User talk:Russavia/Archive 19

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

John Butler Flickr photos from WAMI

Hi there, I noticed that this image of John Butler is listed as CC BY 2.0, but the original says that it's all rights reserved. I generally try to avoid images and copyright issues, as they rarely have any relation to common sense, but could you have a look at this one. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@The-Pope: this image is all ok, as it was verified as being under CC-BY-2.0 when it was uploaded. The copyright holder has since changed the licence to (C) ARR -- this is allowed, but what we do here on Commons is add {{Change-of-license}} to the image. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

COM:AN

Hello Russavia Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Block by User:Sven Manguard. Geagea (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but quite frankly, it's a waste of my time, so I hope you'll excuse me when I am going to ignore it completely because this is nothing but dragging out the nonsense that has occurred. russavia (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AN

Will you please do something about these personal attacks? The user is continuing to attack me and nobody is willing to do anything to stop it. Fry1989 eh? 19:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Western Pacific Airlines Boeing 737-300; N949WP@COS, October 1995 AGT (5288157397).jpg

File:Western Pacific Airlines Boeing 737-300; N949WP@COS, October 1995 AGT (5288157397).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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Psychonaut (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Michael Potts (2).jpg

Have you noticed the copyright statement in the EXIF?

This image cannot be used without the express permission of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, Australia.

I would argue that the CC statement constitutes "express permission of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, Australia" but it still looks strange. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but yeah the CC statement on their website overrides all. The same thing with photos from DFAT's Flickr stream which the relicenced to CC-BY after my request - they always intended on doing so, my request simply pushed them to do it. All is ok with imagery from DFAT websites (including those with AUSPIC copyright -- a curious anomaly of Aussie commonwealth govt). russavia (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't continue this hypocrisy. Please address this issue of trust.

You are a hypocrit. You carry on like a pork chop when someone piques your indignance in any other forum, yet when someone brings an issue to you here, you think that a revert to hide it is okay. Then you have the temerity to think that a revert again is suitable when an on-topic matter is raised, just because you don't like it. I wish for you to address the issue of trust of you as an administrator as per your appointment. Again, and again you refuse to discuss the issue of trust. Reverting will not make this go away. If it is a de-adminship process that you want, please leave this thread intact, and say so; express that you are unable or unwilling to answer the question on your talk page, and you prefer that we go to a de-admin process.

I cannot discuss this with you at enWP as you have been banned, in all your forms, on all your socks; your talk page access cut off, and your talk page has been redirected. And again, you seem to push away the fact that it is your trust here at Commons that needs to be guaranteed, not at enWP where it clearly is not.

By the way, what do you call that bit about removing comments that you don't like? Seems pretty gutless to me. Don't like to demean your archives with a little bit of criticism? Takes away a little of that light when you look in the mirror?  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abd: anything you'd like to say to the guy above? russavia (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Russavia, can you confirm that you're the person who I've blocked repeatedly on ENWP and who has commented on my talk page there? I'd like to know if it's an impostor so that my opinion of a random troll doesn't effect my opinion of you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you

Hi Russavia -

Please confirm whether or not you are the person who I've repeatedly blocked from ENWP in the recent past. I saw that you archived my previous post without answer, but this is something that really requires either an answer, or if you are unwilling to provide one, you resigning from your advanced privileges on Commons voluntarily. Given the amount of disturbing content RevDel gives access to on Commons and the amount of other authority Commons admins have that effects other projects, I see a lot of problems with someone who would be trolling another project in that manner having access to advanced rights on Commons.

This section really does require a direct answer on your part, and one that is more than one word long. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Could you point out a situation where the user has done anything inappropriate on this project? Did you read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44#Russavia the sockpuppeteer before posting your comments here? What does activity on Commons have to do with activity on Wikipedia? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons has a unique relationship with other Wikimedia projects, in that we can't really avoid Commons in the same way we can avoid the Japanese Wikipedia. Additionally, Commons has a pretty sizable amount of deleted content that is either sensitive (for things like consent issues) or sensitive for legal issues. Being that viewing deleted revisions is not a logged administrative tool, Commons has some quite sensitive deleted material, and Commons is a project no other project can avoid, whether or not I can directly point to something wrong that Russavia has done wrong on this project, this is a set of issues that he needs to provide a reasonable answer about or step down. I'd prefer to give him the chance to either provide a reasonable explanation or step down gracefully, but given the potential damage Russavia could cause by misusing admin rights here that don't leave a log and the fact that he's already proven willing to abuse other projects, I intend to escalate this as needed if Russavia doesn't respond here.
Coincidentally, someone pointed out to me last night that we do have CU confirmation that he is in fact the troll on ENWP... so my original post here has morphed in to more "Please provide a reasonable explanation or step down," rather than "Please confirm whether or not you're the person doing it." Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Russavia is doing a good work here on commons. Importing an en-wiki conflict to commons is not mellow and this conflict should remain imho on en-wiki. I don't know what is going on exactly, but i think this should be discussed on russavia's enwiki-disc. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well; I'm not an uninvolved user in Russavia related matters. But hope I can see things with a neutral point of view.
It seems the main concern raised by Kevin Gorman is the risk if Russavia misuse his rights to access the sensitive information (as an admin) against the EN:WIKI users to whom he has problems (if any). We have no evidence of such incidents other than some naughty comments from his side. Moreover, it is not a matter that Commons or any other individual project can handle. I failed to see any such points at ToU too. So I think it is better to discuss with WMF Office or Meta Stewards (if there is any serious concerns). Correct me if I'm wrong. Jee 03:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not simply concerned about him misusing his access to sensitive information against people he has beef with, I'm concerned that his level of behavior on ENWP coupled with his refusal to answer here strongly indicates that it's a significant misjudgment bordering on insanity to give him access to sensitive information of any sort in the first place. Deleted content on Commons not infrequently is of a nature that either poses serious concerns regarding the consent of the subjects involved or serious concerns regarding the ethics or even legality of the content deleted. Giving access to such content to someone who actively trolls and disrupts other projects is more than problematic. Given the potential level of harm to the projects if Russavia does make significant misuse of his tools here, I have every intention of escalating the issue if he doesn't respond here (and the discussion can't be held on ENWP as he can't reply there without breaking local project policy.) It's also certainly something that can be addressed either by Russavia himself or by Commons, especially given that Commons has a far easier procedure than most projects for removing advanced rights (and yes, I will be initiating said procedure if Russavia chooses to continue to not respond here.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand; but it is ultimately the responsibility of WMF to protect the users from misusing the data collected. Commons can interfere only if we have evidence of such misuse. See Commons:Administrators/De-adminship #De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power. IMHO, he is a bit humorous in his acts and comments; but not very problematic in Commons (to my eyes, at least).
I'm aware that there is an anti-WMF nature in many of his acts/comments. We are in opposite side in most of such discussions. But my understanding is that WMF prefer to ignore him. You can make an attempt; but I don't think they want to involve in this ugly mess. :) Jee 03:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If there are problems on a different project, then the problem should be solved on that project, and any necessary discussions should be held there. If the policies of the other project prevent any of this, then this is a problem which needs to be solved at the other project. Problems at other projects are out of scope on Commons and should not be imported here.
COM:DESYSOP lists two situations where a user may lose access to his tools: the user may be inactive on Commons, or the user may be abusing power on Commons. As far as I am aware, Russavia is neither inactive on Commons nor abusing power on Commons. Therefore, I do not see how the user would lose his access to any tools. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia, I'd guess almost any answer now would be better than no answer. You were asked a serious question, it deserves a serious answer. Smallbones (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Günter Grass? (2830489779).jpg

Hi Russavia, though I was rather sure for myself, I have asked at Forum and all were sure that this image does not show Günter Grass. So, I recommend deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Túrelio, thanks for that. I will put into my deletion category and take care of it. Thanks again. russavia (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/

You uploaded thousands of images from this flickr account, and the images uploaded to Commons has Template:Korea.net tag. the tag contains an OTRS permission information and the source flickr account has set their license setting to CC-BY-SA, but I still have a question why KOCIS remains this message

"This official Republic of Korea photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way. Also, it may not be used in any type of commercial, advertisement, product or promotion that in any way suggests approval or endorsement from the government of the Republic of Korea. If you require a photograph without a watermark, please contact us via Flickr e-mail."

in descrption pages of some of their images (recent images, most of those are posted in Summer 2014. This is an example.) . I think this is very confusing. --Puramyun31 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Puramyun31: we have no problem here. Back when I made my initial request to KOCIS, I made an error in telling them how to change licencing so that future uploads would appear under the CC-BY-SA licence. I recently got in touch with them again to ask them to relicence all uploads (past and future) under CC-BY-SA, and they have obliged with my request. russavia (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

re Sock

I understand what you say about 'not here to build encylopedia' being not a Commons thing, but at some point people like Mr. Horvitz need to not be tolerated. His entire group of work here includes him in the picture, so how can he possible also be the photographer? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Prop 7

Aloha! Hey, I like the Prop 7 text. BUT (There's always at least one) that all other accounts remain unblocked should be in every proposition, since those are socks. If he wants to work with us, he can always chose one of his accounts or open another one, preferably under his real name. Just a thought. I try to keep it short and sweet. Maybe parts of your text (more general stuff) could be above or underneath, so we keep the propositions short. As you might have heard, peeps tend to be lazy and not read everything. Just an unconfirmed rumor tho... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of deletions

Just a courtesy note that I've tagged a string of images you uploaded from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stream because they are marked in the title and caption as being copyright to a third party. One example is File:Tongan police and military. Solomon Islands 2003. Photo- © Gary Ramage, Australian Defence (10730388313).jpg. The way I found them all was this search for "© Gary Ramage, Australian Defence". -- saberwyn 21:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice User:Saberwyn. I will get in touch with Defence and see if they are happy for them to be kept under the CC licence. IF these were AusPic photos they would be ok, but unfortunately they aren't. If I don't hear back within a week, I'll go ahead and delete them as part of my upload cleanup. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll appreciate this

Hi Russavia,

The only Antonov An-2 registered in Denmark

I appreciate little edits such as this. In return a photo of an Antonov An-2, the only one registered in Denmark (OY-SAK). I realise it is Ukranian and not Russian, yet I hope it is close enough for you to appreciate it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And, thanks for creating Category:C-130J Hercules (Royal Danish Air Force) as well. I have moved additional photos from Category:C-130 (Royal Danish Air Force) that are clearly identified as being of the modern C-130J type into that new category as well. The exact type (or the specific aircraft I photographed at least) is actually a C-130J-30, an elongated version of C-130J, but I suppose that is too much of a detail that it should be reflected in the category structure, or? --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Slaunger, no problem on the categories and stuff. But just one correction, the An-2 isn't an Ukrainian aircraft or Russian aircraft, it is a SOVIET aircraft, and in fact was built at numerous factories across the Soviet Union, and also in Poland. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, thanks for the correction, which clearly exposed that I am an aviation ignorant. In my sloppy research I had only gotten as far as reading than Antonov is a Ukranian aircraft manufacturer, and that is where I stopped. I have now read most parts of the interesting article en:Antonov An-2, and I see now there are many nuances and details to learn about this particular aircraft. --Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you categorizing your uploads with a bot?

I'm reviewing and re-categorizing your aviation upload for a while (and enjoying the photos very much), but for the life of me, I cannot understand the logic behind the odd categorization I encounter. Please enlighten me. Best, Oyoyoy (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Oyoyoy: can you please give me a bit more information on what categorisation you are talking about? Cheers, russavia (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's one example (although there are even better ones): see your categorization. The registration of this bird appears in the title, so why categorize it under Boeing? Some of the categories are even more vague, like: air, aircraft, etc... Oyoyoy (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, if you see the image in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (aviation) it means I have yet to cleanup that upload 100%. Here is how the image categories will appear once cleaned up by myself. russavia (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean that there are more than 83K images waiting for you to be "cleaned"? I hope you'll live long and healthy. But why on earth to make them "dirty" in the first place? Why drop plane pictures into categories like: air, aircraft, aviation, boeing, etc.? Oyoyoy (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dumps into the landscape category.

I'm sure this has been done before. You have recently added numerous photographs the the "Landscapes" category. The page as a clear description of what landscape is and what should not be added to the page, along with a banner warning that the page is overcrowded. I realise the page was uncrowded when you dumped these images there. That is because myself and several other editors spent the past 12 months cleaning it of thousands of images of the type that you just dumped. The landscapes category is not a dustbin category. As the page notes, picture should cover at least a few square kilometers to be called a landscape. Pictures of meerkats, people, buildings, mountains and flowers do NOT belong into this category. Thank you for your additions to Wikimedia, but please take a little care with the categorisation of future uploads. If you are unsure where to place an image, you can categorise it as "Uncategorised" or just leave the category field blank. By doing so the image will probably be categorised correctly eventually by other editors. By dumping images into categories where they do not belong, you hide them, making them unavailable to others and effectively wasting your time in uploading. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Brassica oleracea

Hi Russavia, many files in a bad category... Minerv (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg

File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Pyramid Lake (Nevada) (cropped).jpg

File:Pyramid Lake (Nevada) (cropped).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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:HerkulesC130.jpg

Hi, herc shot on: 2012-10-26 at Cork Airport (EICK). I have hi resolution photos of that plane but not for Commons :) Regards --Tadekptaku (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost funny

Russavia, you recently categorized dozens of castles as vegetable. You added about 300 pictures of European castles and churches to the category of the Brazilian town Fortaleza. I just, once more, collected hundreds of edits while removing incorrect categories from your uploads, and there's still an awful lot more to be corrected. My guess is that at least 90 % of the categories you add need to be either deleted or corrected. I don't think it's clever to let stupid software categorize pictures. When you upload a load of similar pictures, isn't it possible to pick just one or two categories that fit them best? Please? --Sitacuisses (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is checking "Automatically detect categories if none are given manually" in flickr2commons. Jee 05:07, 24 July 2014 (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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected: 


--  Gazebo (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Video

You should try to have this video released under a free license ! Pleclown (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent uploads Category:Photographs by Platforma Obywatelska

Hi,

I just wrote it on Polish Wikipedia E-mail list, but don't know if it reached you:

First of all - it is great that these pictures have been uploaded, but it raises some serious questions:

  • Privacy issues:

There are some of the pictures of people randomly taken on streets in some politcal context they might not be happy to be placed:

See: File:25.09.2011,_Malbork_(6185793645).jpg

There is an elderly couple, which - probably were just sitting on the public bench. The politian who is talking with them is w:pl:Sławomir Nowak - former minister, currently accused of corruption. I don't know if they are happy to be placed in such a context.

According to Polish law, publishing such pictures requires agreement of portrayed persons, if they are not commonly known, public figures. So - there is no problem with Mr. Nowak, but there is an issue with invading privacy of photographed elderly people, who migth or might not agreed to be published in such context. We should at least mark these pictures as subject of this regulation with template "Personality rights".

  • Authorship

Currently these pictures are marked as taken by "Platforma Obywatelska RP from Polska". Actually party cannot be an author. The author is a photographer, who (maybe) worked for the party. At least it should be changed to "Anonymous photographer working for Platforma Obywatelska RP from Polska". But again: according to Polish law - in order to legally publish something as an anonymous work - there is a need for written agreement from author. Otherwise there is an obligation to mention his/her authorship. I wonder if the PO has such agreements. If not - before upolading - you should ask PO authorities for the names of the authors, or the proof that all theri photographers signed appriopriate agreement. Knowing, typical carelessness of the Polish politicians - they might simply collect pictures from various sources and do not pay any attention to copyright issues. Polimerek (talk)

Or just take a look at this picture:

File:Najmłodsi zwolennicy Platformy Obywatelskiej (6163301002).jpg

The filename suggest the baby is a "young supporter" of PO. I think the baby is too small to even know what "PO" is :-) Maybe its father is a supporter, but he might simply come to see prime minister. I would rather opt to delete such pictures. 12:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: IDF

Hi! Just want to let you know that I read what you wrote here, and I truly appreciate your efforts. Thank you. FYI, today they changed the license for the images from Op. Prot. Edge to CC-BY-2.0. Aviados (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aviados: thank you for the kind words. Good to see the IDF has changed some licencing on some images. One can only hope that they do so for the rest of their Flickr stream to ensure we can keep images on Commons (or reupload them). Cheers. russavia (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; there are some valuable images there. Again, much appreciated :) Best regards, Aviados (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass FlickrMail

Do you know of any tool to facilitate mass FlickrMail, or even a FlickrMail bot? (Of course for desirable Flickr PM, or it would get blocked soon.) I found the Flickr PM Greasemonkey script but nothing else. --Nemo 10:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Was it you ? :)

[1] Pleclown (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

2 DRs

Hi Russavia, hope you're well. I was was wondering about the status of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Conor Ashleigh & Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AusAID photographs taken by the Australian Department of Defence. Should these be closed as keep or delete? Regards, FASTILY 11:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fastily, all good here thanks, hope likewise for you. The Australian ADF images I haven't heard back from as yet, so feel free to act on that DR accordingly, unfortunately. In relation to Conor, one more week would be great in order to finish discussing with him. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Done for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AusAID photographs taken by the Australian Department of Defence! Best, FASTILY 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Conor Ashleigh

Hi, today I closed that old DR as deleted. I assume that was OK an there is no progress in releasing those images by their author Conor Ashleigh, correct? --JuTa 17:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there *could* be, but I'm not sure. Check out #2 DRs. Regards, FASTILY 21:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@JuTa: /@Fastily: -- doh! Conor is currently on assignment in Cambodia, and whilst he doesn't object to his AusAID imagery being on Commons, I am just waiting on getting the permission letter back from him. Oh well, the OTRS people will have a nice time undeleting the 600 images ;) russavia (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Avarian main page.

Hi, Russavia! I want say that I need for any assistance for making the Avarian Wikimedia fully and completely. Are you sure want to help me and generally to be a friend? Talk to me. Thanks. --Gazimagomedov (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"private" photos from flickrstreams?

Hello Russavia, i found in Category:Photographs by Heribert Pohl that you uploaded also some photos of unknown people in more or less private settings like File:KLAC Weihnachtsfeier 2011 Schloss Wackerbart 035 (8036171919).jpg, File:Oktoberfest 2004 54 (8036070340).jpg, File:Seilchenspringen für Erwachsene (8036472248).jpg, File:Bischofswiesen 2010 (8036133952).jpg, File:Bischofswiesen 2010; Prost! (8036134069).jpg, File:Bischofswiesen 2010 (8036133687).jpg, File:KLAC Weihnachtsfeier 2011 Schloss Wackerbart 007 (8036182862).jpg, File:Spanischer Charakterkopf aus dem Sauerland (8450262033).jpg. I think this is normal when you pick up a complete stream, which has many usefull images.

My question now is what to do with such imaages? I think there can be legal issues (personality rights, no consent obvious etc. even if published under a free license on flickr, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, but i'm not an expert in this), and most of these photos are useless/out of scope. Do you take care for deletions yourself or should other users like me request deletion for every affected image, or can I put them into Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (delete) so that you check them? (the last option seems best to me, but I don't know if you want it this way). Holger1959 (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing those images to my attention. I have gone through them and deleted them. If you see obvious images such as the above please feel free to move them to my delete category and I can do them en-masse after going through them. Thanks for your help. russavia (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thank you! will do this from now on. Holger1959 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

I'm sorry to bother you with this, and you don't have to answer. But I'm wondering if it's really you on WP:ANI, or is someone trying to get you into trouble? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr images from Ecuador

Hi Russavia,
you uploaded some 4000 images of Ecuador from Flickr to Commons... and placed all of them in the Category:Ecuador. This seems to me to be a clear case of overcategorization. It took me c. 1 hour to remove the cat:Ecuador from some 200 of those files. You further placed all of those images in the Category:Piñas. This too is overcategorisation. My questions:
1 Could you please help in removing cat:Ecuador from all of those files and
2 put them in meaningful subcategories of category:Piñas.

Or did I overlook something there? --Cayambe (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Best regards, --Cayambe (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

    • You placed more than 3000 of those images in the category "Pinas" which is a municipality in France. It takes a lot of time to move them to "Piñas". Please be careful when uploading so many images. On top of that, many of the images are so similar, that their value could be discussed.--Jordiferrer (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia

It's best to just make a new account for you to start over. I feel bad seeing an admin like you get driven off of Wikipedia like that. You're a good editor, and an administrator no less, so the project is a loss with you banned like that. Just move to a new location, make a new account and start over, keep a low profile, and follow the rules. I really want you to come back. The project needs you. Gutiierrez (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Fastily also left the project (voluntarily) and I think editors being treated like that was one of her reasons. Fastily was my favorite admin who I will always have respect for. Gutiierrez (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Broken photos from Flickr

Looking at Category:Flickr images needing human review, I see a large number of broken pictures where a portion of the picture is missing. Example: File:Al trabajo en Bici Nº 101 (14763045413).jpg. These seem to have been uploaded by you. Could you take a look at them? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan4: thanks for letting me know; i've deleted them as they were uploaded on a latter pass with the bot under different names. Cheers russavia (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

Hi Russavia. I noticed these reports at RFPP on the English Wikipedia. Are those IPs you, and can you confirm that you would like those subpages to be deleted? If so, then I'll be happy to delete them for you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Development of Zhungar Khanate.jpg

Hi Russavia, I hope you remember me from our discussions on en:Wikipedia re Korean articles. I have a question about this image. It's a direct scan from the 2009 copyrighted book China Marches West by Peter C. Perdue. My view is that it's not a derivative work as there has been no transformation, modification or adaptation from the original. IMHO that makes it a copyvio and it should go. What are your thoughts? Best, Philg88 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have marked it as missing essential information, but as it is from a recent book it's unlikely to be freely licenced. Cheers, russavia (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No probs. Hope to see you back at en.wiki at some future point. Best, Philg88 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human review

Dear Admin Russavia,

As you know, we are all volunteers on the Commons project. While Commons has many licensed reviewers, I have noticed that many of them are inactive and don't mark images anymore. When I don't mark images in flickr human review, the backlog seems to grow and grow--and the images are mostly the same unmarked ones that I could not mark earlier. Unfortunately, after September 2, I will have to spend much less time marking images here because I have a job to do in the real world. It is unfortunate that there are not many active reviewers on Commons but if the flickr human review system starts to get overloaded and users (including yourself) ask why their images are not marked, please ask other reviewers to mark images too...or the whole system will break down. Its unfortunate but I don't know where the other licensed reviewers are sometimes. And the flickr images just keep pouring in.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

your question

[2] I don't get to commons logged-in that much and missed your ping. Maybe a good thing. Yes, I can see why you'd ask. However, I don't find that telling people they are hypocrites is an effective way of communication and I don't know where we ever got the idea that it was. Okay, maybe we know it isn't communication, we say it to blame and avoid looking at ourselves and our responsibility for the life we create. It never works, but we keep doing it until we learn something better.

In any case, the people skills of too many Wikimedians suck, even some with advanced privileges. Good luck, in any case, Russavia.

By the way, I have taken up the habit of reverting comments on my talk pages when it's clear that there is no actual attempt to communicate, nothing being said but angry venting and blame, and no listening. So why bother responding, and why clutter up my talk archive with non-conversations? It's all there in history, so what?

Just had a highly experienced and heavily-hatted Wikimedian (edit count over 500K) revert war with me on my beta.wikiversity talk page, then in my talk archive, reverting me there and protecting it. I'd say he was trying to commit wiki-suicide, but then again, he thinks the English-speaking community on Beta are rodents and therefore very dumb and can't use Google translate. I love rats, my daughter has four of them, and they are sociable and intelligent mammals. Like some of us. See [3]. --Abd (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain...=

I can't imagine why you reverted my good faith comment. Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FW: I've got something for you.

See the message. I know you are blocked on enwiki with overwhelming community support, especially from admins allied with User:BatteryIncluded: Dennis Brown, AGK, and Boing! said Zebedee. 103.244.189.171 12:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

The source provided http://images.flysas.com for File:Tenzing Norgay (cropped).jpg and File:SAS Inauguration of SAS Trans-Asian Express, From left- Nime Norgay, daughter of Sherpa Tenzing Norgay, Prince Bertil and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay in Stockholm.jpg, and possibly all the other SAS images you uploaded (I have not reviewed thwm all), is insufficient because it does not lead to a page where the images appear, so we are unable to verify the copyright tag you added for these images. We would like to keep them but essentially no source is given because it leads to a homepage without any possibility of finding the actual images directly. Can you please fix this. Ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a full source. Particularly because if I do give the exact source, it will only give one an error when they click on it. Anyway, any essential information is already in the files EXIF. russavia (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard that such a link was enough, but your an admin, so I suppose you know better than I. Is the error due to a subscription required website? Ww2censor (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IDF photos

An anonymous ip user made some changes in the files description. I revert his edits when I saw that they include more then just removing links to IDF social media resources. I appreciate if you handle the files description with the ip user as you are the uploader. see my talk page. Sorry for bothering. Geagea (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

any idea?

I was surprised that the ever-busy Wikipedia censors left in the name of the hostage they may or may not be suppressing [4] but removed some 88-character fact by Andrews Darlene 1, who they claim is you. I wonder what the heck it was that was so interesting. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL russavia (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how you managed to find out about that "filter", but I sure wish I had the printout of all the filters in my mailbox. (but apparently even sysops from other language wikis don't get access to them) Wnt (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note w:User:Russavia/messages has been blocked against page creation for quite some time. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IRC

Pop in at IRC as soon as you'll have some spare time. I need to talk to you about some files you have uploaded. Josve05a (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_19&oldid=136133078"