Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review

Moved

Moved 1

moved from main page

How many attempts will you do? "The goal of PD review is to establish that all PD files on Commons are compliant with policy or else nominate them for deletion" Can't you just sit and wait what "policy" is? And no, moving files to other projects is not the solution. Stop pushing your idea of to delete public domain works (except in one irrelevant country) from Commons. It doesn't get better by asking again and again.
And since you are nearly repeating the COM:VP discussion I also repeat parts of my reply: It would be nice to have information for every country for each file in a machine readable form. However, this proposal here is only for US. The proposed license tags are overly complicated (remember that uploaders even have problems to understand the meaning of "70 years pma" (which does not require more than 70 years after creation but after death) and nearly no-one will understand this system; especially if it uses some template parameters which need to be set. I saw the file pages you created in your last bot run (which you have reverted): much more than one screen page full of public domain (we are not talking of license templates with restrictions...) tags? Ugly and scaring away everybody who looks at (probably the reaction: they are crazy).
If you require non-US works to have a US-copyright clearance for being uploaded here that is a clear bias towards US (US-centrism) and we are no "US Commons". The reason that WMF is based in US is their problem, not ours. Your proposal: No, that is not Commons. So, in essence: we do not need that review which only helps US but not other countries and which leads in the end to more needless deletions of content copyrighted in the US (but PD in most other countries!) than without this review. Furthermore: why can't you just wait until at least the WMF has said a first word?
It don't see why you are in such a rush. If WMF sees it the same way as you see it (US-centrisic mass deletions of carefully uploaded and maintained public domain content and crazy copyright tag requirements) then they have simply failed their mission - okay, failure is nothing surprising for WMF. ;-) But maybe they surprise by choosing a decision according to their mission. --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Opening an RfC was proposed by User:Rd232. The policy at Commons:Licensing is exactly the same as it has always been. You were the only one to oppose the previous proposal linked at the top, so your accusations of "pushing through an unpopular idea" are baseless - I'm just seeking wider consensus. No files affected by the URAA will be deleted until the WMF's position on the URAA has been published, but that's no reason not to get the review process set up. Complex PD tags are not an issue, because as long as new uploads are reviewed, uploaders don't have to understand them, only reviewers have to. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You might not be aware that you are writing in English. Think about the implications inserted afterwards→of the previous sentence←inserted afterwards regarding your claim that I "were the only one". --Saibo (Δ) 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. I am a native speaker of English and fully aware of the meaning of what I write. I was merely observing (correctly) that you were the only user in this thread who opined that a PD review should not be done. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, which PA? --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflic) I have inserted four words in my previous comment for more clarity - maybe you did understand it not the way I meant it. --Saibo (Δ) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy has said that works have to be PD in the US for several years now. Your accusation that the 3rd largest nation in the world that the WMF happens to be founded is "irrelevant" is hostile and unproductive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not comment on this. --Saibo (Δ) 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement is self-contradicting. And rude.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not end this OT discussion on this page in philosophy. --Saibo (Δ) 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want an OT discussion, how you reply to the fact that works having to be public domain in the US has been part of the official policy COM:L for for at least 5 years?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me think ... not at all since the question is from you. --Saibo (Δ) 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes/Saibo, let's please discuss the issue civilly. I disagree with Saibo but understand his frustration, considering the readers and editors of his home project are mostly in Europe. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The above was moved from the main page, keeping the material relevant for the discussion. Claims that PD status in the US is not or should not be required are irrelevant and a distraction here: it is Commons policy, and this RFC does not attempt to change it. Anyone wanting to try to change it is welcome to do so elsewhere. Rd232 (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved 2

moved from main RFC page

No. You are free to set up a US-Commons (then you also can drop NOTCENSORED in that course). --Saibo (Δ) 04:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The WMF has ruled. It's their playground; you can accept that we have to follow US law here, or you can take your ball and go home.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also unhappy about the current situation, but as Commons is kept on a US server, I understand that the site has to follow US laws. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Take your ball - right - take it and set up US-Commons. --Saibo (Δ) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Have all of you here lost any will to keep this project? Did you think about all those project members who did not participate here yet? I am grossly disappointed of all who support deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

More comments moved to talk page. Rd232 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Objection to moves

User:Saibo objected to the content being moved to the talk page, adding the following notice:

The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed. Reason: Comments are only welcome if they fit some people's view here - otherwise they get deleted and also this notice was tried to be deleted

This objection is hereby noted. It remains the case that all kinds of participation in the RFC are welcome on the RFC main page, whilst objections to the RFC (and other discussion about the RFC) belong on the talk page. Rd232 (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Would it be possible to stop the edit war on this page? Personally, I don't care if the discussions are on the "Commons" page or if they are on the "Commons talk" page, but it is hard to follow the discussion if content constantly is moved. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The content was only moved once. The recent additional move is solely of Saibo's objection notice (which I've just noticed creates an inappropriate categorisation, so that's more work...). See also [1]. Rd232 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The sections were restored at least one on the "Commons" namespace page, but never mind. It just gets a bit messy when looking at diffs of this discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Inapprpriate editing of another user's comments by Rd232

• I was asked to comment on "the nature of Saibo's comments". I see no problems with his comments.

• It was inappropriate for Rd232 (talk · contribs) to edit comments by another user, Saibo (talk · contribs), against that user's stated objections, and as an involved party himself in the ongoing debates. diff1 diff2 diff3. And in particular this is pretty egregious. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That diff is indeed egregious, I fully appreciate and support Rd232's (very transparent and neutral) efforts to keep the discussion useful. Off-topic opinions related to the matter, that Saibo has by the way repeated many times before, are surely disrupting if left in the middle of the discussion itself, so a separation or even outright removal are entirely appropriate. On the contrary, your instistence here is quite unproductive and annoying. Nemo 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the comments on the main page and closed the RFC. The disruption may or may not have been successful, but the discussion did grind to a halt, and at this point any harm arising from the comments has been done. So since Saibo and others continue to object to the move, I've restored the comments, as it makes no difference now. Rd232 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)