Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2014

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.

Wagino 20100516

Comments

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

Jklamo

Comments

✓ Promoted Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

NahidSultan

Comments

✓ Promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 14:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Stemoc

Comments
  •  Support. --Alan (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Rzuwig► 20:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jklamo (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question I have few files from flickr. (Not sure they're in Commons) Is these files acceptable in Commons? If not, please provide reasons why it is not. 1) Chickens 2)Gyeongbokgung 3)Mongolian buildings 4)file from NASA. Regards, —레비Revi 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No one told me there would be a quick test :P ..anyways, personally i do no trust users on flickr and i usually do a thorough search before i upload any pictures, for picture 1, No..it is released under creative commons criteria 2.0 but its under non-commercial and non-derivative licence so it cannot be uploaded as it fails wikipedia's one major requirement, to be free for use..picture 2 does fulfil the licensing requirement, but the image itself does not. It seems to have been taken elsewhere and its also missing its EXIF data, so i generally won't trust an image in flickr missing its exif data..I have reported a few of them uploaded to commons as i found out they were taken from elsewhere (flickrwashing), picture 3 is a very good picture with perfect licensing requirements for inclusion and also the uploader has a good clean record and thus is trustworthy. I'm surprised that picture hasn't been uploaded yet..picture 4 is from NASA which falls under "United States Government Work" which is permitted for use on wikimedia. I always make good use of available tools like Flickr2Commons and Flinfo before i upload pics to wikimedia...--Stemoc (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Picture 3 is already deleted as COM:FOP#Mongolia. See this DR.(File for sysop only). As you have shown great answer in other three files, I won't oppose. —레비Revi 05:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    Good to know, wasn't aware of that specificity....also, if you look through my history, I generally deal with images of people, mainly celebrities because thats the section i'm very comfortable with but if i do come across pics related to Commons:FOP, i'll definitely be inclined to take a second opinion..--Stemoc (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And autopatrol removed.—레비Revi 05:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Jianhui67

Comments
✓ Promoted. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 07:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Calliopejen1

Comments
Thanks for your reply. — Revicomplaint? 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      1. Borderline, probably yes -- might seek further input from those who have dealt with this user. Apparently questionable images noted previously lacked EXIF data, which this image has. This image also is from an album that looks like something the user would have plausibly taken, and another similar image in the stream precedes it. Theoretically he could have swiped an entire album of someone else's vacation photos, but seems unlikely.
      2. No - non-derivative license.
      3. This is probably okay, but I think I'd wait for another Japanese reviewer to do this one. (Maybe I'd ping someone else.) Looks self-taken, has EXIF, nothing copyrighted in photo except extreme de minimis cases. Machine translation seems to indicate this is cc-by-sa-2.1-jp, but machine translation of Japanese is not particularly reliable. There could be some other questionable statement on the source image page I might be missing without Japanese skills.
      4. IMO no (though I think some users here would disagree with me). Maybe if any one of these posters was in the background, it would be fine, but here the focus of the scene is clearly on the copyrighted anime. (If the copyrighted works weren't there, would the picture still make sense for whatever purpose it was destined for? No.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support — Revicomplaint? 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted Awnser seem to be correct and not opposed for 48 hours. I don't agree with awnser number 4 though but that's just me ;). Natuur12 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Arctic Kangaroo

Comments
Thanks for your reply. — Revicomplaint? 06:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Q2: Possible. The CC "attribution" icon is placed on the page, and clicking on it links us to the CC-BY-2.0 Korea licence.
    • Q3: Possible. Pixabay is a website containing images placed in the public domain.
    • Q1: Get back to you later. Needs some thinking.

(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd better  Neutral: Kim family in this case is Kim Jung-il and Kim Il-sung, from North Korea. North Korea allows FOP, but looks like it is in private place, so FOP does not apply = copyvio. — Revicomplaint? 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. And AK; don't disclose any private matters or private correspondence with ArbCom, etc., if any. Be careful to protect your privacy. Jee 15:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 05:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

TeleComNasSprVen

Comments
  • I'm not raising any issue; just mentioning that a license reviewer should have thorough knowledge on how sites like Flickr works, all possible variants of CC licenses (version, porting, etc. other than SA-ND-NC limitations), etc. A reviewer should correct if there is even a minor difference between the source and that mentioned on the file page. Thanks for your attempt to improve your skills. Jee 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

FDMS4

Comments
  •  Comment So could you please explain why you chose CC BY-SA 1.0 unported when uploading the video you mentioned above? --Indeedous (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Because it says so at the end of the video and in the description on YouTube. I would have chosen CC BY 3.0 if the uploader didn't upload it with the Standard YouTube Licence but with Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed).    FDMS  4    15:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Are you aware of this? Jee 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Yes? I would have chosen CC BY 3.0 if the uploader had decided to CC-license it the YouTube way, which he hadn't, as it shows Standard YouTube licence.    FDMS  4    14:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    But why you think Standard YouTube licence or CC BY-SA (as in the description on Youtube) = CC BY-SA 1.0? For a CC license, version number must be explicitly mentioned, and CC never recommends using an old, obsolete version. CC do not listed any compatible licenses so far. Youtube only allows "trusted users" to use a CC license for their works. Jee 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I never claimed that Standard YouTube licence means CC BY-SA 1.0?! As far as I know it is not the case that the latest CC license version automatically becomes the default version (that would not be very useful as you can never be sure when a work has actually received its CC license), and in fact I did not tag the video with {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} but with {{Cc-by-sa}}. By the way, the latest CC licenses (4.0) are not even an option in the UploadWizard. What matters in my eyes is only whether the copyright holder (which is the uploader in this case as there is no FOP in Sweden) released his work under a free CC license. Copyright holders are always allowed to do that, and if YouTube does not want its users to use CC BY-SA to license their work hosted on YouTube it has to make sure no one does itself. If YouTube decided to block the uploader the action would not change anything about license status of the video as the permission to use the copyrights holder's work in accordance with the legal code of the used license cannot be revoked.    FDMS  4    19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Satisfied with the reply. I checked the page and saw that you used {{Cc-by-sa}} which is automatically redirected to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} because there is no such license like CC BY-SA. I accept you argument about the "validity" of the license if properly mentioned on the description (not in this case). So  Support; and thanks for the patience you showed in answering my questions. Jee 02:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question I have 3 Flickr files here. Are these files acceptable on Commons, and why? Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. Motorcycle
       No: Incompatible license: NC, ND.    FDMS  4    09:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    2. Eiffel Tower
       Yes: Altough there is no FOP in France the Eiffel Tower is in the public domain (not the images of course) as long as it has no lights turned on, we have lots of images of that kind (perspective, …).    FDMS  4    09:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    3. Siam Paragon
       Yes: There is FOP in Thailand, we have a category full of photographs of that shopping center. Posters and advertisements are de minimis.    FDMS  4    09:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Natuur12 (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support JurgenNL (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alan (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Leitoxx

Comments
Re:Common licenses are handled: Any material in the public domain, such as uploaded images whose author died more than 70 years, copyright has expired, put works into the public domain by its creators, among others. These licenses are acceptable, since the author gives us or checks that are derived from it and not from other places that have copyright. While the licenses are not handled: Screenshot—Screenshot if is a free work if permitted—, fair use,-NC-ND. These are not accepted because: the laws of fair use change depending on the country you are in,-NC because commercial use is not allowed and ND because not allowed derivative works. Also are valid CC0, GNU and GPL licenses.And we do not forget check COM:FOP ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 23:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Promoted - Tiptoety talk 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Agamitsudo

Comments
Extended content

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 14:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Storkk

Comments
and this?
    • Hi Leitoxx,
      1. No: cc-by-nc-nd is not commons compatible.
      2. License-wise OK (but I'd think about nominating it for deletion as out of COM:SCOPE under the "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." criterion)
      3. No. This is a publicity shot from the Siam Paragon website from 2007, with no evidence of a free license. see screenshot
      4. self-remedied here - In my defense, the photo had been previously published, but I cannot search instagram so did not immediately find the ultimate source. Had the instagram username not been the same, I would have DR-ed it and cited the precautionary principle. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Weak support, would like to hear what admins say about his deleted contributions. Although the user doesn't have a high number of edits he seems to know copyright very well and knows how to behave appropriately (also no blocks on en.WP or Commons).    FDMS  4    19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think, but would prefer an admin to weigh in, that the vast majority will be either adding {{Delete}} or {{Copyvio}}. There will be a couple userspace {{Db-u1}}s for todo lists, and two files (both on my talk page) - one was a transfer from enwiki that I didn't catch as a derivative work, and the other which was my first exposure to the concept of Freedom of Panorama. It's possible there will be a couple categories and templates that no longer exist that I edited, and maybe a couple warnings on user_talk pages that have been deleted upon indefbanning a user, but I think that would sum it up. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Of course, I may have categorized or cleaned up the page of a few files that subsequently got deleted, but I'm not sure. Storkk (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Aprox! 250 deleted editions: 50% copyvio tags, 25% delete tags and 25% other. --Alan (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"25% other" surprises me... cognitive bias ftw, I guess... Thanks, Alan! Storkk (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me, so  Support.    FDMS  4    12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 14:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Arctic Kangaroo

Comments
  •  Info Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 12#Arctic Kangaroo & Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 12#Arctic Kangaroo_2 --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like I am the first to comment: Sorry, but it is a  no. I know somebody told you to reapply in a month in your last request, but I do not think Commons is ready for you as a license reviewer yet. As far as I know the circumstances of your en.WP indef block are directly related to Commons, to be exact related to licensing. Although everybody should be given a second chance, I do not think now is the right time to use that chance to become a license reviewer. Also, I worry that some people who requested your indef global lock or block here on Commons might not be too happy about you having a right with a lot of responsibilities. Although I of course welcome your FPC and QIC participation I read about some inattentiveness that occured when you closed candidatures, inattentivenesses that should not occur when reviewing licenses. Please come back to this page in September, your request will then be archived to a new archive and you can hopefully be granted a completely fresh start. Also, without wanting to reveal any personal information, you will be one year older then.    FDMS  4    12:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Ah, and I just *suggest* removing the huge flags from your userspace, that makes you look more mature and less nationalistic. ✓ Done, thanks.
Some does not mean a lot, and this is certainly not my main reason for opposing this request, but I was refering to this thread on your user talkpage.    FDMS  4    12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh!!! First-time error and afterwards I have been very careful. + it was past midnight at that time. Night owl on the job. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the first few sections in my talk page archive. That addresses my understanding of licensing. At this point in time, I believe Jee, Liamdavies, Russavia, Jcb, Michael, Avenue and Colin have already forgiven me. As for the others I've not mentioned, I'm either not sure if they have forgiven me, or they haven't forgiven me yet. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Erm … you are not requesting to get unblocked on Commons, you are requesting to be granted lots of additional responsibilities. There is huge difference between that and "forgiving somebody", I never said that I do not "forgive" you …    FDMS  4    13:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per en:Wikipedia:Snowball clause (Per FDMS and user is not trusted (@enwiki: Indef. blocked and block evasion). ) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The Herald

Comments
Ans. No. you can't because the subject of this image is protected by copyright and the country of origin does not have freedom of panorama and redistribution. Thanks.. The Herald 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the ans is right. As it is said before, i think you understand the licensing policy but you'v to understand that your activity is too low for LR as well as the rollback right here. Please do some good practice, that's the way to gain others respect. BTW, i can't support you fully right now for the lack of activity so thats a  Weak support. ~ Nahid Talk 10:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
FYKI, I am here for an year from May 2013..The Herald 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, opposed for "hat collecting" by another hat collector...irony.--Stemoc (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, not experienced enough. (& snowball clause) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

TParis

Comments
  •  Question You like too review your own uploads? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've been busy today uploading some files and I wouldn't want to burden anyone with having to review them.--TParis (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • TParis, "Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may not review their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot. This ensures that at least two individuals, or one individual and a bot, have checked that the license choice is correct. Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid." Jee 02:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: Even if your 175 edits are "perfect", I cannot consider a user with that little experience trusted. You can nominate copyvios for deletion without any additional rights, maybe gain experience with that process and reapply again later.    FDMS  4    19:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per FDMS ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I highly doubt that he read the license review policy properly. Natuur12 (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I reviewed most of his uploads from flickr, all were as he put it "perfect" but i still believe its way too early..definitely trustworthy as he is an admin on enwiki, another 6 months and with atleast 2000+ contribs he will get my vote...--Stemoc (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obviously trustworthy enough but this time i've to agree with Natuur12 ~ Nahid Talk 07:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Sorry Per no support. ~ Nahid Talk 07:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Kevin Payravi

Comments
  •  Question:
    1. [8] how about this one?
    2. [9] how about this? (title translation:Singapore)
  • In Flickr:
    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
Are these files acceptable on Commons, and why? ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 03:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
@Hym411: thanks ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 23:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: I would expect users applying for a certain right to be able to reply to questions within 24 hours … After all, this request generally only stays open for 48 hours, and the applicant has already edited several times in the meantime. The candidate himself seems to be rather knowledgable about copyrights, but does not have a lot of experience (low number of edits) yet.    FDMS  4    08:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry. Since you did not answer my questions, I think the theme do not handle very well. As you have not answered my questions, and 48 hours have been met. I proceed to close the request. Leitoxx 03:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not promoted Leitoxx 03:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Danny lost

Comments

 Not done (snowball clause) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Ibrahim.ID

Comments
  •  Not now: Per few edits and the RFD, NSD and RFSD tags on your talkpage you did not even react to. Also, using your OTRS access as an argument here is not very honest, as your queues are only info-ar and permissions-ar.    FDMS  4    11:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this tags is not because of direct licenses issues, all picture I uploaded is right CC licences you can check it, the first picture: there are non-free software in notebook picture , the second: about COM:FOB (I didn't know this country is non-FOB) ,the last: about wrong description and I Ask to delete it myself, this give me a good lessons and less than 0.01% of all my uploads --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, but in my and COM:LR's (but not everybody's) opinion license reviewers also check whether or not there are copyright issues such as missing FOP (what does FOB stand for BTW?) or derivative works … You don't have to be a license reviewer to have fun contributing here, and in some weeks or months the tags on your talkpage will have became older and you (if you continue to contribute) more experienced. However, if there is another supporting comment (and no opposing one) I will be happy to close this as succesful (and I hope no one is faster than me doing so this time :) ).    FDMS  4    12:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I respect your point of view, anyone check my talk page and find RFD, NSD and RFSD tags, he would be opposed, but this actually not true and doesn't reflect my actual experience (that is improved after this issues certainly) , because this is a very advanced issues and not related of CC licences but related about some copyright laws: like FOP , 3D PD work-of-art .. etc, so I think I can be helpful, I will not feel upset if this request was rejected --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, applicants giving detailed explanations is always a good sign, therefore changing to  Neutral.    FDMS  4    14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 Support - Sure, let's give it a try. We need more reviewers after all and he is thrustworty. He knows enough about cc-licensing imho. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 Strong support - We need more Arabic speaking active users here. He is an admin at Arabic Wikipedia. Known him for years; Trust worthy. --Tarawneh (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted.    FDMS  4    10:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Saqib

Comments
Mono, Commons will be a new platform to majority of participants of WLM Pakistan so we'll setup Flickr group where they'll be uploading their photos. In which case, I think I'll need to review? --Saqib (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. —Mono (how to reply) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted--Stemoc (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Leitoxx

Comments
  • It would be interesting to see Leitoxx put their story here. I note that I can quote some pretty obvious examples of other Commons contributors that have had OTRS access removed because of not being trusted there, but retained their license reviewer rights, and examples of users with more significant rights on Commons that have been blocked for misuse of sock accounts on other wikis and this had no bearing on their rights here. I would like to see rights on Commons handled equitably.
Question for Steinsplitter - are there past cases where this right was managed by a !vote? --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fae: here - If you or someone else like to restore it now i am fine with it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - I refrained from voting last time because i found him to be a 'hat' collector but after the eswikiversity fiasco, he has proven to be a bit more than that..seeing his global edits, his interest lies elsewhere--Stemoc (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed as  Not done. Confidence has been damaged. Alan (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Quenhitran

Comments

 Not promoted Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Josve05a

Comments
  1. Q1
    No, that file is uploaded under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic ({{By-nc-nd-2.0}}) which is not allowed on Commons for obvious reasons. Josve05a (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Q2
    No. Burj Khalifa is in the United Arab Emirates which have no FOP. Josve05a (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Q3
    This picture, yes (if cropped first, to only show the tower, since France have no FOP). It is allowed to upload pictures of the Tower if they are taken by day, since the towers is PD, but not by night since multiple of the towers illuminations (lights) counts as visual creations which are covered the under French copyright law as its own deriv. work. Josve05a (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Promoted Natuur12 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Pratyya Ghosh

Comments

 Oppose. The candidate has been repeatedly blocked for uploading copyright violations and has continued to upload multiple copyright violations after the most recent block (for some reason without getting blocked again). Several of those uploads have been uploaded during the last month. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well @LX: what you said is right that I was repeatedly blocked. But that was 1 year 6 month ago. Which means 18 months don't you think 18 months is a long time. Secondly I talked to a lawyer about the god/goddess images and he told me that what I uploaded isn't copyvio and if everything goes well those images will be undeleted soon. Thanks. --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The user has given "patrol" and "file mover" rights recently. Hope the relevant admin can comment whether or not they experience a progress in Pratyya Ghosh's contributions. The "the god/goddess images" is a separate issue; we have even FPs on them. Any other copyvios from Pratyya? Jee 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "the god/goddess images" or why you think they're a "separate" issue. I'm guessing you're talking about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh? I don't see an undeletion discussion for those, any reason to believe that they will be undeleted nor any reason that those uploads are not relevant here. In addition to those files, there's File:Char Chokka Hoi Hoi.ogg and File:Durga Poster at Jagannath Hall.JPG. The latest block expired 16½ months ago (not 18), and I don't necessarily think that is particularly long ago when we're talking about a third block with a one-month duration in the context of someone asking to be trusted to review other people's files with respect to copyright. I'd also add that the fact that it wasn't even mentioned in the request for a right that's all about transparency isn't exactly confidence inspiring. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
LX, I only talked about that "temporary sculptures" that are created only for the use in Durga festival and destroyed after that. They are tough to judge, and a few we kept. (File:Catrinas 2.jpg, File:Durga Burdwan 03 10 2011.JPG, File:Durga, Burdwan, 2011.JPG). I've no comments about the quality of this candidate; just trying to be fare. As far as I know he is an youngster with good motives, and there is no need to discourage them, if their contributions here are in good faith. On the other side, Pratyya, it is better to use the existing rights you acquired and learn from experience than run for more rights now. Good luck. Jee 02:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Question See these images, think about whether these files should be accepted on Commons or not, and please answer below.

  1. File:LOVELY QUEST by Ryo FUKAsawa (2).jpg: Do you think De minimis apply in this case?
  • I'm sorry Revi, but I really don't understand the background of the image and what is written on it. If you please kindly tell me the meaning of those writings and describe the image it'll be really useful for me.
  1. File from flickr
  • Well In my opinion this photo can be used in commons as it's license is Cc-by-2.0 which is clearly acceptable.
  1. File from flickr 2
  • Per the flickr license it can be used, as it's license is too Cc-by-2.0 but I'm afraid it fails at the FoP. Mongolia has no FoP (This is the image of parliament building and palace of culture) So this image can't be used in commons.

Thanks, — Revicomplaint? 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Question Do you think File:PadminiKolhapure02.jpg is accepted on commons? Whether your ans is yes or no please explain. ~ Nahid Talk 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it can be used. Per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama Bollywood Hungama grants us permission to the sets, parties, and press meetings images. The caption of the main image clearly says that "Photo Of Padmini Kolhapure From The Padmini Kolhapure returns with film Saath Rahega Always" which means it's a photo from party or press meeting, So it should be passed. Thanks. --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Well, i highly doubt this is Bollywood Hungama owned image. Image is visible on many websites with a better quality and some of them credit to indya101.com. bollywoodhungama image is a cropped version and has no watermark on it so it is very hard to believe that image is created by their own photographer. Also, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} says that Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload which means reviewer should check the file with more care before reviewing. ~ Nahid Talk 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • But vaia how can we be sure that indya101.com didn't use the photography of bollywood hungama? It's not clear and also it's not said anywhere that the photo is not of bollywood hungama and at the bottom of the page it's said that Copyright © 2014 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved. So it's not fully clear.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Answer #1 concern me - It is anime images, and I believe there is too many anime images, so I believe it is not covered by De minimis. (Somehow it is kept from DR). I believe you should be able to assume that is copyrighted (regardless of language level - I either don't know Japanese). — Revicomplaint? 15:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral per Revi (vote exchange merit). Normally, cartoon characters, game images and characters and anime characters do not have de minimis, so chances of them being copyrighted are very high. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not promoted Not experienced enough. Please keep up the good work though! --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Lewis Hulbert

Comments

✓ Promoted: Per consensus.    FDMS  4    01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Teles

Comments

✓ Done by User:Hedwig in Washington.    FDMS  4    01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

KDS444

  • KDS444 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I did not realize there was a demand for people to fill this role. I have been soliciting Flickr account users to allow their work to be used on Commons for some time, though with mixed success (some people just don't want their work given away for free, which is fine, of course). I had one particularly long interaction with a Flickr user over the license of his photo of a male peacock spider-- it took me weeks to finally get him to agree to a suitable license, but we got there (and the image is rare and gorgeous!). I feel that by now I am knowledgeable enough about licensing policy to be able to accurately review such images and to assist with the process. Please let me know whether or not you agree. Thank you for considering my request. KDS444 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (at least)
Comments

✓ Done. No oppose after > 2 days. Alan (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

PointsofNoReturn

Comments
I know how to find copyright violations. Is that enough? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Please read Commons:License review. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine. I should not have nominated myself then. You can cancel it if you wish. I only wonder if I can still nominate files for deletion and post that an image is acceptable.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You can still nominate files for deletion but not review files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 Withdrawn by the candidate --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

Comments

 Not done (Snowball clause) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

Comments

 Not promoted 6 edits is not enough. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Coentor

Comments

 Not Promoted Closing this based on Snowball clause. You need more experience about licensing policy's and the LR process. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Superzerocool

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

Dudek1337

Comments

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

Elvey

Comments
  •  Oppose: Too little experience, bad manners (blocked for PAs/"trolling" very recently on Commons and still on en.WP). Therefore not trusted enough.    FDMS  4    20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn.    FDMS  4    20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Panoramio upload bot

Comments
thx!--shizhao (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Olivier LPB

Comments

✓ Promoted. Unopposed after 2 days. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Rodrigo.Argenton

Comments
  • Russavia as administrator IMHO has enough experience and aptitude to perform actions such as the removal of the flag. Don't forget that there have been circumstances in which you have lost the trust of the community. Sorry but I can't support this application. --Alan (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • How this is related to the use of the tool? Could explain that? This is a tool to verify licenses, and that's it, nothing more. More than this, how 3 volunteers represents the whole community? By the way, I was blocked because I wrote "her boyfriend" ([13]), the sysop thought "ok, I will block for that, I'm in my right", but they are a couple, and she wrote that:[14]... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • PS:Why we need to pass trough voting to receive this tool, but for removal, any sysop, any time, can simply say "hey, I want to remove, let's do it!"?

Not promoted: Valid concerns here. — revimsg 16:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

Comments

 Not done not a trusted user. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Taketa

Comments

Promoted: Promoted and speedy-closed, thanks to the snowball clause. Congratulations! Josve05a (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

FritsHG eh?

  • Scheduled to end: 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (at least)
Comments

 Not promoted Once more , try later FritsHG eh? 19:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - user rejected the application. JurgenNL (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

EoRdE6

Comments

 Not promoted. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

1989

Comments
  •  Question Do you like to review your own uploads? Can we host photos of new buildings from Italy on commons? Can we host photos of new buildings from Germany on commons? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't really answer that because I can't review without the permission, even with it, I can't review my own files, and no, new buildings in Italy are not allowed to be on here, but in Germany, you are allowed. 1989 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Promoted. Satisfactory answers for the questions to be a license reviewer. – Kwj2772 (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

Comments

 Not done Hat collecting: LR multiple times, file mover, botrequest two times, otrs on meta two times. Please don't request this right again in the next 30 days. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

FritsHG

Comments

 Not done Are you joking? This is your fourth request within this month. The reasons to decline are still the same. If you reapply within the next weeks, I will consider this as vandalism and react accordingly. --Didym (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Peter Isotalo

Comments

 Not done Read COM:LR and gain experience. Alan (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@1989: , that was editing artefact. I'm sure you make the occasional editing snafu, so it's an odd thing to bring up.
Uhm, this is extremely bizarre. Are you not interested in having some sort of auto-review function for experienced users? You don't seem to have any comments about my capability for providing correct licensing (which this is apprently about), so please explain what this is about.
Peter Isotalo 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@Alan: , btw I did read COM:LR and it's quite unclear why it is at all relevant to Mynewsdesk or any other site where uncomplicated CC licenses are applied directly. Josve's edits to the Maritime Museum images I uploaded was the first I ever noticed of this at all.
Frankly, it's quite unclear to me why anyone would wish to go around tagging images as "unreviewed" in the first place. Are you actively seeking to add work for yourselves?
Peter Isotalo 11:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
And reverting my re-closure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, do you actually have something to add this discussion other than "he didn't agree with me"? Are you commenting here just to make a point?
Peter Isotalo 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't support your request, it looks to me like you have a bad understanding of commons rules. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Closing again. Yann (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2014&oldid=377407294"