From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
== Requests for adminship ==

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
No current requests.
== Requests for bureaucratship ==

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Shortcut: COM:LRR

Requests for license reviewer rights[edit]

Catherine Laurence 3[edit]

request archive:1 2 3

  • Scheduled to end: 11:59, (UTC) (the earliest)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Your 3rd request was barely 3 months ago. I am not convinced that you have gain enough experience in the last 3 months. I recommend that you wait for at least 12 month and this request be speedily closed as  Not done. Regards. T CellsTalk 14:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@T Cells: I know that the failure of three requests indicates that my experience has major doubts. But what I want to say is: I think that the experience has been greatly improved than before. Take the last request and compare this time: Last time I had a misunderstanding about the original source of the picture. I mistakenly believe that as long as the image is in the source website, whether it is in the sub-page or not. But now I have also realized how naive this idea is. Then, I think I am familiar with COM:TOO. (This is often encountered in my daily patrols). And mark the files that I think are not in line with this policy as deleted. I am very happy to see that the vast majority have been removed. This proves that I do have a good grasp of most of the content of the policy. The reason I applied again was because I found that a lot of new files were from external websites and I needed a license review program. Now the backlog of this project is particularly serious. I want to do my part to help complete this work. If you have good suggestions, I hope you can ask. --Catherine Laurence discussion 15:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't help but think he is hat collecting. A few weeks ago, in his self-nomination statement for request for Global renamer right on meta, he said that he knows "global username policy", clearly no such thing exists. I know that's not relevant to this request, but it clearly shows that he doesn't know much about rights he requests. It doesn't matter how much cross-wiki experience you have. This is a local process, and I don't think you have much experience. So Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, a strong one. If this request gets declined, I suggest you to come back after a reasonable period of time. Masum Reza📞 15:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Sorry, what I wanted to say at the time was m:Global rename policy instead of Global rename policy. Forgive me for my memory error at the time. --Catherine Laurence discussion 15:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
You already have a bunch of responsibilities in your shoulder. You are a global renamer and a global rollbacker. It is true that we need more hands in reviewing files but I don't think you'll be able to devote much time. I fear that it will only result in sloppy reviewing since you don't appear to have much experience in patrolling files. Masum Reza📞 16:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100:I don't know what reason you think I don't have much experience, maybe quality? It is true that compared to other active users, I may have fewer files to patrol than them, but I don’t think this is because I have always kept the quality above the quantity in the patrol, that is, I prefer to patrol less and not because of the large number. The patrol caused a lot of mistakes. Especially in a DR, I mistakenly think that a place of historic interest in France is considered to be recently constructed and marked as needing to be deleted (because COM:FOP France) and then caused some confusion to the original uploader. Although the uploader forgive me later, it also made me pay more attention to the quality of the inspection. Another problem is that my time is not always sufficient, and most of the editors are editing at night. So I can't spend too much time on the patrol. And as you know, I am a GR and a GRN, so I think I will seriously consider whether each edit is reasonable, whether it is in line with the guidelines, and so on. Catherine Laurence discussion 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Being a GR and GRN have nothing to do with license reviewing. Even if you are careful, it is easy to make mistakes. By the way, I saw Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christelyn_Karazin_2019.jpg. Why did you start a DR? A npd tag would be sufficient, not to mention we have a speedy deletion criteria for apparent copyvio, F1. Have you read COM:NETCOPYVIO? I also saw that you nominated File:واجهة التطبيق.webp for deletion, with the rationale "screenshot of a non-free website". That is definitely not a screenshot of a website but of an app. That would be a straightforward G10, if you looked at where it was being used. It is likely the uploader's own work seeing how they advertised on arwiki. Masum Reza📞 06:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Christelyn Karazin 2019.jpg: I only found some similar pictures, but because there are too many pictures and I can't find the picture from the website, so I am careful to report to the DR to hope that someone can help me to see if it really comes from this website.
  • File:واجهة التطبيق.webp: Sorry this is my fault. Most of the websites in my country are presented to mobile users with such an interface, so I mistakenly think this is a website. And I didn't notice that they were used on arwiki. I am sorry.
--Catherine Laurence discussion 06:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Good answers. If you are uncertain or you could not find the source file, or the copyvio isn't obvious, it is always best to start a DR. On this DR, you said Possibly unfree image. Why do you think that? You need to provide clear rationale and strong arguments. And also in this DR, you said "screenshot of a non free website". That is possibly a non-free website. The description of the file itself is promotional. If I were you, I would mention that. Most of your nomination statements of DRs are vague. I don't think you are ready for this permission at the moment. Masum Reza📞 06:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Because it's like a photo of a document or an official photo of a government worker (such as [3]), this is not the uploader's own work. However, as to whether the picture was published under a free agreement, I did not find the exact evidence, so I kept the AGF and reported to the DR and wish someone would be able to assist in the judgment. --Catherine Laurence discussion 07:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It would not kill you to add what you said above to the DR request. I don't think you have read COM:DR#Overview. You see what I mean? Stop using vague statements in DRs. Or are you implying that you don't even have time to write down simple sentences? Masum Reza📞 07:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Please assume good faith, We are volunteers not employes. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But license reviewing is a sensitive procedure and requires extra time (except for some obvious cases). I am afraid if he continues the way he is currently patrolling files, it will only result in sloppy license reviewing. Masum Reza📞 09:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is their 4th request for LR and they are clueful enough. Since when has Commons become so rigid and strict in granting user-rights? :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Quilified enough, just make sure that you're not doing hat collecting. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @CptViraj: How did you analyze that "they are qualified enough"? My and others' findings seem to say the opposite. Could you clarify? Masum Reza📞 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. File:The Bund Light Show 2.webm
How would you analyse the copyright status of these?--Roy17 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. Not OK:Although the author noted that the image was released as CC-BY-SA 2.0, this is clearly an advertisement derivative work, and I noticed that the symbol is under the logo, indicating that the logo is copyrighted. Protected and its size does not match COM:DM.
  2. OK: COM:FOP Egypt
  3. Possible OK: COM:FOP China. But I noticed that the image contains fonts that may be protected by copyright, so some processing may be required to be OK.
  4. Possible No OK: Sorry, I am not familiar with this monument. So the following judgments are based on the information given in [4]: The monument seems to have been created in 1970, not meeting the 70-year requirement, and COM:FOP Japan does not apply to works of art. So it may be protected by copyright. Although I judge this, I prefer to ask the Japanese LR for help in determining the year in which the stone was specifically created.
  5. OK: The show is similar to Fireworks_displays, and the buildings that were photographed are all in accordance with COM:FOP China, so I think there should be no problem with copyright. And I found no similar videos on the Internet.

--Catherine Laurence discussion 13:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Catherine Laurence: could you please comment on one more: File:West Lake Light Show.webm?--Roy17 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: After looking carefully, I think the processing method is similar to File:The Bund Light Show 2.webm. One of them is that the video also I can't find a similar video on the Internet. Secondly, I noticed the two video files. Both are webm format and are free video formats. So I think it should be OK. --Catherine Laurence discussion 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
My answers would be #1 maybe OK since cocacola logo is PD-old and the sign looks quite simple even under UK law; #2 OK; #3 OK; #4 not OK unless the statue is old enough (which can be further investigated); #5 video OK but it contains copyrighted music, which was the reason I asked an extra #6 that has the same problem. For the photos, being more cautious is OK, but unfortunately failing to notice the music twice is not good enough. Thank you for your answers. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose.--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I didn’t notice that the speakers didn’t open properly when I watched the video. Your two questions will allow me to be cautious about the sound issues the next time I review the video. Thank you again for taking the time to give me your opinion. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: hank you for your interest in my application again. But I have a few questions: What do you mean by "disruptive editing"? I admit that I have applied for permission many times in the past few months because more and more people from mainland China are participating in editing Wikipedia, and I just want to unlock some permissions for better assistance. You can see that I answered the question significantly better than the last application, except for some error like video because I reviewed the video for the first time and other problems than making a low-level mistake basically seem to be the same as the correct answer. And during this time, my correct rate for reviewing image licenses is getting higher and higher. You can see that most of the files I mentioned for deletion was be deleted except for a small part due to OTRS or misjudgment. So I don't understand what experience and knowledge I still lack. I hope you can give pointers. Thank you. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

== Requests for CheckUser rights ==

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

== Requests for Oversight rights ==

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Media requiring renaming - 11 / Requested moves - 67
purge this page's cache