This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Hi, I understand what you did there, but the template PD-ineligible does not work well for that purpose. It seems meant to stand alone and apply to whole files ("This file is ineligible [...]") (e.g. graphics, etc.) and it can be confusing if used otherwise or if embedded into other templates. Ineligible objects visible on copyrightable photos should normally not need a status template. IMO, it would be better to revert to the simple licensing used by the uploader and to just comment in the deletion request to say that the objects are ineligible (I see you commented already). -- Asclepias (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Are you interested in becoming a license reviewer on Commons? If so, I can nominate you for the role provided that you edit your user page and give it a professional look. Please let me know, Thanks, 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I know that you already applied. But I think the situation has changed. I believe User:Majora and User:T Cells won't oppose you this time. I also think that you won't bump into User:Jcb and clash with them. I hope that you no longer think "Commons is corrupted" or many "admins are bad". Acting as an outsider critic is easy, but won't get you anywhwere on a collaborative project. However, being positive and a good team player gives you the opportunity to fix the problems yourself, instead of "nagging" about them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: bumping into Jcb was mostly an obstacle for any consideration of running for adminship. I say was, because Jcb is not only no longer an admin, he appears to have left the building. He never missed a beat to delete files and now zero contributions for 3 days..? I think he's either gone for good, or already back. In case of the latter, it won't take long to find him.
My user page, yes.. Now that I think about it, much of what happened can probably be attributed to incompetence and coincidence rather than corruption. Though the lines between incompetence and corruption can be rather blurry. For a long time it seemed to be impossible to hold Jcb accountable for his actions, but now that it did happen, that's proof the system is not (severely) corrupted and not beyond repair.
I have many things going on, both online and offline. At this time, I don't want to take on the role of license reviewer on top of all that. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: Yes, my worry is about the parentheses and Jcb's absence. I don't know what Jcb is going to do now. I mean, we know what sometimes happens when someone's ego takes a hit. Hopefully it's only a wikibreak. Time will tell. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Come on, Alexis Jazz! You are better than that. This is the third or fourth time that you are being asked to apply for LR and you somehow refuse or postpone it. If you were an Iranian, I would say your were just making taarof and I would insist and insist and insist! But the last time I checked, you could speak Dutch, which makes you a Northern/Western European. I can remember that you bragged about editing hundred of pages in a short period of time (relative to User:Chyah) or uploading many DWDD videos in a day or two. Where is your power and speed now? 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: That "bragging", IIRC, was about what the rate limit should be, and showing that 90/m was way too low. I was actually impressed about Chyah's edit rate, because they achieved it with only HotCat. Here is some of my to do list:
Contact Wikilegal about possible issues regarding updating all WMF projects to Creative Commons 4.0, if hurdles can be overcome, create a proposal
Create a proposal to end GFDL licensing (WMF wide?)
Fix Commons governance (also, have world peace)
Propose requiring some declarations for RfA's
Propose a change to how we deal with LRs in case of linkrot (still sitting in my incubator)
Update my user page (well you mentioned it..)
I think I'm forgetting plenty of things. And this is just Commons. Real life got more complicated as well. I'm not a hat collector. I have little time for license reviewing now. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It's okay. The trust issues seem generally resolved now, but if I applied while having little time to actually review anything, that would be lousy. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the edit ratelimit on Commons is much higher; it's 3500 edits per minute for trusted users (those with autopatrol right). See [1]. Ctrl+F: "Higher rate limit for trusted users". 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Alex You've already done a lot of good work here on Commons. I wish the reviewers could get a helping hand of an experienced user such as you. That said it's your decision to make, not ours. I understand why you are refusing, and I feel there is a higher possibility that your RFL request would succeed this time. Again it's your decision to make, and I shouldn't pester you. Masum Reza📞15:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Dekemahuis
Hi,
I think this thread is long and unlikely to be of much interest to others in the RfA, which is about how I would use sysop tools rather than what is verifiable evidence in a technical copyright discussion; hence raising this here.
Please keep in mind the photograph is validly hosted on Commons using different templates, making the details of the DR hypothetical and as I stated, a poor case to use to debate the 'assumed' template regardless of one's point of view. You stated "The photo was taken in or before 1894", but from what was said in the DR it was unclear why building of adjacent houses makes that a latest date for the photograph. The photograph shows adjacent houses, the Wikipedia article mentions this, but no evidence was supplied in the DR at the time of the DR discussion to demonstrate that this contradicts what the photograph shows and the modern photograph shows that other radical changes, possibly many, must have been made to the property and its neighbouring houses during the either the 19th or 20th century. As the article contains no specific geography, it's actually hard to assess what is even meant by an east side, or whether the mentioned demolishing was for half the house shown in the photograph. Unfortunately the NL Wikipedia article links to a single source that does not actually take me to the article, I have not spent more time on it, but the source article link may have since gone offline.
Were the DR still open, I would revisit the specific evidence and potentially change my mind, I have no problem at all doing this based on verifiable reasonable sources, but this seems pointless as the licenses current on the hosted file are fine to continue as they are, uncontroversially, and there would be no actual difference of outcome. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The picture could be more clear, but whatever is there on the left may or may not even be connected to the house. It could be further away. If it is connected, it seems unlikely to be the house mentioned in the article as it would be quite small. (only one story) I suspect it's simply further away, because on the edge of the picture I do see another house, and that one clearly isn't connected. - Alexis Jazzping plz12:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, I no longer understand the point being made. From what you are saying, we do not have evidence that changes to the house as shown in the photograph mean the photograph can be proven to have been taken before 1894. Given this appears confusing, or the evidence at least rather hard to explain better, I think the DR outcome given the evidence supplied was fine. As said, were this still an open case and relevant, I would be happy to see an examination of the source given for the Wikipedia article, especially if that has something more explicit, like drawings or floor plans against dates. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: As you said, it won't change the outcome of the DR, so discussing and researching this further is of little use. I just wanted to say something else. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ (2019) went downhill after Colin shared his list and is currently standing at 18 support and 22 oppose. (45% support) Even another 20 support votes without any more opposition (and these votes generally don't get much more than 60 votes) wouldn't result in a successful RfA. Just saying, I can't see anything good coming from leaving it open. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with genuine opposition that can provide evidence of issues with my access to sysop tools, and explain how in future I might change what I do so that they would support me. The rush of opposes have not explained how they found out about the RfA, I doubt that the VP thread made that happen. My suspicion is that immediately after it was posted about off-wiki, it (as has been the pattern for my RfA's in past years) was shared in a certain social media group where a couple of those same opposers from past years hang out with each other. I think if I apply for sysop tools for the next decade, regardless of the evidence those same folks have demonstrated their intent so viscerally, there is nothing I would ever do, write, nor even hard evidence provided by others that would change their vote.
There are lessons to learn, I said less in this nomination statement than the last one, though I am trying positively to answer some questions. In the next one I probably will avoid any mention of a certain topic. However let's just expect it will fail, just as soon as it is again canvassed off-wiki and that may never change. Perhaps the mistake we made was me not running a RFA for four years, rather than just carrying on every year as I used to, so the pattern is more jarringly explicit of how odd and exceptionally nasty these RfAs are, and how unlike the way other RfAs work and document the active community consensus. It's sort of worth it to keep on exposing that weirdness, even if it is already a joke and an excuse to throw rocks.
To be honest, it's very hard to reconcile my activities and interactions with the vast majority of contributors on Commons over the last couple of years and the outpouring of grief, from a network that I do not understand why they would ever want to stay so interested in me for so many years. You would think that they would have better and less weird ways to invest their time.
By the way, this year I have had transphobic abuse by email and on-wiki transphobic death threats. Stewards are quite helpful and WMF T&S has records of some of it. No doubt everyone agrees that direct harassment and threats is a bad thing, even those writing about me off-wiki this weekend. It would be nice if some of them recognized that problem and that when I suggest dialing down the rhetoric, it's not a joke, and does have consequences for me.
Alexis, whilst chronologically the oppose votes started with mine, correlation does not imply cause->effect. The negative votes would have come anyway. However, I think my list was useful to anyone thinking that Fae had changed or was recently well behaved or should be given a chance. But with all these things, someone has to be first to oppose and many conflict-avoiding folk are happier not to be first. They want to avoid explicitly expressing their opinions, thus provoking an argument about them, so they hide behind a "per Colin" shield. I am rather concerned that Fae considers repeating this annually or even that "exposing that weirdness" is good. Because I think it is really harmful to Commons to provoke division like this. It is one of the reasons I'm so against people making wild proposals and then opening a vote, and I've linked before the meta pages that explain why. Fae's RFA's polarise the community and results in polarising comments. We get people using divisive language like "enemies". Most of us grown-ups don't have any enemies. Fae needs to stop blaming everyone else and LGBT issues for the negativity. The problem with Fae becoming an admin lies within Fae alone, and Fae needs to accept that. I mean, I've never had any inclination to adminship, but my RFA would be horrendous. Some things are just not meant to be. -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: I heard there was also some off-wiki advertising so that may have coincided with your list. However, I think some people may have voted support because they were unaware of the issues on the list. Once aware, more people could vote oppose. Without the list, I think there would have been less oppose votes. Which doesn't mean there is no herd mentality effect, btw. - Alexis Jazzping plz20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
That's what Fae speculates/claims. I wouldn't know since I'm not involved in any off-wiki wiki-related website, group or IRC. I know you are fairly new here, but anyone who's been here a few years will know Fae and likely have a strong opinion. There are all sorts of reasons for the votes, whether tribalism (where one stands on the big Russavia debate, or how one views WMF, deletionist/inclusionist), or personal conflicts and observations, or deep knowledge of copyright concerns and a hope for admins who have the first clue in that regard, etc. There will also be plenty people who don't vote, because it is not worth the grief, and conversely I wouldn't suppose that all the support votes are genuine wishes for Fae to gain the bit, but rather signalling in the safe knowledge that it is unlikely to pass anyway. We are not that much evolved from chimpanzees. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I can confirm that I was waiting for a comment like Colin's to appear so I could more safely add my oppose. I left Wikipediocracy some time ago. The assumption of bad faith by Fæ as expressed above warrants additional concern. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Improper closures
Per COM:DP: Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it. Speedily closing a valid, good-faith request by a user you recently filed a complaint against, when such a closure is obviously controversial, is unambiguously disallowed. I am not sure if your intention is to provoke me, to provoke Eugene, or to see whether anyone will stop you, but such an action is unacceptable per Commons policy. This is a block threat: if you continue to make bad closures to further a personal agenda, I will block you to stop the disruptive activity.
Additionally, several of your closures today have been flawed. Even if a speedy deletion tag has been applied to an image, the DR should not be closed until the image has actually been deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora and 4nn1l2: I've had enough of this. Pi.1415926535 obviously has a grudge against me for whatever reason. I closed that DR because the file is obviously in scope. There is no argument there. I don't mean to provoke anyone with that. The DRs that were converted to speedies are only those that I am certain about will be deleted. The files in question are on my watchlist just in case. Leaving the DR open just leaves rubble laying around. Closing it after the speedy has been carried out would be neat, but not very practical. Seriously, I bet you examined all the closures and just tried the best you could to find any fault, anything at all to throw at me. Eugene has been warned to be specific when starting a DR, and appears to blatantly ignore this. And I am accused of provoking? You're not going to warn Eugene, are you? Why not? If you really plan to block me for good faith closures that perfectly adhere to policy, I say: be my guest.
Since I was called here, can we both please just take a breath? First of all, Krdbot should autoclose, and subsequently archive, any DRs where the file has been deleted. So leaving DRs around where there is also a speedy tag doesn't necessarily create more work for any real person. As for problematic closures can you give an example, Pi.1415926535 of a close that you consider improper? It is hard for people to modify their behavior, and for others to understand your side, if you don't include concrete examples of what you are talking about. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Krdbot closes DRs? I suppose that's a new feature? That's great. I won't close those anymore, then. (edit: it's not new, apparently, but I've never encountered it before.) - Alexis Jazzping plz20:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Pi.1415926535: I'm going to give Alexis the benefit of the doubt here in regards to closing speedy eligible DRs. The amount of different things that Krdbot does is not well known and the fact that it closes DRs where the file has been deleted is probably one of those. I can see how this misunderstanding could result in Alexis thinking they were indeed helping by cleaning up the DR list (which we would have just had to go through and clean up ourselves). So in that matter, meh, a simple note on what bot actions we have running and asking them to stop would suffice. Alexis could you please stop doing that since Krdbot handles these closures automatically once the file in question is speedy deleted?
As for the Quadient logo, the only issue I can see is that Alexis closed speedy kept the image instead of just waiting the 7 days. This was not ok and the DR should have just been left open for the requisite length of time. It is clearly in scope, fine copyright wise, and likely to be useful in the near future. Deleting it because it is not SVG is simply not within policy so I'm just going to ignore that part of the DR rationale. Whatever animosity they have towards Eugene notwithstanding, the main issue with that specific DR closure is that it was done early. Please don't do that, Alexis. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I already answered your Krdbot question before you asked it. As for speedy closing, I don't think there are clear rules on that. I closed Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Selamat datang speedy as well, because that was obviously nonsense. It's not the same as the Quadient logo, but where to draw the line? Once the deletion rationale has been proven beyond reasonable doubt not to apply, I see little reason to leave a DR open. I haven't closed anything with as much as a half-decent rationale, nor have I closed anything that potentially could end up being deleted on other grounds like Commons:Deletion requests/File:B Boys 03.jpg. I'll think about this, but I'm unsure of where to draw the line. The outcome of the Quadient DR is a foregone conclusion. Speedy delete-closing can be an issue in some cases, but a speedy keep-close that's highly unlikely to be reversed.. I'll think about it. I'll just say this: if Eugene had better specified rationales, I wouldn't have closed that. If Eugene had said "I don't think https://www.quadient.com/ is notable enough for Commons", he'd be dead wrong, but I wouldn't have closed that DR because there would be an actual disagreement. - Alexis Jazzping plz21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say that out of scope claims should never really be speedy closed unless you are talking something like File:President Barack Obama.jpg. Nominations that are so clearly nonsense that it beggars the imagination whether it was vandalism or not. Out of scope claims are one of the more discussion based type DRs that we have and I could see why Eugene nominated it. It wasn't actively being used in an article. Their rationale was wrong in the end but I can see why they nominated it. There would be no harm in leaving it for the required 7 days and I can pretty much guarantee you that that type of DR will still be there after 7 days anyways. I believe that the best option would be for you to work off of the list that is 7 days old if you want to continue to close DRs. That way there is more solid ground to stand on as opposed to the gray area that is speedy keeps. I do appreciate the assistance in closing obvious cases of "keep" DRs. Just doing it early like that is only going to lead to issues. You could always ask me too if you have a question about a gray area. I'm usually around, if not immediately at least that same day. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. Meanwhile, Eugene thinks I create Wikidata items just to bug him. He should really do some minimal level of research before nominating. Just providing a link to the website of the entity in question, or saying "I was unable to find this entity with Google" would be plenty sufficient. What Eugene does now essentially could be done by Krdbot.
If (extension is not svg) and (file is unused) and (new upload is true) and (user is not autopatrolled) and (filename or wikitext contains "logo") then start DR+"Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful."
That's a step too far, Alexis. It's really close to disrupting the project just to make a point and I've removed it. I'm really trying to help you here, trying to see both sides of things, but you're kinda making it hard. --Majora (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: alright. I just don't know what to do. Talking to Eugene doesn't work. Reporting Eugene on AN/U doesn't work, he simply ignores it. Suggesting to have Eugene's botlike edits carried out by an actual bot doesn't work. I'm out of ideas. The silly thing is, there are so many ways to solve it. Eugene could simply make some alterations to his default rationale text so it doesn't suggest anymore he did the research. (and if at all possible, remove irrelevant arguments like "should be in SVG") Actually doing the research would be even better, but if that's not possible, at the very least don't suggest the research was done. - Alexis Jazzping plz22:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: None in particular, it's just a blueprint actually. And fun.. I just want Eugene to improve his DRs, but so far he ignores absolutely everybody. I'd be having way more fun if he was just open to improving his deletion rationales. - Alexis Jazzping plz22:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I actually agree with you on that. At least to the degree that conflict is generally more of a last resort when it comes to changing something. But what is the right method? You have been notified of the various issues more than once, but you don't even seem to acknowledge those issues, even less so change anything. Pi.1415926535 told you in the closing message of that AN/U thread to better specify your rationales, and you ignore it. If you had merely acknowledged your DR rationale isn't optimal, I wouldn't have started that AN/U thread. From there we'd still have to figure out how to improve it, but there'd be a starting point. I also wonder if there is a language barrier that prevents you from understandstanding what your DR rationale implies. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I change things all the time! Even right now! Majora informed me Krdbot automatically closes DRs where the file has been deleted and asked me not to close those anymore.. And guess what, I'm no longer doing that! (though I am slightly disappointed because Taivo isn't Krdbot) If you understand what your DR rationale implies, there are few options left:
You think you understand, but actually don't understand what your DR rationale implies.
You do understand it, and you're trolling. Which means you don't understand it, because we assume good faith and the mere idea of a trolling bureaucrat is insane.
@Majora: this isn't going well. I already cited the dictionary on that AN/U thread. I said here that those DRs shouldn't imply that Eugene did the research. I just.. just.. I can't wrap my head around this, how did Eugene become a bureaucrat? A crat should be able to handle critique, not just dismiss it. Is all this just confusion resulting from a language barrier? - Alexis Jazzping plz16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know what you are expecting from me here, Alexis. Perhaps it would be wise to just avoid each other? An intractable dispute may be helped by distance after all. As I've stated further up, I agree that Eugene's DR rationales are not always optimal. When I come across them when I'm closing DRs I always take the time to examine the files based on what Eugene is saying but also on their own merits. I never just close things based on what the person's rationale is regardless of who they are. Including other admins. I prefer to take into consideration all things when I close DRs. That is what anyone closing deletion requests should be doing (including the occasional non-admin closer). So I'm not really sure Eugene's rationales, while leaving something to be desired, are that big of a problem to be honest. Perhaps just ignoring it, or them entirely, is the best course of action here? --Majora (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Sigh, I'm afraid so. I know you care, but not all admins can be expected to know how Eugene works. All they see is a bureaucrat who implies to have done his research (and why wouldn't you trust that?), they see no opposition (because it's common for DRs not to receive any comment, regardless of merit) and delete the file. And I'd be happy to discuss things, and we can disagree on things, that's all fine, but Eugene simply doesn't seem interested in anything. Everything that's been said seems to fall on deaf ears. Me, you, Pi.1415926535, other users. Dismiss all and continue. Which baffles me. Why would Eugene do that? He even goes so far to say "Did you change your behavior after conflicts?", like only a crazy person would do that. That's his defense. These are not the words I expect out of the mouth of a bureaucrat. I know there wouldn't be consensus for it, but if Eugene refuses to even acknowledge he shouldn't falsely imply to have done research, the thing that comes to my mind is "edit restriction". And I doubt that would actually be much of a taboo if Eugene didn't have a bit. And that only makes things harder to comprehend. People may see this whole ordeal as me escalating everything, but Eugene's role in this shouldn't be ignored. God forbid trolls ever start using this as a tactic, because apparently we are utterly powerless against it. - Alexis Jazzping plz21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Commons governance
You said "Commons is quite open to adopting new things and protecting free speech but has issues with its governance". I am personally willing to try to improve the governance of Commons. I'm here because I value your opinions. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your comment. I may be able to help (now or in the future). I have some experience from fawiki (which is, in my opinion, a problematic project). One reason why I like Commons (and spend my time here) is that I see the situation here better than fawiki (my former homewiki). You may see the situation here equal to or worse than, say, nlwiki. It is good to talk about our experiences. Thank you, 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks, I actually can use your help. Nlwiki is better (at least in the sense anyone can start a desysop), but also much smaller. So those rules may not actually work here. I am thinking about a proposal to improve this, but it only really exists inside my head right now. When I write some of it down, I'll be needing more input to form a workable proposal. - Alexis Jazzping plz17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Here are some of my long term governance related talking points. You may want to hijack some of these.
@Fæ: OTRS agents are definitely subject to scrutiny, but it requires our OTRS agents to check in on Meta every two or three days at a time to keep an eye on m:OTRS/Volunteering. It's a multi-project, multi-lingual queue, so I'm not sure there's anything else to do other than encourage our volunteers to keep an eye out once or twice a week. GMGtalk02:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Access to the Commons queue was subject to discussion on Commons not that long ago. There is no policy rationale to stop such a procedure for access being created again, should the community decide that is a better form of governance than the current system, which involves no Commons based discussion at all. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
For applications to OTRS alone, this can be done more simply than creating more work for the applicant, as if there is a consensus to ensure an on-Commons discussion, the Commons notification or noticeboard post can be created by bot.
However access to the Commons permissions queue is a separate issue, as anyone with access to OTRS (e.g. access to the Koren Wikipedia queue) can at any time be given access to the Commons queue without any public transparency that this has happened. At that stage a more transparent governance process would flag that access for public discussion, if only for a few days. The benefit to the community and increased confidence in the OTRS system is easy to explain, as anyone making decisions about requests in the Commons queue must have a well grounded and relatively sophisticated understanding of copyright. Someone, say, who has never engaged at all in any copyright discussions on Commons who wanted access to the Common queue might be subject to a few reasonable questions about why they need or want access.
Sorry to trip over wording, but my remarks are about volunteer access, rather than agents in any literal sense. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The easiest thing to my mind would be to set up something like en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts. It's automatically updated by a bot, and the bot that updates it has been "tweaked" (I'm not tech savvy) so that it's edits don't get ignored on watchlists, even if someone has their watchlist set to ignore bots. So we just have a bot alert Commons editors at a centralized page here when someone requests access to permissions on Meta. GMGtalk11:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That could get real tricky. There's lots of individual language queues beside Commons, that nonetheless impact Commons even though their traffic mostly originates from other uni-lingual projects. Besides that we don't really even "own" our own Commons queue. OTRS is more-or-less operated as an independent project. As I'm sure we are all aware, our individual projects are fiercely independent and resistant of any effort to impose upon their absolute self-governance. Everyone is welcome to comment on requests within reason, but that is normally a comment made as a member of the global community or a member of OTRS.
Even if we could require LR for access to the Commons permissions queue, it's liable to have unforeseen consequences, particularly, having users prefer individual language queues instead and uploading files locally that should be uploaded here. GMGtalk12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
A syllogism for you to consider
All users reviewing Varaine's files have to be trusted ; you have worked a lot on these files and will probably continue to help there ; hence now might be a good time to apply for LR . — Racconish💬20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Majora/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.
Important: thou shalt not review thy own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!
I know he has knowledge, experience and all. But I think you should have at least asked him if he wants this right or not. LR rights should have been granted after a successful RFLR. I have no objection to this though and I would have supported his RFLR. Masum Reza📞02:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I should go through RFLR like everybody else.. I ignored this as I assume someone will reverse this anyway. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Unlike Wikipedia, writing about yourself or topics you're connected to is welcomed by Wikisage rather than considered offensive. It is one of several differences. The lemma will still get edited by other users. This is merely the initial copy of a free text from elsewhere, incomplete and not quite Wikisage format. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Who said that it was considered offensive in Wikipedia? Well unlike Wikipedia, Wikisage doesn't have nuetral/verifiable articles. Masum Reza📞21:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain the reasons for the deletion request? These files are added with restricted content on the Portuguese Wikipedia, so I thought a free version would be valid.
@Conde Edmond Dantès: That is not a free version. The logo is copyrighted, both in the original and your crop. But in the original I'd consider it "de minimis", something too insignificant to be bothered about. When you crop the image to show just the logo, it is no longer an insignificant part of the image.
I remember seeing in the project a series of images derived from the logos. Some are "imitations" or similar to the original logo, so I didn't think about copyright infringement, especially for the license of the image (which should not interfere).
About the links, I would like to know if there is any rule about cropping, because it is one thing to focus on someone else, another to simply resize the original image. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Conde Edmond Dantès: In some cases we have simplified logos like the Pokémon GO logo or the DuckTales title card. The parts that make those copyrightable have been removed. I don't understand your question about cropping. All content on Wikimedia Commons is freely licensed, meaning (among other things) you are allowed to create altered versions. As long as they are in scope, crops can be uploaded here. - Alexis Jazzping plz09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't really have anyone to ask so I'll ask you, but do you think that it's realistic for me to ever be unblocked at the Meta-Wiki? Or would it be better for me to try to convince Wikimedia Deutschland and the Wikimedia Foundation to create a separate technical wishlist for Wikimedia Commons? There are quite some technical features that I would like to see, especially for categories, but using the Phabricator doesn't seem to work for anything other than getting a rare bug fix once in a blue moon. Any advice? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I never really looked into why you were blocked to begin with, nor am I a regular on meta, so I can't say anything useful about that. But if you are referring to m:Community Wishlist Survey 2020, Commons (and Wikidata) have been excluded from that. I've been planning on creating a wishlist here (we just gotta do that. asking for permission is useless), but I only have so much time. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and Masumrezarock100: , the solution is simple, Wikipedia Deutschland (WMDE), they have a huge pool of talented engineers and they basically built Wikidata and the German-language Wikipedia by themselves with all the features they've created. The problem is convincing them to also help out with Wikimedia Commons.
Oh yeah, the issue is contacting Wikimedia Deutschland, how do we do that? On Wikidata all you have to do is just throw a question in the air and someone from Wikimedia Deutschland will reply as they dwell all over that platform, but I don't see that many WMDE employees here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Asking WMDE to fulfill our wishes is one way to resolve things, I guess. But wouldn't Structured Data Team be better in this case? I mean they are already working on Structured Data here. Masum Reza📞21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
. — Racconish 💬 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Done Should you request it at some point, I would be happy to support. — Racconish 💬 17:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
_2012_Paris-Roubaix.jpg){kind=link}
