Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Vituzzu

I'm a sysop on it.wiki and an OTRS volunteer, I think I have a good knowledge of copyright issues to do this "job"--Vituzzu (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  •  full support Sterkebaktalk 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Obviously support, I think he might be really useful for Commons as reviewer. {Sirabder87}Static age 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Privatemusings

I'd like to be a flickr reviewer please - really to be able to upload full information on photos from The Powerhouse Museum for now :-) thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  •  Support. Good faith contributor who should do fine as a flickr reviewer. I trust he will go through Category:Flickr images needing human review, while taking into account Commons:Flickr images, Commons:Licensing and Template:Flickrreview. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do i understand you wrong or are you asking review status to review your own image's? You have my support if you wan't to review. But if you want to review also your own images i will opposse. Sterkebaktalk 08:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Nowhere does it say that flickr reviewers and administrators cannot review their own images from flickr. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No it is no rule.. But if you check your own images i will oppose it is my opinion that you should not check your own images. Sterkebaktalk 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Flickr reviewers and administrators are trusted to review images from flickr. Period. It should not matter what image it is - the concept of doing a flickr review is the same for all images, and the criterion to check are the same. Not a valid reason to oppose. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Well.. It's much better if you let someone else flickr review it as it might just happend that the flickr uploader changes their license on that specific image which you flickr reviewed yourself, and then someone else might think it is a copyvio and that you did a wrong flickr review. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Couldn't the same exact thing happen if someone else had done the flickr review? I don't see that as a particularly big deal, there are clear cut things to look for when doing flickr reviews. If you can review someone else's, you can review your own. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Could happend but if you don't flickr review your own images, we minimize a possible "fake flickr review" although I trust flickr reviewers it's better to let a third party person to do the review, but most of the time the bot does the work. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
                • You do make a good point. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Privatemusings would like to upload encyclopedic material about Australian history and culture, which we certainly could use. I mentored him on Commons months ago and am confident that his understanding of copyright and project scope is sufficient, and that he would exercise appropriate care if his interests broadened. Durova (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong with this. I initially had qualms about the concept of reviewers reviewing their own uploads, due to COI, but soon realized that there is nothing comparable to it on Wikipedia (where I'm used to strict COI rules for admins and others). If you didn't create the photo on Flickr there is no COI, you're simply combining the act of uploading it with the act of reviewing it (and if you did create the photo on Flickr, the act of review is superfluous as you could upload directly). Someone would have to be intentionally becoming a reviewer in order to upload problematic images and then clear them in order for it to be a problem and that is not a person we'd trust to begin with. This user is trustworthy and should be allowed to review Flickr images.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — Sorry, but per the above. Although there is no rule, I don't think it is very appropriate to be reviewing images that you upload yourself. There is no shortage of flickr reviewers/administrators to do this, and I actually think there should be policies against this. That is my only issue here though; perhaps if you wish to reconsider this, I'll reconsider my position. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See my comment. Maybe i change if the user takes the time to answer me Sterkebaktalk 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I am here, and reading all comments, Sterke :-) - sorry for not having piped up sooner to respond to your concerns. I think a bit more explanation of what I'm thinking and hoping to be able to help with is probably in order - and further, this might help with some of herby and rjd's concerns too :-)
Taking a look at the link I posted in my request (to The Powerhouse Museum) - you'll see that there's a specific online resource dedicated to some awesome historical images, all of which in my view would be fantastic additions to this project. The museum (and I have a feeling that another museum / gallery down here may be following suit!) regularly updates their flickr account, and I'd like to be able to import some such images over here (I have also flicked them an email to begin discussions about their possibly uploading directly here - in which I indicated that I'd like to 'show them what I mean' through uploading one set in the coming days).
So the bottom line is that I'd like to upload sets from that collection, and have recently figured out how to use 'Commonist' in this fashion. In conversation with Mike Lifeguard (and after a review of the collections etc.), he suggested applying for this status, in order to minimise the work necessary by other Commons participants. The advantage of mike being prepared to talk me through a few things is that I now feel confident enough to be able to review the images in Category:Flickr images needing human review as well :-) Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for taking time to comment :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I really don't have a problem with you becoming a flickreviewer, but please tell me that you won't review your own images. All flickr images you upload will be revieuwd first by the bot. If the bot could not check them the are sent to the category needed human revieuw. Most work is done by the bot and there are not so much images that have to be revieuwed by hand. It really doesn't matter for the work load. Whe have a bot that check if the licence is oke (and also accepts flickrwashing), afterwards we get a human review. I think it is best for us (maybe a policy change?) to not review your own images. Flickr licence can be changed and than we need to proof the licence was oke when it is uploaded. If person A uploads a image and person A also checks it it is very easy for the flickr person when he change the licence to say: The person uploaded and checkt it under a fault licence. If person A uploads it and person B checks it... it looks better. So please think about reviewing images in the category and leaving your own images, there is work enough :) Sterkebaktalk 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the reply, Sterke - I see your point, and should further point you in this direction too, where I'm requesting a 'bot flag' to be able to use Commonist to upload large sets of 'copyleft' images. My original intention was to minimise others' reviewing work by applying the 'flick reviewed' tag appropriately to the rather large no. of images I'd like to see up here :-) Perhaps we should look at some sort of on-wiki pre-approval process? maybe the bot request functions as such? - it's good to iron out these issues though.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I think I'm with Rjd0060 here. --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support; I disagree with the concept of opposing per what you would like to see as "policy" rather than what is the current way things are done. I also have no objection to people reviewing their own images; I like to assume good faith that if we select someone as a flickr reviewer they're not going to lie about it. Especially when it's someone I know, such as privatemusings, I have no hesitation in extending this trust. As always if we find someone lying about flickr licenses it's trivially easy to remove the flickr reviewer right and tell them to stop doing so (else we block), but I don't believe this will be the case here, so I have no reason not to support. Giggy (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Someone other than me is going to have to close this one, obviously.
  •  weak support - i think we need a new policy and my oppose here won't help. But i was not thinking about flickrreviewers that lie, i was thinking about human errors. We are all human and all make mistakes. I trust giggy so i will support. Sterkebaktalk 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support He wants to have this "permission" in order to bring in some free images for commons. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it. Assume good faith please! Can't see any possible damage whatsoever in doing this - and it'll save the work of other reviewers. How do you turn this on (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment - 75%  Support at this point in time, after over seven days - I think we can close this one as successful. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Mitchazenia

I am looking into this because, since I upload a lot from Flickr, I should do my fair share and review them. My activity amount is increasing over time and eventually will be a very common person around Commons. I wish to do this to give my fair share and not rely on everyone else.Mitch32(UP) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  •  Support. An all around pretty mellow guy. Trusted as sysop on en.wiki and knows his way around copyright stuff. I trust he will go through Category:Flickr images needing human review, while taking into account Commons:Flickr images, Commons:Licensing and Template:Flickrreview. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I trust Cirt so i will follow him on this. Thanks for helping out with the flickr images. Sterkebaktalk 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely! How do you turn this on (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support — per Cirt (talk • contribs). Juliancolton (Talk) 14:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I think he can contribute here well. MBisanz talk 16:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Trusted (in time) I'm sure. However reviewing the contribs & the deleted contribs I see nothing much dealing with licensing to allow me to make a judgement on copyright issues/understanding. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Having worked with Mitchazenia for several months, I've seen him review Flickr images and he's consistently demonstrated a solid understanding of which licenses are compatible with WMF. He's been incredibly diligent about filling in gaps through legitimate means (such as networking and persuading people to relicense existing images). His content work on our sister project Wikipedia is stellar (over one hundred good articles!) and becoming a Flickr reviewer would only make him more productive. If there were a strong support icon I'd use it. Has my full trust. Durova (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    You can: Strong Support :-) Or  Strong support How do you turn this on (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • How about Doubleplusgood? :) Durova (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support - based on comments of others and status as an admin on enwiki, if user is trusted to do full history merges and deletions on another major project, the user certainly has the judgment necessary to review Flickr images.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Very productive, active, kind and friendly user. No issues or problems here; Mitchazenia has my complete trust. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted --Mifter (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Huntster

Requesting permission to be a reviewer. While I've not been super-active here, my activity is increasing. I have good knowledge of licensing issues and would like to assist when possible. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  •  Support. Sounds good, thanks for being willing to help out in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I trust him. MBisanz talk 16:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - great person I'm sure, however the last couple of pages of contribs didn't seem to contain anything much in the way of reviewing licensing at all (& go back quite a way). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Based on comments of others - besides this isn't exactly hard work for anyone with half a clue.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. Giggy (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:How do you turn this on

I'm a fairly experienced user from Wikipedia, who came to Commons as a sort-of break from drama over there - I've decided I like it a lot so intend to stay here. I have uploaded a few images, some from Flickr, and have tagged other such images for no license/source etc. I noticed the backlog is pretty big, and I'd like to assist in keeping it smaller. Thanks. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. Is there anyone around who can "promote" me? I'd like to start working on the backlog! :D How do you turn this on (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. →Na·gy 15:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Mohsin

Im currently a user in Wikipedia and have contributed a lot, where I have received 5 barnstars for my work over there (en:User:Tangomaan). I started to use Commons ever since I have uploaded many pictures from Flickr. Many of these images have been uploaded for the articles over in Wikipedia, and since then I now know how everything works around here dealing with Flickr-type images. I exactly know whether a Flickr image meets the criteria of the requirement licenses of Commons, for when uploading images I always check whether it is a Attribution Creative Commons or a Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons, then it is accepted. I would really like to help out with the Flickr uploaded images, so anyway thank you! Mohsin (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous request is here. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well ? 9 days no reply. Mohsin (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I understand my request before was rejected, and I have now applied again because I think I am doing better than before. Mohsin (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 ??? Mohsin (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support - I took a hard look at the user's contributions, and although I see that he has had problems with copyright violations, I am sure all of us have. I will support him on no conditions and trust him enough to work on what Ecobbola has said, and I believe he would make a benefit to the backlogged Flickr Reviewing. :) -Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see any glaring issues, and the backlog is big; we can do with all the help possible. How do you turn this on (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. Giggy (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Shovon76

Hi all, I think I am capable to be a Flickr reviewer. Would like to know about the community's view on that. Thanks. Shovon76 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. Only 3 edits and no history of uploading flickr images or copyvio tagging. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Gato76680

Hi, I'd like to be a Flickr reviewer. Thank you. Gato76680 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. No recent history of uploading flickr images or enough copyvio tagging. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Abigor

Hello,

I would like to become a trusted user. I am very active with patrolling the new uploads. I see a lot of images from flickr, when the licence is bad I place {{Copyvio}} on it. But if it is correct I can't do anything. While i already checked the image. So this would help me, and would make sure we don't do double work.

See ya, Abigor (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  •  Yep fine with me. --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm confident he knows about Common's copyright requirements. Brynn (talk!) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems good, thanks for volunteering to help out in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. /odder 18:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Homonihilis

Hi,
I am an admin in tr-wiki (see to check) and had been "inspector" (sort of "trusted" user) in a similar project before I became admin. (I'm not listed any more since admins are automatically regarded as inspectors) Homonihilis (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  •  Support - Hizmetli at tr.wiki, positive contributions here. Thanks for volunteering to help out in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:OhanaUnited

I saw the notice at Village pump regarding Flickr review backlog. After taking a peek at the files, I realized that some files are related to animals & organisms and this is just right for me to work on because I am a bureaucrat at Wikispecies and an administrator on English Wikipedia. I hope that by becoming a reviewer, it can increase the speed to add species image to illustrate Wikispecies & Wikipedia articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a closed request for Flickr review status. Do not make edits to it.

[edit] User:Gary King

Hi, I'm User:Gary King over at the English Wikipedia. Most of the work I do here on Commons is for articles that I work on over at Wikipedia. When I visit the Commons, sometimes it will be when I'm working on an article and want to clean up the images; or when I'm working on an article and would like to add more images to it but can't find any suitable ones on Commons; in that case, I would go to Flickr and find one with an acceptable license to upload to Commons and use. Anyways, I plan to continue my work from Wikipedia over here at the Commons, and I hope that I will be granted Flickr reviewer status so I can help out in that area, too. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers/archive_6"
Personal tools