User talk:Russavia/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You've a new email

Hi Russavia, I've sent you an email. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will send you a response in the coming days. russavia (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Быстрое удаление.

Сегодня Вы удалили файл, который я номинировал и я решил спросить: нет ли какой-нибудь процедуры быстрого удаления, если на удаление номинирует сам аплоадер? Дело в том, что месяц назад я загрузил с помощью Commonist более 50 файлов, но потом обнаружил, что некоторые из них (а именно - 1, 2, 3, 4) уже есть на складе в гораздо лучшем качестве. Я выставил их на удаление, но прошёл уже месяц и ничего не изменилось. Поэтому если есть такая процедура, то удалите их пожалуйста, а если нет, то хотя бы подскажите, что с ними не так. Может я неправильно оформил номинирование?
Заранее спасибо. --Kaidor (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bureacrat request

Could you please process the first part Commons:Changing_username/Current_requests#A.Savin_.E2.86.92_A._Savin Many thanks - A.Savin 09:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

Pulkovo Airport panoramic view.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Pulkovo Airport panoramic view.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulkovo Airport panoramic view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello! Here is a new version with feather-like lines: File:WikiCommonsWings2.png. I made it a png for all the barnsars are in that format, including the original Wikiwings: making an svg would have meant to have a file wich was by half a bitmap image and by half a vector image; I think it wouldn't be very useful, but it's not impossible; if you want I can upload the svg as well.

I'm glad you like the idea of creating some barnstars for the WikiProject Aviation on Commons; a few days ago I felt I had to give a recognition to User:Kaboldy for his great 3-view drawings, so I created this File:WikiProject Aviation Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png. Also I thought about organizing a Project subpage to gather userboxes and barnstars: I drafted a proposal (here: User:MLWatts/Sandbox) which I was about to post at the Project discussion page. What do you think about it? Cheers, --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My pictures of Ukrainian MinFin

Hello. You've deleted my pictures taken from the official website of MinFin of Ukraine. You said that "The files do not constitute daily news or details of current events, and can't be construed as being official works of the Ukrainian government either." I don't agree with you. These images are official works of Ukrainian government. They are officially placed on the governmental website. These images also constitute the news and the events of modern history. So, what's the problem? Please, would you be so kind to explain your point of view? Why do you think so?

By the way, this link Commons:Deletion_requests/License_tags_of_russian_websites is about Russian rules, but not Ukrainian. We are talking about Ukraine. You know, it is another independent state, and I am sure that Ukrainian laws differ from Russian. Артём Наумов (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In reference to Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Artyom Naumov, Russian and Ukrainian laws are very similar in nature, as are many other ex-USSR republics, due to the USSR link. And the comparison to the Russian website deletion discussion is therefore valid.
You are arguing that photographs constitute "daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information". This is not how the community sees such discussions. Even more precarious is any attempted use at "official documents of a political, legislative or administrative nature (laws, decrees, resolutions, court awards, State standards, etc.) issued by government authorities within their powers, and official translations thereof;" -- again the same argument on the Russian websites discussions will prevail - photographs are not official documents.

If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to nominate the photos for COM:UD. You are also welcome to try and obtain CC licencing from the Ministry, and the photos can then be undeleted.

Почему не отвечаете? Нагадили исподтишка и в кусты?

As a volunteer editor on Commons, I do not receive any form of compensation for my time, which requires me to answer talk pages in a matter of hours, or even days. When I take days aways from editing, I can do so for days at a time, and I do not edit here. This is one such occasion.
This will, unfortunately, likely be my only comments on this issue. I simply do not have time to dig out tons of diffs and links. If you would like 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc opinion, use a single request at COM:UD. russavia (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure of subject on An board

I would appreciate knowing what I was supposed to do with this matter or any other matter where it is not clear to me - an experienced admin - exactly what should happen. It is clear that the uploader has images which are suspect. Equally I think the tone of the closure sends a very poor message to less experienced admins who may want advice. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As an experience admin Herby, you would know that Commons:Administrators' noticeboard is for "Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here."
You said that there are suspect photos at Special:ListFiles/Bebop7, because this editor apparently has more than one penis. However, this assertion is silly, because the image pages clearly state "Own work"; not "Own penis". There is no requirement on Commons that any photos of penises should be "own penis" images. It is not outside the bounds of reality that perhaps the editor sees a lot of penises in their life. Perhaps, they are a gay male! It is but one scenario. Also, note that all but one photo, use the same camera. The other photo uses same model, but different series. This type of discussion clearly belongs to COM:DR, as you have questioned their authorship.
Another editor has raised an COM:IDENT issue -- refer to my Porky's parallel situation -- is a man really identifiable by their penis? Well I know some who are, of course, but it is clearly against the spirit of COM:IDENT -- any ident issues are to be raised on Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people, and discussion can be raised to change this Commons guideline (NOT Commons policy) to change that guideline. Images, generally speaking, shouldn't be deleted on Commons based upon COM:IDENT without discussion at COM:DR, or by receival of a valid OTRS.
I will also say that your very opening comment comes across as somewhat trollish in the vein of "Oh goody, moaaaaaaaaar penises", and established ultimately irrelevant AN banter. You showed no policy nor guideline that has been breached with this editor uploading photographs of multiple penises. Perhaps you want the editor blocked? What exactly did you want enacted as a result of the thread, with a somewhat trollish lead-in?
The entire thread is entirely irrelevant banter which requires no administrator intervention or review, because the community at large deals with the issues as outlined above.
Given the nature of the topic raised (i.e. sexuality images), and the amount of shit that is raised on Commons Adminboards in relation to, in some instances, the very existence of these types of photos on the project, perhaps the community could ask we create COM:LETTALKABOUTSEX where all sexuality related discussions can be placed, and where cries of "Oh goody, moaaaaaaaaar penises" can be made without clogging the space and time of admins in general. russavia (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You know what? You're completely right! And since you're right, we clearly have no permission (release, if you will) from the owner of said penii. Since you're not a raving, trolling hypocrite, you'll be deleting them all as copyvios now, won't you? 06:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not ever, nor will I ever, delete a single image on this project under the knowingly false pretence of being a copyright violation. And neither would another admin; if they wished to keep the tools the community has entrusted them with. Please do not hide behind an IP and rave and troll on my talk page and hypocritically ask me to use the tools to knowingly cause disruption to this project. russavia (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD MacaoGov

have a little unhappy about that just protects the page forever as quick solution, just because I did not want to find me in that condescending and coarse tone from Smyth who even do not have anything has to do with the deletion discussion , instead of taking it up with me on my user page, and actually do something decent about it. There was no help available to helpe disc when it clearly could hear that, you adhere rigidly to the rules without really wanting to take a position or take me or the matter seriously and impartially just automatically keep fo rmed dne user who has been here the longest. What here shall not be taken as a personal sudden ejections, accusations or generalizations. It was just how I got the cash to know the other two users, and how I felt / saw it. If you have another version of the case (or council), I will be happy to hear it. But so far, is my desire to contribute to mediawiki, completely disappeared because of what happened. Hope, in both three are satisfied now. )-: -- 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please close deletion discussion

Please close the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caricature of Justin Bieber by DonkeyHotey.jpg, or please withdraw your nom? I've confirmed via correspondence with the author that the source inspiration for the artwork was File:Justin Bieber.jpg, which is a file that's been confirmed as free-use licensed on Flickr for years.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, closed already as Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, and confirmed as such by OTRS. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem, good to see that it was sorted. russavia (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sex drawings by User:Rama

I found the following sex drawings by User:Rama which should be deleted based on discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/All images in Category:Sex drawings by User:Rama:

Thanks! -- SLV100 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't File:Billed14.jpg (and its derivatives) fall under the pre-OTRS "grandfather clause"?... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe you are right. I have undone permission request for the billed images, as they do appear to have been grandfathered across. If anyone else has issues with them, they are free to act upon them independently of myself, but I do otherwise believe that my "work" here is done. Thanks for notifications to both of you. russavia (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Choco chip cookie.png Some nice pictures from Latvia. (Well not really so nice, a bit too rusty.) Maybe I will try to visit the place in the summer with a camera.

User talk:Neurolysis

Perhaps you are unaware that User Neurolysis went inactive after he started college about 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, the notification is automated as part of batch tasks. russavia (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Croatian translation

Sure I can help you tomorrow :) Vatrena ptica

Thank you Vatrena ptica, that is appreciated. :) russavia (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to en:User_talk:Russavia russavia (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek translation of Polandball

I can try for a translation not in a strict deadline of course. Γλαύκος (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help with this Glavkos, it's appreciated. :) russavia (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ι could also work on a translation in Esperanto...maybe next month though. I have to work on some other projects this month. Γλαύκος (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to en:User_talk:Russavia russavia (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Persian(Farsi) translation of Polandball

I have started translating it here. But I'm slightly busy so it'll probably take some time. I'll do my best anyway:)Vyatana (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vyatana, thank you ever so much for your kind assistance with this. It is appreciated. And of course, there is no deadline on Wikipedia, everyone is welcome to help with whatever they can spare the time to do. If you need anything from me, please let me know. :)) russavia (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I quite like Polandballs my self too :D. Just one thing, In the article you put in your talk page in fa.Wiki, the second image (The "Poland cannot into space" one) seems to have a problem. Could you check it please? Oh and, the article is here(not finished) if you wanted to check:) Thank you.VyatanaT 09:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Thank you so much for the images:). I just had a question if I may, I didn't quite get why Israel is represented with a hypercube?VyatanaT 12:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to en:User_talk:Russavia russavia (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

re File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

Do you have admin contacts on en:wiki who can check whether File:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg or File:2004a.jpg is the source of our copy? Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering whether 2004a is the full version and AirNewZealandFlight901 is a cut down square version for the infobox. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you may have a small problem over there, maybe the wrong person to ask, I'll inquire of others instead :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the other file was a completely different one, and 2004a was the original upload (Sep 2006). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Ru-interwiki can be also deleted. Alex Spade (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have been going thru the ~800 files in the PD-Russia category -- fixing those whose licencing can be fixed, and nominating for deletion those which can't. I guess after 4 years, we shouldn't have any files using that old template any longer. russavia (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faribamohajer.jpg


I think you speedy keep action with this DR is no good idea: the IP is right with the argument that there is no valid source given. Neither by you nor by the uploader. And the YouTube-link is no proof for this interview being by the VOA-network. Please give a valid source. --High Contrast (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A source has been provided on the file. One can plainly see the VOA watermark in the RFE/RL linked-to video. And it was widely reported in the media as being a VOA Persian broadcast. russavia (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Now the source info should be sufficient. You could have solved this issue with pasting this link in the beginning. You know: per COM:L "valid" source information should be provided. Private knowledge is not considered to be valid source information. Basically, the IP was right. --High Contrast (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Monaco is an asshole.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monaco is an asshole.png 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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


I think that's an unfair characterisation (Also, please comment on the content and not the contributor). Could you explain why we should have five different discussions about images from the same sculptor? Because your deletion argument was clearly the same in all five. Perhaps if I heard your reasoning I might understand. If you don't have a reason for doing that, then I would characterise it as unnecessarily splitting up the discussion across multiple pages, wouldn't you? Killiondude (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Each statue is from a different year, and may or may not be covered under copyright, or may have been a work for hire, etc, etc. You will notice at the top of the sculptor category, there is the {{NoUploads}} template. Acting in good faith, I have nominated images and have tried to separate them into individual works; to make the job of ascertaining copyright easier -- it is easier to concentrate on each subject in a DR. I can show examples of Russian architects who died in the 1960s/1970s, who created works in the Russian Empire (which aren't copyrighted) and during the Soviet era (which are still copyrighted), and my reasoning for separating the nominations is the same.
At the now-bulk DR, Sarah has noted that "most" of the works are not copyrighted, which leads us to ask which ones are copyrighted? We need evidence for each statue in order to keep them, and as Sarah notes the images need to be tagged appropriately, in order to provide as much information for not only our projects, but also our re-users. JeremyA notes that individual DRs are likely going to be required, and that was my reasoning in putting these to DR in groups. It's common sense really.
In future, please don't post messages to others accusing them of making a mess, and then expect them to be forthcoming. It's not really COM:MELLOW behaviour. Ask the question you have now done, and you will get the response you obviously needed. :) russavia (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Not being a copyright mogul, but having been a Commons admin for about the same amount of time as you (I think your RFA was just a few months before mine), I am still not sure I understand (indeed I saw that comment on the DR and was a bit perplexed). If the same man created all the sculptures, wouldn't the copyright status be the same for them all (given that they are public)? Also, the DRs were grouped by category/sculpture so it shouldn't be too hard to make categorical judgement on the all-encompassing DR (if indeed there are separate decisions to be made). I kind of see your point, but I still think the larger grouping is better. It's also a bit odd to cite com:mellow when you just called me a drama queen and made attempts at stifling this thread. :) Killiondude (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The ignorance of these admins is stunning. The death year of the artist is totally irrelevant for older US works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
please review the US copyright law include the No notice provisions. your mass deletions are disruptive. rather, per wp:before you should be checking the copyright status of the public work of art. please don't do this again, or i will elevate the matter to COM:AN. Slowking4†@1₭ 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


  • А в чём дело, ты можешь объяснить? Почему отели нужно удалять?

Affected: 80px 80px

And also: 80px

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Кажется моих там три фотографии - вот эти. Я жду объяснений. С приветом, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Hotell Olümpia.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Estonia. russavia (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Интересно, что там у вас на Западе случилось, несколько месяцев (с 16 November 2010 года) никого фотка не пугала, откуда ветер дует? Сегодня Google Maps выставил всю Эстонию в Интернет, связано ли с этим? Где будем судиться? Miami or Tallinn,

С приветом, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Russavia, ты чё молчишь, когда тебя спрашивают, или воды в рот набрал? What are You waiting for .... Christmas?

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello PjotrMahh1, please refer to COM:FOP#Estonia for freedom of panorama in Estonia. We can create a similar category such as Category:Russian FOP cases for Estonian FOP DR's, so that if the laws in Estonia are changed in the future, then we can undelete them. You will be able to upload files to local projects where "fair use" is allowed. Until such time as laws in Estonia change, these photos are not suitable for hosting on Commons :( russavia (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You and the endless supply of penis pictures...

What's the sense of trying to curb the endless uploads of users taking pictures of their dicks and uploading them to Commons if admins like you keep letting them? And don't even waste your breath telling me they continue to be unique and/or useful additions. – JBarta (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a response to this? Or is this merely a mini-rant you are placing on my talk page that you wish to go unanswered (don't even waste your breath [sic]). russavia (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not a rant, it's an admonition. I can't imagine you'd have an impressive response, but you're welcome to try. – JBarta (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well since I've been told not to waste my breath (sic), and that you doubt I'd have an impressive response, I guess I can only keep you wondering as to what my response would be. Now, if you would like a real response to your sparkling repertoire above, I would suggest that you drop the (self appointed?) admonition paddle, and rephrase anything you may have to ask, and I would be glad to answer anything that is asked in good faith -- the above comments by yourself lack even an ounce of that. If you are unable, or unwilling to do that, perhaps I can offer a consolation of some cheese to go with your whine? russavia (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Фотограф может передать только те права, которые есть у фотографа. Если фотограф не получил от скульптора право на коммерческое использование производного фотоснимка, тогда он не может передать это право и лицензировать снимок по свободной лицензии. Поэтому и получается вывод, что указана фальшивая лицензия. Или в этой логике есть ошибка?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I used "only" because saying that photos use a "false licence" does not assume good faith of the editors who upload photos to Commons. It's really that simple. russavia (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
То есть выражение "false license" означает намеренно подложную лицензию? Я имел в виду "ошибочная лицензия" или "фальшивая лицензия", а не "подложная". Значит, я криво называю это по-английски? Не подскажете ли, как правильно писать, чтобы показать, что автор выбрал неверную лицензию? Выражение "wrong license" подходит?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg

Actually, if you look at the two usage links, you would see it is not in use. It's a server problem, but the file is not on either of those two pages. It is a direct copy of the SVG I linked in it's original state, and was simply moved to Commons in May, it was a local copy of the SVG we already have here. Fry1989 eh? 22:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so its not in use. But the remainder of my close (and reclose) stands. The file is significantly different to the other file, and as it is a superseded file, deletion requires consent, and we do not have that here. There is no harm in keeping both files and allowing editors to choose which one they want to use. russavia (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created an AN/U for your speedy double closure of the file. There was already an AN/U in the past about admins speedy double closing something without allowing discussions, and you should have known better than to do it. Fry1989 eh? 19:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:R2D2 from Lego.JPG

Hi, Just a question, I would like to clarify something. If Star Wars stuff is copyrighted even in this form, how can there be photos of Star wars cosplays, here Category:Star Wars characters and this one File:C-3PO on Star Wars exhibition.jpg. Just trying to understand the difference, as I am an image patroller on my home wiki. Thanks, Teemeah (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Teemeah, the answers are basically provided at Commons:TOYS#I_know_that_I_can.27t_upload_photos_of_copyrighted_art_.28like_paintings_and_statues.29.2C_but_what_about_toys.3F_Toys_are_not_art.21 and Commons:TOYS#But_how_can_we_illustrate_topics_like_Star_Wars_or_Pok.C3.A9mon_without_pictures.3F. In short, such characters are copyrightable, and photos of them are derivative works. russavia (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, I know these links, thanks, but this still doesn't answer my question why the C3PO exhibition photo is OK wile R2D2 exhibition photo is not ok, when both are characters? Why are stormtrooper and Darth Vader cosplay images acceptable hen the design is exactly the same from the movie, thus should be copyrightable? Teemeah (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They aren't ok, and they have now been nominated. There are 12 million + files on Commons and some of them are bound to be copyright violations. We, as editors, are only responsible for nominating those which we come across, and the existence or non-existence of other files isn't part of any motivation in putting files up for deletion, nor should they be. russavia (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No source

Dear Russavia, please don't (ab)use {{No source}} for files that do have a source, like File:Soviet Union Australia Locator.png. If you don't believe it, start a regular deletion request. Multichill (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not abuse, but is rather pointing out a glaring problem. The editor in question has obviously used an underlying map for this work, and they haven't credited inline with COM:L. It isn't our responsibility to search thru hundreds of maps to find the one they used to create the work. Hence, the no source tag on the map (which I have reinstated). It's no big loss, the file can be recreated if need be, with correct licencing. russavia (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


My internet is getting very strange, so I am not able to connect to IRC at this time. I saw you sent a PM, I will read it as soon as I get back on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Galician?

Hello Russavia. Yes, I was born in Galicia region, and I was educated at school both Spanish and Galician language. I don't collaborate a lot on but I can lend you a hand. Which article you need to be translated?--Dura-Ace (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can lend me a hand contacting those photographers that I talked you about on November, or, if they've rejected those petitions, contacting other new photograpers. There are a lot of photographers with thousand photos, but only few of these photos have enciclopedic value.--Dura-Ace (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I can make contact again with those requested. I haven't heard anything back from them. If there are any other photographers you have in mind, give me their links and I can contact them too. :) Look forward to seeing the finished Galician article too....looking good :) russavia (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You can try with this photographers:

Thanks :)--Dura-Ace (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Fountain Europe Square Moscow.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fountain Europe Square Moscow.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Dear Russavia,
I'm sorry for rather hastily using the words "irrational", "casual" in my posting on the noticeboard, mainly prompted by the deadlink of one of the DRs in my email notification, although I disagree with your closure of DRs and I could not understand your use of the term "our dramuh boards". Have a nice day and hope the very best for you. You can always welcome to drop a message on my talk page and I assure a friendly reply, support and cooperation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi, sorry I just saw this. Thank you for your words above, I appreciate it. We as editors can always agree to disagree, but when this occurs we should engage in direct discussion. Taking things to what I call the "dramuh boards" should ALWAYS be used as a very last resort after all other avenues of discussion are exhausted. In this case, the avenues of discussion never began. In relation to the DR of the plaque, I am happy for you to ask for second opinion on it, and if another admin feels that the photo should be deleted, then I'm not going to intervene. Admins should close DRs based upon policy; and COM:SCOPE is one of these core policies. As I am very much an inclusionist in terms of media, I feel that such a photo is not doing any harm on this project, and there is possible scope. It is up to our thousands of editors to determine whether that particular photo has any usage possibilities on any WMF project. I believe it does. But as I say, please feel free to seek second opinion, but if you do, I would appreciate it if you could perhaps mention my comments on possible scope. Other than that, drop by here anytime if you need help with anything, or have questions you need answered. We are all here to collaborate in a healthy environment. Cheers, russavia (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Здравствуйте Russavia по моей просьбе Тина Митусова отправила разрешение на свои фотографии. Письмо она отправила два раза на этот адрес пожалуйста проверьте почту.

Разрешение она дала на следующие фотографии.

Symbol wait.svg In progress. russavia (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Images on English Wikipedia's bad image list

Russavia, I'm not sure why you created this category, but do you intend to add all images on w:MediaWiki:Bad image list? You have missed quite a few. How will this category be maintained as images are added to or removed from the list? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

All images will be added, yes. And how to maintain it is being discussed with a couple of different editors. Will likely be a bot. Cheers, russavia (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Dmitry Medvedev bumblebee.jpg

Sorry about that ugly template, I had no idea it was so automated. Happy editing. Penyulap

No problem, it's ok. It is automated. Cheers russavia (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
how about the article ? I wouldn't mind doing a pic if you'd like to help a little finding a few sentences for it. Penyulap
actually, I guess it goes in his article, or political satire or something like that. Penyulap
It likely would not go into Medved's article, as he was never the subject of great satire. Putin on the other hand is. It would likely be possible to write an article on political satire in Russia, as this is a topic all in itself, going back to tsarist times, etc. Be careful though doing anything to do with political satire on Wikipedia, people get banned for that shit over there ;) russavia (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Mist lifting off cedars by DJ Schulte.jpg
Chaos it is that is for sure, it irritates me that patently encyclopaedic material should be mishandled and excluded. Like the very notable irony that the campaign website for the senator who came up with SOPA had inadvertently infringed copyright in a way that SOPA would itself address. They got in hot water for the copyright image, and I thought myself cheeky by going about it the right way contacting the author. However, all we can use it for, due to chaos, is articles about trees ! sigh. what can you do. There is a very clear difference between personal attack and satire of someone's public persona, which is well understood by leaders, and notable. But can you talk reason to a mob, that is the question. :) Penyulap
blah ! I talk too much. Penyulap


Dear Russavia,

When a new user asks you for assistance -- as I did yesterday -- it would be courteous of you to respond.

I sent my letter to OTRS today.

DmitryBorshch (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dmitry, you haven't left any messages for you, and I can see no message on your talk page, nor can I see anywhere else you have asked me for any assistance. Can you please elaborate. Thanks russavia (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check My letter's subject:

Fw: Copy of your message to Russavia: Wikimedia Commons e-mail from user "DmitryBorshch"

DmitryBorshch (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dmitry. It appears your first email was sitting in my spam folder, along with the one you just sent. I don't check that folder very often. Anyway, the email you sent to me is perfect, and if you have sent it to permissions-commons, it will be OTRS permissioned very shortly I would imagine. Cheers, russavia (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

DmitryBorshch (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

meta:Don't be a dick covers this situation quite well. Mind you, this image is on the English Wikipedia bad image list, but seems to be so perfect for describing Docu's actions.

@Russavia, it seems that Docu this night removed the above cat from all images that were in it. If there was no prior consent/discussion about that, this act borders to vandalism IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism? Not so sure. Pointy? Definitely, given my comments about "bold, revert, discuss" on the category discussion page. But frankly Docu's actions are atypical of meta:Don't be a dick. If this category is kept, as it should be, I expect Docu to go thru and re-add that category to every image he has bulk removed it from. Otherwise it would be disruptive behaviour on his part. russavia (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)