User talk:Czar/Archive 1

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

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Czar/Archive 1, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Alto's Adventure animation - 02 Quarter Pipe.gif

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington, I'm an established user—couldn't you have contacted me first before creating all this extra work? Alto's Adventure and Metamorphabet are both on ticket:2015032510006039, where they were erroneously merged together. OTRS has been backlogged and I already asked for a ticket review once, else I would have asked again. Still, the permission from the copyright holders is there if you just search OTRS for it. Please restore the image and revert any other removals related to them. czar ⨹ 03:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry mate. Didn't see it's you. I'll have a peek at the ticket in a few. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Found the ticket. What a mess. I try to get it done asap. BTW: Your files have been deleted with 100+ others, that's why I didn't see they were your uploads. Give me a little time to read through the ticket mess. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate your help. I put a quick guide on where to look as a note on the ticket. @JuTa, you just deleted several Windosill screenshots that are also tied up in this OTRS ticket—could you please restore them? czar ⨹ 14:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
As soon as they have a confirmed OTRS permission. But Hedwig has access to the tickets and is Admin too, she will restore them if the release is valid. regards. --JuTa 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Step by step. Found permission for Alto's Adventure. Will restore those now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Alto's Adv. back, OTRS tag added.
Now I'm looking for Metamorphabet. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the following files are not mentioned in the ticket:


The team photo seems to be mentioned in an email (5/25/15). No author given (unknown, random person) -> No permission.

Please let me know where the Metamorphabet files are listed. Further: I can only see one single Windosill file. Thanks!! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington, greatly appreciate your help. The Metamorphabet and Windosill permissions are in the ticket's email #2 (contained in a Dropbox zip file along with permission in a txt file). The video permissions are at Vimeo: [1] [2], so they don't need OTRS approval but still need review. The app icons are in ticket email #6. Windosill files are:
Email #5 from Ryan Cash says the Snowman team photo was work for hire—do you need him to resend that permission more explicitly? Thanks, again. czar ⨹ 13:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Need to be checked too. They're included in the original permissions, clarified that the videos are included in email #8 and with direct download links in email #12, if you can verify those. czar ⨹ 13:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I think we got it now. :-) Let me know if I can close the ticket or is there anything more coming that we need to refer to this ticket? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. File:Snowman (developers of Alto's Adventure) team photo.jpg is the last one. They said it was work for hire, unless you need something more explicit for the purposes of the ticket. czar ⨹ 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Ticket closed. Uff. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted content

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Czar/Archive 1, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:SpellTower trailer HD.webm

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Restored, OTRS Ticket 2015032610027587. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Czar, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Didym (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

d159

im on it- i will contact you, when i have the info! --www_forsvaret_de (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

tools

I wasn't aware of any. Which tools should I use? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe, https://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/ is the one I use the most for individual transfers (really painless and gives you an option to easily tag the old file for delete) and there's For the Common Good for clearing backlogs. If you google "move to commons" you'll find a whole bunch of (...outdated) guides and userscripts, if you prefer something else. But it's best to use a tool so the Commons file gets the full, automated import. – czar 00:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to move de:File:Lycée_Jean_Renoir.JPG with the bot but it keeps giving me a "This file did not pass file verification: Files of the MIME type "text/html" are not allowed to be uploaded." - What should I do? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see what's causing that. I reported it to the tool's maintainer at their requested site: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/commonshelper/issues/2/issue-with-de-file-lyc-e_jean_renoirjpg – czar 04:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Should I try another way to automatically move the file or is it ok for me to manually move this one? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There are bunch listed at w:Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons. I'd start with For the Common Good (for Windows, if you have it), which you might like anyway for doing backlog processing. Then there are some other scripts listed at the bottom of the page, and if all else fails, you can do it manually with the directions on the page. Magog's fileinfo should generate the license text to manually import. Godspeed – czar 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It worked! Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Novosel mushroom.svg

File:Novosel mushroom.svg 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some software now released under a free license

Hello again Czar,

I have now released six software programs under a CC0 public domain license. Please see Digital Prawn's Public Domain software downloads. (Apologies for the dated and amateurish page layout, I am afraid my HTML skills remain frozen in time from circa 1996). I was going to release the software under a Creative Commons license, but on investigation, I rediscovered that I had already released some of the software as public domain. This was stated either in the source code files or accompanying documentation of some of the programs, or even mentioned by me previously on web forums. So it is just easier for me to release them again on that page using the convenience of the CC0 PD declaration. Time permiting, I hope to upload more where possible to that page, as some of the images I have already uploaded to Commons come from programs where I have not yet tracked down the co-authors. If/when I make any further progress with this in the future, then I will let you know. But at least for now this is something of a start. Kind regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

stuck task

The task "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with Tyler Cowen at the Mercatus Center, February 2016" seems stuck for some reason and I hard-deleted the task. Would you restart it? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999, manually? I no longer have a Restart button next to the Remove button. czar 15:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Λάβαρο Μακεδονικής επανάστασης 1878.jpg

Σε ευχαριστώ για τις παρατηρήσεις σου σχετικά με την σημαία της επανάστασης στη Μακεδονία το 1878 αλλά θα πρέπει να λάβεις υπόψη σου τα εξής α.- την βρήκα στο διαδίκτυο τουλάχιστον σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις https://averoph.wordpress.com/tag/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%82/

http://yperpisteoskaipatridos.blogspot.gr/2014_08_01_archive.html

http://daskalosa.eu/st_istoria_en.d_3_epanastatika_kinimata_sti_makedonia_kai_tin_kriti.html

https://mix.office.com/watch/1opry8wutsq3dhttps://mix.office.com/watch/1opry8wutsq3d

β.- η σημαία εκτίθεται στο κοινό στο Εθνολογικό Μουσείο Αθηνών

γ.- κοσμεί το σχετικό άρθρο στην ελληνική βικιπαίδεια el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Μακεδονική_επανάσταση_του_1878

δ.- την χρησιμοποίησα για την εικονογράφηση του λήμματος παπα-Σταύρος Τσάμης που ανέβασα στην βικιπαίδεια επειδή την σημαία σήκωσε ο καπετάν Μπρούφας που είχε σαν υπαρχηγό του τον Ιωάννη Τσάμη που κρύφθηκε μετά στο χωριό Πισοδέρι όπου ήταν ο παπα-Σταύρος Τσάμης.

Πιστεύω ότι είναι εθνικό σύμβολο , όπως η σημαία μας , και δεν έχει κανένας copyright.

Παρόλα αυτά και επειδή λόγω επαγγέλματος [δικηγόρος] πρέπει να είμαι προσεκτικός εαν θεωρείς ότι πρέπει να διαγραφεί τότε προχώρησε στη διαγραφή της.PISUM DERI 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@DerHexer, can you help here? I don't know the language czar 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Tasnimreview}} template

Hi Czar, I see you're making {{Tasnim}} template. I created {{Tasnimreview}} template yesterday to make license reviewing for tasnimnews.com images faster, but i didn't used it cause none image-reviewers can use it to pass license review without being tagged by Abuse Filter 70. Not sure if I'm doing right thing. What do you think about {{Tasnimreview}} ? should i delete it? In2wiki (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@In2wiki, my understanding is that license review templates have a lot of moving parts, so it's best to just use the standard {{LicenseReview}} template unless there are thousands of Tasnim files expected. {{subst:Tasnim/subst}} should do the trick of adding both the license review tag and tagging as in need of review (while including a template that explains how Tasnim attribution works). I also have a separate template for reviewers, {{subst:Tasnim/subst+rev}}. Eventually, I don't think we'll need the "Tasnim review needed" category, as the main license review category should suffice. How does that sound? czar 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, I'm a newbie in commons and donno procedures here and I didnt create Tasnim review needed category but I think making tasnim_review_needed is a right decision cause Tasnim is a News Agency with thousands of valuable images in its archive and still most of them[in commons] are not categorized into Tasnim review needed. In2wiki (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Plantain

Hi, what is the problem with the Source Tresor des remedes secretz par Evonyme Philiatre https://archive.org/stream/hin-wel-all-00000992-001#page/n112/mode/1up
Pancrat (talk)

@Pancrat, if I recall correctly, the file (on Commons) did not match the scanned link (at archive.org) czar 09:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Parser functions

Your signature includes lots of parser functions, see Special:Diff/191141456. Can you add subst: to the signature? That would make the wikicode easier to read. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2, that was a one-time usage—now fixed (my regular sig was invisible in the template). Appreciate the heads up czar 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition article on en Wikipedia

Hello again Czar,

Just to say I agree that you were correct to redirect that article over on en wiki last year. It was the first ever article I created as a complete newbie. I can now see five years later and with a bit more experience, that it rather belongs more on the dedicated Sinclair wiki rather than on Wikipedia. Also, some of the freely licensed images on Commons I had uploaded that were originally in use on that page have since been speedy deleted here. No problem, I guess without that article they can now easily be seen as out of scope here. For this reason (and also because I haven't had the time recently) it is now unlikely I will pursue any further freeware releases of software I had previously co-authored. I only thought it fair to let you know. With hindsight, it is better really to upload images here from games which are notable such that they are more obviously "in scope" (unless there are other unique reasons for uploading certain images). But sincere thanks anyway for the tidy up, that article needed to go, but I guess I couldn't bring myself to remove it as I had originally created it myself! Kind Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rept0n1x, I still think your images are great demonstrations of Speccy graphics, especially when WP prefers free use examples over commercial examples. I don't know which of your images were deleted, but I wouldn't consider them out-of-scope by their nature. If I can help restore them to Commons, let me know. We'd just need to confirm your authorship and permission. czar 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Czar. If you are interested, the four files already deleted are:-

These two are currently nominated for deletion:-

As stated in the deletion discussions, I am currently neutral on the deletion or otherwise of these files. This is mainly due to the fact that I am not a very active Wikimedia editor nowadays, having only logged in because I noticed the above deletion discussions on my userpages. Also, my era of coding retro titles seems pretty much in the past, due to real life! But if you wish to pursue the recovery of the above and have time for it then please feel free and thanks. Whilst I can quite understand any potential authorship issues (since I always used a different pseudonym in the sinclair retro scene than on the Wikimedia sites), it appears that these ones have been deleted on "scope/non-notable" grounds rather than the question of authorship. Rept0n1x (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

chunk-too-small error

Hey, can I have your permission to rerun your task (Bernie Supporters at the Bernie Sanders rally in Philadelphia, PA, April 2016) using your oauth tokens in debug mode? Apparently I'm unable to find the cause without that. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999, go for it—you have my permission to use my oauth token to debug your awesome tools indefinitely. I appreciate everything you've put into it. I just restarted the task on video2commons, if that helps too. czar 11:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I got some debug information and reported phab:T132676 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Showreel chocolate & caramel by Will van der Vlugt.webm

File:Showreel chocolate & caramel by Will van der Vlugt.webm 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

ɱ (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:TPBAFKposter.tif

Hello
The source of this image came from the official website of the film, which precisely specified that the license is CC-BY-3.0 . The problem is that this website went down recently. What to do ? — Fandecaisses [ talk ] 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fandecaisses, it's archived here, but it says that the film stills are cc-by, not the box art itself. I tweeted the film's Twitter account for clarification. czar 14:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Video license

The "more" button on Vimeo just says
"Showreel Chocolate & Caramel by Will van der Vlugt
Uploaded by Caramel Pictures
Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 5:31 AM EST".
Still not seeing a license?!? ɱ (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugh nevermind my screen brightness is up so high I couldn't even see that faint tiny logo. That's an awful design. ɱ (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Before cropping

Hi, I don't like cropping. The original photo is better but is a watermarked photo...--Toïlev (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Toïlev, I left that message not to necessarily encourage cropping but to say that the license review part would be easier if you upload the full (watermarked?) image and let the license review run before doing any further cropping. czar 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:The Pilot magazine, February 1930.jpg

So, with this edit are you suggesting you can confirm this is correctly licensed? What reason do you have for assuming the licence applied is correct especially considering the editor has several copyright problem uploads. Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor, {{LicenseReview}} is for when we need confirmation that a site indeed published some media under some license, not for getting someone to verify the merits of the current license. My edit summary made no presumption of the correctness of the license—if anything, I said the opposite (that the site does not confirm the license). The source doesn't make any claims to PD—that's on whoever tagged it with that license. But I imagine you already knew this since you were watching the page? If you doubt that the uploader made the checks to verify that (1) the source is correct, and (2) the copyright was not renewed, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. I was processing the queue and didn't look that deep into its specifics, myself czar 02:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Tara Lipinski in Sochi.jpg

Why do you add false info that license template is missing while there is one? Create a DR if you wish to claim it invalid, instead. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry, I'm not sure what you mean by false info. The Flickr source is "PD mark" (incompatible with Commons) but so the existing "PD-author" license doesn't match the source, as they're not the same. czar 11:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. But the info you added is misleading (it suggests there is no license template while there is one). It is misleading to the user: it suggests adding eg. {{PD-author}} to the page while there is one already. I suggest removing the existing license template in such cases as invalid. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly that. Thanks :) Ankry (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to say I was confused. The PD process is always confusing to me. In the past I had release letters from Margaret Court and Chris Evert on photos they sent me to use, but were turned down because they had to send the notarized release papers themselves. I wasn't going to ask them to do that...especially an 80 year old from Australia. I simply asked the guy on flickr to release it to public domain because we have no pics of Lipinski, and he happily complied. Now I asked him to change it again because of this, and I hope he gets it correct and that he complies once more. If it's done wrong again I would expect to lose this chance to get a public domain pic.
I know we have to be careful, but when the actual owner of a photo personally tags it with:
"Public Domain Mark 1.0, No Copyright, This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."
That should really be good enough. Hopefully he helps us out with this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), I think of it as saving you from harassment down the line. I had to reassess my own images too—it is what it is. When I ask Flickr users to relicense, I recommend that they do "cc-by-sa or freer" or "CC0" to make things easiest. The only problems I ever have are when they want to add non-commercial or no derivatives language and I have to explain how Commons works. Still, it's a lot easier than notarizing papers. Most people appreciate what you and Commons/Wikipedia do enough to spend a few more clicks to get things right. czar 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: It looks like he has now changed it to Public Domain CC0 1.0 Universal. Gosh I hope that's good enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), all good, just reviewed it. Thanks for sticking with it czar 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Whew... thanks. I thanked the guy a bunch for donating it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Khamenei meeting Assembly of Experts members 06.jpg

Hello, it's done I uploaded it. I had come to the same conclusion to upload images directly from the source, you beat me. Sorry to have not think to that before since I knew the link. Thank you for your initiative and congratulations for your hard work :) Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Czar. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

INeverCry 23:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

{{Cc-by-3.0-es}}

Thanks for the info. Just out of curiosity: does it make any difference? --Discasto talk 16:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the permissions, not to my knowledge, but I haven't compared the two in detail. The site used the Spain license, though, so it makes a difference in the sense that we should be honoring the site's listed license. czar 17:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

RFA

Here it is: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Czar. I've always preferred to keep my RFA noms short and to the point. I definitely think you've got the qualifications. As soon as you add your acceptance, I'll transclude it and start the timer. INeverCry 00:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The RFA is live. I hadn't realized you were active at FFD, so I'm glad you added that detail. I closed a few thousand FFDs and PUFs myself when I was an admin on en.wiki back in 2013. Anyways, good luck (though I don't think you need it much), and good night. INeverCry 04:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, just a few thousand, give or take czar 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:Jean Clottes' images

I've added the new links to the four files about Jea Clottes. Thank you for the warning. Regards, --Nachosan (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed. --Nachosan (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Magüi Mira

Hi! Any unsolved additional problem on File:Magüi Mira.jpg? Can you remove the deletion tag? Thanks! Cvbr (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cvbr, ✓ done czar 12:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The LicenseReview job

I don't want to be over critical to you but I need to point out by removing the License review template of File:Bundaberg collage.png, and some other files too, without actually reviewing the licence means you did not complete the license review task which is what reviewers are supposed to do. The {{LicenseReview}} instructions state: If you are an administrator or trusted license reviewer, use this template with all parameters set to document that you have verified that the licensing information provided for a file uploaded to Commons by another user matches the information on the source site. If an image is good you are supposed to complete the pass review which you did not do. Maybe you assumed that the license was correct because the individual images were already on the commons. It was not a trick but I wondered if anyone would pick up the problem with the license. Did you look at the individual licenses? If you had you would have noticed there were different licence and of course the most restrictive one applies which is not the licence of the collage per the uploader. You criticised me here for not fixing the image, when could easily have fixed this collage and added a link to the original images, as I have done now. Ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, license review is really external license review. (It's a log for the "irrevocability" of a license.) As part of license review, if there is no external source with a license for us to verify, it's fine to remove the tag. (I also explain why I remove the tag in the edit summary...) In the case of the collage/trap above, there were no external licenses to confirm so a review was not necessary. I assumed nothing about whether the component images were correctly licensed because it wasn't part of the check. czar 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I disagree with your minimalistic view of reviewing licences. License review is a review of the license, period. We should be trying to save images where possible and when an licensereview tag is attached to a licence, then a drive-by removal of the tag without investigating why it might be there should trigger you into some action. It is not, in my opinion, a diligent way of reviewing images. Based on your statements I suspect images with false tags at their source won't cause you any bother at all. In future, perhaps if there is no external source for you to verify, you might actually look around and see if you can find one, so the image can be saved. In the case of File:Bundaberg collage.png the review was necessary because the licence was not accurate. I'm sorry but a` licensereview tag should tell you there could be an issue that YOU might be able to fix, but go ahead in your own way. Ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a view, it's the lede paragraph of Commons:License review. If you want to discuss an image, the standard procedure is to take it somewhere for discussion, not to tag it for external license confirmation. czar 16:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please undelete images I had uploaded. I will add photographer names to them. Thanks.Sicaspi (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sicaspi, looking at the discussions linked from your talk page, it looks like the issue was that the source didn't have an author, not that you forgot to add them. We only use Tasnim images that are watermarked with Tasnim photographers. Otherwise, we assume they are not from Tasnim and are being used on their site under fair use. czar 10:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh gotcha--Sicaspi (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Czar, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard an it subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons-lr webchat on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Commiserations Congratulations on your demotion promotion to janitor, 1st class administrator! (delete as applicable) Green Giant (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Aloha new admin! You need a bigger broom from now on! Good luck and don't forget: It's supposed to be fun and not work! café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ai, I missed your RfA, but would nevertheless like to give you my blessing. ;-) Good luck with the buttons. Trijnsteltalk 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:KitKat - Mini Moments.webm

File:KitKat - Mini Moments.webm 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Racconish ☎ 13:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Showreel chocolate & caramel by Will van der Vlugt.webm

File:Showreel chocolate & caramel by Will van der Vlugt.webm 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Racconish ☎ 13:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lindt Paris - In the heart of the workshop.webm

File:Lindt Paris - In the heart of the workshop.webm 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Racconish ☎ 13:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

rv self-notice

Guide me

Hi Czar. Some people in english wikipedia told me my uploads about Iran men's national volleyball team, are not free and we can't use them in articles and remove our pictures in en:Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification! Please say your opinion. Thank you.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarbaze naja, the license on the File:Iran VS Japan.jpg files appear fine, so don't worry about that. That user appears more concerned about en:Wikipedia:Due weight—that using five pictures of Iran is too much. They are suggesting to only use images to illustrate what is necessary to show. For example, if Iran wins an important game, use one image from that game (but don't include five unless there is a reason). Alternatively, you can make a Commons category for "Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification" and add a link to all applicable images at once that way. (The image gallery usage policy also explains when galleries should and should not be used.) czar 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. this is best answer I have got today. I am not a racist. I respect every country in the world. I just want mention name of every county because I like them. But others think I am a racist! :( Sarbaze naja (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone thinks you're a racist—just make sure that national representation is balanced when the subject is an international volleyball competition. czar 16:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi you have deleted several of my old Iranian photos, these photos are in PD due to their age. How can I get them revived and elaborate on the info you need? --Sicaspi (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sicaspi, did you see the three deletion discussions? (The sourced images were not under a free license by Tasnim.) What evidence do you have that the images are in the public domain? czar 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you have deleted those, I cannot even see what these photos were to be able to check the evidence. I definitely had seen something when I was uploading them.--Sicaspi (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sicaspi, here are the sources for each:
File:Najafg.jpg: http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1394/11/11/986499/%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B5%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF
File:Ghorbanizein.jpg: http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1394/01/22/706594/%D8%A2%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%81-%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%84-%DA%86%D9%BE%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A2%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA
File:Sadat iran.png: http://www.iichs.org/magazine/sub.asp?id=675&theme=Orange&magNumber=76&magID=79&magIMG=coverpage76.jpg (the deletion rationale on this one was "Image not at source, not enough info on photographer's copyright to determine PD status")
czar 14:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
so while this news agency has published its photos in the public domain, you only allow those photos from its website to be uploaded that have photographer name explicitely mentioned for it?--Sicaspi (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Tasnim}} links to the discussion that explains how the Tasnim license works. The short version is that the license only applies to works by Tasnim photographers (who are credited in the image files). czar 03:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

YouTube screenshots

Hey. Could you please check if these two screenshots pass the license review before i will use them on Wikipedia? Here they are [3], [4]. --Eurofan88 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eurofan88, looks good, but I'm operating under the assumption that this video was indeed made by the YouTube uploader. It seems reasonable enough, given the video's low quality and others in the channel, but it's possible that "BrysonTiller Faan", like many other fan channels, is getting the videos from somewhere else and doesn't own the copyright to relicense. czar 17:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you delete this file?

Hi, I believe the first version of File:Fragments of Him.png is non-free. I've replaced it with the version from the presskit. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

What was wrong with the first version? The version in the press kit doesn't use the watermarks. Also you'll want to add {{License review}} to the files so that someone can verify the images as having once been freely released, if that press kit page were to ever go offline czar 09:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah yeah, sorry about that. I downloaded the .zip file which contained the watermarks. Clicking on the images bring up them without. Should I try to upload new versions where they don't have watermarks? I'll add the template as requested, though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I know this probably isn't the right place to ask, but how would I go about asking for permission to use the images in this blog post? Specifically these ones (about half way down). It'll really help the development and release section of the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
If the page licenses watermark-free images (which it appears to do), I would upload those versions atop the watermarked ones. You can contact the devs, thank them for licensing the press kit under Creative Commons, and simply ask whether they would license specific images from that blog post (link or attach them directly so they know exactly which ones you want). It's possible that they'll release consent for the whole page, but it's easier to specify which ones you want in case they don't. In terms of the release, they can either add a note to the bottom of the page (like the notice in the press kit) or email the Commons:Consent text to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (Commons:OTRS) to verify and document for posterity. The person who emails OTRS is the one who receives confirmation of the ticket, so you might want to be the one who forward the permission to OTRS if it's your first one. There is also a template to add to the image to let others know that it's in processing: {{OR}} czar 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Not all of them contained a watermark-free image. I replaced the ones which did. I'll try to contact them soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:League of Legends

Hi Czar. Can you take a look at this category? I'm not familiar with video games at all, but if this is a copyrighted game, several of the files in the cat are copyvios. One of the videos is tagged for license review and shows a statue of characters I wonder about. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry, indeed they are—nominated a bunch, including the statues (or what looks like statues) and video. I'm less sure on the copyright of the Category:2013 Taiwan Lantern Festival parade floats and on the artistic merit of the scenic design in the tournament photos, if you have any guidance. Haven't had many bites at the village pump or at Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter. czar 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

JP Gov images

These images have been sitting in the review cat for a couple months now, so I decided to set them aside in Category:Government of Japan review needed. If there's any problem, and you notice it, can you tell any body involved not to try reverting me by hand? If needed, I can revert all of this in about 15 seconds with a custom replace in VFC. Hopefully clearing up the review cat and getting these out of the way until something gets figured out won't be seen as a problem. My only focus here was to make it easier to sort through daily image reviews in an uncluttered category. INeverCry 04:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • You probably already know this, but Rillke's license review script will place a review template on a file and allow a reviewer to pass the review. This function is accessible by mousing over the edit tab at page top and clicking +. INeverCry 04:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry, good idea. Yeah, I saw several conversations and deletion discussions about the Gov of Japan images but I haven't heard how we should be handling the 2.0 template. Segregating those reviews to its own queue is a good compromise until those editors work it out. I might have mentioned it to you before, but in the past on the license review talk page I raised the idea of splitting out the license reviews by source language—that way it'll be easier for Russian- or Korean-speaking users to hit those handful of images when I'd be just trying my best with Google Translate... And I use one form or another of Rillke's. I still think there should be an option for {{License review}} that both marks the review as failed and nominates it for deletion (either speedy or by DR). Otherwise they sit in the queue even though they've already failed review. czar 06:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If a file is NC/ND, the - function in Rillke's script will put the file up for speedy deletion. You can also just speedy tag it like any copyvio. You won't have to wait long till I come along and zap it. For the images that are nominated for deletion, we could always start a category for failed reviews. We could then remove the license review tag and replace it with the failed review cat. The only minor problem would be files that survived deletion requests, though those are few and far between.

As far as source language goes, I'm used to taking care of the Korean K-Pop stuff, the Slovenian stuff from Sporti, the Farsi versions of Tasnim stuff, and the Russian stuff from Butko and the train and airplane guys. Separating languages might even slow me down... I would see merit in a separation category or categories that dealt with files where the source displayed the license in another language besides English. Most foreign language sources use English CC/license tags. All in all though, we do a damned good job of keeping that review cat manageable IMHO. Our team of reviewers is small but good at their job. INeverCry 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry, if I recall correctly, Rillke's will add the deletion template but leave the {{License review}} unchanged, so I'd have to remove it manually. That was the main issue for me. I'd much prefer that the tool replace it with a failed review template/cat—it's more descriptive. Sounds good on the language separation front. czar 18:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be nice. The only thing you can do tool-wise is if you have a large number of files you nominate for deletion. You can then use custom replace in VisualFileChange to replace the review tag with a category. This doesn't happen all that often though. As for Rillke, he's a busy man, and he doesn't get a lot of help from the WMF with his tools from what I've seen, so this would probably be very low-priority. INeverCry 18:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way, @INeverCry, this is what I mean—the image fails review because of copyvio, but it needs to go to deletion discussion. The only option in Rillke's "License -" is to tag it as All Rights Reserved, which makes it a speedy. But I just want the template removed, or even marked as having failed review, not speedied (need to open a Deletion Request instead). czar 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry, just whipped up User:Czar/LicenseReview.js based on Rillke's. It adds two options for what I handle the most: (1) The item is already nominated for deletion and the review should be moved out of the queue, or (2) The item doesn't need a license review, and should just have the tag removed. The former adds {{License review failed}}, which populates Category:License review failed, which is the holding cell. Open to new names/phrasing, though I think this should be okay. Wanted to let you know in case you were interested. czar 06:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Image deletion

Leaving a note at User talk:Partynia, I came across a notice for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bayerischer Gesundheitspreis 2015.jpg. It looks like (1) you agreed with Partynia's statement that this image would be free if hosted where it claimed to have been hosted, but (2) you found no evidence that it was at that location. Am I correct, or did I miss something? If I'm correct, it's time for undeletion; [5] is obviously the same image as Special:Undelete/File:Bayerischer Gesundheitspreis 2015.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, yes on #2 but not necessarily on #1—we would need to confirm the site's license at the time of that archive (November 2015). And usually you would need to see the context of the embedded image (not just a direct link to the file) to see if there are any restrictions on its use. czar 14:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I was unaware that there were any potential issues aside from the absence of the image from its source URL. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

GJSTU2

 Info I posted a comment to you at this page. Would you read my comment, please? --Scanyaro (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ done. By the way, the {{Ping}} will not send unless the edit has a new signature ~~~~ in the same edit. czar 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 Info I posted a comment to you at this page. Would you read my comment, please? --Scanyaro (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Scanyaro, I already looked at your comments but my Google translation is too weak for me to understand or respond. Feel free to handle the template with others as you wish. czar 18:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 Info　Thanks for your reply.　I posted a comment (in English) to you at this page. Would you read my comment, please? ( I am not a native speaker of English, so I'm sorry if it is a bit harsh or difficult for you to understand my English. ) --Scanyaro (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 Info　I posted a comment (in English) to you at this page. Would you read my comment, please? --Scanyaro (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
See my last response on that page. I have nothing to add. czar 06:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment　You are irresponsible. What are you going to do with this category? You ignored the discussion of this page (February 11, 2016 - April 23, 2016), and created the wrong template and category. Why did you ignore the consensus of the discussion? We emphasize the consensus of the community at the Wikiproject. Please don't ignore the rules of the Wikiproject. ( I am not a native speaker of English, so I'm sorry if it is a bit harsh or difficult for you to understand my English. ) --Scanyaro (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, Commons:善意にとる and enough with the loaded questions—there is no problem with the category redirect and no consensus was even close to "ignored". If you disagree, work it out with one of the Japanese-language admins as you wish. But if you use insulting language again, I will not respond. czar 07:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check the liscence

Hey, could you please check the license of this logo? The license says that it's made "of characters from one or more typefaces," while I believe that it's something beyond just some characters and is a logo which needs to be freely licensed before being published. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, I agree and brought it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.png czar 17:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
There are still some other cases which need to be addressed. To me, these files cross the threshold of originality for logos and flags:
By the way, I'm doubtful about this one. I'll let you know if there are other cases. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: , @Mhhossein: How about these three daesh logos: Category:Emblem of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Those seem above TOO to me. There's some questionable ones at the bottom of Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, though they're not as +TOO looking as the three circular ones. INeverCry 05:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: As far as I see, the logos you pointed to may be classified into the following categories:
a) Those with "at least some minimal degree of creativity" which pass the threshold of originality. Those circular logos fit into this category. As you see, of the three circular logos, one is claimed to be a personal work, while this one is claimed to be created by ISIS and this one is claimed to be created using the former and is surprisingly licensed under CC. Also, most of the photos at the bottom of Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are original enough and hence protected by copyright law. I may point to File:Wilayat-Sanaa-logo.jpg, File:Wilayat-Lahej-logo.jpg and File:Wilayat-Jazeerah-logo.jpg as examples. Btw, some of these files, such as this one, are licensed under CC but no details is provided so that one can verify the license. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
b) Those logos which are apparently just some simple typefaces put together and are too simple to be copyrighted; File:Wilayat-Saina-logo.jpg, File:Wilayat-Idlib-logo.jpg and File:Wilayat-ShimalBaghdad-logo.jpg fit into this category, while I doubt if the watermarks in these photos change anything or not. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd consider Mhhossein's first four links to contain original elements, so separate deletion requests on each would be justifiable. I'm not familiar with the legal precedent for calligraphy in logos, if anyone knows another editor we can contact. The ISIL emblems appear to be simpler, apart from the silver pendant in the middle, and should probably be discussed as a group to set precedent before nominating anything similar. And if a logo is marked as "own work" or Creative Commons without any proof, feel free to mark those as {{No permission}}—we would need confirmation of permission from the official rightsholders. czar 22:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Who could give permission for an ISIS or Nusra logo? We'd have to forward the OTRS email to the NSA... INeverCry 23:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect them to be much interested in "free culture" like Creative Commons either but alas czar 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I read an article a little while back from one of the news accts I follow on Twitter where they said ISIS was more effective on social media than many legitimate international companies and groups... As regards these logos of ISIS, do you think I should DR them or speedy them? INeverCry 23:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've opened these two DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emblem of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. INeverCry 01:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think DR is the way to go—looking to get some wider feedback czar 02:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, so far we've got some quick feedback from someone who hasn't a clue about what he's commenting on. That's not in short supply around here. I'm hoping we get comments from people like Mhhossein, who know what they're talking about. INeverCry 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czar/Archive_1&oldid=205900302"