User talk:Russavia/Archive 13

RE: Email 2

Working on it. Since the original version of the video is now public, we should probably discuss any future concern publicly rather than through Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I think the artist will appreciate the link to the video; it gives it better context too -- unfortunately I don't have time to go into the issue of licencing of the song in the video -- it sounds like an original track (Shazaam didn't return anything) -- so we have what we have and other stuff is on Vimeo. russavia (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded for Russavia (Aero Icarus)

Its populating... -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess we can say that aviation subjects will be amongst the most comprehensively represented subjects on Commons before too long. russavia (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Kolega2357-Bot

Please give me a bot flag. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please follow the rest of the process at Commons:Bots/Requests. You need to explain what it is the bot will do, you also need to add the request here, etc. The community can then look at it. Cheers, russavia (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for de-adminship and de-bureaucratship

I've filed one here:

• Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship, de-bureaucratship)

Geni (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Airliners.net

• Category:Airliners.net photos (check needed)

I think I've sorted out the basics to help with some uploads. Minor clarifications:

• File names, I'm thinking of using <Aircraft field (reversed)> + "AN"+<Airliners.net unique database number>, giving results looking like "File:Airbus A319-111, EasyJet Airline AN2272320.jpg"
• {{Custom license marker}}, I am not using this, it is an upload wizard bit of trickery.
• I will create my own check category, let me know if you have something else ready to use.

Run into a problem with a 12px credit bar being added to all images. Due to my old OSX, I cannot easily batch crop. I may be able to solve this, or be forced to run from windows. It is a problem I've had before, so I would like to solve it, but things will be delayed here. All the rest now working and ready to go. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Processed more than 400, and it is mostly working. Where odd characters are in the url, I'm not bothering. This has only happened once with http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sven-Väth-(Air/Learjet-31A/2160659/L and working around this seems too much effort compared to someone teasing these by hand at some future time. I raised the crop question on Commons:Bots/Work_requests, for the time being it's on the back burner and can wait until everything of interest is uploaded. --Fæ (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, I ran a quick experiment of nudging the re-compression to 99 rather than 98, you can see at File:Airbus A319-111, Frontier Airlines AN1394171.jpg this results in the file being significantly larger than the original, even though it is smaller in resolution. This indicates to me that by choosing the '98', this seems to accurately reflect a standard compression level of the original, and I doubt that there would be any visible change that was detectable, even by use of tools, whereas re-compressing to a higher standard than the original may actually introduce artefacts due to a form of effectively attempting to write detail than was not there before. The guide for PIL notes that at 100 there is no compression, which would probably be equivalent to saving a bmp file or similar, though again I suspect this may lead to unexpected artefacts. If we really had to, I could fetch the original image out of the history and transform that again, so this is a reversible action if these choices turn out to not be the best. --Fæ (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Done with 10,185 photos. The search shows the most recent uploads to Airliners.net, so re-running will quickly add any new photos that Konstantin releases, in fact when I re-ran another 15 had been added since I started. --Fæ (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tonight

For you:-)

Hi! Tonight we celebrate a very old Slavic holiday "Wianki" (Wreaths).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wianki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night

It is a kind of Polish Valentine's Day. In my home town a variety of attractions are being organized during the coming days and nights (21st to 23rd of June). I thought it might be interesting for you to read about it, because you are interested in Russia and other Slavic countries. Unfortunately we don't have on Commons own pictures illustrating it, but I have found two links for you:

[1] and [2]. In the past in the summer time it was one of girls' favourite activity to make wreaths from wild flowers like white and red clovers, red poppies and cornflowers. I made flower wreaths during my holidays in the countryside or while sitting on the grass in a beautiful city park. Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why thank you very much. :))))) russavia (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• [3] LOL The other two answers you will find on my talk page. --Seleucidis (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheer up!

File:Blurredeevee.jpg

Please hold on. There are worse things happening in life. I hope for you it all will be all right. --Seleucidis (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 Penyulap ☏ 10:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Penyulap for your support! I like your new version of Sexuality barnstar. It is cute:-) I must admit I had difficulty to recognise male and female, wondering about what these green leaves on the chest are:-) but my friend had no problem and immediately said: "Oh, a male and a female puppets". --Seleucidis (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I think it's funny how adding leaves can create the impression of nudity, people would never have known the stars are anatomically correct or naked until after I covered them up. Penyulap ☏ 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg

File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JKadavoor Jee 08:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that the way the foundation has poorly written it's policy page means that it's a valid point to bring up for discussion. I don't think it would succeed, but I think it should be discussed none the less, if only to suggest a better outlining of the policy on the policy page (on the other site). Penyulap ☏ 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Minority removal of welcome images. Penyulap ☏ 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Die Australië toch

I almost fainted today in the kitchen when I heard on the radio that a person from Western Australia was on the line and wanted to talk to the DJ. I immediately thought of you making a joke and my legs became soft as butter. (Un)fortunately it was not you, but a woman born in Holland, in the town Arnhem, years ago, who listens to a Dutch radio station every day to improve her Dutch language. What a relief! Anyway it was a very funny and nice situation and almost a coincidence. Who would think that there are people in WA listening to a Dutch radio station? How bizarre:-) Had to tell you about it, probably I will never forget it till the end of my days. She said it was 18 degrees and sunny (afternoon), although it is winter in Australia. We suppose to have summer, but it is only 14 degrees C, no sun, rain and clouds. Frankly, we are all jealous. I even think (love such a conspiracy theory) that you should remove the template "This wikipedian lives in Australia", because other wikipedians living in west and north Europe are jealous. And a jealous person is able to do nasty things, like ... Replace it with "This wikipedian lives in Iceland":-) Just kidding. But in fact I came to your page with a question. Here it comes. Do you have a standard letter to send, if you want to ask to donate pictures to Commons? It is not a Flicker account, but a firm. I need their pictures to illustrate an article and there is a chance that they will accept my/our request and donate some pictures. Anyway it improves their image on Wikipedia, so why not? If there is such a standard letter, please give me a link. BTW I adjusted your translation. --Seleucidis (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Airliners.net

You said at Fae's userdisk that you "search" a chapter that would pay the 15$ for Airliners.net full membership. I think that this is not needed because it is easy to remove the watermark/frames. -Example- If you show me where to find all KvW pics, I'll do this with them all (or with as much as i can, if they're too much...). -- Milad A380 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Milad, the basic cropping has been sorted out now. You can see by checking Airliners.net photos (check needed) that 80% have already had the "credit bar" removed and we have a nice workflow to ensure these are systematically and accurately removed. The reason that Russavia is suggesting using membership access is that some of the accounts where Commons has secured permission for free reuse, have another type of watermark which is embedded across the image, rather than as a bar. These cannot be cropped out, but don't get added in the first place if you login as a member. We are working on it, and I'll probably have some time to look at this in more detail next week. In the meantime the uploads that do not require a login proceed to plan, in fact we are over 11,000 uploads now. If you would like to help out, it is having more categories added that is most needed. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I know Airliners.net, and the Watermarks there, but it is also possible to remove these Watermarks (exept when they directically cover the plane). Are there in general pics with these Watermark on Commons? Normally the Spotters who use the watermark are the type of Spotters who do not release their pics under GDFL/CC. -- Milad A380 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are going to be some of these soon, as Russavia has been nicely negotiating with the photographers to get the releases. We are in the process of discussing how to download the originals without the embedded watermarks. I suggest not worrying about the 'credit bar' on images, I am removing these using a semi-automated process, in fact the ones you are doing by hand are being flagged as errors. See Category talk:Airliners.net photos (check needed), it's no big deal but if you hang on for a bit, any you want to use will be fixed soon. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. A small question, after the credit bar is removed and the image has been categorized, should I remove the cat Airliners.net photos (check needed)? -- [[User:Milad A380|Milad <small>A380</small>]] [[User talk: Milad A380|^talk?]] (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave it for the moment. Russavia, do you intend to have a category for uploads from airliners.net so these can be easily found again once the check category is removed? If so, I'd do better to be adding it on upload. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need such a category; the few images (so far) I've been categorising, e.g., I've been removing that category as the source isn't so important, but the photographer, and such links are in the template anyways. Cheers Fae. russavia (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry

I acknowledge that there are obviously some issues amongst some editors from the German Wikipedia community, however, a request for rights is not the right avenue to express those concerns; COM:RFC is, and I would encourage those editors with concerns to address those concerns at that venue. - who are you that you belive YOU can decide what other people have to think? I think, we can't go on with this and this also means not to vote for a candidate before clearing the problems! It's unbeleavable...! Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

{talkpage angel}Hi Marcus, even if all of the objections to there being too many checkusers were counted and added up with all other objections, there still weren't enough to make the proposal fail. A successful request needs 80%, and by any count it had that from the start. (inserted note, a raw numbers count reveals 79%). The direction to a RFC wasn't meant to be dismissive I think, it was just meant to point everyone in the right direction. If you want, I can start off a RfC about Checkusers on commons, or help construct one that has a decent chance of changing things, moving all parties towards common ground. Penyulap ☏ 20:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft

Hi, You may want to leave a quick word at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Category:Avion isn't for airplanes to reassure people that you intend to continue your work with the categorization of the aircraft files that were recently uploaded by bot. Some people seem to worry about it. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{talkpage angel} Hi Asclepias, it is a good idea, although Russavia has a good well-known reputation for cleaning up their work as they go, actually I think it has already been mentioned there. I'll add an extra note there if it helps save time. Penyulap ☏ 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Finnair DC-9-51; OH-LYY@ZRH, March 1983 (8169143576).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Finnair DC-9-51; OH-LYY@ZRH, March 1983 (8169143576).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Finnair DC-9-51; OH-LYY@ZRH, March 1983 (8169143576).jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

From the source page in Flickr: "from my collection, not my own shot". Thus, the author is unknown. Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

According to a Google search there are 393 such files. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 13:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll delete these particular files in bulk. russavia (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

aren't there enough accidents ?

I was wondering if these ones are any good ? I think they are the ones I spruced up to remove the billboard, but I never mentioned it at the time. For some reason the billboard always came up in my uploads list, even though it was removed, some glitch in the cache. Are there too many pictures of the aircraft on commons ? If the plane crashed, people would want a picture of it, but I don't know the chance of that happening, it varies quite a lot from place to place. Maybe there are a lot of that model at that angle ? Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved those files into my "delete" category on 17 June. I wasn't aware of your removal of the copyrighted sign, but have now undeleted them. Cheers, russavia (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

just the current version of this one is good, the older one has a wingtip missing. Penyulap ☏ 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Stats for sexual file usage

I did some very rough stats at User:Bawolff/usage_stats_sexual_media How much these stats represent the total number of sexually explicit images is debatable, but they do give some interesting numbers. For example, things in a sex category are more likely to be used than something uploaded via mobile upload. Bawolff (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's quite interesting to see some actual figures. So going by this, at a rough estimate, we have approximately 11,000 sexuality-related images on Commons -- including people involved in adult entertainment, pubic lice, and other such categories -- out of a total of 17,500,000 files, meaning that around 0.05% of all files on Commons are related to human sexuality. And a large percentage of those files are actually in use. Sincerely, I think we can safely ignore and scoff at reports saying that Commons is supersaturated with "porn" as patent nonsense. russavia (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Very roughly speaking, yes. I'm almost certain there are categories I missed (not to mention a bunch of false positives), but I think the data gives a good order of magnitude measurement. Bawolff (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bawolff, a nice simple report. There are probably other ways of cutting the data, but this is a good piece of fact based evidence. We may want to reference your report on Commons:Nudity, or perhaps referenced within a Village Pump explanation, as a means of providing the facts for this frequently raised question. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Asiana Airlines Boeing 777-200ER; HL7742@HKG;31.07.2011 614fz (6052589349).jpg

Hey Russavia. Quick question: Is this picture of the actual plane that crashed, or just of a plane of that specific model owned by that specific airline? If the former, how do we know? You're the expert when it comes to this stuff, of course, but I didn't see anything on the Flickr page that makes it immediately obvious that it's the same plane. Currently, en's main page says "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (pictured)", so if that's not the case, we should clear that up ASAP. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The title on flickr is where the information of the aircraft is from. Also the registration (HL7742) is visible near the rear exit door. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the actual aircraft that crashed. The spotter community is quick with these things; especially with services such as flightradar24.com being available, etc. If there's any doubt, here is the crashed aircraft with the registration clearly visible on the wing. russavia (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks. Was sure there was some meaning to all those extra letters and numbers, but didn't know how to decode them. And thanks for adding that description, for people like me who are clueless about this stuff. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Moscow collage.jpg

Hi Russavia! Above montage, created by you, suffered Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moscow State University, HDR.jpg (concerning the image in the middle, right corner), compromising the whole file. Can you fix the montage, substituting this image with another one? Gunnex (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you barnstar

For you:-)

Hello Russavia! Thank you for uploading this particular picture. I used it to illustrate my new article. It fits very well and promote the article on the front page today:-) --Seleucidis (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. I have dropped a note to the photographer here to let them know it is being used on Polish Wikipedia. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is very kind of you. Thank you. The picture is great – the photographer made it at the right moment and caught the emotions: desire, love and admiration. --Seleucidis (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bosque Morning (5401577702).jpg

Hi Russavia - what were the reasons for deleting this? It is CC-BY license, so OK for Commons, and a good pic worth keeping. Is there some other problem with it? - MPF (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The initial reason for deletion was I didn't believe it would be in scope given it is a heavily modified image. I've undeleted it. Enjoy. russavia (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The background trees are modified to 'emphasize' the mist, but (as far as I can see!) the birds aren't. - MPF (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a cool image. I sometimes wonder about modified images, and why people don't like them as featured content, I mean, the FI rules don't rule it out, and as for scope, how should we illustrate the articles about image modification :D Penyulap ☏ 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Penyulap - good point, hadn't thought of that, too! Can you find a suitable category of modified images for it, please? - MPF (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I popped it into Category:Computer generated images using hotcat, which made me feel cheap, like a gold-digging edit count chaser. Eww!! :) Penyulap ☏ 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've added it to Category:Manipulated photographs; and I too used HotCat, because we need to justify our presence on this project somehow, and using HotCat is the best way to do so. russavia (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bah ! too much conformity ! Destroy something ! here, this file needs all previous revisions deleted quick smart, chop chop !! It is mentioned here as well. I also have used it in my art in the last few days. Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the help page again, the one that tells you how to make admins do whatever you want. I know I saw it somewhere, but nobody does what I want them to, Fastily and INeverCry just seem to delete stuff faster if I say keep, and if I ask you to delete something I'm sure it'll be here till the end of time. Hhmph ! ....hmm {pause} hey, maybe I'm really really good at reverse psychology and I don't know it. Penyulap ☏ 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

why is this broken image still visible ? Penyulap ☏ 18:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Response

Hello. If the face is blurred, I will have no more objections to the image. However, it was deleted meanwhile (I do apologize, but I have not visited Commons for some time until now), but if you had downloaded it before, I have no objections to uploading it again (with blurred face). Thank you for your interest. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jan, I will take care of this in the coming days, given that you don't object to your face being blurred, etc. If you don't wish for your name to be connected publicly with the file, then perhaps we can do it in such a way that you release the image into the public domain (via OTRS), and we upload it as an Anonymous, with a link to the OTRS ticket. I'll contact you later about that. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

HDR images of the United States

Just wanted to let you know, since I've seen a number of your flickr transfers while sorting. I'm diffusing Category:Tone-mapped HDR images of the United States into state-by-state subcategories, since the main category had gotten up to around 200 files. Washington DC and New York City are getting their own subcategories, and probably Boston and some others eventually as well. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff, good to see that others are coming up with new categorisation schemes with these uploads -- mainly due to the uploads creating the numbers required. Thanks for all your help. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolution:Images of identifiable persons

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Russavia,

Regarding the recent deletion request with the Pricasso image, Jimbos statement about how he felt about it on his en user talk page and The Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Images of identifiable people, Approved 10-0, where it is stated

Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.

How do you see this Wikimedia Foundation Resolution in relation to this deletion request?

1. The resolution says any person. In my opinion, this includes Jimbo. Do you agree?
2. If yes, in my opinion Jimbo has complained. Do you agree?
3. If yes, in my opinion Jimbo has complained about an image of themselves. I perceive the derivative work by Pricasso as an "image of themselves". Do you agree?
4. If yes, in my opinion, the image is hosted "on our projects", namely Wikimedia Commons. Do you agree?
5. If yes, this person shall be "Treat[ed] with patience, kindness, and respect.". In you opinion, has that been the case?
6. You are a bureaucrat in this project. According to Commons:Bureaucrats your role is primarily administrative, but you also have a community role, to quote, "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues."
7. Given the turmoil in the aftermath of the upload of the Jimbo partrait by Pricasso and you active role in that, I feel this whole issue has become a "major community issue". As a consequence, community users are being mass-described as obsessed with such kinds of works of art, and accepting the a person complaining about a portrait created in this manner is less important than the art of work itself. For me, this means that you have not been able to lead where necessaryand guide concerning major community issues. I should say, that persoanlly, I have no problems with such kinds of art myself. As a Dane, these types of work are boring "old news", as we had the painter Jens Jørgen Thorsen, who painted with his nude body and penis back in the 1970s, among others a work of Jesus shown in a manner perceived pornographic by some. But "boring old news" or not, I understand if the subjects of such artwork feel harassed.

Nothing is mentioned in the Bureaucrat policy about that a 'crat is expected to show integrity to the project, but I think it is an expectation most users have. At least I do. I feel that given your role in the presence of this artwork on Commons, you have not shown integrity to the project and a majority of its users, who are just trying to create and organize freely licensed, educational and informational media files. Now, I do not question, the right you and the creator has in keeping these controversial media files on Commons, (as it is within scope) but there is no reason to exercise every right you have. There is also the duty, which I would especially expect from a 'crat as a role-model for the community, and that is to show editorial judgement. For me, you have shown to have a complete lack of editorial judgement in the involvement in the creation and upload of this particular portrait. I would assume, that its controversy has not come as a surprise to you. I think that is a display of poor personal judgement in this case. I will not claim that you, in general, have poor personal judgement, as I have not followed your work closely. For me, as community member, this "major community issue" is very demotivating for participating in the project. I urge you to consider and reflect on your role as a 'crat on this project and how you act in that role. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope you have now had the time to chill out as you mentioned until 'this evening or tomorrow'. On reading my questions again above, I realize that most of them are closed questions. Although I might hope this can give some clear answers, such closed questions also make it hard to provide any nuances - and the world is seldomly black or white. Feel free to answer more broadly if you feel more comfortable about that. Some alteranative broad questions, which in essence covers the same thing could be

1. You explain here that "I did contact the artist and informed him I was writing an article about him, and I did ask him if he would be interested in providing a painting and video which he could provide under a free licence for the purpose of placing in the article. I provided information relating to our licencing and suggested a licence. I did mention to the artist that our projects are not censored. I did make a suggestion that Jimmy's photo be used as a base to work from." In your mind does it make any difference what kind of role (user, admin, crat) you have on Commons, when you specifically suggest a picture of one of the founders of Wikimedia as the base to work from for an artist like Pricasso?
2. How has the reputation of Commons been affected by the creation and upload of the Pricasso / Jimbo portrait and the video showing its creation?
3. There are some vague statements in the crat policy about a crat having a community role, i.e., the role is not purely administrative. What is the weight of the community role in your opinion?
4. Should a Commons crat show integrity with the Commons project and be a role model in a project in your opinion?
5. Assume all active contributors on Commons (not just those active on the forum boards) would express whether they think it was appropriate or not to for you as a crat on Commons to sugggest that Jimbos portarit be used as base material for the artwork. What do you think would be the prrevalent opinion?
6. In your opinion, what should the balance be, when evaluating a deletion request of an in scope media file, which depict an identifiable person, if it is known that the person objects to its existance. Is scope more important than consideration of the concern of the person depicted or vice versa?
7. What is your opinion on the third point in the WMF Images of identifiable people, Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.? Is this a resolution we ought to implement and follow in Common policies?
8. Is such a thing as good 'personal judgement' or 'governance' an important facet of being a 'crat in your opinion ? If so, have you exerted good personal judgement/governance in this case in your opinion?
9. When you suggested the base portrait for the artwork by Pricasso, did it come to your mind that Jimmy would not be happy about the result? Has any of the subsequent events surprised you? Is there anything you would have done differently knowing the reaction now?

A bunch of questions, I know. I really hope you will consider them, either the closed ones or the alternative more open set I have phrased. Your answers are vital for me in determining I wish to continue to be a part of this Community. I know I am asking a lot, and that my questions are critical, and although I only 1/10th the number of edits you have here, I have invested a lot of my mental energy and resources in this community over the years, for instance in initiating the Valued Images project, so I hope you will spare the time. Thanks again, --Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If I were asked all those loaded questions as a 'crat or user I would just not answer them and see if you leave. Russavia has responded, the community has responded, but for some reason the same questions keep getting asked in different forms. You may wish to read some of the articles linked in w:Informal fallacy and w:Correlative-based fallacies. After that you should re-word your questions so that can be answered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Canoe1967. Thanks for pointing me to those two articles. I have read them as the terms were new to me.

I agree with you that my originally stated questions are to some extent informal fallacies.

I guess that is what I realized myself when re-reading them this evening, although I was not consciously aware of the terms I could have used to describe them.

Despite the non-optimal formulation of my original question Russavia actually replied

Slaunger, thanks for your message, I will respond it later this evening. I just want to acknowledge your msg has been received and read.

From that reply I do not see any indication that Russavia had a problem with how the questions were originally phrased.

Approximately half a day later Russavia stated again that

"... it will be later tonight/tomorrow morning when this is done.".

I then come back almost 2 days after my initial request (and a flood of comments from other editors) and see, no reply yet. No problem.

I re-read my original questions and realize they are loaded, so I prepare an alternative set of questions, which are unbiased and can be answered with nuances without Russavia being forced/gamed/tricked/whatever into making some black/white unuanced replies.

I do not agree that my new set of questions are informal fallacies in any way as they have no stated premises. Moreover, I expect that Russavia is fully capable of expressing to me if my questions are in some way unreasonable for him. I am open-minded and flexible for such inputs, I just think that is a matter between me and Russavia. That is why I came here to gauge my understanding of Russavia views on these matters.

IMO I am not asking the same questions that have been asked before. At least, I am not consciously aware thereof, as I may not have read every thread dealing with the matter, nor may I have understood them as answers to my question. But if so, I hope Russavia will so kind to provide me with some links and clarifications. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with my brain today ? It's like the powercord is unplugged, or some fuse is blown, or someone stole a circuit breaker or recycled all the copper wiring. Every other day I can imagine ANYTHING at all, dream up all kinds of crazy shit. For some reason, when I try to imagine a discussion at the VP about 'a whole swag' (that means a lot) of images, and the suggestion that a whole big list of images gets deleted because of the new valid arguments Jkadavoor has, I just can't see it happening, I can't see anyone supporting the idea, I can't see a single person being interested in anything offensive at all unless it serves an obvious-to-everyone different purpose. I can't see it. Penyulap ☏ 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Associated comments from other users

subsection heading inserted by Slaunger. Penyulap ☏ 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

perhaps this would be useful in a venue where it could make a difference. Considering the recent DR, a unilateral deletion by Russavia would quite possibly be seen as misbehaviour. I would suggest that rather than pestering the uploader, that this is put on the VP where a consensus can be established and get support for re-opening the DR. We've recently lost an editor over this issue, a discussion in the proper venue might possibly help reverse that. I would like the image deleted, and it is not going to happen by pestering Russavia about it, as he can't do much by himself. Penyulap ☏ 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Slaunger, thanks for your message, I will respond it later this evening. I just want to acknowledge your msg has been received and read. russavia (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to say I 100% agree with Slaunger's thoughtful comment. At the DR there were some comments where people put their intellect towards clever argument of policy technicalities, but lost sight of the bigger picture of why we are here and what we stand for, as well as what example we are setting and impression we give. We are all human beings and should show each other respect. If we can't do that, we should pack up. Note: if this discussion is posted elsewhere, I'm happy for these comments to be moved. -- Colin (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin, Slaunger, I am rather disappointed to see that you're taking the issue to the man rather than to the policy. From the Village pump, (parts inside '[]' I have edited)

"[...] If something applies to Jimbo, it should apply to everyone. [...(There)..] are clearly more gratuitous attack images than Pricasso's penis-painted portrait of Jimbo, with considerably less artistic and educational merit. Deleting Pricasso's work of Jimbo while being happy to host those files strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. I suspect the general public might share that impression. Andreas JN466 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jkadavoor has left, because we have no functioning proper policy for working out what is an attack image and how to remove it. Pursuing just Russavia, rather than pursuing all attack images makes your motivations apparent. You don't want to remove attack images, you just want to remove Russavia. If you wanted to remove all attack images, you'd be at the VP or DR starting a process about the image(s), NOT here, starting off a process about the man.

the height of hypocrisy is spot on the mark. Oh, and I'll be happy for someone to move my remarks as well, save me doing it. Penyulap ☏ 09:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please try to restrain yourself and avoid calling people hypocrites. Russavia is in a unique position here as outlined by Slaunger. He's both intrinsically involved in this and also, as a bureaucrat, supposed to set an example. Your argument that tackling one problem rather than all problems simultaneously indicates some evil motivation or personal vendetta is both logically flawed and insulting. Are you here to improve this site or just argue and sound off? Colin (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, are you here to take action against Russavia, or are you at the village pump to take action against all attack images ? Which, by the way, are being KEPT.

Why aren't you at the VP objecting to the other images ? Come on, gimme some empty lip-service to the wider problem. Penyulap ☏ 11:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read my remarks, I'm not calling people hypocrites, I'm seconding the concise observation that it is the height of hypocrisy to single out 'this editor or that editor' whilst preserving and supporting the existence of attack images on commons. I've been to the VP to stir up support. I didn't see you there Colin (just checked, still nothing). I see you here in what looks for all the world like starting a process against a single editor, a process that will preserve the ability to use the project as a tool for trolling. What would you prefer me to call it ? a double-standard ? different rules for different people ? "we get to pick and choose who we use the project to troll and offend" ? oh there are lots of things to call this. I think the quote is a concise one. Penyulap ☏ 11:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well unlike you I'm not everywhere at once. If I discover the forum you mention I'll go have a look. Actually my issue with the pic is a behavioural one -- the mistake people have made so far is to be concerned about a bunch of pixels and base their comments on those. As with all behavioural issues (I'm more familiar with WP than Commons here), the correct procedure is to have a wee word with the person and see if things can be resolved without great drama. I do hope Russavia sees what he has done wrong and changes. You seem to want to escalate things (take action). Could we perhaps see what Russavia says, because I'm not at this point interested in your opinion, sorry but this is his talk page and if I wanted to talk to you I'd have gone to yours. Colin (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as you mention your "issue with the pic is a behavioural one" my issue with actions like this is also a behavioural one. The image went for DR and failed, the community wants it. I don't agree, but I support the community. The community supports Russavia, frankly a hell of a lot. I see the chance of success of attacking Russavia as a way to fix images as having a zero percentage chance of success, I understand the demographics and cultural differences and I'm trying to help you go about deleting the image, rather than the editor.

here is a funny thought, if Russavia was critiquing the commons policy with all of this, then he'd be into changing it too.

Meh, whatever, you seem to have no interest whatsoever in changing commons so that the project doesn't want images like these, you're apparently just here after Russavia. I want one thing, you want another, so hey, good luck with that, you'll need it. Bye. Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop trying to second-guess my motives because you keep getting it wrong and just seem to want to inflame things. A friend of mine has left Commons and russavia's actions seem to be directly responsible. So I've let russavia know my opinion. I'm not trying any "action". I've only just this minute discovered a de-sysop discussion about him. I know so little about russavia that I'm not going to contribute to that. I'm not "attacking Russavia" or trying to get him "deleted". I'm also not really interested in tiresome debates over whether some pixels stay or go. I am interested in folk here respecting each other, on trying to get along, and on producing free educational content. You don't seem to respect me or want to get along. Looking at Russavia's contribs I suspect he's not going to respond to this. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Colin (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, everyone who assumes good faith is welcome on my talk page; regardless of who they are, so long as AGF is most pertinent. Colin, I will be responding to questions from all good faith editors, I am simply taking a little chill out time in between writing a reply. As I said it will be later tonight/tomorrow morning when this is done. So all and sundry, just be patient with each other, myself included, and we can have a civilised discussion on anything relating to this project. Cheers, russavia (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. Colin (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I think if you go and have a look over JKadavoor's talkpage you'll see I recognised and appreciated my friends efforts to make commons a better place, tried to stop him leaving, and now all I can see is that you and I 'arguing' is not going to help fix anything. JKadavoor made a list of the reasons he left, starting with everyone "not caring to strengthen the basic policies". That's what'd make me leave too, people just want to cause drama and attack each other rather than "caring to strengthen the basic policies". Penyulap ☏ 12:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a break then re-read what Jkadavoor wrote. His issues concern behavioural policies and ethical decisions (behavioural policies that are somewhat lacking on Commons). Such as the quoted "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same." and "there are moral issues too...No one shall be subjected ... to attacks upon his honour and reputation" and "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law." plus Jimbo's complaint of harassment. Now naturally, these behavioural problems find manifestation in the content the site hosts or keeps, and also in the debates we have and the admins/crats we appoint. Your mistake is to keep focussing on content-based policies. Until we address the behavioural issues and stop promoting a frat boy culture, then there is little chance that content policy discussions will achieve anything other than heat. Colin (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So attacking users and creating dramaz is the only way to change policy, because trying to change policy directly is too much drama ? Hang on a moment I'm hungry so I have to go to sleep so my clothes will be washed and then I won't be hungry. Penyulap ☏ 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Even if my complaint is rooted on the two works uploaded by Russavia; it has a more generic scope than targeting/attacking merely the uploader. In fact, my complaint is more about the degraded admin community which makes many poor decisions including this particular DR. I can’t expect more from an admin community where many of them are just name sake clones of others. This is not the first time they consider any comment from a sister project (EN:Wiki here) as an infringement on their own rights and trying to make all possible voice to protest; a usual behaviour from an ignorant, sub-standard community. I didn’t expected much from them; but I had some hope in our senior admins, crats and stewards; that’s why I had contacted some of them individually. But the result was unfortunate. But I still believe this post by Slaunger and Colin are relevant; because Russavia is not just an uploader here; he is a respected crat of this community. He can easily understand many of the supports he is getting from the admin community are for the sake I mentioned above. He can show more courage and do act upon. And such an action from his thoughtful mind is no way hurt his reputation. Instead it will be appreciated by many honourable members like Slaunger. This is just an explanatory note; because my name is involved/specified here. (@Russavia: I'm sorry; and I regret for not contacting you here earlier. I rarely write on other people's talk pages to whom I have no earlier contacts.) JKadavoor Jee 14:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, for providing clarity here Jkadavoor.

Because the structure by which the project runs requires input by the community in order to make changes, then the whole community needs to lift it's game.

The arguments you provide should be brought up in a DR, but it is so much more important that it applies to ALL images in ALL cases using policy. Galvanising the community to provide input into a review of project scope was, as I predicted, met with 'militant apathy'. Having a small user-to-user drama just gets the crowd interested in dramaz, not actual improvement. Why is it so damn hard to divert the urge to create dramaz into an urge to create a better policies I don't know. Penyulap ☏ 14:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@All: I have taken the liberty to insert a subsection header with your comments regarding my questions to russavia to help get an overview of the thread. My objective was really to have a respectful and non-dramatic dialogue with another user to try and understand better the other users viewpoint before I jump to any hasty conclusions. I did consider using email, but think it is relevant to have this discussion in public in a civil manner. --Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Russavia: Thanks for wanting to consider my question. Take your time to reply. I am in no hurry. --Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Colin, Jee: Thanks for clarifying your viewpoints and supporting me in the relevanse of approaching Russavia regarding the matter. --Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Penyulap. I note that my questions posted a less than 24 hours ago to russavia has triggered an avalanche of no less than nine comments from you regarding my discussion wih russavia since then. Amazing. You know a lot, it appears. You can read my mind regarding my objectives, which appear to attack a specific user in the role of an uploader instead of addressing a general problem, and that I am trying to create drama. In my opinion it is not I who is creating drama here. I am trying to peacefully settle an issue I have with another user. I believe this is the recommended method instead of using the drama boards. If you have any further speculations regarding my objectives, would you mind continuing it with me on my user talk page, such that this thread is not cluttered by what I perceive as irrelevant speculations? I would be happy to discuss with you there, although I cannot promise you as many replies and edits as you are capable of. I am a slow editor, I often think for an extended period of time before I write a reply. I am thereby not assuming or insunuating that you do not think before you reply, you just seem to think much faster than me and you appear to think very differently. Interesting, it actually intrigues me. Like a fast thinking hobbit trying to persuade a slow thinking ent to go South instead of North . --Slaunger (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Pen: I think you aware that my attempt to re-initiate that DR discussion was speedy closed by another 'crat colleague saying "I'm afraid that a closed deletion request cannot be re-opened just on the basis of a new opinion. " Then where can we discuss this topic further? (But in many other cases, I didn't see any admin raised the same argument.) JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you take too much liberty with that edit, as I see it, it diminishes other people's comments which don't serve the purpose of creating a procedural drama.

Jkadavoor, I agree with you 100% there, that is true, and I myself would never have re-closed it when there is something that wasn't brought up previously. However, given the seriously ominous and un-mellow climate which is prevailing, I can also see the idea that the purpose is to quash the dramaz. It's like the unknown-in-many-places concept of a tribe that argues all day long amongst themselves in a friendly manner, but drop what they are doing when there is a greater external threat. Penyulap ☏ 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's like those submarine movies where there is damage to the hull, and there is a leak, and they close all the hatches even though there are some arguments left inside the flooding compartments. Then you became a casualty that was unintentional, because at that time, stopping the unmellow dramaz was paramount. Penyulap ☏ 16:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that my DR (third attempt there) was purely on the basis of Personal rights (not Personality rights) and the supporting policies and guidelines mentioned there. I nowhere supported arguments like the intention of trolling and harassment by the uploader. In that case I prefer AGF over pure assumptions. JKadavoor Jee 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Same, the graphic I made to criticise the idea sums it up. I support a re-opening of the DR, maybe with a warning that empty accusations are given their due weight. Penyulap ☏ 05:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My response

Ignoring manufactured and totally false comments relating to disputes between myself and Jimmy (make note of how I defended him on occasion at User:Russavia/DailyDot, and also note how I have encouraged Jimmy to engage with the Commons community, my actions were not unkind considering Jimbo's status as a public figure. The standards we should apply to an arbitrary person shouldn't be the same standards we apply to a public figure -- in this case, the person who's long embraced a role as the most visible figure of the world's most prominent publication. The board's resolution doesn't make any mention of that important distinction, and it may be a good idea to address that significant gap in our policies. But in doing so, we should also remember our projects have considered File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg, etc, acceptable; but we would of course consider similar images to be "attack images" if they depicted relatively unknown people, and delete them (not saying for one minute that the Pricasso images are attack images, because they are not). russavia (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I must admit that I think your response evades the central points in my questions and concerns. I do not question the right you or any user has to actively participate in the creation of media files such as these, my crucial question is, if it is the right thing to do given your community role as a bureaucrat, and given that it is well-known that Jimbo is not a great fan of you? --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Russavia. It has been a while since I asked you regarding the difference of exerting a right and doing the right thing. And I have noticed that you have been editing meanwhile, so I assume you have seen my question? I have re-read my original questions and I think there are many both reasonable and relevant questions, which you did not address in your initial response. I know the questions may be uncomfortable and I am sorry about that. Please note that I am not critical against you as a person, but against a specific action you have done. You wrote about false comments relating to the dispute between yourself and Jimmy. I do not think I have assumed or stated anything regarding that matter, which is not verifiable. For instance I am nowhere speculating what you might think of Jimbo, or what you objectives might have been. Rather, I am asking you directly instead of speculating. I am still very much interested on hearing your thoughts regarding this. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of numerous I have seen on Mr. Wales' en:wp user talk page. Most of the time he answers with something like: 'I have responded and I intend to say no more on this matter.'--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger, I've had a week of R&R with minor edits only being done, and I will be further responding to your comments (and Marcus' below) in due course. You haven't been forgotten nor ignored. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russavia, I appreciate that you "will be further responding in due course". Any idea when I can anticipate that? From your +500 edits since your "due course" message, I realize you must have a very long to-do list with many more important actions such as maintaining interwiki links on Category:Pricasso. --Slaunger (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Over the weekend at some stage. I am waiting to get an accurate translation of an article in the French media, plus also discussion which occurred on Italian and German Wikipedias in relation to this matter. Plus I am waiting to see if a certain publication publishes an article. As a lot of your questions relate to appearances, I think it's pertinent to get a wide view on said appearances, rather than simply answering based upon appearances on en.wp and from an article written by one with an obvious agenda. Thanks for your patience. russavia (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Interesting. Thanks for updating me. --Slaunger (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So, here we are again, a weekend has passed and, and again, nu furher response. Meanwhile I have been thinking about what relevanse discussions on The German and Italian Wikipedias have in this relation. Searched for some obvious terms on the two sites and found only this on the German wikipedia

Jimmy Wales beschwert sich über sexuelle Belästigung appears to be general amusement over that Jimmy feels offended, and some Jimmy ranting.

on the Italian one there are

A deletion request regarding a Pricasso article discussing the notability and the quality of the refences. As I understand the conclusion was to delete the article, which has been done.

A discussion of ongoings on Commons, where this event is discussed as well. One user describes you as an obvious troll, other users diasagrees, Some rants regarding Jimmy, some defense and some tangential discussions. Not really relevant IMO.

Are these discussion really what you had in mind, that you are awaiting an accurate translation of? Surely, you can respond further, also without an accurate translation of an article from the French media. Is it perhaps this article you had in mind? It is in my opinion yet another sad example on the decline of the reputation of Commons due to this incident. --Slaunger (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a very relevant discussion on commons about offensive images such as this one, here (permalink). The community is giving ZERO support (!votes) to removal of offensive images, and when I say "zero" I mean literally ZERO. There is not a single person who wants to help me remove offensive images like this one across the board (by voting). I think it's very interesting and relevant because it takes the wind out of the whole 'causing offence' thing and brings it ALL back to what Jimmy personally does and doesn't want.

Sorry if I cause offence when I first write this comment, there is support, 'provisional' support, which is something I don't understand, if there is a wanted change, then nobody is saying what the change should be, but yes, there is moral support for my efforts, and a great deal of it.

(muffled high voice) Just no bloomin' VOTES!! Penyulap ☏ 11:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Slaunger, you asked whether Commons has lost respect. I don't believe it has; there have always been those with agendas in relation to what they write about Commons (and our projects generally), and they will continue to write from their agenda-based views regardless of what any of us do on this project; these agendas are clearly obvious when one sees what they regard as Commons being super-saturated with pornography. I am here, in an editorial role, to do what is best for our project, and that largely means obtaining and uploading freely-licenced content. Whether that be uploading aviation photos, preventing deletion of files by arranging OTRS permission, or in this instance getting freely licenced artwork. As you noted above, the Italian and German Wikipedia projects are somewhat indifferent to the issue; and it is the same word that I am getting from editors on other projects such as French Wikipedia, etc. Liberation (a major French newspaper) covered the "issue" (without input from myself), but something they wrote covers it succinctly:

Comme l'explique l'un des contributeurs dans une longue discussion à ce sujet sur Wikimedia Commons, «il n'y a pas dans les critères de retrait, "le cofondateur n'aime pas"» et c'est sans doute l'un des plus grands mérites de ce site.

It would appear that you are of the opinion that Commons has lost respect; I respectfully disagree. There are editors on other projects, and people in the media, who regard Commons with contempt; always have and always will. In a couple of months, if not sooner, this "incident" will be long forgotten; for there will be some other "drama" affecting Commons. Sincerely, Slaunger, I really don't see the purpose in the continuation of discussion on this matter, outside policy discussions, because that is where such things belong. russavia (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha ! it only took 14 minutes for you to find the new drama <Penyulap ducks your reflex SLAP to the face attempt and RUNS for their life!!! yelling> 14 minutes !! new world record !!! Penyulap ☏ 19:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, thanks for your further response. I agree with you that you have made very many valuable contributions within several topic areas such as aviation, OTRS, etc. I also have absolutely no problem with us also having some representations of artworks done using untraditional techniques such as these. Personally, I find the execution boring, as it is really 1970s news for me just reiterating with less talent and inginuity, but nevermind, it probably passes some notability criterion.

As you point out yourself, the relative amount of these kinds of media files of Commons is really quite meniscule - a fraction of a tenth of a percent. As such a very, very minor thing in the big picture of Commons. You and I, and all other regulars, who are here, knows this, but it is hard to see and understand from the outside, when one of the foremost users in the community, a bureaucrat suggest that a member of the board shall be painted using this technique. Although this is your right, this is simply not the right thing to do, as in doing so, and due to the foreseable controversy, stereotypical outside views are literally fed with material, which support and underline their biased view of the world such as the perceived amount of content of a sexual nature (the good ole porn hub stereotypical view). I agree there will always be biased and critical views, and a certain amount of criticism is always healthy, but you are really not helping. And this is only one of the problems. Had it been in any other organization I know of, a corporation, voluntary organization such as the Red Cross, an NGO, whatever, if a high ranking member of such an organization suggested to an artist to paint a member of the board of directors with this controversial technique without the explicit acceptance by the depicted member, I am pretty sure you would be dismissed dishonorably and immediately. Why? Because it is not loyal, it is not decent and because it harms the reputation of the organization. But here we are mellow, so you are given an oppurtunity to explain yourself, which I think is a good thing.

The other problems is that you are thereby not following the aforementioned Resolution, which I have quoted for you. It clearly says that all people complaining shall be treated with respect and kindness. It does not say anything about, oh, if you are somewhat well known in public, we do not have to show the same kindness or respect. I really do not care if some users from the German or Italian Wikipedias thinks this is alright, and hahaha, he deserves that, as I do not think they are familiar with the particular WMF Resolution. You are a crat, and you should know better. All Commons policies derives from the overlying Wikimedia Foundation resolutions and guidelines as well as legislation and other "details", which are left for the community to decide (such as exactly which free licenses are acceptable, etc). If the WMF resolutions are not properly implemented in written policies (and/or followed in practise) it is our responsibility as a Community to align them, and I believe we are currently in this difficult process. And as a crat you shall guide the Community in such policy work.

If you do not agree with the resolution, you have three options. 1) Work with the WMF and try to make them change their minds, or introduce some notability exceptions in their resolution, which it appears you think would be reasonable. 2) Pretend you love it and be loyal to it, although you really do not entirely agree. This is an entirely normal and pragmatic dicision for many individuals being a member of an organization, to bend a little to adapt to the norms, because, overall, you can see that in the big picture values of the organization are aligned with your own. 3) You can come to the conclusion that your own view on the resolution differs so much, that you cannot see yourself as part of it - and resign from a current role.

The other crats, which I know from following their work (99of9, MichaelMaggs, Dschwen, and EugeneZelenko, sorry the rest of you, I just do not know you well enough) has in my opinion always shown integrity in the project and has had a holistic view encouraging building bridges to other sister projects. I consider it unlikely that any other crat would have made the same suggestion as you did. (I can invite them to comment here, to hear if I have totally misunderstood the community role of a crat)

I find it concerning that you pick that particular quote from the article, which basically states that it is a good thing that scope prevails over the consideration of depicted persons of notability. The journalists at the Newspaper are free to be of that opinion. Given that you highlight it, I suppose you agree? But that is not aligned with the Resolution! And Commons shall abide to the WMF resolutions. The article is an embarrasement for the entire WMF including Commons, and my toes curl inwards in shame of the WMF and our Community being laughed at in this manner. Since I am a member of the community I feel that I am being laughed at at the same time, and I feel this is entirely your responsibility.

I agree with you that as time passes, the importance of this particular incident will fade away, and had you - after som self-reflection - come to the conclusion yourself, that, ahem, "I did the wrong thing here, and I will think more about my community role as a crat in the future", I would not be so concerned. But it appears that you see no problem at all. You have just contributed to new artwork, you have done what is your right and in doing so you have done the wrong thing in my opinion, and this implies it can happen again. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Slaunger asked me to comment on this matter via E-mail. It seems it has been well-discussed here and elsewhere.[4] It would be arrogant of me to think that I could add anything new to the discussion. Consequently, I'll limit myself to the following observation. Whether you like it or not, as administrator and bureaucrat, you are viewed by the media and the general public as a representative of Commons generally. While this is not the case, and it is without question unfair, it would be a kindness to your fellow Commons contributors, as well as those of the sister projects, if you were to keep that in mind in your work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russavia, is your silence to be interpreted as 'you have not further to say on the matter for the time being'?

If so, I would like to inform you that I intend to bring up the Pricasso incident in relation to your community role as a bureaucrat in a wider community discussion to gauge the wider opinion of the community. Apparently, there is quite a gap between your and my view of what is and what is not appropriate to do as a crat on Commons.

It will be a while though, as I will be mostly offline for the rest of July due to travels. Until then take care and sorry for being so persistent on this matter, but I feel it is important. If, meanwhile, you find you have further to add, feel free to do so. --Slaunger (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Moral rights

• @Russavia: Since those files are described as derivative works of File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal.JPG ("This file is derived in inspiration from File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG by Manuel Archain, Buenos Aires, http://www.manuelarchain.com/ and is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence"); it seems they are clear violation of moral rights. They say "The international licenses provide that licensees must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. This prohibits licensees from making uses that would otherwise violate authors’ moral rights of integrity where that right exists. The attribution requirement contained in all of our licenses is intended to satisfy the moral right of attribution. The attribution requirement contained in all of our licenses is intended to satisfy the moral right of attribution." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode : "4d: Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise." JKadavoor Jee 11:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Jkadavoor, you have misunderstood the concept of moral rights in this instance. Distortion, mutilation, modificiation or derogatory action has not taken place with the suggestion of File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG being used as a base for the portrait; what has clearly occurred in this instance is that the artist has created their own work. It was myself who wrote in the description; in the interest of openness on this project -- because I did not have any involvement in the creation of this great freely-licenced painting past asking whether they would be interested and making a suggestion of an image to use, I can't be certain that the painting is derived in inspiration from the painting, or whether the artist has created a new, independent artwork. This is something that might be interesting to find out, and I will make it a point to ask the artist about that.

But let's for one moment assume that this painting is a true derivative work of the photo. Firstly, one would have to demonstrate (with application of law) how the original work (the photograph) has been distorted, mutilated, modified (probably not relevant due to CC licence) or has been used for derogatory action IN ORDER TO prejudicing the creator's honour or reputation. (as stated in this information sheet -- prejudicing the creators honour or reputation is the pertinent part). In this case the creator is Manuel Archain, and I am failing to see how his honour or reputation would have been damaged (if this was a derivative work). And (again based on the unlikely assumption that the painting is a derivative work of the photograph) you have failed to point out exactly any notion of moral rights have been infringed. I am sorry, but this is the same thing as trying to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to this case. It just isn't relevant. russavia (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Russavia: According to File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal.JPG, it is a "work for hire, copyright owned by Jimmy Wales"; so the Original Author is Jimmy himself as the producer who created that work per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (1. Definitions: g. "Original Author") . So IMHO, these derivative works are infringements on the personal rights of Jimmy as the subject which is part of the personality rights; at the same time, infringements on the “right to the integrity of the work” which is part of the moral rights of Jimmy as the original author.

Mine is a generic concern as a photographer and my commitments to my subjects. I don’t want to compromise on my moral rights or on the personal rights of my subjects. Luckily, none of my photographs in people categories are uploaded here; I changed the license of them in Flickr to "all rights reserved". But I don’t like if somebody make derivative of my works (like File:Jamides_bochus_by_kadavoor.jpg if somebody replaced my finger with his penis) and publish with link back to me as the “original author”. So I decided to initiate a discussion about these topics among my friendly photographers community in Commons (FP, QI, VI) and in Flickr (my contacts and groups). I would like to know the opinions and concerns of them too; so that we can decide whether it is safe to freely license our works in future or not. Till then I prefer to refrain from any further uploads here/Flickr in a free license. JKadavoor Jee 06:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jkadavoor on that one, it is Jimmys own image and copyright, and I would expand on that, but I just can't get over how kawaii those two butterflies are. :D they look like exo-skeletons, reminds me of Neon genesis evangellion and that genre. They can obviously fly, and those helmets are perfect, I can't see laser ports though. (hmm, I guess their butts are partially hidden, maybe that's how they fire the lasers) :) Penyulap ☏ 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Перенос файлов со склада в нацвики

Уважаемый участник, после того, как Вы имели сомнения в копивио только файлов билетов Универсиады с рисунками, растиражированными госдирекцией по объектам и предметам всего города вплоть до заборов, а я уменьшил их разрешение при повторной загрузке, с неосторожной подачи очень знакомого Вам другого участника 1 2 3 по неоправданно прямолинейно-жесточайшему толкованию, не учитывая изложенные мной аргументы (4 обстоятельства и др.), вопреки викискладпрактике пока массово не удалять фото российских современных зданий и прочих уличных/публичных объектов/предметов, деструктивно для викичитателей, в порядке преследования лично меня, пока не удалены чужие теоретически artwork-файлы медали,монеты и теоретически FoP-файлы открытия, но массово удалены мои фотографии Универсиады и других зданий/объектов/предметов вплоть до абсурдно удалённых даже таких абсолютно невинных и с точки зрения FoP, и с точки зрения (С) моих фото как горящий огонь, поднятые флаги России и Универсиады и тп.
В результате чего, например, иллюстрирование в статье 2013 Summer Universiade и категории 2013 Summer Universiade, Kazan arena, Aquatics palace in Kazan и т.д. сейчас по большей части или вообще содержат второстепенные по значимости фото, и ценность кучи других статей в разных вики сразу чохом и трудновосстановимо однозначно упала из-за оскуднения иллюстрирования и неполного формирования представления у викичитателей только по текстовому описанию.
Как викижитель, который, как я вижу, имеет отношение к России и всё же разделяет созидательный примат ведения википедии как энциклопедии, судя по загрузке на склад файлов в т.ч. в 2013 Summer Universiade, и как викисклададмин, можете ли Вы, после моего обращения здесь или в заявках на восстановление или где-то ещё, какими-то механизмами массово восстановить всё на складе, чтобы сразу протрансфёрить, наоборот, с него на нацвики (как минимум на рувики/энвики). Kazaneer (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)