OTRS Member, an Admin on the Bangla Wikipedia and Wikisource, and an Interface Admin on the latter. He has over 18,000 edits here and over 113,000 globally.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Same. — Racconish 💬 16:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted --küñall (nütramyen) 18:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User456541

Comments
  • Oppose - You've only uploaded roughly 4-5 images, No evidence of any understanding of what License Reviewer is or even what acceptable CC licenses we have here, User456541 please read what COM:License reviewer is and the requirements around it (ie knowing CC licenses, what's a copyvio and what's not). –Davey2010Talk 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Davey2010: I know what it is! I helped delete 1 file due to copyvio (licensed under CC-BY-ND 2.0) User456541 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Davey2010 --Indeedous (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 declined please collect some more experience before requesting those rights. Until then, you can simply request reviews for files by using the template. --Indeedous (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Gone Postal

Comments
  • I notice your recent uploads are photos of Russian buildings? Can you say which of these 3 images you would approve for upload, and why or why not?
  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldwide-souvenirs/7493688842
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/antonystanley/10678433585
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/orianaitaly/43186059115
And you plan to specialize in videos; can you say which of these 3 videos (or still images from these videos) you would approve for upload here, and why or why not?
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQwd6kE2DQc
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1JHytLTGPw
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctsB_XJIFM
Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, GRuban.

I plan to specialise in videos (at least at first) because I feel more comfortable with these having imported quite a few from Youtube.

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQwd6kE2DQc - This video has CC-BY licence listed in the description. However, I would feel sceptical about the channel. It is very unlikely that it is linked to CNN channel. If this were uploaded here, I would probably nominate it for deletion citing licence laundering.
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1JHytLTGPw - This video also has CC-BY licence listed in the description. I believe that a channel is legitimate MSNBC channel. If given a licence reviewer right I would positively review this video.
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctsB_XJIFM - This video has Youtube Standard Licence. Nothing in the description mentions other licences which can be applied to it. If this were uploaded here, I would probably nominate for deletion.

I do not at this moment plan to use much of my time reviewing photographs. I have not, believe it or not, use flickr. I understand that a reviewer may abuse one's powers even accidentally, therefore I will still answer your question about the photos, but keep in mind that in these cases there is much more of a chance for mistake. So the truth of the matter is that it is very likely that you would see me on COM:Village pump/Copyright asking questions (or observing other reviewers) before I would touch these. But still here we go:

  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldwide-souvenirs/7493688842 - I see CC-BY licence listed. I do not see the reason to doubt the authorship of the photo. However, I believe that there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine, so I would need to try to figure out what the copyright status of the statue is.
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/antonystanley/10678433585 - I also see that CC-BY licence is given. I also do not see the reason to doubt the authorship. There is also a problem where it comes to Freedom of Panorama, and in this case I recognise one of these particular monuments, en:The Motherland Monument and while I see that we have files uploaded here with this monument. I will be honest with you, I would not feel comfortable trying to figure out the copyright status of this photo.
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/orianaitaly/43186059115 - All Right Reserved photograph. Nothing in the description stating a desire to licence under another licence in parallel. I would nominate for deletion if this were uploaded here and I noticed it.

I have answered as honestly as I can. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  •  Support Videos correct. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Ukraine should - as best I understand it - say that image 1 is OK, as the Bohdan Khmelnytsky Monument, Kiev dates from 1888, but image 2 is not, as these are under 70 years old. But I'll accept a good effort. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Detailed and correct answers. That being said, I would rather license reviewers acted more assertively. How this channel can be connected to CNN? So, why use the words such as "feel sceptical", "very unlikely", or "probably nominate"? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Knowledgeable about copyright and licenses. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support as per each and every editor above me - Knowledgeable and clueful editor, Has a good understanding of what LR is and the accepted licenses here. –Davey2010Talk 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rzuwig► 18:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Tæ

Comments

 Not done - Very BOLDLY closing - Given the amount of disruption this editor has caused on this project it's a miracle they were even unblocked!, I think it's safe to say they have 0 chance of passing this, No point leaving it open for pile on Opposes so boldly closing, NAC. –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Suzy Oh

Comments
  •  Oppose due to inexperience, undisclosed name change, and Commons:License review/requests/archive/15#SuZumiya.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seriously? Not to say that I changed my name? And how do you know I have "inexperience"? There are people who have the flag, but still upload things without knowing if the file was uploaded to an external site by someone who is not the original author. There is always someone who has to underestimate the knowledge of others, and I know I can prove more than you think, but you preferred to go to denial without giving opportunity to someone who is willing to spend your time to collaborate. --Suzy Oh  tell me 08:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, thank you. I still see no evidence that you are familiar with our licensing policy. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my colleagues above - You really should've put something inregards to your previous name but either way you've not in any way shown us you understand what LR is and what you should accept etc etc etc, Nothing different from when you first came here. –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Ok, I will never again come to help because they are not able to appreciate anything and apparently one has to be born perfect to accept something. Thanks for nothing. Suzy Oh  tell me 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted. Please try again later when you have more experience and knowledge about our licensing policy. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Sikander

Comments
@GRuban: First thing I would do is add a personality rights warning on the image (I should have done that when uploading the image). After that I would go through DVIDS copyright rules. If it is not abdundantly clear to me that the rules apply to the license on the uploaded photo, I would leave it for more experienced reviewers. // sikander { talk } 19:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hrr. See, what I'm getting at is that it's not an image from the US military. It's an image of a Canadian soldier in Norway taken by a Finnish soldier. That's why it says "Courtesy image". Compare for example: Images from the US military, like other branches of the US Federal Government, are considered public domain, and 99+% of images on DVIDSHUB are public domain. But it looks like this one isn't, and really that's the sort of thing that we need to look for here at license review. I've looked at your other uploads and they do look fine, and we certainly could use someone who reads Korean to look at Tistory, so I'm not opposing just yet, but this one worries me. Would you be able to look at the Tistory uploads and look for indications that, among the many perfectly fine images, there are some that, say, aren't taken by the owner of the Tistory page, or are scanned from magazines, or are copyrighted for some other reason? --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see what you mean and totally my mistake for not realizing that. It might be better to not rush into this and gain more experience with licensing issues before asking for reviewer permission. I'll see what happens to this image when it is reviewed and will occassionally read through other license reviews to see how they are handled. If it's possible to close this request, please do so. I can always apply later. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 21:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not promoted. Nomination withdrawn. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Hanooz

Comments
  •  Oppose - You've seemingly been hopping from 1 account to another - I do not believe SlowManifesto was your first ever account here. Either way I see no reason to grant you this tool when in a years time you'll no doubt jump account again, I welcome a CU on this account. –Davey2010Talk 22:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Not trying to hide anything but I've collapsed the discussion below as I feel it takes up a lot of this page and somewhat detracts from the real reason we're here,
In a nutshell the tenure and account creations were my issue the latter of which isn't really relevant. –Davey2010Talk 19:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about account(s) and tenure
  • Feel free to ask for checkuser. Remember that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. For the second time I see you assume bad faith. Hanooz 08:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    This is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons. Nobody deserves to be disrespected on any Wikimedia projects but reading your response above, I see that you want to be respected and treated with a higher degree of civility than you are willing to show to others. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but I do not see any disrespectful comments from User:Hanooz here. I have known this user for over a year, but I have not seen any uncivil nor disrespectful comment from them neither here nor at the Persian Wikipedia. User:Davey2010 should explain to us how they came up with this prediction that User:Hanooz will abandon their account soon, and will start contributing with another account. Let's all assume good faith and review this application with regard to copyright laws and Wikimedia policies. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Sure I will happily explain - Hanooz was created in 18 April 2018 (and they made their first edit this day), their previous account SlowManifesto was created on 14 October 2017 and edited between 18 December 2017 - 11 April 2018, So it's not unreasonable to assume they have quite a few accounts, Ofcourse there are exceptions when it comes to creating new accounts but so far I'm not seeing anything legit here, They may well know CC licences etc etc but in my eyes I fail to see any point in giving the LR tool to someone who creates new accounts yearly .... it would essentially mean that could return here year after year,
    I don't believe I've shown any bad faith here ... I've just made an observation. –Davey2010Talk 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I've struck the CU part as there may well be valid reasons for the new account(s). –Davey2010Talk 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    How do you describe "I do not believe SlowManifesto was your first ever account here" an observation, not a speculation? I know for a fact that there are many security reasons for Wikimedians in the Middle East to abandon their previous account and start again from scratch. User:Hanooz may be willing to enlighten us why they have opted for a new username rather than a mere rename, but if they are not willing to do so, I still support them strongly because I do believe in them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    No. Davey2010's observation is that Hanooz was created in 18 April 2018 (and they made their first edit this day), their previous account SlowManifesto was created on 14 October 2017 and edited between 18 December 2017 - 11 April 2018. You seem to be reading Davey's comments in a selective manner. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Obviously we are talking about their first comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for validating my comment above. This I know for a fact that there are many security reasons for Wikimedians in the Middle East to abandon their previous account and start again from scratch. was obviously a response to their other comments indicating that you are taking all their comments into consideration. I don't know how you came about We are talking about their first comment as you are the only person talking about their first comment. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    No, I don't validate any of your comments. Let me clarify myself. When we discuss observation/speculation and assuming good/bad faith, we can only consider User:Davey2010's first comment because that particular comment evoked User:Hanooz's response. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ofcourse there may well be valid reasons for the new accounts but for the amount of experience they have it's hard to believe SlowManifesto was their first ever account (and if they have had more than one account then they should say something like "for privacy reasons I've had multiple accounts), Like I said I disagree with giving the tool to someone who changes from one account to another but I'm by no means the voice of Commons - If others believe my concerns are pointless then that's fine but my opinion is my opinion. My searches here are not only licence=knowledge related - It's also edits, uploads and tenure. –Davey2010Talk 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Just to add this may be their 2nd account and it may of been changed for privacy reasons - They don't have to answer and I'm certainly not demanding one, I'm just opposing based on the tenure of both accounts but like I said above I'm not the voice of Commons and not everyone here will agree with my comments, Regardless of my comments here I wish Hanooz all the best here. –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    To be clear: I just have two accounts here (SlowManifesto and Hanooz) and SlowManifesto account is retired for some reason. Hanooz 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Davey2010: Sorry, I'm missing something about your objection. Did the former account (SlowManifesto) do something wrong on Wikimedia Commons? Or on another Wikipedia site? If so, sure, I can see opposing over that. But if not, you're opposing because you think this account (Hanooz) might be abandoned after a year? Well, this is a volunteer project, there isn't really a requirement to keep working here forever; if we can get a year of good license reviewing, I would think that would be quite useful, no? What am I missing?
    Nope as far as I know both accounts are fine, As I said my issue are the tenure on both accounts, the overall editing acitivity on both accounts as well as the abandoning of the first account - Like I said this could've been due to privacy or personal reasons but I guess my specific issue is the lack of transparency (inregards to the accounts) and the fear of giving LR and then they come back next December under a new account ....
    Had this been their first account then tenure still would've been an issue, Had they had a 2 year tenure and simply abandoned an account then I wouldn't of really cared .... I hope that makes atleast a bit more sense, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
--GRuban (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the questions. Here are my answers:
    1. Accept. Tasnim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which is accepted on commons. The image has watermark and photographer's name.
    2. Reject. Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license.
    3. Reject. Irna is not a CC/free website. It is stated in the footer: "All Rights Reserved". Must be speedy deleted.
    4. I will not review this image at this time. http://english.khamenei.ir/ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and is accepted here but http://nojavan.khamenei.ir/ is stated in the footer: "All rights reserved" and also http://farsi.khamenei.ir/ website footer doesn't say anything about the copyright status of the website. I'm waiting for this deletion request and this discussion's result.
    Regards, Hanooz 17:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done, clearly you are keeping on top of the rather involved Iranian website copyright issues, we need more like you here. (Also, I'd appreciate it if you were to join me at the deletion discussion for File:Saeed mollae.jpg: also known as #3. I haven't created the deletion discussion yet, but will in a few minutes if no one else does.) --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question Hanooz, do you plan to create another account? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    No. Hanooz 19:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. I don't think you are a malicious editor and I think you are familiar with our licensing policy but the concerns raised by Davey is plausible. In case this request fails, I'll be happy to support you in the future (let's say in 12 months time). Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 I echo everything T Cells has said - If this request does fail then I would suggest continuing as you are for another year and then return ... which if you do you'd sail through it and I would happily support you aswell :), Thanks for your work here and I hope you continue the great work that you do here :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per 4nn1l2 and Racconish. Thanks for applying. Strakhov (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per the answers above, 4nn1l2 and Racconish.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support with one note: "All rights reserved" is a meaningless phrase currently. If you do not use it, the copyright is still applied automatically, but using it does not mean that there is no free licence. I know quite a few people who create content (whether images, text, or video) and they consider this text or a copyright sign just a placeholder where to place a date of creation. This is the only thing that such a text is under the current legislation of most countries. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Our EN article All rights reserved describes it. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Promoted This has been open long enough. -- 1989 (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Commons talk archives