User talk:FlickreviewR/archive4

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

Bot disabled + replacement[edit]

This Bot is currently disabled due to malfunctioning. The replacement is User:FlickreviewR 2. Any questions regarding file reviews should be placed at User talk:Zhuyifei1999, the operator of the new review Bot. --Denniss (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

{{bots}} {{[[Template:User:MiszaBot/config |User:MiszaBot/config ]]}}

I'm sorry, but there is an error[edit]

I uploaded the two files have the license "Attribution - Share Alike 2.0 Generic." (Telephone card - Parigi, foto Augusto De Luca.jpg) - (Telephone card - Bruxelles, foto Augusto De Luca.jpg ) can control, thanks --Ferdinando Castaldo (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2013

File:Janine Antoni - ICI March 15, 2010.jpg cc-by-nc-nd-2.0[edit]

What's the beef with cc-by-nc-nd-2.0? Looks sound to me: "You are free to share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format". Why isn't it compatible with Commons? There are numerous files on Commons that use it - for example this October 2013 file File:Eberswalde Schicklerstr 2013-10-08 ama fec 77.JPG. You might have notified me on my Talk page. I'll copy to your Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Noncommercial and nonderivative restrictions are not permitted at Commons, only if used with a free license. --Denniss (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello, you confirmed this file licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0, but it seems not to have this licence on flickr.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some more uploaded from Iry-Hor, f.e. File:Mentuhotep VI.jpg.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
1) You are talking to a Bot. 2) The license was verified shortly after upload, some time later the Flickr user changed the license but a CC license is not revocable. --Denniss (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds plausibel. But can the license change be proved? I mean, it's also possible the bot was manipulated at that time. ;) --Sinuhe20 (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Bot takes license info directly from the tags at Flickr and the review tag was not added by anyone else so this review is safe. --Denniss (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm believing that, but theoretically the source code of the bot could have been manipulated. ;) So there is no real proof, or is it possible to look into the source code? --Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Source is available on fisheye. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick caveat[edit]

If you have a comment about the new User:FlickreviewR_2 bot this is the wrong talk page, go to User talk:FlickreviewR_2. Maybe everything here should be archived, and this talk page can be redirected to User talk:FlickreviewR_2, I vaguely recall that double redirects are not more seriously wrong. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)