User talk:Russavia/Archive 12

Category "X"?

Hi there, I see that you uploaded one of your Flickr photostreams about the "Elin Kling X Guess By Marciano Capsule Collection Launch", and bot-assigned all of the images into Category:X. This category is intended to show media pertaining to the Latin letter 'X' or the Cross symbol 'X'. I have manually removed that category from several of the uploaded images (leaving them with no assigned category), but frankly grew tired of finishing the task. Can you please assign this photostream to a more appropriate category? Thanks! Grolltech (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've done that. Don't worry about the images in no category; I am systematically going through and cleaning up all uploads, including categorisation, etc. BTW, are you familiar with Help:Cat-a-lot? If categorising is something you do, you might find this useful. russavia (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr location cats

I realise the whole method of tagging on Flickr is very different to Commons categories. However when fixing it, can you try not to entirely strip it of location-based information?

For instance with this, Wembury is the correct location category. Or with this, Devon shouldn't have been removed. Ideally it should have been replaced with either a better location or topic-in-location cat (Category:Insects of Devon for instance), but its better to retain the file in the top-level location than to remove it from the location's tree.

Its only the superfluous categories that should be outright removed, for instance a file in Category:Exeter, Category:Devon, Category:England should have Devon and England stripped.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya, thanks, it's interesting we have Category:Insects of Devon, I didn't realise we were into categorisation that deeply. :) Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind, especially for these categories. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA

I was not trying to uncollapse the whole thing, but just my comment as it contained evidence directly pertaining to the matter of the RfA. Could you please uncollapse my comment?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you remove the  Comment from the voting tally I will allow your comments in the comments section to be uncollapsed. There is no need for essentially the same things being said all over the page. russavia (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why that would be necessary, but I did it anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You placed a  Comment in the "Votes" section, instead of the section that is clearly marked "Comments". Sorry, this should have been made clearer to you. russavia (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) my comments got collapsed too, I don't mind, because I'd rather the whole thing would just stick to the on-commons contributions rather than having people bring up the everywhere else crap. (and it's not because I'm blocked on en.wiki either, which is totally fashionable) Penyulap ☏ 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that this is about Fae and his contributions to Commons, not about anything else. Cheers, russavia (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6223252762).jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6223252762).jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6221278902).jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Eleassar, instead of speedying FOP files, could you instead DR them so that they can be added to "FOP" categories and possible undelete categories. We recently saw Armenian FOP change as per {{FOP-Armenia}}, and we never know if it might happen in Slovenia. If Slovenian law does change, by doing that we are able to undelete all of these files in the future; or when copyright expires. Cheers, russavia (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm listing these files at the relevant DR discussions in any case. This seems more efficient to me. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem. That's fair enough. russavia (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front de Libération de la Bretagne.jpg

???

Was it so important for you that you were brought there from COM:AN/U? Or should that demonstrate that you were influenced by this COM:ANU-nonsense? Although, Fry1989 started a superfluous threat there, he should not gain the impression that your decission is based on something unfair. Otherwisely you will find yourself on COM:ANU with a comparable nonsense threat. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Me saying that I came there as a result of seeing it on AN/U, does not mean that I read the AN/U thread, nor cared to read it. I simply saw there was a DR being discussed; I saw that it was well over a week late being closed, and closed it not by counting votes (I don't know where Fry1989 get's the idea that DRs are votes in the first place), but based upon my own knowledge of COM:TOO#France and based upon Jcb and PierreSelim's reinforcement of that, and then by the obvious and rigorous application of COM:PRP. russavia (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to pop over and ping you that I replied to you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Why does EVula still have admin privileges?. Normally I wouldn't, but a good chunk of your comment is based on a very inaccurate, though fairly reasonable, assumption (which nobody bothered asking me about, which is why it had never come up in this fracas). Just trying to clarify things a bit so that I'm not being accused of something I didn't do...

Now, being accused of something I did do, well, I can't really complain about that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the comment was based on pretty accurate information. You did delete a heap of files that were previously kept at DR, one of those files was in use, you did tell tm to fuck off, you did dismiss concerns with "I'M IN UR COMMONS, DELETING UR PORN", etc. As admins we are expected to cop abuse; I get it on a daily basis from around the place and ignore it. Anyway, matter's finished as far as I am concerned. Got stuff to do. russavia (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was specifically the "deleting multiple images in use" part that I was objecting to; I didn't (and I've explained the situation around the one image that was in use). But yeah, I think the matter's pretty much run its course at this point, so there's not much point in beating the horse.
Also, a major thank you for changing that subject line on my talk page; I wanted to do it, but didn't want to be accused of trying to hide anything on my talk page. Same with the file name for File:Pin.jpg; it needs to be renamed (regardless of my opinion of the image itself), but I'm not touching it until that AN thread gets officially archived, just to make sure nobody thinks I'm trying to hide stuff while a discussion is going on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be renamed. Give me the name you think it would be renamed to, and I will do it. I haven't checked the AN/U thread again since, but if they are still going on about stuff there I hope they drop it soon. Don't worry, we'll find something to bitch about on Commons, something new pops up every other day; just like the bitching that occurs about Commons on enwp and elsewhere. russavia (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looks like mattbuck already renamed it to File:Pinterest nude bodypainting.jpg, so it looks like there's nothing standing in the way of us all moving on to the next thing to bitch about. Woohoo! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooops

I just thought we may wish to provide a more decent image in case someone does want to search for the purpose of commons. If Larry Sanger finds out he may just make another cute 'search wikipedia' video with it. I am still wondering if a vandal adjusted code somewhere. My image still showed up when I searched and I wonder if we should try the file name next.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and I wasn't suggesting you were engaging in vandalism -- if someone didn't know the backstory (which I did) it's possible they could have thought so.

As to the problem, I really don't know. This bugzilla request is open, but I don't think anyone knows what the problem is. russavia (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thick skin. You can call me a total <insert vulgarity here> if it helps the projects. At the same time I was replacing the image with a mellower one I also wished to test if it was the image itself, which it wasn't. I think the only things left could be the description, file name or backlinks. Will it cause any harm if we re-name it, strip the description, and remove all the wikilinks. I still smell a rat in the code. Searching for purpose in commons seems too far a stretch for a machine glitch. The pie image with 'result' search was mentioned as possibly being "The pie image has the French word "résulte" in its description so I would imagine that's why it's coming up.." It was total fluke that I thought of searching 'result' to see why 'purpose' failed. I tried 'addition' and other flow terms that came out fine. Can you think of any other words that would fit in the same set w:Set theory as 'result' and 'purpose'? We may be able to dump "résulte" from the description of the pie image and see if it fails/passes to test the above theory. If it does then we will either have one or two in the fail set. We could try all at once and see if the 'purpose' image fails to top out again. Rename to jpg8655443.jpg, remove all text including licences, and remove all wikilinks. We could even remove/change the filename from from the wikilinked pages as well. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message at User_talk:Grin#Can_you_help; Grin is native Hungarian speaker, perhaps it is within that description.

Failing that, perhaps Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence needs to start being looked at. We have a foundation with $40 million in donations; I am sure we can demand of them some of these funds to help to fix what is a perennial problem here, and it's often not of our doing. russavia (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I never realized that there were problems with search before this issue. I don't think I have ever had problems searching for images but one can never tell. I recently searched 'Philip Timms' to gather all his images in one category but if anyone spelled it wrong what are the odds of those images showing up? I don't know how search engines function so I usually start broad like 'Timms'. If that produces more results that I care to sort through then I narrow by adding 'Philip' and even 'Philip T. Timms' if it needs to be finer. A handy search feature would be files with 'Philip Timms' that are not already in Category:Philip T. Timms I am sure this can be done by a bot but it would be a nice feature without a bot. I just got your message as I was typing this. Great find and good work! I wonder if it is because it occured twice. We should try adding it 20-50 times to another DR and see if we can game the search results. If so it would be a very bad thing and open to vandalism. We may wish to add a policy that since this is a known issue then anyone exploiting it will recieve an instant 48hr block that can escalate. --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added to the buzgilla request a note that Commons space shouldn't be used in determining search results. Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence is something that is looking better and better to me every day. Perhaps we need to get something like this implemented by the WMF. I've also noindexed the page to see if that will fix the issue inline with the note i've left. russavia (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is an issue for the WMF. I remember a girl very upset, and I think in tears, at help desk in en:wp. She googled her name and the deletion review for her article was the top hit, I think. The article had been deleted, but all the dirty laundry was still in the DR. Someone mentioned that the DR should have been 'noindexed'. I think 'noindexed' needs to be ignored specifically by search sofware but if that fails or is not set then all of our dirty laundry will show up in search. I know that 'Canoe1967' shows many of my pages in google search but I don't really care. The same as I don't care about the images of mine that other sites host without attribution back to the file page. It isn't worth the legal battle but if The New York Times tries it I will have lawyers down their throat very quickly. They can either quietly pay me off or I will drag them through the mud. I should see if that is blackmail in some countries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you revdel my edit summary on the image? I didn't realize that search may still find the word through edit summaries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• We also have a time delay. I added Canoe19671967 to the description in File:Visual consent image.jpg a while ago and it still doesn't show up when I search Canoe19671967. Do we know how long the delay is? This may help our test edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not too sure, I'd say give it 24 hours for starters. #wikimedia-tech on IRC might be able to give more info. russavia (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. My removal of the Hungarian word for job or work may have fixed as well if there is a long delay. The search translator may see it as purpose and not job or work. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you do a speedy courtesy delete on File:Signature - Chanel Ryan.jpg. I got an email a few days ago that she doesn't want to have it in her article. Two other admin recommended OTRS but she may be too busy or OTRS may be too slow. I removed it from the two en:wp sandboxes it is in. They may go live before OTRS comes through though and it will show in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am taking your word on this, and have deleted the file. Of course, this does not mean that someone else will not come along and upload it for use in the article; there's no copyright related issue on it. In relation to that article, I would suggest delaying any publication in the mainspace until such time as the OTRS issue is sorted; it's going to take some time from what I have seen. russavia (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. She forwarded me 10 emails for images and I forwarded them to OTRS. Although she was producer for most of them and has rights to release, she decided to have all the photographers fill out templates as a precaution. OTRS replied to me that she or they need to send them so I relayed that to her. Is it kosher if I give her your email to assist? On her twitter she says she just did 4 states in 10 days so I can see why things are slow at her end. She is working on her 2014 calendar so there may be other images coming. She doesn't want to edit or upload so it seems it will be me in the middle. I may try to arrange one ticket number for any future images she has rights to and save all the headaches. Something like "all my images uploaded by Canoe1967 are fine with me" type thing. --Canoe1967 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate but not exact

File:Nude on stone paving.jpg and File:Male nude by Sasha Kargaltsev-6.jpg are duplicates but presumably the version on Flickr has been touched up as the light balance differs and so they have a different checksum. My original seems to have better flesh tones on my monitor, though your version has a geotag. I'll leave it to you to judge what the best call here is. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Fae, both of these are the same file. Can you give me the other file. Cheers russavia (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, link fixed. --Fæ (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will delete my file. russavia (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Handling privacy

Thanks for handling a recent sensitive DR with caution for the privacy of the model and photographer. Taking the initiative to do the necessary verification without leaving a trail of permanent records was a mellow and friendly way forward, without compromising the mission of this project or our associated values. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Финское консульство в Мурманске

Здравствуйте. Вы как-то просили фотографию финского консульства в Мурманске. Я сделал снимок. Вот он: File:Здание консульства Финляндии в Мурманске.JPG. --Insider (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting info

Hi! Did you upload this image? Note that while it's indeed licensed with a good license (CC BY) on Flickr the text blurb accompanying it conflicts the license (no derivatives). I've marked a few of those with {{noderivatives}} but I don't know if that's the right thing to do here. Confusing and irritating... Palosirkka (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the message. Normally "noderivatives" would be the way to go if it was uploaded here under an allowable licence, but the source stated otherwise. In this case, they have chosen CC-BY on the Flickr stream. But yes, this should be clarified, so what I have done is removed the speedy deletion tagging for now, and I will make contact with them via Flickr/email and verify that they are fine with the CC-BY licence and tell them if they wanted no derivatives that they should relicence that stream. If they confirm that they are fine with the CC-BY licence as currently is on Flickr we can keep the photos; if not, I will delete the entire stream. That would be a shame, given some of the subjects they have uploaded. Thanks again for bringing that to my attention. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for raising this, I've now heard back and the CC-BY-2.0 licence is correct. I will make necessary changes to descriptions, etc I clean up my uploads. Cheers, russavia (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Moscow (8351248273).jpg

File:Moscow (8351248273).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A.Savin 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Moscow (8351251471).jpg

File:Moscow (8351251471).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A.Savin 18:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

FOP

File:Cloud Gate Chicago (Explore) (4865734246).jpg in Chicago? We may need to check the rest in the cat. Should we try to email w:Anish Kapoor and see if we can add him to User:Canoe1967/Sculptors?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Hi. Can you please be more pedantic with the categories. Ittakes a lot of time to remove redundat categories, when for example out of 4 categories 2 are parent categories and 1 is false (sigh)? Thank you. -Htm (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi again. Chanel is emailing OTRS and I think her ticket is #2013041310001871 . I don't think she is too upset that the images were deleted. Could you verify the ticket number for us? I had to archive all my emails that contained it because my isp only allows 10mb. Btw, I just heard that a friend's 18yo nephew and a friend of his are planning a trip to Aus next November. I think they are planning 6 mos with working visas but don't know what/where they are going to do there. Any help from a connection there will probably be appreciated if you will allow me to give them your email address.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avion

Hello!

You have put thousands of aircraft photos in the category if the lovely french town of "Avion". I guess that was not your intention. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I'll clean that category up in the next 24 hours. I've got 33,000 photos from that Flickr stream to upload, so I will remove categories for the rest of the uploads. If you want to help to categorise these avia photos, that would be awesome. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Filenames, descriptions and categories for images by Eva Rinaldi

Since you created Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Eva Rinaldi) in February 2013 you've uploaded what seems to be over 9000 images from flickr by photographer Eva Rinaldi.

The uploads are appreciated, but...

You must improve the quality of your filenames, descriptions and categories.

As my history will attest, I just spent over an hour partially cleaning up a few dozen of the descriptions and categories. Files you added to Category:April 2012 in Sydney, for example, had descriptions so long that I was able to remove over 13,000 bytes with no loss of information, and I could have cut a lot more out than that.

If an image is worth uploading, its worth the time to give it a decent description. 72.244.204.123 04:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about this; they are in my cleanup category, and all files are being worked on by myself in this regard. It will simply take time, but I have cleaned up over 70,000 files in the last couple of months, so before long they will all be done. russavia (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Email

I've sent you a reply. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

the other files

hello. the cropped image and the "making of" video are not tagged. people coming to see the images from other places may not know those are up for deletion, and might not weigh in on the deletion discussion. i'm not inclined to tag them, because i am not familiar with the way things are done here. ps: give fae a snuggle for me. ;D Sockmachine (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

billboard on plane shots

this one is ok -Penyulap ☏ 10:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russavia, though you might have considered it already by yourself, the advertisement on the billboard in the foreground of these images File:JetSlag.jpg, File:Swiss Airbus A340-313X; HB-JMM@LAX;08.10.2011 620fg (6298324777).jpg, File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A340-500; 9V-SGE@LAX;08.10.2011 620dq (6298252597).jpg, File:China Southern Airlines Boeing 777-21BER; B-2055@LAX;08.10.2011 620gs (6298924902).jpg isn't covered by FOP of U.S. and is above TOO. Cropping or blanking of the ad might be a solution. --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey mate, thanks, I'll be looking at this entire stream in due course. Because of the number of files, f2c keeps crashing, so am having to upload it by set...arrgghh. But yeah, they do seem to have the issue you mention, so I will deal with those files; possibly simply by deleting them. :( russavia (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, I gotta give you props, that is quite hilarious!!! I won't delete that one on this basis alone!!! Cheers, russavia (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. Let me know what you want done with the others if there aren't pics of those models, if you have time. Penyulap ☏ 10:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but we photos of those aircraft, so modifying them isn't necessary. Plus, I think you could better use your time on other things on the project. Cheers, russavia (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

helicópteros

Hello, Russavia! You can help me? On the Wikimedia Commons there aren't enough photos (or in general are absent) helicopters of the Argentine Cicaré, Sorhge and AeroDreams companies. Whether you somewhere met sites where there is a photo of the above helicopters and which license allows loading on the Wikimedia Commons? I will be grateful for any help. Здравствуйте, Russavia! Можете помочь мне? На Викискладе мало фотографий (или вообще отсутствуют) вертолётов компаний Cicaré и AeroDreams. Не встречали ли вы где-нибудь сайты где есть фото вышеуказанных вертолётов и лицензия которых позволяет загрузку на Викисклад? Буду признателен за любую помощь. Лукас Фокс (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Privet Lukas, thanks for the message. Leave it with me, and I will see what I can find online. It might be a few days though, hope that's ok. Cheers, russavia (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Russavia! Лукас Фокс (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and Pricasso

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=98295786&oldid=98292110 – I'm just letting your know that I won't allow Pricasso's work to disappear from the Internet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

People are welcome to use the files under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence that was granted to us by the artist, so can you please ensure that the requirements of the licence are met (which currently is not). russavia (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What else is needed? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to attribute it to "Pricasso/Pricasso.com" and state it is licenced under CC-BY-SA-3.0 (and provide a link to the licence as part of that statement). That is best practice. russavia (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured that out on my own:

• https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=543489&oldid=543285
• https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_%28cropped%29.jpg&diff=543491&oldid=543362

I'll see if I could have my friend modify the video description on Vimeo. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You've only made the change to one image; if you would do the other licencing amendment that would be great. Thanks, russavia (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I made the same changes to both pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i had to bypass cache. Whilst I'm not condoning the use of the images in the way that you have, I do at least thank you for ensuring that the licencing is correct. russavia (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You may get more fame, thanks to Jayen466 baiting[1] on the de:Wikipedia:Kurier-talkpage. I got my share of "fame" already[2]. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(sarcastic) Yippee!! If German Wikipedia Kurier do decide to do a story; we'll see if they do the right thing and contact me directly for my input, or whether it will be an anti-Commons attack piece (as one would expect from English Wikipedia SignPost). Personally, I think the issue shouldn't be over-dramatised as much as people want to do it. russavia (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

twitter

Did you send me a personal invitation to twitter? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could have done, I should probably have checked exactly what emails it sent it out to; looks like couple of thousands by looks. But hey, we can't be Wikipedia friends, perhaps we can be Twitter friends instead :) russavia (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure it wasn't someone pretending to be you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, that's cool, but you know it would be hard to pretend to be me, I'm a one of kind bab-y-y-y-y russavia (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar: Pricasso

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating an article on an unique, notable artist and for being blocked for attempting to provide readers with a link to a gallery / category of free images publicly hosted on Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer is NO !

Ok Ok, I admit it, this little very nice polandball animation with little polandballs trying to penetrate the defences of commons is quite cute, and illustrates tongue in cheek that all the huff and puff in the world has failed to blow one polandball off the project, yes, it's true.

But to all the repeated demands and requests and urgings by email that I'm not receiving in my email inbox, THE ANSWER IS NO, SO PLEASE EVERYONE, STOP ASKING. I'm not going to make an animation with hundreds of tiny p*****'s trying to invade commons. sheesh, I'm getting pretty fed up with this pataphorical harassment. Penyulap ☏ 07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that people are not harassing you by not sending you emails asking you to make things for them? Yes, I agree, this definitely does need to stop. russavia (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) I wish they would. I'm such a dramaqueen. I get awesome requests now and then, but it's never enough ! Penyulap ☏ 07:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you like a request? russavia (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

like 'shut up' or 'fuck off', oh wait, you mean serious ? Well, so long as it's easy, makes me look breathtakingly brilliant and kills three trolls by brain haemorrhage when they look upon it. Then (spoken quickly) 'okay'. Penyulap ☏ 07:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been 14 minutes already, ok doesn't have to be brilliant, just has to be now now now! (withdrawal symptoms). Wait, sorry, no, I'm under control. I'm ok. You can't rush humour. I know this, I know this. I know this. <half-stifled> argh! Penyulap ☏ 07:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Template_talk:Sexuality_barnstar#Proposal_to_change_the_image_in_the_barnstar. I think this may just fulfill all of your requirements for such a job. russavia (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ewww no. As far as I'll go along the potty humour path is the above suggestion about the polandball anim. Actually drawing such things don't interest me. Penyulap ☏ 07:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, umm, I was actually going to suggest that you some up with a tasteful barnstar design that we could use in this barnstar. As you may or may not know, it is an issue of contention amongst many in the community, and if we can make this a decent barnstar it would be great. So can we be serious on this one perhaps? ;) russavia (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is half an X-rated barnstar already. -Penyulap

what about this? -pen

oh that's easy then, I'd suggest go moe, two barnstars holding hands and animated beating hearts in both of them. I'd figure it is important to see if there is support first. I wouldn't want it to languish forever, like waiting for John Carter to ever give out barnstars before the end of time. The current Barnstar is blah, that's understandable. Just two barnstars holding hands would be the go. Penyulap ☏ 08:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this sort of thing. Penyulap ☏ 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a barnstar and is also very cisnormative and heteronormative. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

obviously herifulramdertion and servenitresolkractulness makes up for that. Penyulap ☏ 10:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If people wanted to talk english and say what they meant, they could just complain 'It's not gay enough', which is not the objective. The objective is to address "an issue of contention amongst many in the community" by coming up "with a tasteful barnstar" that most people are cool with. I can't see how assuming that all gay people are offended by non-gay people makes any more sense than the assumption that all non-gay people are offended by gays. It doesn't follow logic or reality. Penyulap ☏ 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)