User talk:Revent/Archive 6

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

Wikidata weekly summary #198

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Statuette of Aphrodite

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Unknown - Statuette of Aphrodite Leaning on a Pillar - 55.AD.7.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unknown - Statuette of Aphrodite Leaning on a Pillar - 55.AD.7.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading this. Yann (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Seemoramee images/videos

I expected images and videos that were considered out of scope or even pornograghic to be deleted, but not for copyright violations. I was the photographer and videographer. What I meant by transferring from one source to another is this. I originally filmed it on 8mm tape and had no way to make it digital so I used a camera to "copy" or transfer to computer for use. This applies to videos, the photos were taken with digital camera. I did it all from my own original source. I know it is probably too late to do anything about it now. What can you recommend? Thank you. 

Seemoramee (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #199

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 2 March 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Wikidata weekly summary #200

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

File:Bogota - av. Cra 7 Ciclovía calle 26.JPG

Revent, I don't understand. Sincerely, I cannot see the difference. And frankly, I don't think it's worth opening a DR and all that. I'm the author of "both" pictures, and I want to delete one (any) of them. If that's not enough, I give up. By the way, I know it's not your fault. I'm not angry, just perplex. Regards, --Pedro Felipe (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pedro Felipe: The 'process duplicates' tool doesn't show us who flagged a file, and it shows them directly side by side or overlaid, and we are only supposed to speedily delete duplicates if they are 'exact or scaled-down'. That doesn't really apply here, as the images are actually somewhat different (the version you mentioned here is significantly 'taller')... please look at Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates, as compared to the next section about 'redundant' files. There are unlikely to be any complaints about deleting one or the other as redundant (and I can actually open the DR for you, if you want) but we are not supposed to just 'do it' on request (even that of the uploader) unless the file is extremely new.., these have been on Commons for about two months now. Reventtalk 02:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Please stop

Revent, the most charitable reason I can think of for the fact that yfou constantly go on about my tone (but nobody else's) on pretty much any forum on Commons where you disagree with me, is that you perhaps think I'm some lost soul worth saving. But sadly having reviewed your interactions with me and others over the last months, I can only conclude that this is the manifestation of your huge bias against what I have to say. Until such time as I see you regularly taking others to task for their choice of language, tone or whatever (and goodness me there are plenty examples every day), then I kindly ask you to refrain. Consider me a lost cause. Or someone who has got wise to your methods. Either. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Colin: I'm unsurprised by what you have to say here. I will point out that if you doing want me to talk to you, you should probably not reply to me, and if you don't want me to tell you that you're being rude, you should probably avoid stereotyping people in insulting ways and then complaining at them about things they had nothing to do with. It just so happens that, when I actually did explain to you exactly why I find you rude (on this page, months ago), that was one of the things I mentioned. Now, if you don't want me to talk to you, then go away.
I find it a bit amusing, though, that this is about a discussion that was basically started by me telling off a couple of other editors for being uncivil. (shrugs) Reventtalk 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Revent, once again you seem to completely fail to understand plain English. Where did I say I "[don't] want me to talk to you". I was dealing specifically with your frequent and completely off-topic references to my tone. And nobody else's tone. It's completely obvious Revent. And as for "complaining at them about things they had nothing to do with" you once again fail to understand the scope of the conversion. This seems to be a general problem with you, since I recall a situation where you were trying to make some point to Kalliope but at the same time using your possible blocking of me wrt Trump libel as the example. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I'm not going to start dragging other people into this by pointing out where I have criticized their 'tone', but I have indeed done so recently, and publicly, in ways that had absolutely nothing to do with you, or this case. You just happen to be the only person that seems to reply to me, consistently, in ways that I (and others) find to be quite rude. As far as the Trump thing, if you recall that was yet another time when I explicitly told you why I find you to be rude... I also think it was quite clear I was not threatening to block you, since I said "I've never blocked you for it, or threatened to block you for it, and I in fact think that doing so on the grounds of anything other than a clear consensus of the community would be grossly inappropriate"... a statement you apparently somehow misunderstood. It's interesting, however, that you seem to threaten people with blocks more than I do.
If you make a statement, directly to me, that I find offensive, I have every right to say so. If you don't want me to tell you that's you're being insulting, try not being insulting by attacking people and your perception of their beliefs and opinions instead of what they actually say or do.... or at least, if you do so, don't address it directly to me and then whine about me pointing it out.
If you want me to jump on someone for some other, current, incivility, I suggest you make sure I actually see it before it's been addressed by someone else. Believe it or not, I don't see every edit (especially when my talk page says I'm out of town). Reventtalk 16:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I explained already at length in an email where you went wrong with that Kalliope/Trump thing. I suggest you read it again. You have a habit of engaging in character assassination of me in quite inappropriate venues. At the Kalliope/Trump thing I wasn't talking to you or about you, yet you decided to share your opinions of me and all my many flaws with the rest of the world, in the middle of a discussion on WMF response to deleting content from blocked users. You do this repeatedly. It is a distraction. You do it often enough that I think you are deliberately derailing the discussion with this sort of petty tone-police commentary. Do you think anyone else wants to see your complaints there, and my responses to them there? Is that a suitable venue for it? Do you think HJ's de-adminship discussion is aided by you writing "I'm past trying to explain to you why I find you to often be rude". In what possible world is that a helpful contribution to the discussion. Other than an underhand technique to simply throw insults at one's opponent. I suggest you are confusing "I find to be quite rude" with "I'm not used to being on the receiving end of public criticism and do not handle it well". There's an awful lot of what some people have done recently that is deserving of admin comment and action, yet you are fixated on whether I use the right tone. There's been a lot said recently about people making damaging allegations without supplying any evidence. Well "you personally violate the TOU on a regular basis" is a pretty damaging allegation and hey! I'm still editing here, so tell me, should I join the queue of Commons users who seem to think the solution to a dispute is to shout "libel" and demand your head? -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I simply don't understand why you don't seem to get the difference between someone explicitly stating their opinion about a specific person's actual words or actions, and someone else repeatedly throwing people into groups and then going on about their supposed beliefs and motivations. Just to make it explicitly clear, the very first sentence of your first response to me both assigned me to some vague group, that you then attacked at length, and was itself personally insulting. That's why I responded to you as I did... because you insulted me (by claiming I'm 'fond' of selectively enforcing the rules), grouped me together with some vague group of 'others', and then attacked us all on the basis of a bunch of stuff that I (as I pointed out) had absolutely nothing to do with.
As far as the Trump thing, maybe I should not have used you as an example, but in your comments above mine in that subthread, you did exactly what I was talking about.... you, for example, described a group of editors as having "adolescent issues with authority", as an "ignorant mob", etc. Those are not comments about people's actions, they are simply insults.
I have no problem with someone criticizing my actions, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it, and do my best to fix it if I was wrong. I have a problem, a large one, with a person who seems to consistently argue on the basis of what he claims people believe instead of addressing their actual words and actions, and personally insults them in the process. Addressing it at some 'vague' group of people, especially when it's pretty clear who some of them are, does not make it acceptable.... it simply offends them en masse. Most people just seem to gripe about it in private instead of actually saying something publicly.
If you say something to me, to someone else, or about some 'group' in a conversation that I am watching that is either an ad hominem attack or a 'guilt by association' fallacy, I'm probably going to say something about it. If you don't like me doing so, perhaps you should discuss people's words and actions instead of their beliefs and motivations. That's how civil discourse works.
And no, saying that it's my opinion that you are actually doing something is not a personal attack, it is a comment on your actions. Reventtalk 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so you have a problem with people expressing an opinion about the beliefs and motivations of others. Interesting. Well good luck with that. It's kind of what makes us human, but whatever. You seem to confuse negative and scornful opinions you disagree on, with "simple insults". I absolutely do believe that many of the issues on Commons stem from adolescent behaviours and attitudes, not least of which is playing power-games with the authority figure. I don't just throw that about gratuitously in order to insult people. You can disagree, of course, but stop trying to censor me because you disagree. As for the "igorant mob" again you don't understand the context or the point. I said "I see an ignorant mob with torches and pitchforks". I'm simply painting a vision, caricaturing some scene from a movie. It was in response to a hypothetical "facing repercussions from the community" threat. Face it, Revent, you've got yourself into a position where you just plain don't like me personally. And when that happens, one finds it really really easy to find fault in pretty much everything they say or do. That you should find (or suspect) yourself lumped in with people I have expressed disapproval of, is frankly your problem. I have been on the receiving end of a many-years-long series of attacks on my "beliefs and motivations" towards "the gay person". I don't recall you getting concerned about that at all. You think you are acting honourably in standing up against what you call "simple insults" but in fact you are simply manifesting your bias and bad faith. Even if you maintain in your head you are right, you've got to accept that (a) your efforts have been to no avail and (b) they are a huge distraction from the meat of any discussion. As I said, please stop. -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What I have a problem with is incivility, and your words frequently qualify, in my opinion. You are, whether you believe me or not, far from rating a place on the list of people I actually bother to 'dislike', though you have rather pissed me off before. Feel free to vacate yourself from my talk page if you're not interested in what I have to say, though. As I've said before, I'm not going to have anything to do with you 'as an admin' because I would have to be considered involved, but I am still allowed to have opinions, and express them, just as you are... it's just that I restrict myself to talking about your actions instead of 'you'. I have no idea what motivates you, and honestly don't care. I've made no attempt to 'censor you', or anyone else that I didn't simply indef. Whether you like it or not, though, I have just as much right to say what I think as anyone else, and what I think is that you are frequently damaging to any kind of civil discussion, for whatever reason, and that you sometimes seem to simply not listen to people. Reventtalk 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't think you really understand what "civility" is, then. You think that your own "civility" gives you the right to interrupt important discussions on Commons with personal attacks against me. Your "honestly don't care" comment is telling. You are operating at the level of "he said a bad word" and utterly failing to get the big picture and seem to have no desire to get the big picture. Commons is a community, and it is important people try to understand each other, and express what each other are thinking. Whether one likes those opinions or not. The only way we will develop as a community is by understanding what motivates or upsets each other. For someone who worries so much about tone, I don't think you are actually very good at judging it. That, whenever I "express an opinion about the beliefs and motivations of others", you decide to personally attack me on a forum about something else is simply an attempt to censor me. And it displays a big misjudgment in you about what is important. It's quite laughable when so much actual rudeness an incivility is going on which seems to pass you by without provoking any need for you to respond. You say "I have just as much right to say what I think as anyone else". Well I can say the same for my beliefs and opinions, yet you have a problem with this. When you say I am "rude" this is simply your judgement of me, and a matter of your opinion. It isn't actually a neutral comment on my actions, but actually a description of your own personal reaction to them or what I to say. The problem is, you choose to "say what you think" about things that are completely off-topic to the discussion at hand, and in an already heated forum where what you say only inflames and detracts from genuine and serious concerns. Doing that, seriously, is very "damaging to civil discussion". Let me try an analogy. Let's say we are in a group of friends down the pub discussing the latest Star Wars film. Right in the middle of a debate about "The Force" someone says "Revent, I really don't like it when little bits of spit come out your mouth when you speak. Weren't you taught to talk like a gentleman?". Or "For crying out loud, Revent, how many times have I told you not to wear white socks with black shoes. You're an embarrassment to civil dress codes" Everyone goes "WFT?" and "Can we get back to talking about "The Force"? As for "not listening to people". Well, I came here to ask you to stop and it doesn't appear you have listened to a word I have said. You're a "tone troll", Revent. Ok. I'm going to go back to more important things. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I care about the arguments that people make, and about if those arguments are correct, not about unfounded speculations about their motives. Your 'please stop' was apparently the result of a conversation where you replied, directly to me, to a comment that was not addressed to you in a manner that I found offensive. No, I am not going to stop replying if you respond to me, completely out of thin air, in a manner that I find insulting, and you asking that I not do so is ridiculous. You do not have the right to simply be insulting to people. IMO, you engage in exactly the kind of behavior that you seem to be object to, and do it on a regular basis. Reventtalk 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you may find this amusing.

  • Posting of non-free copyright material on Commons, which you maintain has no "fair use" allowance (Russavia's claim about DMCA takedown seem beside the point, as the lack of "fair use" allowance on Commons is a policy, not a legal matter).
  • Posting of IRC logs on Commons which I seem to recall got someone else into hot water.

Are you going to threaten the user for these offences, and the recipient for requesting them? Is there now a new consensus that IRC logs are fair game? Or do you have to be banned-already in order to post them without criticism? I know you won't do anything, because of who posted them. Whereas if I or Jee or someone else you have/had issues with posted them, I'd expect you'd be among the first (assuming you weren't 500 miles from your ISP). This is my problem with you. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't quite see the point of threatening to sanction a throwaway IP address that's already been both locally and globally blocked, over material that was already removed by WMFOffice before I even saw it. Seems pretty pointless, and I have no idea if Pokefan95 actually asked him to put it on the wiki or not. I'm certainly not going to warn him over what a sock of a globally banned editor says he did. Reventtalk 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a huge amount of effort you are going to there, to avoid criticism. He's a person, not a "throwaway IP address". There are ways you can voice your criticism of those actions that, perhaps, might influence whether he or anyone else thinks posting IRC logs is a good idea to repeat. You were happy to do this to Jee, and I have absolutely no doubt you would be happy to do this to me. You could always ask Pokefan95 if he solicited non-free copyright IRC logs from Russavia. It seems quite likely since he didn't respond with "Crikey, why on earth are posting this on my talk page while claiming I 'requested it'" but said "thanks". -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in arguing with you, but..... wow, irony. Anyhow, one thing I am absolutely certain of is that nothing I say to Russavia is going to have any effect on if he continues to edit Commons. If Pokefan solicited Russavia to edit, that is a TOU issue.... the WMF obviously saw it, and took what action they felt was needed, which did not include anything regarding Pokefan. If he violated a rule, it's their rule, and since they directly ignored it I really don't have any business yelling at him either.... it's not my job to try to enforce my personal interpretation of the TOU (or yours), especially one that would seem to differ with what the WMF felt was needed in the specific case. And BTW, if you think I am 'happy' about yelling at anyone (and, if you recall, I did not initially yell at Jee, and you were the one that decided to make it into an argument) then you really do profoundly misunderstand me, not that it's news. Reventtalk 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
How ironic is it to see @Colin talk about anyone applying double standards. How about this edit by @Yann, how would you reconcile that with COM:AGF saying "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence". How about this accusation by Yann, which has been proven false by those IRC logs you spoke about? I can't see you stand up in my defence, can I? I don't see you criticise @Yann for posting blatantly untrue statements, do I? Talk of double standards… odder (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, Revent/odder, I have never claimed to be an "impartial voice of reason...where good-faith contributors get into conflict". I'm not an admin or a 'crat. There is no expectation on me to be an impartial and fair deliverer of policy/justice issues towards other users. An awful lot of bad things have been said over the last few days. So Yann accuses you of a "personal vendetta". Well The Photographer accused me of the same the other day wrt Russavia. Wrt the IRC thing, that seemed to be dealt with rapidly by Stemoc and I fail to see why publishing IRC logs was necessary over what was merely a heated petty exchange between two people who don't get on. There is no expectation that I deal with this shit. I have no interest in adminship. On the other hand, Revent chooses to put his admin hat on and warn Jee about IRC logs. I'd be most interested, Odder, if you now think they are fair game for publication every time some little playground dispute at that festering hole on the internet spills over into Commons wiki? AFBorchert claims to be a 'crat but I expect 'crats to hold admins to account when they misuse the tools. Instead, it seems he turns a blind eye to the admin at fault. If any of you guys can't handle being fair with your threats and sanctions and block buttons, then just resign your bits. Then you can have "double standards" all you like. For what it is worth, I do disapprove of quite a lot of what Yann said to you. But it also seems you gave as good as you got. And, unlike Revent, I can recognise language that indicates "this person is upset", and respond to the substance of what is going on, rather than getting wound up at the level of "he said a bad word", which is just a distraction in the grand scheme of things. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
odder, you are applying double standard all the time, and you claim to be a victim here? What BS! Perhaps your knowledge of English is not good enough to understand what attacking means? Perhaps you will also deny attacking Mardetanha just now on the same channel? Or do I have to post the logs like your friend did? What it is mean, is that you can't stand criticism, especially when they show your true motives. Whoever vote against you immediately get rude language (or worse). Commons IRC chan has become a den of wolves unsuitable for any peaceful and constructive discussions because of people like you (and Russavia, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yann. Behind a great passivity can be a great hypocrisy. Your decisions are taken by friendship and the heart, however, the trust can be dangerous especially when any logical foundation forgotten. --The Photographer (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is you, actually, whose knowledge of the English language is limited; anyone who has had a look at that log can see that I attacked you in no way; also, as far as English language skills are concerned, I don't think you want me to start pointing out the grammar mistakes you made above, do you? And of course I will deny attacking Mardetanha; I never did any such thing, and if you can't differentiate between having a heated discussion and attacking someone, then there's an additional problem with your comprehension of the English language. As far as your comment about the IRC channel goes, well, perhaps you were not there when myself and a few other users had a very constructive discussion about proper attribution, copyright of logos, and so on. Really, of all people, you should be the last one to try to teach me anything about attacking anyone, as demonstrated by the diffs I provided above. odder (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

odder: And that? "<Mardetanha> you see, I have no issue with you being tough but the way you are treating others is just unaccaptable." Yann (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Odder and Yann: Please, just find a place to fight over something on instead of Revent's talk page. I am also pinging Natuur12, he maybe interested on this. ★ Poké95 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I second this, this thread (like many others on revent's talk page) is all about Colin, Colin, Colin...please do not de-rail it with your petty rantings.. ...--Stemoc 03:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
But you know, this thread was de-railed due to Colin too... ★ Poké95 03:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Seemoramee images/videos

Revent, thank ;you for taking the time to guide me through the maze of subjects concerning uploads of mine. Your suggestion to take it slow was needed. I tried to figure things out earlier but got lost and confused. You are right about me not trying to do something wrong. I am not. My guidance in the past was to look at other uploads to see if what I contribute fit. (That was not easy because I never knew what to enter to find a particular category)( A suggestion would be to put the categories in some sort of order independent of the uploads so they can be scrolled through to check to see if that is the best one for the upload.) Anyhow, I could follow what you said to check and learned a much better understanding of the site. Copyrightː First, let me say I am the photographer, and I took the photos. Some of them do not have complete data info, perhaps, because I had no other source but a photo I took and had only a print that I scanned to computer and then used as an upload. Another incident was I had only one location of some photos on online site storage and downloaded it from there and it did not give complete data info. All photos and videos are mine and were taken with the knowledge and consent of the subject. Privacy vs. Publiclyː Many were taken outdoors in open fields, woods, spaces,parks, campgrounds, vehicles, etc.. Although she was not openly naked, like walking down the street naked, she was at risk of being seen because of the "space" she was exposed in and she was ok with that. The uploads were to depict normal and usual aspects of her life. She was comfortable with being unclothed in many situations which were not photographed. These were public as well as private. Since life consists of private and public moments, I wanted to capture both. Identity of subjectː Your comments and site info makes me somewhat uncomfortable with the full straight on shots of her face, perhaps those images ought to be deleted just for my own comfort about her visibility showing her full face features. Thank you for your help in these matters. Seemoramee (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Seemoramee P.S. These are the pages I wish to have deletedː Mature nude female bathing 3/8/16; Mature nude famale in tub with glasses,2/8/16;Smiling mature female 3/8/16; Mature nude female in doorway 3/?/16; Mature nude female on bed 3/12/16; Mature nude female side view in bathtub, 3/12/16; Mature nude female resting on bed. 3/12/16;Mature nude female posing and smiling, 3/12/16; Mature nude female in hommock wearing glasses, 3/12/16. The remaining pages I deem as ok. Thank you.Seemoramee (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Seemoramee I expected images and videos that were considered out of scope or even pornographic to be deleted, but not for copyright violations. I was the photographer and videographer. What I meant by transferring from one source to another is this. I originally filmed it on 8mm tape and had no way to make it digital so I used a camera to "copy" or transfer to computer for use. This applies to videos, the photos were taken with digital camera. I did it all from my own original source. I know it is probably too late to do anything about it now. What can you recommend? Thank you. 

Seemoramee (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

(recovered from archive, as I missed this while on break) @Seemoramee: I'm quite sure that a number of your images are not copyright violations, the issue is that it appears that a number of them likely were, and due to the number of uploads, and the 'vague' sourcing information, it was not really possible to tell which was which with any degree of certainty. The type of material you were uploading is not going to be found by any general image search.

"Pornographic" is, in and of itself, not a problem, though we have a policy about it... see COM:PENIS. A large number of uploads end up being deleted as 'out of scope' because of being low-quality, and redundant to better existing images.... in your case, however, they are likely not redundant.

I don't think you are trying to do anything wrong... you'll note that I did not 'sanction' your account in any way, and you are still welcome to upload. Please, however, try to take it slower until you get better acquainted with how to show the needed 'evidence' that the works are in fact yours to license... you can always ask for help at the copyright VP. I would not, personally, delete any image that your re-uploaded with better source information as a 'recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus' (which is a criteria for speedy deletion), as the discussion was not about 'particular' images of yours, but about the probability that the group as a whole contained some copyright violations... several of the images, at first glance, 'looked' like obvious copyright violations even without tracking down a source. Reventtalk 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Seemoramee: Regarding your more recent uploads, I see only two possible concerns... 1) The person depicted does not own the copyright to a photograph, the photographer does. I'm not sure which you are.... if you are the photographer, fine, if the model, you really need the photographer to verify, per COM:OTRS, that you are allowed to license their images. 2) Consent. (see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people) Most of these photos are obviously taken in private places, where the depicted person would have an expectation of privacy. Since she is easily identifiable from them, we really need a statement that she has consented to their publication.... you would not believe how much 'revenge porn' we delete, though that seems unlikely to be the case here. Such a statement can be added with the {{Consent}} template, to the file pages... please read the documentation, though, since it can be used for several different situations. Reventtalk 00:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #201

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_6&oldid=191560186"