Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2008

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

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Monobi

[edit]

Hi, I requested to review Flickr images about a month ago and was told to come back when I had more experience[1]. I think I've reached that point (I now have over 200 edits and have done a little bit of image work at en.wikipedia) and can confidently review flickr images. Thanks, Mønobi 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Powerek38

[edit]

Hello! I know it is not entirely clear whether being a sysop elsewhere allows you automatically to review Flickr pics, that's why to be on the safe side I've deciced to submit my request here. I'm a sysop at the Polish Wikipedia and I've moved many pics from other Wikis to Commons, mainly because of the need to use them in my articles at plWiki. I'm also a frequent visitor (not a contributor though) to Flickr, so I think I could manage the reviewing quite well. I hope you won't mind. Powerek38 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Jaqen

[edit]

Hello! I have uploaded many photos on Commons. Some were mine, others were from other Wikimedia Projects and others from Flickr. I have an account on Flickr and I like to search for free useful images. I also ask the authors to change their license into a free one (eg, this one of Daniele Luttazzi).
I am admin on it.wp and I know licenses quite well. I am not very active on Commons, but I could help a bit in reviewing Flickr photos. Thanks --Jaqen 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of what I said above, but consensus has spoken. *evil rogue laugh* — Giggy 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:evrik

[edit]

I have uploaded hundreds (maybe 750?) of images to the commons. Many of those have been from flickr. I'm offering my services as a trusted user. I understand the issues involved. Thank you. Evrik 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Falcorian

[edit]

I have edited Wikipedia as Falcorian since the beginning of 2005, and I have uploaded dozens of pictures to commons including my own works and some from Flickr. I understand which CC licenses are allowed on the Commons and which are not, and I'm familure with editing Wikimedia wikis and the policies that go along with it. I would like to be a trusted user so that I can confirm the licensing on images that still require confirmation when I run across them in the courses of my editing. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Bellayet

[edit]

Hey everyone - I would like to request permission from the community to review Flickr images. I am an admin on Bengali Wikipedia (bn.wp) and Bengali Wikisource (bn.s) and spend a good deal of time working image backlogs there. I have over 250 edits and 152 uploads at commons. I can't say that I am going to spend an inordinate amount of time on backlogs over here, but I would like to be able to help out with flickr reviews. Thanks.--Bellayet 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Fernando Estel

[edit]

Hello.

I would like to be a trusted user. I haven't uploaded many pictures, but most of them are from flickr and also I have made an extensive use of Magnus Masnke's bot. I know the valid licenses and I am also helping answering questions from spanish-speaking users regarding licenses at Commons:Café. I have also helped to translate some pages, image descriptions and templates to spanish. I am more active at the spanish wikipedia, and most of the delete tags I have placed were image copyright violations found there. Being a trusted user I will collaborate with flick image reviewing in addition to reviewing those I upload myself (or using the bot).

Thanks ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Nousernamesleft

[edit]

I'd like to request review status. Tackling the backlog seems one of the more prominent jobs on commons, and I'd be glad to help. I suppose I'm qualified to ask for speedy reviewship, since I'm a sysop on en.wiki. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily promoted :) Majorly (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kakofonous

[edit]

Most of my uploads to Commons are from Flickr (all with appropriate copyright status) and, despite the fact that FlickreviewR does an excellent job of periodically clearing the backlog, it grows every day with files that the bot cannot find and those that have not been run through yet, so I want to help fix that. Kakofonous 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Mike.lifeguard

[edit]

I've been fairly diligent about watching and dealing with uploads at enbooks, and I'm reasonably knowledgeable about Commons-specific stuff at this point. Dunno what else might be needed here :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Pessimist (aka w:User:Keilana)

[edit]

Hello, I'm Pessimist, also known as Keilana around various wikis (see userpages for confirmation). I'm a sysop on the English Wikipedia, and would like to help out more around Commons. I've got a reasonable clue about copyright, and feel that I could help the Commons more by reviewing Flickr images. Thanks, Pessimist 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Yamanbaiia

[edit]

Hello!, i have uploaded about 100 pics, 30-40 of them come from different Flickrians that i contacted. I want to be a trusted user so i can stop augmenting the backlog and start diminishing it. --Yamanbaiia 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Sanchom

[edit]

Hi, I've uploaded 18 images, a lot of them from Flickr. I'm an admin on the english Wikipedia (proof). I probably would only be reviewing my own uploads for now, but possibly more. I just don't want to add to the work of others when I could do this myself. Sancho 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be preferabe that you avoided reviewing your own images. So at least two entities would agree on that image's license. Every of us has mistakes. However, you could decide to review at least one image for each image you upload. Thus the work amount wouldn't increase. Platonides 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. This makes sense. I could certainly do this. Sancho 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

444pixels

[edit]

I would like to be a Flickr reviewer.

I have read all instructions on Commons:Licensing, Commons:Flickr images and {{Flickrreview}} 444pixels 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

WODUP

[edit]

I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia, and if there are no reasonable objections, I'd like to be a reviewer, please. Thank you. WODUP 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)

[edit]

This bot is not on the list of approved reviewers. Neither is its owner, Magnus Manske. The bot should not be reviewing its own uploads, which can lead to problems such as Image:Bill Cosby (56318935).jpg and Image:Yuri Gagarin Headline, 1961 (NASA) (463614642).jpg. I'm requesting whoever gave this bot the authority to vet uploads remove it. -Nard 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that {{Flickrreview}} does not make it sufficiently clear that it only asserts that the licensing here is the same as on Flickr. Just like with the FlickreviewR bot, an experienced user with the common sense to know a Flickrvio when he sees one needs to go over the images.
So the problem with Magnus' bot is not the review process, but that there is no record of who operates the bot when it uploads stuff. In a sense, the bot is a public account. What needs to happen is that the bot should only accept commands via a Commons page restricted to registered users. (It should also stop transferring web resolution images with {{PD-self}} tags and no source information from the Wikipedia projects; I've nuked about a dozen soccer images this week.) But that's not related to its ability to record the Flickr status. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the examples, Image:Bill Cosby (56318935).jpg was uploaded and tagged as reviewed by the bot, recognized by someone as a copyright violation, then deleted... then uploaded by the bot AGAIN, recognized by yet someone else as a copyright violation, and I just redeleted it. Yes, I know the "review" is just a mechanical confimation of stated license at Flickr, but clearly the Bot is too dumb to be "reviewing" images without human help when this sort of thing keeps happening. I agree with the proposed removal of Flickr review authority from the bot. -- Infrogmation 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Bill Cobsy image, it'd be nice if it denied uploads on pages with a deletion log. — Giggy 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is doing a fine job in confirming that images transferred from Flick are released under a valid licence. Of course, no bot can every use judgement to determine a possible copyright violation but there is a human involved in the process of selecting images so this should take place. However, there should be some more safeguards put in place. It might be slightly misleading to suggest that this is reviewing the image as such and perhaps this could be clarified. As Giggy suggests, uploads should be recorded so that the a check as to whether an image has already been uploaded and deleted and it should inform the user with a link to the associated deletion logs. It would also be helpful if it informed users, and by keeping a record it would be possible, if a Flickr image already exists on Commons so it doesn't allow duplicates. Adambro 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently very busy and traveling a lot, so I only now saw this discussion. To clarify: The bot is only transferring images from Flickr that have a valid license given at Flickr. Apparently, there is another bot, verifying flickrreview images on the same basis, so I was asked to "auto-verify" transfered images to prevent double effort. I can remove the verification if that's really an issue. Other than that, if someone has an idea of how to automatically verify an image license without using the one given at Flickr, I'd really like to know about such a ground-breaking, semi-conscious algorithm. Finally, yes, the bot is an "open account". It's almost like if you could, you know, create as many spoof accounts on Commons as you want to upload your copyvios. We couldn't have that, surely. --Magnus Manske 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should reject to upload an image previously deleted? Platonides 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any way this could be made, that would be great. I've just redeleted Image:Bill Cosby (56318935).jpg... :( Patrícia msg 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shared accounts are blocked on sight at English Wikipedia, and I don't see why it should be any different here.
We have measures in place to prevent automated creation of puppet accounts, and unless the culprits use a different open proxy for each account, it's possible to run a CU to find out which uploads were related. Uploading bad content using your bot is a lot easier and a lot less traceable. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:C-M

[edit]

Well, I'd like to be trusted as flickr reviewer since i found some new images from flickr in the last weeks where i checked the license - without the possibility to mark them as reviewed yet - I'm familar with the Licenses since I'm running a License-related bot on de.wikipedia and I'm member of the de-otrs-team. C-M 00:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Peteforsyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'd like to be considered for flickr reviewing. I think my judgment regarding copyright, and the best interests of Wikipedia and Wikimedia, are well illustrated in the exchange regarding a photo of Tonya Harding: w:Talk:Tonya Harding#Michael G. Halle image Thanks for your consideration. -Peteforsyth 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Mifter

[edit]

I would like to help become a flikr reviewer to help to clear the huge backlog at Category:Flickr images needing human review as it seems to be an area which could always do with an extra pair of eyes and a willing pair of hands. I have rollback rights on the en Wikipedia, and I have a good deal of copyright experience from monitoring the Image up-load logs at the en Wikipedia checking for wither the license is acceptable, etc. I'm not nearly as active on the commons as I am at the en Wikipedia, but I would love to be able to cut down on the backlog at Category:Flickr images needing human review.--Mifter 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Vipersnake151

[edit]

I know what's free and not free, and as always, you could use all the help you could get in this situation. ViperSnake151 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see a lot of contributions from your account, or even any having to do with flickr. Can you demonstrate why you should be trusted not to make a mistake or otherwise err with this tool? Patstuart (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support More contribs/uploads would be nice, however, you seem to have a good grasp on copyright issues from what I can see. Rocket000 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Mr.Z-man

[edit]

I'm an admin on en.wiki and have access to the permissions queues on OTRS. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Nv8200p

[edit]

I am an admin on en.wiki and have spent a lot of time reviewing images on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images -Regards Nv8200p 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Erwin

[edit]

I'm an admin on nl.wiki which uses the same rules regarding licenses as Commons. Because I've dealt with and closed image deletion requests there I'm familiar with those rules. --Erwin(85) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Anonymous101

[edit]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:mattbuck

[edit]

Uhm... hi. I'm not entirely sure quite what I'm meant to say here, but I'd quite like to be a reviewer as, having uploaded several images from flickr, I am getting the idea that there's quite a backlog, and I figure I can help. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I have seen your gallery and it seems you know which licenses are valid. Be sure to read Commons:Flickr images/Guide, if possible, install yourself the flickrreview jscript.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Guérin nicolas

[edit]

Hi, I'm an experimented user on Commons with more than 3000 edits, and i'm also sysop on french Wikipedia (fr:user:Guérin Nicolas, 19 000 edits). I master now the licensing policy on Wikipedia and on Commons (cc-by allowed, cc-by-sa allowed, no cc-by-nc , no fair use, avoid watermarks, how to check the license on Flickr, etc...). I would like to help because i got recently questions on fr about how to download pictures from Flickr, so i collected many informations about this and would like to apply this know-how now. Guérin nicolas(messages) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Chenzw

[edit]

Hello, I am an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia. I would like to become a reviewer as I am familiar with the Creative Commons Licenses. Chenzw (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kanonkas

[edit]

Hello, I am Kanonkas I've been contributing to this project for some time. I belive I've learned our licenses. Just take a look at my COM:DR discussions. Also take a look at my deleted edits --Kanonkas(talk) 07:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Rosenzweig

[edit]

I'm an admin on the German wikipedia since April 12. --Rosenzweig 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Diti

[edit]

Hello,

I'm a regular contributor of Wikimedia Foundation's project, and I plan to join it (the Foundation). Meanwhile, I'd like to help the better I can, and becoming a trusted user could be useful for Commons.

Even though I don't know the differences between CC-by-3.0 and CC-by-2.0 (for instance), I can recognize if a license is free or not. So, if I understood, I just need to verify the license and the real author of a picture, and follow instructions on Template:Flickrreview/doc. That suits to me, I feel myself prepared for licensing review.

My account on Flickr : DitiTux. Thank you! Diti 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Nihiltres

[edit]

I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I don't do much work with images, but I understand both the image licensing policies of Wikipedia and of Commons well enough that it seems like it would be easy to do this should I so wish. As such, I figure that getting any bureaucracy out of the way beforehand is a good idea :). Nihiltres(t.c) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Kved (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hi, I'm administrator on spanish Wikipedia and in my spare time of es.wiki I would like to review some flickr images. Beside my sysop status in other Wikimedia project and the possibility of speedy permission, I think I understand the image licensing policies of Wikimedia Commons well enough to be flickr reviewer. I uploaded several images from flickr to Commons, and the majority of them through authorization requests. Waiting for your answer, cheers. --KveD (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Elcobbola

[edit]

I didn't notice an edit threshold or analogous requirement, so forgive me if my request is premature (I've only ca. 119 Commons edits). I routinely review images and the copyright status thereof for articles nominated for Featured article status on the English Wikipedia. I've participated in several deletion requests here on the Commons, which I hope are numerous enough to allow my knowledge to be ascertained. Otherwise, I could provide en.wiki diffs (if those would hold weight here) or, alternatively, I would understand if it is simply too soon. When reviewing images for FA, I often encounter Flickr images not hosted on Commons. It would handy to be able to transfer and label as reviewed those that have acceptable CC licenses (i.e. allows derivatives, commercial use, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I've seen you on COM:DR. Contribs look great (more would be nice, but you do have a more established account on en.wp). One thing though, if there are Flickr images on en.wp that should be here, it's better to get them directly from the source (i.e. Flickr) rather than transferring the info from en.wp (especially using upload bots). We don't need things like "transfer from en.wikipedia...", the whole Original upload log, etc. Not sure if that's what you meant, but just in case. Rocket000 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most certainly, I know to go to and link to the source (i.e. Flickr). w:WP:IUP (en.wiki policy) requires all images have a verifiable source. The single most common issue I encounter with the FA candidates are sources that only say "from en.wiki"; that, obviously is not good enough. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong support Seen this user on COM:DR and belives s/he knows our policy regarding images very well. You do not have many deleted edits though. --Kanonkas(talk) 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Nihonjoe

[edit]

I've been an admin on the English WIkipedia for a couple years now, and I've regularly worked on cleaning up content there. I'd like to help out here, too. I'm not one for long explanations, but I think I'd be useful here with this additional tool. Thanks! ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 06:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Pruneau

[edit]

Hi,

I've done a fair number of uploads, mostly from Flickr. I have a good understanding of the different licenses and would like to help out with reviews of Flickr images. Cheers, Pruneau 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - you appear to only upload BY-SA and BY, and I remember reviewing a few of your images. I'm slightly dubious about the origins of Image:Gabriel Loubier.jpg and Image:Pierre Messmer.jpg, as they appear to be scans of photos so since I've forgotten enough French to be utterly unable to read the set's blurb I can't verify the user has the rights to upload. That being said, I'd like to fail you for being a statistician and for uploading photographs which bore me, but someone would frown at me if I did, so come join in and good luck to you IMO. Saves me reviewing your images :p. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, and for reviewing my previous uploads! Image:Gabriel Loubier.jpg was taken at an event organized by Canadian institute ITHQ and was uploaded by the ITHQ on Flickr; I think it's reasonable to assume that they own the copyright. Image:Pierre Messmer.jpg was part of a series (which is unfortunately no longer publicly available on Flickr). The Flickr uploader had put up a bunch of old photos of his friend Bill, including one where Bill happened to meet Pierre Messmer (which I then cropped). The photos were of amateur quality, so again, I think it's reasonable to assume that the Flickr uploader owned the copyright. His photos have gone private before Image:Pierre Messmer.jpg was reviewed, but I've contacted him, so hopefully he'll make them public again. As for being a statistician with an interest in politics, I have no excuse, but I still beg for your forgiveness. Pruneau 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:ViperSnake151

[edit]

Just to be on the safe side, my other account kinda got duplicated because of my new unified login setup (I had Vipersnake151, NOTE THE NON-CAPITALIZED S). Just to be on the safe side, and since I was already a trusted user, I'm just making sure we're still set. ViperSnake151 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

user:Yarl

[edit]

Hello,
I'm a contributor on Commons since december 2005, and admin of Polish Wikipedia. I uploaded much images from Flickr, and I would like to help with reviewing images. Yarl Talk • PL 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin of another project you are hereby promoted. Please be sure to read Commons:Licensing, Commons:Flickr images and {{Flickrreview}} before reviewing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:WBOSITG

[edit]

Hey there. I'm WBOSITG, an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have uploaded many Flickr files in the past (albeit under a different username, I moved to this one by SUL) and would like to assist in reviewing process for Flickr images. Thanks for considering this request. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Computerjoe

[edit]

Familiar with licencing; experienced Wikipedian. Computerjoe 09:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. giggy (:O) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kahuroa

[edit]

Experienced Wikipedian and I have uploaded lots of images on New Zealand, Māori and Polynesian and botanical subjects. Kahuroa 11:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. giggy (:O) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:jonny-mt

[edit]

I'm an administrator on en-wiki (my user page), where I'm a member of the Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons wikiproject. I believe I am sufficiently familiar with the licensing requirements; I've actually gone so far as to create wuu:Template:Cc-by-3.0 to fix a licensing issue with an image on a wiki I've never visited in a language I can't understand following a user request on en-wiki. So far, it seems to have worked out.... --jonny-mt 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just browsed through the archives real fast; is it too late to ask for speedy promotion? Oh, and I neglected to mention that I'm a (new) OTRS volunteer; I've only answered a couple of permissions tickets so far, but I expect those to increase. --jonny-mt 09:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, so promoted. :) giggy (:O) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Rootology

[edit]

If possible, I'd like to ask for Flickr Reviewer trusted status so that I can help out on that when needed and things backlog. I'm familiar with the various licensing we allow, and have begun importing material from Flickr (User:Rootology/Images) in addition to my own image uploads. rootology (T) 15:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd gone over it at length with the English WP arbcom over email (especially with User:FT2 over there), and detailed at length on my English talk page at User_talk:Rootology#Unblock_request. Jimmy and Bauder there did me a huge favor by letting me RTV (for a time), and I really wasn't going to piss that away--my only accounts were PrivateEditor (valid legal sock, not secret), Rootology, and XP (the bad one) on EN. That's me. All the others labeled me singularly went out of their way to poke and prod at MONGO and Hipocrite separately, but they weren't me (I was not the only person that had gentleman's disagreements with those two by any stretch). I'm even willing to leave the Sock categories there alone simply to not stir the pot and swallow my pride. It's not worth a huge fight and drama. That hostility that was directed at several individuals tied into that Arbitration that I brought to be left alone (which led to my banning at the time, sadly) is long since passed. I'm fairly certain and hope I'm out of MONGO's system at this point; he's certainly long gone from mine. I'm sure I was Checkusered significantly already, but any Checkuser on Commons is more than welcome to poke at my IP anyway again. I'll even go one further: 67.168.165.218 is me. rootology (T) 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of any past history elsewhere, (which I believe is in the past) Rootology has been a valuable contributor here and knows licensing, as well as having a good eye for photos, important when trying to spot what's WORTH bringing over from Flickr. I wasn't totally clear why a CU was requested but it was within discretion to run it. I found nothing untoward.  Support granting this permission. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - doing useful work --Herby talk thyme 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. giggy (:O) 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kelly

[edit]

Hi, I'm willing to help here. I use Flickr Upload Bot for my own uploads (so the images are automatically reviewed) but I have a good understanding of CC licenses and copyright in general (this is the area I work in on en Wikipedia). I'm presently working to transfer Flickr-sourced images on en Wikipedia to Commons so they are safe from license changes. Kelly 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Kanonkas(talk) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Chech Explorer

[edit]

Hello, I would like to become a Flickr reviewer. I have been transferring many images from the Bulgarian Wikipedia and I have learned great a lot about licensing recently. I have also developed a sense about suspicious images that might violate copyrights. Otherwise on Commons I crop images with borders and frames. I have about 6000 edits on various Wiki projects. I was also approved to rename media. Sometimes I stumble upon Flickr images and I would like to be able to confirm or reject them as free ones. - Chech Explorer (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. giggy (:O) 23:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Brynn

[edit]

I would like to become a Flickr reviewer and trusted user. I'd like to think I'm pretty clueful about the Commons' licensing requirements and at spotting copyvios, even in cases where there are only obscure clues (see my deleted contribs if you will). Cheers! -Brynn(talk) 22:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User should do well, promoted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Flamurai

[edit]

I'm familiar with the CC licenses. I've been on en since 2003 and Commons since 2005. Really, I'm interested in having the trusted user status to deal with problems as they arise, as I'm active on COM:FPC and COM:VIC. – flamurai 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Seems good to me. Please see my comments on your talk page. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Bjweeks

[edit]

I'm active in image work on en.wp, where I run a few image bots. I have a good understanding of U.S. copyright law, the Creative Commons licenses and the sheer awesomeness of Image:roche.gif. Bjweeks (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Royalbroil

[edit]

I've been an admin on the English Wikipedia since November 2007. I've uploaded close to 1000 of my own images here, and transfered many hundreds of flickr images here both manually (back in the day), and now with the SUPER AWESOME flickr upload bot. I am quite active with my flickr account, and I understand Creative Commons image licensing very well. Royalbroil 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted—giggy 03:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Sarcasticidealist

[edit]

I'm an admin at enwiki, where I have spent a fair bit of time at the Media Copyright Questions desk. I don't pretend to be an expert on Commons licensing rules (my understanding is pretty much limited to "Derivative and commercial use must be permitted", really), but my understanding is sufficient to verify the license status of photos from Flickr, which is all I'd be doing with the trusted status anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted with no objections. —Giggy 06:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Londoneye

[edit]

I have participated on Commons for some time, taking part in deletion discussions and uploading a few of my own images. I know what {{GFDL}} and the various Creative Commons licenses mean, and that all Commons images must be licensed to allow commercial use and derivatives, with of course due acknowledgement if the license is not unconditional PD. I've even looked into Panoramafreiheit.--Londoneye (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall my support. Didn't noticed that, what Bryan says. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 10:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked her work and got a nice email from her, so I will confirm my support. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm looking into what happened at en.wp before I make support or oppose. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with granting this position is not whether or not you committed sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia. What I find a problem though is to determine whether you have been honest or not. This position essentially means that we trust you on your word how an image is licensed on Flickr. Given that your history on Commons is clean I think we can go forward and grant you the status despite what has or has not happened in the past. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I looked through the old content at en-wiki and concluded there's nothing there that raises concerns for me about your ability to do this job here. In the year-plus since the events on en, you've continued to be a productive contributor here who seems to have a firm grasp on licensing issues. While I know that others may disagree, I think this is enough to trust you with handling Flickr images. --jonny-mt 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note; access later removed. See this. Giggy (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Anonymous101

[edit]

I'm an admin at enwikinews, where I have participated in many image copyright related deletion requests. I understand copyright to the extent that I can review images (Derivative works and commercial use must be permitted so cc-by and cc-by-sa are allowed but not cc-nc cc-by-nc, cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc-sa or cc-by-nc-nd). I also now have a reasonable understanding of derivative works and Freedom of Panorama etc. . Anonymous101 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. —Giggy 11:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Wuzur

[edit]

I request a rewievin-permission for Flickr and OpenPhoto images. I'm now here and at the German Wikipedi since nearly a year. I know what free licenses are, and which can be uploaded here to Commons and which not (let's take cc-licenses for example. Only licenses that only constist of by or/and sa but no licenses with nd or nc. I look at the the newly uploaded image and tag those which are unfree. Please take therefore a look at my Deleted Contributions. And also at the German Wikipedia I help to find unfree images. --Wuzur (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Rocket000 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:VengeancePrime

[edit]
Flickr verifications is straightforward.
Created a script to enable checking.
Done twice; undone, but still correct assessments.
Help improve/enhace commons, relieve backlog.
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 15:41, 25 Jul 2008 (UTC)
Better? Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 17:29, 25 Jul 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, not really. Shows quite a lack of experience in Commons, templates, layouts etc. Equally the experience required would be in terms of weeks probably. Get stuck in & do some of the things needing doing then try again. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's simplicity.
I'd be happy with no userpage.
Was I right in the first three?
(Tells me if on right track at least.)
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 18:22, 25 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Martin H.

[edit]

Hi, im actually watching the incoming media frequently and I'd like to be considered for flickr reviewing. I used the Flickr Tool very often and know the importent licences. I allways try to detect misleadingly free licensed, copyrighted images from Flickr (a bot or a script can't do). --Martin H. (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Cirt

[edit]

I am an administrator at en.wikinews and I have participated in a bunch of image copyright related deletion requests there. I have also done some work on en.wikipedia related to image tagging. I would like to help with Category:Flickr images needing human review, in accordance with Commons:Flickr images, Commons:Licensing and Template:Flickrreview. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kwj2772

[edit]

Hi. I would like to apply for flickr reviewer status. I'm now active in Korean wikipedia as ko:User:김우진1. I also have an image bot currently. Thank you!--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:OsamaK

[edit]

This is an active user at Commons and English Wikipedia, And a bureaucrat at Arabic Wikipedia. I tagged many and many invalid images, that non-sourced and non-licensed. I want to help reviewing Flickr images backlog.--OsamaK 08:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Animum

[edit]

Hi, everyone. I'm Animum, a sysop from enwiki, and I would like to request reviewer status because I think the task is easy enough to handle, with a little reading on the finicky legal details, and hey, the more the merrier! Thanks, —Animum (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Soxred93

[edit]

Hi there, everyone! I am a sysop on enwiki (user page), and I run an image bot there. I have been working on images there for a long time, and have a good grasp on image policy. While I may not have done a lot here, relatively speaking, I know what is allowed, not allowed, and all the other stuff necessary for reviewing Flickr. Thanks. Soxred93 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Moshin

[edit]
  • Moshin (talk · contribs) - Hi I want to be clarified as a trusted user on Commons. I have uploaded many images for the work of Wikipedia. I know most of the rules on when to upload an image, viewing it copyright status and whether it meets any of the Commons Licenses. I certainly know how to upload images from Flickr, knowing which images go under the Flickr license. There are currently two photo licenses which Wikimedia accepts from Flickr which is, Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons and Attribution Creative Commons. And currently I do have a account on the site, so I know how things work. It would be great to review the images from Flickr and choosing whether it is correct or not, thank you! (I have an account on Wikipedia: .)
  •  Oppose Apologies, but uploads like this and this give me pause and seem to indicate an incomplete grasp of concepts/issues such as derivative works, proper attribution and diligent license vetting (the latter is a copyvio); Flickrreview requires not only knowledge of what licenses are acceptable, but the ability to scrutinize Flickrwashing, derivatives, etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Natl1

[edit]

Promoted. —Giggy 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Fordmadoxfraud

[edit]
  • Fordmadoxfraud (talk · contribs) - I suppose this is the page I want to be on. I just tried to use a template to rename an image (one that I had uploaded, to boot), and was informed by betacommandbot that it couldn't be done automatically because I wasn't a "trusted user", which is a little irritating. There doesn't seem to be a lot of explication on Commons about what, specifically, a trusted user is, but I guess it's sort of semi-admin status of some sort? Or are there different trusted users for different tasks? At any rate, this was the only concrete reference I could find. And sure, what the hell, I could help out with Flickr review as well. I've been looking to get more involved with Commons on a meta level anyway. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yeah thanks. It's still irritating that Commons might tell you you can't do something because you're not a trusted user but then entering "trusted user" as a search term brings up nothing. Anyway, why not, while I'm still here, continue with this process. I wasn't kidding about wanting to become more involved with Commons on a Meta level. Ford MF (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not, indeed! A random sampling of your uploads looks good. I'm concerned about an apparent lack of "reviewing experience" (e.g. deleted contribs or deletion discussions). May I ask what your determination would be if this image were uploaded and you came across it for Flickr review? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon I'd make sure it was appropriately tagged CC-by-2.0, drop a flickrreview template on the page to note that I had checked it, and send it on its way. It appears to be a completely legit upload by that user (appropriately huge image size; contemporaneous with the rest of his photostream; taken with the same camera), and requires only a quick glance to make sure the license on Commons is in harmony with that on Flickr. Ford MF (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment would be nice with more votes so consensus on this here can be reached. Thanks, --Kanonkas(talk) 12:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be nice. Perhaps it's me flunking the given question that's throwing folks off? I eyeballed the archives real quick and didn't see any of the other candidates being asked to make a test judgment call. I do hope people can look at my history and contributions and see I'm as positive and capable as anyone else who's been granted Flickr review; there was a deficiency in my knowledge regarding freedom of panorama, and it has been rectified. Ford MF (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Don't worry about it. It really isn't a big deal, you won't make that mistake again now that you've read the FOP page that Collard linked you to, and people will point it out when you make a mistake. I'll  Support. —Giggy 05:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:SterkeBak

[edit]

I would like the premmission to revieuw image from flickr. I am active on Flickr in now the licence, What can be used and what not. I am also active on the dutch wiki with images. I can be a help, And i want to help. Sterkebaktalk 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted; no objections. Giggy (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Doug

[edit]

2? I think I have more than 2, but if there is a requirement for a particular number I'll gladly withdraw.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah! I'd better fix that. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Strange that my User talk was correct. I'm glad you noticed!--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Bidgee

[edit]

I'm an editor on enwiki and on Commons. I have uploaded a few Flickr images but always careful on the copyright type on Flickr before uploading. I'm willing to help out on reviewing images and know what copyright licenses can be added from Flickr. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:MBisanz

[edit]

I've uploaded a good number of flickr images and now understand the various use rules. Over at en.wp where I'm an admin and wmf.wiki I've also done a good bit of image sorting (8,000+ image edits I think) and believe I could help with this task. MBisanz talk 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support MBisanz has done good work on image releated work & I believe they know what flickr licenses are permitted or not. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Trusted user from work at this project, and others. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a user i can trust :) Sterkebaktalk 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No brainer - experienced and trusted user who is also an enwiki admin.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Untrustworthy. This is simply a step up the ladder to Commons adminship, which would be a disaster. User is completely unsuited for work like this. Majorly talk 20:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, WTF, can you point to some discussions here or on enwiki that support this Majorly? You can't just say an experienced user and sysop on another project is untrustworthy without saying why. How on Earth could MBisanz becoming an admin (if that eventually does happen) be a disaster. Is this intended as a joke? --User:Doug(talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, even I am not lame enough to joke about something like this. Like another game player, MBisanz is here simply to gain adminship. He's the kind who'd rather ban someone than improve the project. He is unfriendly, and like the user just mentioned, appears to enjoy making editors "lower" than himself feel small. Normally, I wouldn't be so harsh on something as basic as flickr review, but I fear this is simply a step up to adminship. He's unsuited for enwiki adminship too, but there's nothing I can do about that. Majorly talk 02:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    . BJTalk 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unhelpful comment. I request a refactor to remove disparaging remarks about other editors, please. Please review COM:MELLOW ... although it's an essay it is very germane. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, the comments are at best unsupported opinions that are highly disparaging, at worst they are simply malicious.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, no. I don't make such comments about people unless I'm certain. You'll notice how I don't question your "opinion" above, as much as I disagree with it. This user has demonstrated quite successfully on enwiki (I don't know about here) that he is untrustworthy and unsuited. His canvassing to get support for his Foundation wiki application was utterly ridiculous, and shows incredibly poor judgement. Additionally, as I already noted, he'd rather ban a featured article writer than write one himself. I know these are nothing to do with flickr reviewing (which in itself is a simple task), but the fact is, this is simply a step up the commons ladder. He needs to stay right on the bottom rung. Majorly talk 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments Majorly. Just to clarify about the Foundation wiki application. I applied for an account to help overhaul their image tagging system. Sean Whitton who manages account requests for the wmfwiki said I needed more endorsements from people he knew before he could judge if I should be given access [2]. I said I would try to find some people who could vouch for my reputation [3] and asked several individuals I had worked with at enwp if they would comment on my reputation. They did, Sean reviewed the comments, and granted me access to the wmfwiki.
    In any event, I have reviewed the Wikipedia canvassing guidelines (I couldn't seem to find a local guideline) and intend to continue following the prohibition against canvassing here at Commons. I should note that of the 5 individuals to support this request, one I have never heard of before, another I have rarely if ever interacted with, a third I opposed than neutraled his en.wiki RFA, a fourth I haven't interacted with in 8 months, and the fifth I know from enwiki but wasn't even following him enough here at commons to know he recently had an RFA. MBisanz talk 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope RfA participants would look at the quality of work done, rather than the badges a user has achieved, when adding their opinions. Giggy (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — I know this user from Enwp. Does a great deal of image work there, and he was granted an account on the foundation wiki specifically to deal with images and image licensing issues. I see no reason not to give the user the ability to help with flickr reviewing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin H. (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Trusted user with the project in his best interests. MBisanz has a ton of experience dealing with images on a wide range of Wikimedia projects, and as such would be a asset to this one. Tiptoety talk 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Needless to say I hope MBisanz takes on board any advice given here, and (as always) ensures Commons content policies are upheld. Remember there are plenty of people around who are happy to help. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Kurpfalzbilder.de

[edit]

Meanwhile I have uploaded hundreds of flickr images which where all conform to wikimedia (see my Gallery), so perhaps you will include me as a Flickr reviewer --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Angusmclellan

[edit]

I wouldn't pretend to be a copyright maven, or even terribly clued up on every aspect of Commons policy, but I think I could review Flickr images correctly. If it's relevant, I don't have a Flickr account. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. No objections raised. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:J.smith

[edit]

I've been messing around with copyright issues on Wikipedia and over here on Commons for some time now. I'm still learning about copyright issues in regards to images, but I think I understand the basics of all the major issues. And besides, Kanonkas says I should get off my lazy rump! :) J.smith (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I'm an admin on en-wiki and a volunteer with OTRS. J.smith (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Vituzzu

[edit]

I'm a sysop on it.wiki and an OTRS volunteer, I think I have a good knowledge of copyright issues to do this "job"--Vituzzu (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Privatemusings

[edit]

I'd like to be a flickr reviewer please - really to be able to upload full information on photos from The Powerhouse Museum for now :-) thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support. Good faith contributor who should do fine as a flickr reviewer. I trust he will go through Category:Flickr images needing human review, while taking into account Commons:Flickr images, Commons:Licensing and Template:Flickrreview. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Do i understand you wrong or are you asking review status to review your own image's? You have my support if you wan't to review. But if you want to review also your own images i will opposse. Sterkebaktalk 08:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nowhere does it say that flickr reviewers and administrators cannot review their own images from flickr. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it is no rule.. But if you check your own images i will oppose it is my opinion that you should not check your own images. Sterkebaktalk 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Flickr reviewers and administrators are trusted to review images from flickr. Period. It should not matter what image it is - the concept of doing a flickr review is the same for all images, and the criterion to check are the same. Not a valid reason to oppose. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well.. It's much better if you let someone else flickr review it as it might just happend that the flickr uploader changes their license on that specific image which you flickr reviewed yourself, and then someone else might think it is a copyvio and that you did a wrong flickr review. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Couldn't the same exact thing happen if someone else had done the flickr review? I don't see that as a particularly big deal, there are clear cut things to look for when doing flickr reviews. If you can review someone else's, you can review your own. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Privatemusings would like to upload encyclopedic material about Australian history and culture, which we certainly could use. I mentored him on Commons months ago and am confident that his understanding of copyright and project scope is sufficient, and that he would exercise appropriate care if his interests broadened. Durova (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nothing wrong with this. I initially had qualms about the concept of reviewers reviewing their own uploads, due to COI, but soon realized that there is nothing comparable to it on Wikipedia (where I'm used to strict COI rules for admins and others). If you didn't create the photo on Flickr there is no COI, you're simply combining the act of uploading it with the act of reviewing it (and if you did create the photo on Flickr, the act of review is superfluous as you could upload directly). Someone would have to be intentionally becoming a reviewer in order to upload problematic images and then clear them in order for it to be a problem and that is not a person we'd trust to begin with. This user is trustworthy and should be allowed to review Flickr images.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — Sorry, but per the above. Although there is no rule, I don't think it is very appropriate to be reviewing images that you upload yourself. There is no shortage of flickr reviewers/administrators to do this, and I actually think there should be policies against this. That is my only issue here though; perhaps if you wish to reconsider this, I'll reconsider my position. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose See my comment. Maybe i change if the user takes the time to answer me Sterkebaktalk 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am here, and reading all comments, Sterke :-) - sorry for not having piped up sooner to respond to your concerns. I think a bit more explanation of what I'm thinking and hoping to be able to help with is probably in order - and further, this might help with some of herby and rjd's concerns too :-)
Taking a look at the link I posted in my request (to The Powerhouse Museum) - you'll see that there's a specific online resource dedicated to some awesome historical images, all of which in my view would be fantastic additions to this project. The museum (and I have a feeling that another museum / gallery down here may be following suit!) regularly updates their flickr account, and I'd like to be able to import some such images over here (I have also flicked them an email to begin discussions about their possibly uploading directly here - in which I indicated that I'd like to 'show them what I mean' through uploading one set in the coming days).
So the bottom line is that I'd like to upload sets from that collection, and have recently figured out how to use 'Commonist' in this fashion. In conversation with Mike Lifeguard (and after a review of the collections etc.), he suggested applying for this status, in order to minimise the work necessary by other Commons participants. The advantage of mike being prepared to talk me through a few things is that I now feel confident enough to be able to review the images in Category:Flickr images needing human review as well :-) Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for taking time to comment :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't have a problem with you becoming a flickreviewer, but please tell me that you won't review your own images. All flickr images you upload will be revieuwd first by the bot. If the bot could not check them the are sent to the category needed human revieuw. Most work is done by the bot and there are not so much images that have to be revieuwed by hand. It really doesn't matter for the work load. Whe have a bot that check if the licence is oke (and also accepts flickrwashing), afterwards we get a human review. I think it is best for us (maybe a policy change?) to not review your own images. Flickr licence can be changed and than we need to proof the licence was oke when it is uploaded. If person A uploads a image and person A also checks it it is very easy for the flickr person when he change the licence to say: The person uploaded and checkt it under a fault licence. If person A uploads it and person B checks it... it looks better. So please think about reviewing images in the category and leaving your own images, there is work enough :) Sterkebaktalk 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply, Sterke - I see your point, and should further point you in this direction too, where I'm requesting a 'bot flag' to be able to use Commonist to upload large sets of 'copyleft' images. My original intention was to minimise others' reviewing work by applying the 'flick reviewed' tag appropriately to the rather large no. of images I'd like to see up here :-) Perhaps we should look at some sort of on-wiki pre-approval process? maybe the bot request functions as such? - it's good to iron out these issues though.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I think I'm with Rjd0060 here. --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support; I disagree with the concept of opposing per what you would like to see as "policy" rather than what is the current way things are done. I also have no objection to people reviewing their own images; I like to assume good faith that if we select someone as a flickr reviewer they're not going to lie about it. Especially when it's someone I know, such as privatemusings, I have no hesitation in extending this trust. As always if we find someone lying about flickr licenses it's trivially easy to remove the flickr reviewer right and tell them to stop doing so (else we block), but I don't believe this will be the case here, so I have no reason not to support. Giggy (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Someone other than me is going to have to close this one, obviously.[reply]
  •  weak support - i think we need a new policy and my oppose here won't help. But i was not thinking about flickrreviewers that lie, i was thinking about human errors. We are all human and all make mistakes. I trust giggy so i will support. Sterkebaktalk 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support He wants to have this "permission" in order to bring in some free images for commons. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it. Assume good faith please! Can't see any possible damage whatsoever in doing this - and it'll save the work of other reviewers. How do you turn this on (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - 75%  Support at this point in time, after over seven days - I think we can close this one as successful. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Mitchazenia

[edit]

I am looking into this because, since I upload a lot from Flickr, I should do my fair share and review them. My activity amount is increasing over time and eventually will be a very common person around Commons. I wish to do this to give my fair share and not rely on everyone else.Mitch32(UP) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Mifter (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Huntster

[edit]

Requesting permission to be a reviewer. While I've not been super-active here, my activity is increasing. I have good knowledge of licensing issues and would like to assist when possible. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Giggy (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:How do you turn this on

[edit]

I'm a fairly experienced user from Wikipedia, who came to Commons as a sort-of break from drama over there - I've decided I like it a lot so intend to stay here. I have uploaded a few images, some from Flickr, and have tagged other such images for no license/source etc. I noticed the backlog is pretty big, and I'd like to assist in keeping it smaller. Thanks. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comments. Is there anyone around who can "promote" me? I'd like to start working on the backlog! :D How do you turn this on (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. →Na·gy 15:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Mohsin

[edit]

Im currently a user in Wikipedia and have contributed a lot, where I have received 5 barnstars for my work over there (en:User:Tangomaan). I started to use Commons ever since I have uploaded many pictures from Flickr. Many of these images have been uploaded for the articles over in Wikipedia, and since then I now know how everything works around here dealing with Flickr-type images. I exactly know whether a Flickr image meets the criteria of the requirement licenses of Commons, for when uploading images I always check whether it is a Attribution Creative Commons or a Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons, then it is accepted. I would really like to help out with the Flickr uploaded images, so anyway thank you! Mohsin (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous request is here. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ? 9 days no reply. Mohsin (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand my request before was rejected, and I have now applied again because I think I am doing better than before. Mohsin (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? Mohsin (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Giggy (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Shovon76

[edit]

Hi all, I think I am capable to be a Flickr reviewer. Would like to know about the community's view on that. Thanks. Shovon76 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. Only 3 edits and no history of uploading flickr images or copyvio tagging. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Gato76680

[edit]

Hi, I'd like to be a Flickr reviewer. Thank you. Gato76680 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. No recent history of uploading flickr images or enough copyvio tagging. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Abigor

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to become a trusted user. I am very active with patrolling the new uploads. I see a lot of images from flickr, when the licence is bad I place {{Copyvio}} on it. But if it is correct I can't do anything. While i already checked the image. So this would help me, and would make sure we don't do double work.

See ya, Abigor (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. /odder 18:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:Homonihilis

[edit]

Hi,
I am an admin in tr-wiki (see to check) and had been "inspector" (sort of "trusted" user) in a similar project before I became admin. (I'm not listed any more since admins are automatically regarded as inspectors) Homonihilis (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

User:OhanaUnited

[edit]

I saw the notice at Village pump regarding Flickr review backlog. After taking a peek at the files, I realized that some files are related to animals & organisms and this is just right for me to work on because I am a bureaucrat at Wikispecies and an administrator on English Wikipedia. I hope that by becoming a reviewer, it can increase the speed to add species image to illustrate Wikispecies & Wikipedia articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2008&oldid=375469120"