User talk:Revent/Archive 1

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

Goubau Market Scene

Agree, but there is probably no official title given by the artist that we can still recover. I first translated the German title used by Lempertz although it did not make much sense but then felt that the one given by the RKD (https://rkd.nl/explore/images/189680) was probably more fitting so then translated that one. FRAYK (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

La Nación Argentina

Hello Revent, I've uploaded multiple copies of this book without having any problem before. I understand the URAA issues, but it seems to me that this is more a problem of the way in which Commons administrators are understanding the rule of the law, that the law in itself. I seriously doubt that anyone in the United States is going to claim an URAA issue over a book that was published by the peronist govt. in 1950 in Argentina, but I do know that this is going to cause us a lot of trouble in the future. You see, this images are being uploaded as part of an agreement that we have with "Archivo Histórico de la Pcia. de Buenos Aires", the institution that scanned the book, and if you delete those images you're basically undermining the agreement that we have here, in Argentina, with a local institution, over a book that has no longer copyright here, just because the US law says something different. This is definitely not a good argument for us to bring in any discussion with a GLAM institution. Please don't take it personally. --Scanno (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Scanno: It's not a matter of 'me' deleting them.. I'm not an admin, and I can't do so. I just didn't feel right in ignoring the issue when I noticed it, since it's both against Commons policy to allow new uploads of URAA affected files, and against US law, which the WMF has to obey. I haven't looked at any of your past uploads, and have no intention of specifically looking at your future uploads.. I only noticed because some of your files had the deprecated {{PD}} tag instead of {{PD-Argentina}}, and it specifically put them in a license review category. Personally, I think the situation sucks all around, and that the URAA is stupid. I do have to say, though, that you would be better off addressing your comments to the DR than just to me... it's not my decision. Perhaps, though, it would be possible for your local GLAMs to push the Argentine government to 'explicitly' release old government material that is already in the PD there to the PD 'globally' for educational and historical purposes.... as far I can see it's that or convince the Commons community to ignore the URAA... I don't think the admins are likely to delete them if the community decides not to. Personally, I would be quite happy if such a decision was made, but I don't really see how anyone could make a persuasive argument for it.
As far as the situation with your local institution, I really don't know what to tell you... I didn't create this situation, I just happened to be the once that noticed it, and there are plenty of other people who would have felt obligated to do the same thing wether they were happy about it or not. Like I said, I have no intention of 'hunting' for URAA copyvios, but I'm not going to ignore them either unless that becomes policy. Revent (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

File:1906 Eustace Fiennes MP.jpg

You should contact the original uploader, Graemp, at enwiki. And if the consensus is to eventually delete this file, remember to re-upload it at enwiki as fair use. Thank you!--The Theosophist (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Theosophist: My intent if it is deleted here, actually, was to just ping an enwiki admin to undelete it over there, instead of re-uploading it, and yes, tag it as fair use. Contacting Graemp is a good idea, and I just did so... he might be aware of publication details about the series this was apparently part of that evidence it's publication date. I asked him to respond at the DR. Revent (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

PD "reviews"

This[1] has no bearing whatsoever on COM:LR. You seem to be making up rules as you go.

My "beef" isn't personal, but with the idea that reviewers have any sort of self-defined authority to confirm what is or isn't PD. You are on the same level as any normal user in that department.

Peter Isotalo 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: Noone is saying that license reviewers have any 'authority' to determine if something is PD or not, if something is PD is a 'fact' inherent to the work itself. 'PD review' is a subset of license review that has been around for years, there are many files 'licensed' as PD on Commons by people that do not understand what makes something PD, and the point of PD review, just like 'regular' license review, is to mark that someone has double checked. It's that simple, and it's something that has a long standing consensus. If a license reviewer finds the something isn't PD, they have no 'authority' to do anything other than to send it to DR, just like any other copyright problem... the actual 'status' is decided by the community.
Removing license review templates (and yes, PD-review is a license review template, and I didn't 'make it up', the template has existed since 2009) is disruptive editing, as it interferes with Commons maintenance. Stop. Revent (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Alexis Tsipras by Robert Crc.jpg

The file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) I did attribute the author, did describe the changes, provided link for original work and uploaded under the same licensce, so I don't get what's the problem? Iaberis (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Iaberis: The problem is that the Flickr user apparently is not the copyright owner (Robert Crc)... there is no evidence that the Flickr user had the legal right to license the image, or even to post it to their Flickr account. Revent (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hm... you're probably right. I thought it was the same person. Otherwise my justification was correctly done, for use from flickr right? Iaberis (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Iaberis: Yes, the way you uploaded it was correct for the 'given license' on Flickr, it's just that the image on Flickr itself is quite possibly a copyvio. Not something I think anyone would 'hold against you' as an attempt to upload a copyvio, just an easy oversight. That's why Flickr things get double-checked. Revent (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Delete it then, I asked the user if he was the photographer and if he confirms, I'll upload it again later. By the way, is there an easy way to transfer all file usage of an old file to the new I upload? Thanks Iaberis (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Iaberis: Add " window.importScript('User:Sreejithk2000/JustReplace.js'); " to your common.js to get a 'Global replace' button... by default, it will ask the Commons Delinker bot to make the change. You can also 'manually' request the bot to do it at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. And yeah, I was going to suggest you contact the Flickr user.. I didn't see an obvious 'source' of the image on the web, so it might be a case of him knowing the owner personally. Revent (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for help

Dear Revent, thank you for reviewing that busted tank, remember?, and could you please kindly look at these stills at your spare time. They are all from the same source and exact frame location for every image is provided as well:

Thank you in advance. Best,--Nabak (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nabak: Sorry for the lack of response, I've been inactive for the last couple of weeks due to offline issues. Checking now, I see that the files in question have now all been (positively) reviewed. Revent (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived undel

Hi, as you were involved in a related undel, I would like to draw your attention to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#2014122610009322_C-SPAN_Student. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Revent. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Revent. 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.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ethnic Macedonian Flag.svg

Would you like to comment on the talkpage of that image? Cheers, Luxure Σ 12:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Luxure I left a comment, and it's now on my watchlist.... I ofc have an opinion, and I'd like to think it's the 'commonsense' one to experience editors, but I'd rather try to keep a bit of distance for the actual argument. I can see how this is going to turn out already, and you are not wrong... please don't take my poking at you regarding the need for 'discusssion' as an expression of disapproval of the position you were taking. Revent (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No it's not a problem, in my time on en wiki I know how these things operate... Luxure Σ 08:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Chemical mistake clarification

Thanks for giving clearer explanation of the formatting issue at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Danishefsky endiine is.svg. But more significantly, @INeverCry: there was also an actual chemical mistake in both images: it illustrated "ane diine" not "ene diine"--single bond rather than double bond between the two triple-bond pieces. That's the key that I fixed in the other image (I chose to fix the other image because it already was superior in formatting. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(nods) I got that, it just didn't seem to be the point of confusion. Revent (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks: This one, that one, that other one, replaced with the other one - I deleted that one and not that other one, and I think I got the right one... INeverCry 04:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Everything is in order, yes. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Charles Giraud (cropped).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Giraud (cropped).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: My bad, apparently missed copying it over from the source file when reuploading the crop (I didn't use the bot because I rotated it a hair). It's {{PD-Art-100}}. see the source for the original. I added the license template. Revent (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Comment to yours at my talk, sincere question that it would be good to have an answer to for future reference. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

just a curiosity about artworks

Hi Revent, sorry if I disturb you. I have one more question about this file but it doesn't relate to copyright so I post it here; You used - and I fully agree - the copyright tag {{PD-Art}}. Shouldn't also the infobox be {{Artwork}} instead of {{Information}}? As I said in my question I'm willing to help with files categorized in Category:Commons media maintenance, so I'd like to understand first how these templates work. Thanks a lot! --Nastoshka (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of any of the 'specialized' forms of the Information template is totally optional... I just used {{Information}} because I have the 'Add {{Information}}' gadget turned on, so it's convenient. {{Artwork}} is more 'technically' correct, yes, but unless actually using any of the extra fields it defines it doesn't really make much difference... {{Artwork}} is really intended for works that are held in a museum, hence the 'institution', 'accession number', etc. Revent (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Exploring a forest in Nikko (10156694586).jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Exploring a forest in Nikko (10156694586).jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Lazlo 18:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@1989: Thanks, should be fixed. Not my upload, btw, but one of several hundred 'zombie' Flickr files that were created by flickr2commons without a file page, that I'm (slowly) fixing. It's easy to accidentally make an occasional mistake copying things over. I retriggered the bot, which should verify it shortly now that I fixed the url. Revent (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple questions

Greetings Revent, I hope you don't mind me asking a couple questions. As I edit more I see more things that should/could be done but before I do I try to run it by people to see what they think. So here goes:

  1. I see a lot of people deleting Interwiki links, especially en:, should I be deleting these or do we need to verify they are in Wikidata before we do that?
  2. Some Biographical categories have Year of birth and or death cats and some don't. In the cases of those that don't, and I don't directly know what they are, should I add Category:Year of birth missing or Category:Year of death missing? This would be easy to do so we can at least start compiling which ones are missing and not, but before I start adding that to thousands of Categories I wanted to ask someone else for verification.

Thanks in advance. Reguyla (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla: You need to be slightly careful about interwikis... Wikidata has properties for Commons Galleries, Categories, Creator templates, and Institution templates, but the interwikis will not be propagated to those locations on Commons... they will only show up at the location listed in 'sitelinks' at the bottom of the Wikidata item. It's due to a difference in the 'data model' of representing things on a Wikipedia and on Commons (which is an outstanding Wikidata issue) ... a bio, for example, can equate to a Category, a Gallery, and a Creator, but the incoming interwikis can only point at one (normally the category).
To make it more explicit what I mean, en:Augustus Henry Fox (as a random example) has no links from enwiki to commons, because the Wikidata item (wikidata:Q16212572) doesn't have a 'commons' entry in the 'sitelinks' area, but it does have properties pointing at Category:Augustus Henry Fox and Creator:Augustus Henry Fox. The Commons category does have an interwiki link pointing at enwiki, but it's defined in the wikitext, not by Wikidata (again, because of the lack of a 'sitelinks' entry for Commons). If the Wikidata sitelink was pointed at the Commons category, then there would be automatic links both directions, and the definition in the wikitext could go away. (and yes, Wikidata should point at the category, but I'm intentionally leaving it broken for illustration)
Essentially, this means you should only remove the interwikis from Commons pages that are pointed at by Wikidata... if there is a category and a gallery, don't remove them from both... the actual entries for all the wikipedias, wikisource, etc. should already be on Wikidata, as they were sorted by bots. As a 'hint', if you remove the interwikis from the text, and the links go away, put them back.
The main reason that the incoming interwikis (the ones defined as 'sitelinks' on Wikidata) should generally point at categories instead of galleries is that galleries tend to be poorly maintained.
If you start messing with these, expect to get sucked a bit into editing Wikidata as well. It can be addictive, lol.
As far as year of birth and year of death categories, I seriously doubt anyone would object to you adding them (or the 'missing' versions), but if you are going to do that 'en masse' I'd suggest looking at the 'notability' rules for Creator templates (see COM:Creator) and trying to sort those at the same time when possible... any creator who's works are being claimed as PD because of their date of death 'should' have a Creator template, and it should be used on those pages, as well as any creator who rates their own category.... many (most?) don't, unfortunately. Even if you don't actually sort that detail, adding them to Category:Creator template possible would be very helpful.
Hope that was enough rambling, without being too much. Revent (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That's great thanks. I'll leave the interwiki's. I'll also look at the Creator templates and see if I can do some of those. I wrote some code that moves some things around (defaultsort above categories, interwiki's below, Creator template and Authority control above defaultsort, add Category:People by name if its not there and the Category contains a birth or death cat, etc.) If you think of anything you think I could do at the same time let me know, I can try and do. I have also played around in Wikidata, but I' still pretty new to it. Take care! Reguyla (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla: FYI, authority control 'should' be handled in the Creator templates... categories for people shouldn't need it at all because they transclude the Creator template... unfortunately, the 'automatic' transfer of authority control from Wikidata won't work on those templates (because Wikidata does not yet support a page retrieving data from an item that doesn't have a sitelink pointing at that page (the same reason that having wikipedia reference metadata on wikidata doesn't work). Revent (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. I should be able to write some code that will reformat {{Authority control}} into {{Creator}} but I'll need to read up on those 2 templates to be sure. Plus I would probably need to create quite a few Creator pages in the Creator namespace as I do that so that's probably better done as a separate task. I can see a lot of moving pieces there that could potentially cause errors if done too fast. I'll definitely add that to the to do list though. Reguyla (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla: The {{Authority control}} template is just transcluded into a field of the {{Creator}} one (Authority)... there should be no actual reformatting needed. Revent (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks again. That should be really easy then. I'll read up on that this weekend and do a few. Reguyla (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I just wanted to let you know that after playing around with it some I don't think I can semi automatically add Category:Year of death missing. The problem is that Commons has no Category for Living people so we would end up with a bunch of living people with Category:Year of death missing and nothing to replace it with. Reguyla (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla: Good catch.. maybe only add it to people with a known date of birth that was over a century or so ago? Revent (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That I may be able to do. I'll play with the code some more to see if I can catch at least some. I could also look for stuff like 14th Century painters or divine the dates from stuff like John Smith (1825–1895) or John Smith (born 1825), of course it will still need to be reviewed but it beats having to hand type it. Reguyla (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Teach a person to fish

Hi,

I mostly edit the English Wikipedia,and I am not so up to speed on the norms here on Commons. I just dealt with a bunch of images by user: PhilosophicalOrangeJuice. I saw that you converted the file permission query to a nomination for deletion on File:Api alepidea peduncularis rvbli9616 3479 26f4d6.jpg. I was actually going to go back and click on the "report copyright violation" link on that file as that is what I decided to do with all but one of his other files. Could I ask you to review my actions on those files and let me know if I took the right action. I would like to make sure I am doing taking the right path for contesting the licensing? I want to ensure I get it right for any future files I run into with the same sort of problem. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: 'Report copyright violation' is for when you explicitly know it's a copyvio... you can point at a source that claims copyright and does not offer a compatible license. In the case of the 'Api alepidea' file, the 'license page' for that site states that they don't own the copyright in the images... we don't who does, or what license the site is using it under (they could have gotten it from Commons, for all we know). It's not a 'unambiguous' copyvio because whatever page includes the file (which is what uploaders are supposed to link as the source) might itself indicate that site is using it under a compatible license, and just claiming 'bogus' restrictions on anyone that obtains it from them (it happens, even with museums and stock photo companies).
The various 'missing information' ones are essentially saying 'we are missing the information we need to comply with the license, even if it's okay'... normally that we can't properly attribute it as required. The exception is the 'no permission' template you used, which is for when the uploader is claiming to own the copyright, but hasn't 'proven' it (and the source doesn't itself offer a compatible license).
Listing it as a DR isn't any slower than a 'missing information' deletion, it's basically just giving it a wider audience... since the uploader wasn't claiming to own the copyright, they likely don't have the needed info, and with it listed as a DR it will get more eyes. Revent (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. That's really helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear 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...

Revent, 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 and its 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 webchat on irc.libera.chat. 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.

--Krd 13:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! Smile Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS! Good luck with your new tools! Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming the newest janitor administrator! Green Giant (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, hopefully I won't break anything until I get experienced enough that people will let it slide. Revent (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats Revent! Rehman 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the intervention in the ettiquette matter with @Vicent.Dissident: --Panotxa (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It might end up going farther (I skimmed the DRs) but they look like mostly repetitions of the same arguments, and it really looks IMO like it needs more widespread input. Revent (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Revent. Thanks for your advice. I decided to remove DR templates because, after some days talking about possible file improvements, I released a new file version taking into account what we had been talking about. Maybe I was wrong removing DR templates but, reading the whole talk, it's clear that political bias reasons user Coentor claimed to wanting delete the file aren't the case at all. Once again: Thanks you for your intervention. ;)--Vicent.Dissident (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignorant threats

I'm very disappointed to read this ignorant post on a friend's talk page. Commons policy on fair use applies to the educational material we host. Briefly quoting a conversation/comment made off-wiki is relatively common and quite legal. It's even been done by Russavia (such as when he quotes an email he's got from WMF)! Our policy pages quote copyright law and rulings/advice -- all taking advantage of fair use to repeat this material. I don't participate on IRC so do not know what users there sign up to, but any "contract" or expectation on that forum is none of our business on Commons -- that's between that user and the forum owner. It certainly isn't the concern of any admin here. If Russavia wishes to help by pointing out copyright issues, he is perfectly capable of communicating with his many friends, or directly with WMF, without posting on the village pump. There is therefore absolutely no need for any admin to unblock his IP or encourage further on-wiki discussion. I assume that having participated on the discussion at Denniss's talk page, you are now aware that doing so may result in immediate suspension of your editing rights, possibly without the warning given to Denniss. -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of unblocking anything having to do with Russavia, and never said anything that implies that.
As far as any disappointment on your part, I'm sorry you feel that way. What was posted was not a 'brief quote' under the terms of fair use, it was (allegedly) the verbatim text of a conversation that took place over several hours. I said 'allegedly' because there is no way to know if it was legitimate.
There is no question of if it is 'legal' to post IRC logs or not... copyright violations are a civil, not legal, matter. A person's statements, whether in a private or public conversation, are copyrighted once recorded in a tangible form.
Regardless, it is the longstanding practice across all WMF projects to not post IRC logs on the wiki without the consent of the people who took part in the conversation. My telling him not to do so had nothing to do with the 'context' of the current discussion, and claims that 'but other people have done it too' are irrelevant. Revent (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I know you when I was in IRC. You seems mostly available, mellow and helpful. That's why I supported your RfA. But you disappointed me by using your "first admin action on my talk page" by making a highly irrelevant post about a topic which had happened months ago.
I well know my post was inappropriate in ethical grounds but now way inappropriate in legal grounds. But note that I had contacted WMF, IRC ops and crats and desperately wait for months for an action before revealing it to Commons community. WMF responded instantly and stated that the user in question is banned for more serous issues and so nothing more to do as far as that user is not allowed to edit here. It is a perfectly acceptable solution for me. But from that day onward many community members here including some admins arguing for that user. Their main argument is that they need to know all details behind the ban. Because of this repeated arguments, I revealed my bad experience with that user. Now you're saying revealing such things are inappropriate. If revealing such a small post is inappropriate, what is the logic in asking WMF to reveal a more sensitive matter? That's why I say your argument is utter nonsense.
You said "it is the longstanding practice across all WMF projects to not post IRC logs on the wiki". Note that IRC channels like #wikimedia-commons and a PM are very different.
You said "claims that 'but other people have done it too' are irrelevant". Indeed per "other stuff exists". But there is an irony if nobody warned when R revealed a mail at a user's talk and one posted OTRS content. Note that OTRS wiki is private and "all rights reserved". This is an area when the neutrality of admin fails. Admins can have strong opinions; but they should be fairly neutral in their actions. If they think their action can be emotionally affected; they should stay abstain per en:Wikipedia:INVOLVED.
Current issue: It is the lack of COM:AGF from some community members about WMF's actions. I've only two questions: 1. Why on faith? 2. If no AGF, they why those people are continuing in a project run by them? I will leave on the moment I loss faith.
I have an experience that a particular user jump in and make nonsense comments wherever I comment. That's why I'm inactive in VP and Help Desk nowadays. I will not answer him here too if came. ;) Jee 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I'm sorry it was my first 'admin action' on your talk page, as you put it, but I did not specifically intend it as a 'warning' (you are right, it was months ago, for one thing), and it's (ce 'not' something, derp) something that I think someone should be blocked for anyhow. I just said "You should not do this, this is why, please do not do it again." If I was warning you that you might be blocked for doing something, I would say so.
I mentioned it to you now because you had just linked back to it on Denniss's talk page. When you originally posted it, it was mentioned at the time that it was inappropriate. Since you brought it up again, I said so more pointedly, and that is all.
For what it is worth, I don't particularly appreciate the way Fae immediately tried to use my pointing out that you shouldn't post IRC logs as 'ammunition' in an argument, and if the conversation hadn't moved on before I saw it would have rather pointedly told him so (and I intend to mention it the next time I talk to him).
As far as your purpose behind posting the material, which was to illustrate how Russavia acts sometimes? This is, truly, news to nobody. We are talking about someone who famously posted something along the lines of "Does your ***** hurt when you masturbate?" to Jimbo's talk page on enwiki. At the same time.... the Russavia drama has gone on for years, and it was established at enwiki ArbCom years ago that there was at the time an off-wiki 'conspiracy' to get him banned. The current issues are buried under a huge amount of grave dancing and attempts to demonize him. It does not help anything that anyone who tries to discuss the actual issues is immediately assigned by some to a 'pro' or 'anti'-Russavia side. It's far easier to attack people than to address their arguments.
The issues with the WMF are also, I think, rather more nuanced than most people really want to acknowledge. It's not, in my opinion, a matter of assuming good or bad faith... it's a matter of differing opinions and goals, and realism.
I'd be more than happy to discuss this further on IRC if you want, but there is a limit to what I'm going to say about it on a talk page, simply because this is not a very effective way to have an actual conversation. Revent (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I suggest you trouble yourself to learn more about fair use before criticising others and "providing ammunition" to those who enjoy perverting the truth of any situation. You would also do well to learn when to apologise and acknowledge you have learned from criticism. For example, in your post to Jee you say the text "is a copyright violation (since 'fair use' is not allowed on Commons)", which implies that 'fair use' could have been employed to post the copyright material, but you assert Commons does not allow that provision. After I pointed out that Commons/WMF policy on 'fair use' only applies to the media we create or host, but not to talk pages (within reason), you now claim the text was too extensive or that because it was written over a period of time, 'fair use' does not apply. Well which is it to be? In either case you are quite mistaken and the material may be posted on Commons. Indeed, the fact that the text has not been deleted from Commons testifies to the fact that there are no copyright issues involved.
As for practice/ethics of posting IRC logs, this is going beyond your remit as a Commons admin. IRC is a separate forum from Commons and has its own rules, people in charge, etc. Just as [rightly or otherwise] someone's horrendous behaviour or banning/blocking on Wikipedia is routinely regarded as inadmissible to how Commons deals with a person, their actions wrt forum rules outside of Commons is not directly the concern of any admin here.
I remain puzzled why you should invent such a fanciful and spurious interpretation of copyright/policy in order to criticise Jee for an action taken months ago and not repeated since [linking to it is not repeating -- he has not posted any more IRC text]. Perhaps someone put you up to it on IRC? Then I read your "grave dancing and attempts to demonize" comment about Russavia and it becomes clear your POV. Where is this grave dancing? Which comments could be characterised as "demonising" rather than faithful character-reports about someone we all know was a serious bully. I am also worried that you take such pains to cast doubt on the accuracy of Jee's quoted text. As far as I'm aware, it has not been disputed by anyone, other than by Fae. You say Russavia's behaviour is well known. You might consider that most users of Commons/Wikipedia and some of our newly elected officials are quite ignorant of this. If all they read is Fae's misinformation, they may too believe that Russavia is some saint who has been wrongly maligned. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Colin, I am not interested in arguing with someone whose first contact with me was to describe me as ignorant, who refers to another editor as someone who enjoys perverting the truth, who assumes that I do things because someone put me up to them, or thinks they know my POV on the basis of a simple comment. As I stated, I was not threatening to block Jee. Revent (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I just want to say I saw your reply and understand what you tried to say in my talk page. There was a lot of misunderstanding of legal points in your comment as Colin pointed out. That is why I mentioned in my edit note "I think I know those better than you" and I was not in a mood to explain all those things. Please don't underestimate me; I was very active in VPC, Village Pump, Help Desk and OTRS for a while and my understanding about copyright matters are not very weak. I was active in CC list too. Anyway Colin explained those very well and hope you understand.
The R. matter is complicated and he is under a "not appealable block". The only people who can help him are BoTs. Glad to see Doc James already responded to it. I've nothing more to do in that case. And I don't believe some peoples useless support is anyway helpful to him.
I'm not in IRC nowadays. So if you've anything more to say to me off-wiki, do mail. Thanks. Jee 14:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Jee, not that it's particularly worth arguing the point, but the quoting of an entire unedited conversation, merely because you want people to read it, is not a 'transformative use' of the copyrighted content that it contains, nor 'limited', and so would not be subject to a valid fair use claim even if that was allowed. Written text is indeed a form of media, and embedding it into a wiki page instead of uploading it as a file does not change our licensing policies.
As far as the issues with Russavia and the WMF are concerned, they are indeed complicated. The problem is when people try to draw it as black and white, assume that people are on one 'side' or the other, and dismiss others as having the 'wrong POV' instead of actually listening to what they are saying. Life is not that simple, and none of the people involved in the various disputes have acted above reproach. Revent (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
Revent, I'd rather you didn't dismiss this important opportunity to learn some fundamentals about copyright law, commons licensing, the scope of you admin responsibility, etc, merely because you feel a bit defensive about my style of writing. I shall try to be less blunt then. Wrt "fair use"... These are snippets of three conversations. One cannot know the total length of the conversations, and in the latter two the snippets are so brief as to be one or two remarks. The first lot of quoted remarks takes text over a 22 minute period, but the actual conversation could be any length, including perhaps over days, and we don't know how much was omitted by Jee. In total there are 286 words that can be attributed to Russavia (most of the posts on this page are longer). When a politician or celebrity makes a gaff on twitter or facebook and the world publishes this as evidence of their incompetence, racism, sexism, etc, is there any way that that is different to how Jee published Russavia's text? No. A lot of "journalism" is about publishing what other people wrote or said "because you want people to read it" -- to make a point about the character of the author. That's not a "merely" thing, it is the basis of news reporting worldwide. Why you think that quoting just two hundred odd words from the volumes Russavia wrote on IRC is not "limited" I do not know, but even if it were, that is not a defining characteristic of fair use -- just one factor to be considered. One can quote an entire tweet or even an entire email. Conversely, one can steal the opening bars of a song and fall foul of copyright. Anyway, if you feel so confident you are right about this, ask a 'crat to delete the text and we'll see if they agree with you.
Wrt Commons policy scope. This is something you really need to get right, as an admin. Our licensing policies and fair use policies absolutely only concern our media files. Read them and it becomes obvious they do. Many of our policy, talk and deletion discussion pages regularly quote copyright law or statements made by famous lawyers or on helpful websites. Now government documents in the US may be public domain, but in many other countries they are copyright. We could not begin to quote them if we could not do so under fair use. Yet we are able to have a discussion about e.g., freedom of panorama in the EU, and quote from documents that are copyright of the EU committee. Another example: our licence policy permits a wide variety of licences as long as they are "free". Yet the conversation we are having just now absolutely must be dual licenced with CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. That's part of the terms-of-use you agree to when pressing the save button. I hope you see that there are two quite separate domains: the media we host, and the conversations and guidelines we write to support our wiki. The latter are covered by very few policies, mostly behavioural.
I agree with you that people are complex and nobody is all bad or all good. It really doesn't help to say things like "grave dancing" or "demonising" for neither are dispassionate descriptions of what people write and suggest you know the POV of the author, just as I claim your use of those terms gives your POV away. I can indeed only say how you come across to me, not what is actually going on in your mind. One could equally say that russavia is far from dead and that much of what gets written is ridiculously hagiographic in order to perpetuate the claim that some injustice was performed. I cannot know if russavia was justly banned. It seems to me, from his character, that it is quite likely he did or said something that crossed a line. But ultimately I have to accept the ToU of the site owners, and their decision of who they will permit to use their facilities. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to read a two page wall of text written by someone that I just told I'm not interested in arguing with. Revent (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. Perhaps when you aren't feeling so defensive you'll take a look. I am so very disappointed a new admin is willing to remain ignorant. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Cropped images

Thanks for the advice, I try to do my best, but many things are difficult for me. I tried to activate CropTool, but it appears no buttons to the toolbox in my left menu. Sorry for my english. --Bart ryker (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The link only appears on file information pages... you might need to clear your cache. How depends on the browser you are using, but shift-reload usually works. Revent (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

it:wp:File:Nazareno Strampelli.jpg

Hello ! Thank you for finding the date of that photo I uploaded. I was wondering why I can't use this picture (File:Nazareno Strampelli.jpg) on the English Wikipedia ? It is used in an article on the Italian Wikipedia. --Stanledare (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Took me a moment to figure out which one you were talking about. Not a problem, it had been flagged by a bot as missing the info, but it wasn't that hard to track down.
I see no reason at all that the image of Strampelli would not be usable on the English Wikipedia. Even if the exact information on the date and author of the image itself can't be tracked down, it would be allowable under 'fair use' as the only extant photograph of a deceased person. It's quite likely PD, but I couldn't (quickly) track down any information about the photographer or any 'old' publication... it looks rather like a studio photograph, tbh. Revent (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Анатолий Зверев, «Итальянский полдень».jpg

Я думаю, нужно внести уточнение к подписи фотографии и оставить ее, не удалять. Фотография картины сделана на выставке в галере «Дом Нащокина». Фотосъемка была оплачена и разрешена администрацией галереи Dionissa (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Dionissa

@Ymblanter: Language help please? Revent (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Нет, к сожалению, речь не только об имущественных правах, но и об авторских, нужно разрешение наследников Зверева.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Watermarks

I'll leave it in your hands to revert, but be advised that another editor did point this> (Legal issues watermark removal) out to me - something to consider FOX 52 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@FOX 52: (nods) I am quite aware, understand the legal implications and am willing to accept them, with a fair understanding of the possible legal drama. Not going to get into it, intentionally, but I feel personally ok doing so, and that it's not a legal issue for me. Revent (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Flickr images again

Ok, thanks for your help. I try to learn from my mistakes. If in the future I should have doubts, I can contact you? I would like to avoid further mistakes. Thanks again and sorry my english --Bart ryker (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Aas you use Flickr2Commons? Explain step by step. Thank you --Bart ryker (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bart ryker: I'll happily guide you through learning to use that tool, but unfortunately, can't do it currently. I just glanced at the wmflabs website where it runs, and apparently that server had a massive disk failure the other day and is currently dead. Revent (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

File:El Bacá.jpg

Usted me ha negado el permiso de esta imagen, usted no sabe como son las cosas en República Dominicana, no se sabe quien hizo el dibujo, no se sabe quien lo subió, en mi país a nadie le importa que le hagan plagió, lo hacen todo el tiempo, suben algo a Internet y todos lo usan en su nombre y al autor no le importa, jamás encontrare al autor del dibujo ni quien la subió es República Dominicana, puedo hacer un dibujo igual a ese, pero igual sería plagió ¿verdad?.

You've denied me permission to this picture, you do not know how things are in Dominican Republic, it is not known who made the drawing, it is not known who upload, in my country nobody cares that you do plagiarized, do all the time, gain some internet and everyone uses it in his name and the author does not care, never finds it the author of the drawing or who upload is Dominican Republic, I make a drawing like that, but still it would be plagiarized, right ?.

-- Draco-u (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Draco-u: I did not delete the file, I merely stated that I would not undelete it, and why. It is my opinion that, given what you have said about where you obtained the image, that no other administrator would undelete it either. Any work is copyrighted by the author without any requirement that they specifically claim ownership, under international copyright law. We are not allowed to violate the copyright of the author of the work just because it was obtained from some other location that already violated the copyright, and you specifically told us that was the case.
If you were to create your own unique drawing, based on how the creature is described in the traditional legends, you would be able to upload it to Commons under a free license, but you cannot do so with some other anonymous person's work.
(Traducción automática) No me borro el archivo, me limitó a afirmar que no iba a recuperar, y por qué. Es mi opinión que, dado lo que ha dicho acerca de donde usted obtuvo la imagen, que ningún otro administrador sería deshacer el borrado tampoco. Cualquier trabajo tiene derechos de autor por el autor sin ningún requisito que dicen específicamente la propiedad, en virtud del derecho internacional de derechos de autor. No se nos permite violar el copyright del autor de la obra sólo porque se obtuvo de algún otro lugar que ya ha violado los derechos de autor, y usted específicamente nos dijo que era el caso.
Si se va a crear su propio dibujo único, basado en cómo la criatura se describe en las leyendas tradicionales, usted sería capaz de subirlo a Commons bajo una licencia libre, pero no puede hacerlo con el trabajo de otra persona anónima. Revent (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Overwriting

Dear Revent
Some time ago I uploaded the File:Portulaca Grandiflora.jpg
unfortunately the picture was not high resolution
that's why I uploaded another file with same name to replace the older version.
I am very sorry if my action was not correct
I didn't know that it is not permitted.
I would be careful in future
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aftabbanoori: It's understandable, it's just that overwriting a file like that is effectively deleting the original, and that shouldn't be done to old files on the basis of 'quality' without discussion. Revent (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

On fair use

It appears my strong assertions are incorrect and I apologise for being over confident in that regard. I would now say the situation is unclear, and largely depends on whether one takes a fundamentalist approach or one accepts that what occurs in practice largely determines what the community believe. I have posted my conclusions on my talk page. You may wish to consider the promises you made at your RFA and whether you are living up to them. I'm far far more worried about your attitude and reasons for posting the warning to Jee, than whether "someone is wrong on the internet" about some legal trivia. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Flickr2Commons

Thank you so much. I have tried to load this image File:Streamy Awards Photo 300 (3396562119).jpg it's right? I think it was wrong to name the file. Where did I go wrong? Sorry, you must have patience with me. --Bart ryker (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bart ryker: No, you did it right. The tools just names the images that way (the 'title' of the image on Flickr, and the PhotoID) by default. Revent (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Information templates

First off, do not leave unsigned messages on my user talk page -- I consider such to be passive-aggressive at best, hostile at worst, and delete all of them as a matter of personal policy. Second, I scanned the illustration in question from some German-language book which was certainly more than 70 years old (probably more like a hundred, given the dust and fragile pages), but I did not note down the title, as I did not consider it necessary for my purposes at the time (I scanned in the image before Wikipedia existed, much less Wikimedia Commons). In any case, there's a hell of a lot of information available on the artwork, but unfortunately this information just doesn't slot into the predetermined rigid categories of the Information template in any simple or direct manner. Adding a template with almost all of the fields left blank, as you have done, really doesn't accomplish much of any usefulness, but I'll let you have your rather hollow and meaningless "victory", since someone else (not you) has at least partially fixed the problem of blank fields generating error messages (something which marks an image for ultimate deletion, though there is no reason to delete this image). AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: The 'unsigned' message on your talk page was, quite simply, a typo. I typed five tildes instead of four, and so the software inserted only a timestamp instead of a signature. I apologize for the mistake.
It's not a matter of a 'victory', and I'm sorry that you see it as such. As I mentioned on your talk page, the use of such templates makes the provided metadata machine readable, and aids in it's proper reuse. That is the entire point of the exercise, and there is an ongoing project, supported by the WMF, to add such templates for all files for that exact reason.
Empty fields in an information template do not tag an image for deletion, and I would be quite surprised if someone had tagged that image. A major concern with converting file pages to use information templates is not adding incorrect data on the basis of a presumption. I did not mark those fields as 'unknown' intentionally, since I had never seen the source. "Unknown" is intended to mean 'it is not known', not 'I don't personally know it', just as "Anonymous" means that the author chose not to claim authorship, not that we don't know who it was. It was my hope that you, or someone else, would provide the missing information at some point, or note that it actually was 'unknown'. Revent (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That's nice -- I'm sure you were trying to do the right thing in your own particular way, but it's still true that your edit added the image to Category:Images_without_source, which is a problem category patrolled by people looking for images to get rid of, and also true that adding an information-type template with almost all fields left blank serves no real useful purpose and so basically accomplishes nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your threat to block me

Hi Revent, I would like to know whether your block threat stands after Odder's explanation that "It remains, however, a very interesting subject that is definitely worth pursuing, and I would invite everyone to discuss it without unnecessarily referring to threats of blocks or, indeed, threats of removal of admin privileges: escalating this and getting off-topic won't get us anywhere." If not, you can simply strike-off that part. Otherwise I need to ask AN to review and endorse/decline it. I can simply ignore it; but you already undo my "striking off" (as it is inappropriately on another user's talk page), and I don't want to edit war on it. Have a nice day. (As far as I know (after Odder's explanation), the topic is very vague to the community so far and so admins can't use their tools for sanctions in a vague topic.) Jee 02:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I paused for a while, and pondered exactly how to respond to this, as I really would prefer to not be misunderstood.
Before I get into it though, let me say this. It is not considered appropriate to edit another person's comment on a talk page, or to edit your own comments after other people have responded to them. If Colin wants to remove, refactor, or archive the conversation on his talk page, he can feel free to do so, but it would be inappropriate to change the existing content of the thread.
Now, the main point...
I was not threatening you, and I was not threatening Colin. I do not threaten people. To 'threaten' someone specifically implies that you will do something to them in retribution for them taking a certain act. On a personal level, the idea of threatening someone offends me. Also, blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive... they are neither punishment, nor retribution. They are merely intended to prevent someone from engaging in problematic behavior, until they agree to stop.
What I posted to Colin's talk page, addressed to both of you, was phrased the way it was because that is the 'traditional' way that warnings are phrased. Any editor has the right to warn any other to not engage in behavior that they believe is contrary to Commons policies, and it it done to ensure that the person is fully aware that the behavior is problematic. Colin similarly 'warned' me that if I unblocked a sock of Russavia that I might be sanctioned by the WMF. I had not done so, I never even remotely considered doing so, but I did not object to being warned in that way.
Let me restate the text that I recently posted to Colin's talk page, in the thread there...

If 'fair use' material is posted to Commons, it should be removed as a violation of the licensing policy, regardless of where it is located. If an editor repeatedly posts material under a claim of 'fair use', or edit wars about the removal of such material, then they can be blocked for repeated violations of the licensing policy, or edit warring, until they agree to stop.

If you think I am mistaken about this, and that 'fair use' content is allowed on Commons outside of files, then you can of course feel free to seek other opinions on the matter as Odder suggested. I think you will find the WMF licensing policy specifically prohibits the Commons community from developing a local policy that allows fair use material in any context.
In summary.... if you, Colin, or another person posted 'fair use' material to Commons, I would not block you. I would remove the material, point out to you that fair use material is not allowed, and direct you that if you believed the material was actually acceptable that you should seek other opinions in a community venue before reposting it. If you reposted the material without doing so, or contrary to the consensus that was developed, you would be blocked until you agreed to stop. I did not remove the IRC log that started all this because, with the amount of time that has passed, it would IMO be rather pointless, if not actively disruptive, to do so. Revent (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. Jee 09:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "FYI statements that people make on IRC are copyrighted, and posting them to Commons talk pages without their explicit permission is a copyright violation (since 'fair use' is not allowed on Commons). Please don't do it again. "
  • "And yes, you can consider this to be a formal warning that you will be blocked if you post further 'fair use' content to any Wikimedia Commons namespace"

Revent, when an admin says "this is illegal/against-policy" and "don't do it again", and you do it again, the assumption is some dire consequence will occur. That's a threat. Not of violence but of serious negative consequences. It's a more than a "warning" since, as an admin in a position of power, you are in a position to carry out the negative stuff. You can rephrase it as passively and is politely as like, but we all recognise it for what it is. If you can't recognise that now you are a powerful admin, your "warnings" will be regarded as "threats" then you need to back to admin school. Now, it isn't clear if you were talking to Jee or me or both of us in your second threat. If you seriously think posting 200-odd words of foul-mouthed insults is something that an admin should get worked-up over because of copyright concerns then your priorities are very very wrong. Instead, you should be more concerned that the person making those foul mouthed insults is still editing here. But then, we already know your position on that. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Colin, just live it. This is just a "learning curve" of a new admin. As I well explained that R.'s post was well reviwed by several admins Jcb just rev deleted a few portion of it to protect the privacy. Similarly my post was also reviewed by Natuur12 and he rev deleted a link I accidentally included. Note that Odder's post at Ktr101 is not touched by any admin. There in nothing more we need to bother about. (And I would like to see if these admins can dare enough to preach to those big guns before scolding me.) Jee 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_1&oldid=164710928"