Commons:License review/requests

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

Shortcut: COM:LRR

Archive (latest archive)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Before requesting, please read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files and Picasa Web Albums files.

To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons. They should also be dedicated in license reviewing every so often and offer their help in the backlogs. Post your request below, so that the community can voice their opinions. The community may ask a few questions to verify the user's knowledge. After a few days, a reviewer or administrator determines whether there are no severe objections to the candidate. If there are not, the user will close the request and add the candidate to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.

To apply, submit your request at the bottom of this page. Copy the code below and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours).

{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

Hanooz[edit]

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