User talk:Russavia/Archive 18

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


Why?

I'm a bit courious. Why and for what do we need File:Holly (2355103426).jpg such images on Commons? Where is the educational point at this image? As Dog image we don't need this - we have thousands. The description at last don't tell the race - the minimum what we need to know for a little bit of possible educational sense. So I stay courious... Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC) And these too: File:Silly Dog (2277051513).jpg, File:Fat Cat (2253272298).jpg, File:Fat Cat (2253275016).jpg, File:Fat Cat (2253277972).jpg

There are many things that we don't "need", but it's a long way from saying that we should then remove them. In particular, an issue of removing them then turns into subjective judgement calls. Time is valuable, space is cheap. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. We are not a Webspace provider for personal images. We have a goal. And such images are not in our goal. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: , these uploads are actively cleaned up by myself. This person's stream has 6,400 high quality photos, mainly aviation and cars, and there will be some out of scope images like the bored photo, which will be moved from Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup) to Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (delete), and then deleted by myself. In relation to the dog and cat photos, they are extremely high quality images, so I see no reason we shouldn't add them to our expanding collection of images. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

These Panoramio Images

If you have a bit of time, please consider marking some of these panoramio images...mostly from Belarus apparently. I have marked some of them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FP promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Thunderbirds mirror image 2014.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thunderbirds mirror image 2014.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Jee 07:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ville de Québec 189 (8214512120).jpg

File:Ville de Québec 189 (8214512120).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
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 ∙ +/−

Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ville de Québec 190 (8214511130).jpg

File:Ville de Québec 190 (8214511130).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
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 ∙ +/−

Asclepias (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ville de Québec 197 (8213427147).jpg

File:Ville de Québec 197 (8213427147).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
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 ∙ +/−

Asclepias (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

It's ok, Russavia, I'm not use to question deletions by other admins. As I wrote, I am reasonably convinced that the other files were blatant copyvios, I only had the doubt for the one you deleted, was only waiting for an answer from the uploader. If the photo has been taken before 1977 then it can be safely assumed in public domain. That said, an US law that extends legal protection in their country to something that in the country of origin has expired is simply grotesque. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blackcat: , I agree with the sentiment, but alas, unfortunately, it is the law in the US, and we need to abide by the laws of the US in relation to copyright. US editors should lobby their congressmen and senators to change the law, but until there is a change in the law, to protect all parties who have a vested interest in our projects (i.e. uploaders, editors, admins, re-users and copyright holders), we simply need to act within the confines of the US law, as much as we don't agree with it. I hope you can understand that position. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
For example there are wonderful colour photographs in high resolution (taken with Kodak film) of the UEFA European Cup 1976-77 final held in Rome between Liverpool FC and Borussia Mönchengladbach which are PD in Italy but alas cannot be used on Commons. That's very frustrating as you can imagine... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Russavia, I'm not sure if you may need to take note of this, but Mattbuck was mentioning something about categories and your mass uploaders. [1] --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need to provide input there. I think we now know that if we want to ping someone we just link their username. But thanks anyway for notifying. russavia (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

AN thread

I would like to thank you for your impartiality and sensibility, and to also apologize for our previous disagreements. Irrespective of whether Alan or Steinsplitter move further to remove my sign-in to the bot, your actions means a lot. Perhaps we can build a new trust? Fry1989 eh? 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Fry1989: no problem on the above, I call it as I see it and you were in the right on this occasion. But as I noted, if using global replace just be careful of in use images with captions etc which may need to amended across many projects. To be honest, I don't remember offhand any past disagreements, so they likely were not really that important in the overall scheme of things on Commons; but sure if you want to build new trust, there's no reason this can't be done. :) Sorry for delay in responding, I thought I had done so already. russavia (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Past RfA copy

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

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nick#Comments – May I please have a copy of Nick's January 2014 draft RfA statement? You may Email it to me via "Special:EmailUser". Nick says that it's alright for me to ask a sysop for a copy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

Long answer

The draft RfA statement was simply that; a draft. Although on our projects we "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL." there is some leeway given for materials which are in project space and were not meant to be live. In this instance, the draft statement was transcluded whilst Nick was still working on it by @Jcb: just so he could oppose it. It wasn't a nice thing to do as I have said to Jcb publicly, and I also hope he will not provide it to you either, if requested.

The reason being, Nick is completely right in that you have already decided how you are going to vote, and you have done so by chosing diffs and presenting them selectively. What Jkadavoor posted was essentially a personal attack on the integrity of the individual concerned, and which was later shown to be an attack on Jkadavoor's part, as per this in which Jkadavoor himself admits "I agree; my comment is a bit rude on the second point."

So you have already acted in a deceitful way in Nick's RfA and it was one of those comments one can't win on with people such as yourself - remove it, you're censoring; ignore it, and you're arrogant; reply to it, and you're combative. Unfortunately, you didn't make the full facts known on the RfA and before non-Commons editors such as @Ajraddatz: came from "nowhere" and voted. You have also made known that you want to know who is Nick, but have also stated that you are not likely to change your mind. It would be preferable for you to have asked questions on the RfA, but seriously, I am sure that most Commons editors would be happy for you to keep your current mindset because it seriously shows what a deceitful fool you are.

Also, please don't come to me again in future and ask me to enter into email correspondence with yourself, when you have already stated to me that you would prefer things to be discussed publicly rather than via email. You don't get to pick and choose when you will accept private email correspondence.

Now, we are much too busy here on Commons to waste time determining whether what you are asking will require one to respond to your requests with a long timewasting response which exposes your own deceitful ways and wishy-washy standpoints that you oft accuse others of having. So let me say, in future, any requests by you to me which would require such an exposure will simply be a link to...

Short answer

No, fuck off and have a nice day. russavia (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:2014. Харьков 041.jpg

Can you have a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:2014. Харьков 041.jpg and give you view on it. Thanks in advance. LGA talkedits 08:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to have a look at this. LGA talkedits 23:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Love the picture

That picture you have of typical Commons admin, makes me laugh!! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dutch defense pictures

Hi Russavia, I heard from Natuur12 that you are trying to get in touch with the Dutch Ministry of Defense about some deleted images and to ask them whether it is possible to change their Flickr page's license to something else. Just for your information: some of the pictures are still available at the MoD's website, which is available for Commons according to Template:Mindef. However, not all of the pictures are listed there and it would still be nice if their Flickr page could get another license, so I hope you still want to try to change their mind. Thank you! Adnergje (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Adnergje: well isn't @Natuur12: a talkative little bird. Indeed I am, I will try to call them again today. I sent them an email on 29 March thru Flickr but haven't yet gotten a response. Jurgen sent them an email via OTRS around the same date, and has gotten no response. I'll let you know how I get on with an update either here, or on the DR. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I plead quilty ;). I thought that this might be valuable info for you. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed, thanks for that little birdy. russavia (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As you asked

Yes, I do have a problem with Steinsplitter walking away from that thread apparently believing he did nothing wrong by calling me a troll and threatening to block me for it, as well as closing a section on a noticeboard that related to his own conduct as 'resolved', when it clearly wasn't. And yes, I do have a problem with both Steinsplitter and Ankry apparently believing the privacy policy is there to hide from ordinary volunteers what happens as a result of OTRS tickets. If you aren't going to allow me to note those concerns for the record, for the benefit of anyone who might experience the same issue in future, which I was more than happy with by way of resolution, then I wonder what you propose to do about it instead? Ultra7 (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Flickr account?

Hi Russavia. Do you have any Flickr account that contains your photos? I would like to view them. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a Flickr account which contains photos by myself. Cheers, russavia (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Alaska vs. Gelsenkirchen?

I was trying to diffuse some categories and came across some files you uploaded that are in both Category:Alaska (a U.S. state) and Category:Gelsenkirchen (a municipality in Germany). I'm confused! Here are the ones I noticed:

I saw at least one other one (this one of a sea lion) that wasn't in the Gelsenkirchen category, but did mention Gelsenkirchen in the description. Any clarification about why these are in categories that seem to conflict would be appreciated. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain that to you while russavia is looking for a picture for me :p The ZOOM Erlebniswelt Gelsenkirchen is a zoo in Germany where the photos were taken. That zoo is divided into three areas: Alaska, Africa and Asia, which is the reason why they were tagged with alaska on Flickr and automatically sorted in these categories when they were transferred. --Indeedous (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! If I find any more like that, I'll put them in categories like you moved these to. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I hope I got them all --Indeedous (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Auntof6: as per what @Indeedous: said. You'll also notice that such images are placed in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup) where such things will be fixed. Thanks for messages. russavia (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Russavia. I did notice that category later. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive(n)?

Hi Russavia. I'm not too sure if you have forgiven me over the deletion havoc and disruptions, but you seem to have. Do pardon me if I'm wrong about that, as that is the purpose of this message. If you haven't forgiven me, could you forgive me? I admit that I was immature at that time (although now there's still much room for improvement :)) and when I look back at the deletion request I find that I sounded very silly and stupid, or in other words, a complete idiot. I do hope you can consider forgiving me if you haven't already done so, so that we can work together if future if needed, and at the very least, we are both fine with each other. Cheers. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi? Please don't keep me waiting... --Graphium 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Graphium, best not to press for a reply. Nobody has to respond if they don't want to, and if I were you I would leave it with your nice posting above (prior to your name change, for anyone coming across this who may be unfamiliar with 'Graphium'). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a barnstar, a dead body for you!


The Romans have never understood the reason for using this shocking symbol.. --Pristurus (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Shanghai Airlines B-2570 B767-300 200908.jpg

Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport; in Terminal A

颐园新居 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Etihad Regional against Russian Consulate

Hey, do you know if there's a chance to get a better photo of an Ethiad Regional aircraft than File:Etihad Regional Saab 2000 at Cambridge International Airport.JPG? There are plenty of photos on flickr, but unfortunately it looks like none of them is under a free license.

By the way: I saw that you are looking for images of the Consulate-General of Russia in Bonn, Germany. Although in the category is no photo like your example, did you know Category:Russian Consulate, Bonn? --Indeedous (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Indeedous: I do see amongst some of those photographers whom I have permission photos of Etihad Regional aircraft. I will try to upload some over the weekend for use on our projects. In relation to the Russian consulate in Bonn, I do see that category. I might make contact with the consulate and perhaps they will agree to let a photographer into the grounds to take photos for the purpose of using them on Commons. Are you in Bonn? And do you take photographs? Cheers, russavia (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately Bonn is several hundred kilometers away from here so I can't go there and take photos --Indeedous (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your help and advice please

Hello, Russavia. 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.

LGA talkedits 13:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: I have received your email, and I will respond shortly. Would you prefer that I email you privately, or would you be fine with a public response here? russavia (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, had to make a zero-notice unplanned trip to QLD so for the moment relying on my ipad, as for the reply wherever you feel is best. LGA talkedits 03:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cape Greco

Hi Russavia. You should consider re-uploading the file Military_radio_installation_on_Cyprus_at_dusk_(8010211455).jpg to a new name. The antennas on the picture belong to the medium-wave broadcasting station, initially built for Radio Monte Carlo Middle-East. The military station, is located on the nearby hill, not on the peninsula.

Thanks for the info, I have update the name, and also left a message for the photographer on Flickr. Cheers, russavia (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of Michaeldsuarez

Hi Russavia. Around an hour and a half ago you indefinitely blocked Michaeldsuarez, and disabled his talk page and email access. In the block log you stated "Please contact me directly for information". Could you please indicate here your reason for the block? According to our Blocking policy admins are required to provide a reason for any block, which you have not done. You may well have solid reasons, but I'm sure you will understand that all admin actions need to be open to scrutiny by the community, which does mean stating your rationale in public. Indef blocks are the most severe restriction that is available to admins, and need to be fully policy-based. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael, as much as I would like to be able to answer this question, I simply can not. russavia (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Blocks should be based on what the user actually did, and are intended to protect the wiki. In this case, the action by the editor was presumably this post and if that’s so you should have indicated that as your reason. Compliance with policy when making a block - especially an indef block of someone - is essential. It is not merely a matter of form but goes to the essence of the community's ability to hold an admin to account.
If you actually blocked because of the now-redacted response of another editor you have improperly applied a penalty to Michaeldsuarez on the basis not of what Michaeldsuarez actually did, but of that editor's personal reaction to it. Michaeldsuarez’s posting did I think deserve a block, which I why I have not unblocked. Whether it was worth an indef block is another matter, and maybe needs to be discussed once you have stated your reasons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
And stop being a "dictator" on IRC, you are NOT making any friends here, if you blocked Michael for any personal reason, I would ask you to reconsider your decision...no matter who you are, you are NOT allowed to block someone without providing a valid reason--Stemoc (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Stemoc: you should have an email which I sent at the same time as you posted this. You have been unbanned from the channel, but perhaps you can choose a username (i.e. not warpath) otherwise people may think that you are simply trolling. Sorry about that. Cheers, russavia (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have removed talk page access and email, how is this editor supposed to appeal his block? In this instance, it appears that "indefinite" actually means "forever". Blocks are preventative and there should always be the option to appeal. And it is beyond belief that you can't share whatever "evidence" or rationale you had with a fellow administrator, MichaelMaggs. Liz (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see here.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This DR

If you can give your views on this DR, please feel free to do so as I don't know if these images need OTRS permission or not. If I have made a mistake, please make a reply in the DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: ✓ Done russavia (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Caminandes- Llama Drama - Short Movie.ogv, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caminandes- Llama Drama - Short Movie.ogv has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Identifiable people in Spain

Hi Russavia,

I recently uploaded this photo taken in Spain, where the original upload contained two identifiable persons. Then I checked Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain and found, that, oops, the identifiability was probably not acceptable, and I asked 99of9 if I should DR it or what. In a mail I was then pointed to this DR about beggars in Spain, which you initiated May 15, and which after some debate forth and back ended in a delete here May 29. Now, I am not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted files, but from how I read the text in the DR, it appears that either my upload should be deleted as well, or at least the faces blurred. So I have now uploaded a new version, where the faces are blurred, so I guess the current version should be allright now? But the original file is still available in the file history. Should that be deleted you think? I just want to make sure I do not violate the consent policy. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift delete of the original upload. --Slaunger (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It's something that will need to be looked at more deeply in the future, as per the comments left on Fastily's talk page by Pete Forsyth. It's something I don't have the time for to do myself, but others may wish to look at Spanish requirements and see how this affects us. russavia (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up regarding the comments by Pete Forsyth. --Slaunger (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Query—why was action taken and this Admin noticeboard discussion not joined

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

Nothing more to do here. russavia (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

…in the steps taken to block (and review of unblocking) Lx 121? Here are the closing entries from the Administrators' noticeboard stream, found at end of this section [2], copied as a quotation here, for your convenience:

  • As I was mentioned above: I have nearly forgotten User Lx121. We had problems some years ago with impo out-of-scope images (compare this or that). Impo User Lx121 sticked up for let's say "porn" images which are impo violating Commons' principles and used an aggressive language towards persons not sharing his opinion. However, if I wrote "acidulous comments directed @ other users" where is the proof (diff links examples) and why wasn't I noticed about that (no chance for self-reflection or apology)? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Yikrazuul, if accusations are made, a series of "diff links examples" must appear, for the accused to respond to, and for independent reviewers to adjudicate the matter. But note, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, see below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose disciplinary action, block or ban, based on case made in this thread. I do not have time to fully immerse myself in this issue, but here is an outsider's preliminary review: I find Lx 121's style of communication annoying, as, it seems, do many commenting above. However, I feel the same about ee cummings' poetry, and would not deny him access (were he still with us), or others access to him. The question must be, what specific communication or communications from Lx 121 amount to a significant degree of editor disrespect, such that a block or ban is justified? If his "i do not know if this person is a 'paid' PR-hack, or just a deranged fan" is as bad as the communications get, I cannot support anything more than a firm, friendly encouragement to be more careful in self-editing before posting. (There are editors and admins with patterns of disrespect far more egregious at WP; this example is child's play.) If this is a serious effort to discipline, best to follow him and firmly explain and encourage how particular comments will be received, and in so doing, accumulate a recent, ongoing, sufficient, and documented series of linked examples to lay out in a formal disciplinary case here. Bottom line, this accusation and call for strong punishment, as it stands, is insufficiently substantiated and/or organized in presentation, and so comes across as a "trust me, he's bad" approach (alternatively, catering cliquishly to those already knowing the matter, or inviting entry of those without time pressures willing to meander about it on their own). Hence, strongly oppose, at present. But for goodness sake, Lx 121, grow up. We write for others, not for our own consumption. You are generating fare that only you yourself can stomach. A chef with no following is no chef at all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Leprof 7272; but have to agree with him. This case reminds me of Penyulap. One difference is Lx 121's comments looks poetic, well formatted and eye catching even tough lengthy and boring. And it is a bad practice an involved admin jump in to take punitive actions, even if the action can be well justifiable. I can understand their enthusiasm; but remember, we have 100+ active admins. It is wise to wait till an uninvolved one find time to review the case and take a decision unless there is an emergency. Jee 03:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't understand the severity of the block here. We have put up with aggressive people and rarely been that far for a first block. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
+1 per "As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behavior." and (though a link was given to one example of disruptive comments) "The rationale should preferably use links to relevant policies to help the blocked user understand why they have been blocked. Where appropriate, diffs or permanent links documenting the reason for the block are also helpful.". This sysop action does not appear to comply with Blocking policy. I note that Russavia is reviewing the reasons behind this block with the blockee, hopefully that may reach a positive outcome and this indef block can be amended or lifted based on a clearer rationale than that given at the outset. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was all of this—views of four concurring editors, including substantial argument and citation of WP policy—seemingly passed over, with the discourse moving instead to this User's Talk page? RSVP at Lx 121's talk page, please, and not here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Here on Commons we COM:AGF, pure and simple. The editor agreed to in future participate in DRs on the basis of policy and guidelines and that is enough. Quite sincerely, I don't know exactly what it is you want here. russavia (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
No critique of you, only of the process preceding your becoming involved, see comment at the Talk page, to where all discussion shifted (after FASTLY prematurely, and with COI, initially blocked the user). No more comments here, only there, so as to focus all attention in one place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, well if you'll excuse me I've got other stuff to do, and as far as I am concerned others should do something else too. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I find it rather suspicious that a new account is so well versed in wiki-syntax and has taken such a strong stance on the Lx 121 issue: [3], [4], not to mention the ugly, thoughtless spam/trolling here, on Natuur12's talk page here, and on my talk page. IMO SPI could be in order here... Jameslwoodward? -FASTILY 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is very odd that an editor with only 43 edits on Commons should take this issue on with this vehemence, knowledge of policy, and knowledge of who to troll, so I ran a CU. User:Leprof 7272 does not appear to be related to any other editor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
See here and here. Everyone can draw their own conclusion based on this links. Russavia dealth with this situation and that should be the end of it. Commons is not a battlefield. Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my contention that you, as a cadre of editors, rush to judgment, apply Wikipedia actions the system allows you to, but seem inured to any idea of due process (in any real-world sense). That I work at Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons should not have been an origin of bias, but so it seems to be. The insinuations:

  • of sock puppetry with regard to my objections to this case, and
  • of trolling, for the comments made, in the comments left here, and the short referring notes left with participants

are a further case in point of what mindset is in play here, in particular with its principle actor, and the inherent fairness with which conclusions are drawn. (AGF, indeed.) I could ask, in particular, that one of you block the editor making the attack on my professorial comments as "ugly, thoughtless spam/trolling". But never mind, this your way of perceiving this place, and responding to the immature reactions of others. I respond to it as I should, (mdr). Otherwise, I have replied to this for a last time at the Talk page of Sven Manguard, and like the seeming wisest of the lot, Russavia, gladly take my leave. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

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

you have put a lot of my pictures in question for deleting

Hello, you have put a lot of my pictures in question for deeleting.For the ALR Piranha picture you deleted, haven't yoou seen that the tailnumber of the aircraft was differend~(J-1028 vers J-2013) and the color band on the missile was differend (Brown for inert missile)?. Than on the picture your link goes ? Why you put all this pictures above in question. Somme I made at home especasly the ones with the swiss army items like caps, Stgw90 Gun, and so one, and why its a problem with the ones from the Tankmuseum Ful in switzerland? I visited this museum tvice, once and now just a month ago. Also i visited the tankmuseum Kubinka in 2013 with friends ( Iwas in 2013 visting Moscow, the MAKS (because a Swiss Air Force F/A18 was visiting the MAKS, the first time ever a Swiss Fighter Jet viisiting Russia), so I used my camera, my mobilphone and could also use the cameras (who are better than my one) of the friends. So thats why this photos are made with differend cameras. Same is with some of the Swiss air force photos, we were for example visiting Meiringen AFB and because my workingfriend has the better camera I could use this for making some pictures. But how ever most of the picture you put in question are made with my camera. I will upload after i have written this text, a of my computerscreen, with the wikkimedia on the page and below you can see the date on the computerscreen. So i hope you can see that this pictures are made by my. Its important who made the photo, not who is the owner of the camera. Hornet Driver (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

hornet Drivers camera

Hello, here the proof of my camera like i said before i made with this now a picture of my computerscreen, i mad a second picture where you can see date and time on the computer screen. This is what i can do. But some older pictures llike from the ILA Berlin and so one are made with older cameras who i don't have any more, i have only saved them on the harddisc. Also like i sayd some pictures are made with cameras of friends.How ever this sholud help by a lot of pictures: File:Hornet drivers camera.JPG Thank you Hornet Driver (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Thomas Sørenes. 67.168.41.20 16:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Selena Gomez - Walmart Soundcheck Concert.jpg

Regarding your restoration of File:Selena Gomez - Walmart Soundcheck Concert.jpg and you rationale that "it is well known that Lunchbox LLC runs the soundcheck platform", could you please point me to the evidence that this image was created by Lunchbox LLC and that they own the copyright? I can't find it anywhere. I don't doubt that Lunchbox runs the soundcheck site, but that's a lot different to actually owning the copyright. I've run lots of websites but that doesn't mean that I own the copyright. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of a reply, or should I just renominate? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding admin edit requests

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext#4_fixes
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0#Delete.2C_fork_or_update.3F

are two long-outstanding admin edit requests. I think they're crying out to be addressed, but they're my requests, so perhaps I'm biased. Can you take a moment to review 'em and/or comment on whether you think commons could use more admins?--Elvey (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

KOCIS

Hi! I am trying to put the photos you transferred from the KOCIS flickr account to Commons into the right categories. Extremely difficult to get all these photos out of all the very general categories you put them into. Would it be possible that next time you mass transfer photos from flickr, you would NOT put them into general categories by flickr tags? Some of these photos have like 10+ non-belonging categories and make cats like Category:Seoul impossible to browse. it would be better, in my opinion, just to tag them according to source with a review template and then let people at the corresponding enwiki Wikiprojects know about it, so they can help filter it and put them into categories. Thank you for considering my request. Cheers Teemeah (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to have Lx discussion closed

..and sorry if this set the two of us off on a wrong foot. Yours was the one role that I regarded favorably, and your Talk became an active location against my preference (and request). I responded here only because the sock puppet and troll discourse appeared only here. Your actions and evidence at User page make you seem a very reasonable and content-focused individual; we share these things and a directness I believe, a common attitude toward BS. If we differ it may be in my rejection (active battling) of editorial disciplinary actions that I come upon that I view as too rapid or capricious. But even if we disagree, you personally were never in the cross-hairs, and apologies for wasted time. Thanks for efforts on aeronautics and in general. Cheers, and hope to cross paths amicably in future. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian rotary wing aircraft

Russavia, you have been spot on about things in foregoing discussions, so I wanted to pass on a matter/opportunity that might interest you. One of my close contacts worked with local individuals in the recent re-founding of two national air forces (fixed and rotary wing for each), in two modern conflict zones that are ostensibly winding down. It is likely that he might have original pictures of the aircraft being used to compose those new services (which, as you might guess, are repurposed Russian birds). If you have any interest in seeing these, I could try to arrange to upload a test image, and see if we can work out a way for me to provide, but for you to have credit in the authorship and description. RSVP here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Help?

I'm in preop for tomorrow, and I got an unusual message demanding reply by offline at the bottom of my talk page. I see from looking at his talk page, that you've also marked some of his images in the past, and I was hoping you could help me with this note. I don't understand what's he's on about, and I'm sure not going down the dark alley of email correspondence with some unknown guy. I do see a clear pattern of advertising in how he marks his images, but that, too doesn't seem too terribly important til we figure out why he uploads duplicates without just putting them in the same file as the original image, and etc. From what I've seen, the errors that his gallery lacks are just "put the right info on the right line of the template." But there's something else, and I can't put my addled fingers on it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I have asked Natuur12 for help with this, and I see that he is on your talk page now. Good luck with your surgery tomorrow...*snort* :) russavia (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

removing already added categories

Hi! Could you please tell why you removed manually added categories from Korea.net photos? For example here. This means we will have to review them all over again, and the long days I spent categorising your transfers are basically for nothing, as you just reverted the changes. I cannot wrap my mind around why you did this... Teemeah (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess because I am human and human's make mistakes. If someone makes a mistake, just fix it, there's seriously no need for the melodrama. Thanks for helping out. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Now for the serious answer, the category was obviously left out in error when I did a bulk change on images. A simple error with an easy fix, which has now been done. So there is no need to go back through those images. Thanks for helping out. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I will continue revising the pictures. Teemeah (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Teemeah: there is only around 650 left (at the time of me writing this) to go through -- I've cleared around 3,500 in the last couple of days. If you have other things that you want to work on, feel free to leave these images in my hands if you wish. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors

Hi Russavia. Could you please fix your corresponding edits that caused errors? Thank you. --Leyo 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done russavia (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AniteSpike‎

Can you get in touch with the uploader for this DR in Russian and figure out if any of these images are salvageable? I found a lot of them on Google, but the uploader may be correct that they are public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Korea.net

Hello! I will continue to work on these photos. A lot of them need renaming, as they only contain some general catchphrases or event names. In case of a lot of them I have trouble identifying what they actually depict, or where they were taken, especially when the photographer adds descriptions like "Tour. Seoul, Jeonju, Gunsan". now, these are three completely different places, Jeonju is for example in the South of Korea, nowhere near Seoul. I will try to invite Korea wikiproject members from enwiki and kowiki to help identify the images and pu them into the right categories. Despite some moving, a lot of them are still in very general categories, overpopulating them. Thanks for uploading these photos, though, Korea.net is a valuable resource and it's really good they release most of their photos under CC. Teemeah (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_18&oldid=127766535"