User talk:Russavia/Archive 20

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

Category:Flotta, Orkney

I've noticed that you've added some images to this category. Please note that this category is dedicated to the geographic location of Flotta, and is not related to aircraft unless those aircraft are at the Flotta Airstrip (IATA: FLH). The added images have been removed. Regards, EP111 (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:¿Perdóon? Furia, yo?... No, yo también soy Virus (2495452738).jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading [[:File:¿Perdóon? Furia, yo?... No, yo también soy Virus (2495452738).jpg]]. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:¿Perdóon? Furia, yo?... No, yo también soy Virus (2495452738).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the template due to evidence provided in Flickr --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie for no reason, circumstance or reason for you Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Have Flickr uploads checked by UploadWizard

Hi. I'm wondering how I can upload Flickr files using UploadWizard and have the extension checked the licenses at the time of uploading. The interface of UploadWizard has no links/buttons that indicate this ability. Thank you, Quenhitran (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please reply this message on my talk page so that I can easily keep track on it.

File:Kotelnicheskaya tower 2008 cloudy 08.jpg

Why did you restore this file outside of process? It seems like a clear case for deletion to me? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, now there is FoP in Russia. Jee 10:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks, Jee. Maybe we need a better way of disseminating important law changes like this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That may be the first time I've ever seen a copyright law change for the better! Wow! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Annoying User, Good Content.JPG

I understand why you say [1], but please don't. Go hit a pillow with a tennis racket or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: given the amount of time that certain others seem to browse cock on Commons, I think it's them who needs to be hitting the pillow with a tennis racket ;) russavia (talk) 12:48, 20 October 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: 

--  Gazebo (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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.

-FASTILY 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder why it's bouncing. I'll try again in a moment.
@Fastily: weird it shouldn't be. Try again. russavia (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
This award was long overdue. In appreciation of your hard work, dedication and for your community service. You've done amazing job on aviation. Well done and thank you for all the hard work that you do. I'm proud to have you here! Saqib (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this Saqib, it's much appreciated. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: Cropping of images

Ok, no problem. I'll keep that in mind. Dudek1337 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

He subido a commons imágenes que no violan derechos de autor, si te fijas, últimamente las imágenes subidas son claramente licitas. No entiendo realmente a donde se quiere llegar, pero si comento que las imágenes, por ejemplo, del FBI fueron subidas por otros usuarios. No sé que tengo que ver con eso ?, gracias por su amabilidad. Elías (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Si usted me pregunta, qué opino yo de estas imágenes le diría que todas son líticas porque derivan de un trabajo por parte del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, en este caso, el FBI o la DEA, etc, y todas dependen del Gobierno estadounidense. Existe un sinnúmero de indicaciones, cuestionamientos y polémicas por esta clase de fotos que a mi criterio, son trabajos lícitos que provienen del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, tal cual se indica en las páginas oficiales, hasta aquí no veo problema con eso. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives es un claro ejemplo de lo que digo, Estructura militar de las FARC o si se quiere ser más específico: Timoleón Jiménez: Narcotics Rewards Program: Rodrigo Londoqo-Echeverry - BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS - U.S. Department of State, entre cientos de artículos que aunque parezca mentira, quizá desconozcamos y en pleno 2014, circulan por la wikipedia. Le repito que to no veo problema alguno y anteriormente ya discutí por esto y la respuesta fue la misma de siempre: se borraron las fotos por una posible violación de derechos, un tema que parece nunca terminará.
Aquí usted tiene material de sobra para mirar lo que le digo y que la comunidad se de cuenta que todas esas fotos son trabajos derivados del Gobierno de Estados Unidos: Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information
Saludos y que tenga buen día
Elías (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Minsk. National library Belorusii. (3539070545).jpg

File:Minsk. National library Belorusii. (3539070545).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 ∙ +/−

195.50.31.213 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance with WWII image licenses

Hiya Russavia: INC suggested I ask you about the licenses on this pile of images from the Australian War Memorial, I'm just not sure they're licensed correctly atm in the file descriptions. Uploader gave them a "self" licence. See [2]. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed with {{PD-Australia}}. russavia (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Awesome!! Thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Мгновение...

Here's one of the most interesting pics I've ever found on Commons. I could use some help with categorizing it. INeverCry 06:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I would be worried about COM:CONSENT -- private place and all that, and the person may not have given permission for it to be published. We should be careful with images such as this I think. Thoughts? russavia (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's pretty effective and striking, even though it's posed, and the "Sono nata per la felicità" tattoo ("I was born for happiness" in English) gives it a hint of dark humor. As for the consent issue, I never can see the forest for the trees as they say, and would rather not see it in this case. Of course there's no way to prove she consented to it being published. If you want to DR it, go for it; I've got my copy. I just wish the blanket she's wrapped in hugged her figure a bit better... INeverCry 07:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Odp.

Goń się trollu. Hoa binh (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hoa binh I know that you speak English, so instead of telling me to "fuck off" or "screw you" in Polish, please have the cajones to say it to me in English.
John Belushi I asked three native speakers of Polish for their translation of this term, and two said it meant basically "fuck off", another said "screw you". In the context it was given. Needless to say, another Polish editor (and admin) blocked Hoa binh for a week because they told me to fuck off above. So please, don't come here and lie to me (and others). You know bloody well what it meant. russavia (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
to Ciebie okłamali - prawiłowe tłumaczenie masz powyżej. :-) - John Belushi (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) EOT :-)
  • John Belushi and Hoabinh Please, do not lie. We all know what the term "goń się" means. And it doesn't mean "go away". Actually it does mean something like "f..k off". Here links to explanation what it means: [3], [4] and a link to compare with English explanation [5]. It is a vulgar and offensive expression. Seleucidis (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I left you this message because frankly I have had a gutful of several things.
Firstly, I have had a gutful of people such as yourself calling me a troll, calling me a racist and other such personal attacks. You may have noticed that during all the personal attacks on me in the past on numerous projects that I have stayed silent in response. I will no longer sit by and allow others to attack me and expect me to stay silent. Those days are now gone.
Secondly, I am not surprised that the substance of my message to you has completely gone over your head. Why would I, as a Pole-hater (as you falsely portray me as), bust my ass trying to get Polish materials re-licenced so we can use the across our projects. You have never, ever attempted to enter into a discussion with myself, but rather you have acted in exactly the way I have described. Here was an opportunity for you to possibly work with me and perhaps get to know me a little bit; and hopefully you'd see that I am not what you have portrayed me as. Rather, you have continued to act like you have, and have told me to fuck off in the process. This is not acceptable behaviour for you to be engaging in, and perhaps others will see that the problem doesn't lay with me, but with you. I can only re-iterate the very last words in my post to you on your talk page, I am afraid. russavia (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Platforma Obywatelska, LOT i rozwój

witam. jak rozumiem, Twój wpis w mojej dyskusji jest spowodowany Twoją kolejną akcją spamowania na Wikipediach nieszczęsnym komiksem. no coż... nie interesuję się polityką, może raz lub dwa coś poprawiałem na commons przy okazji zdjęć polskich polityków, więc niestety nie pomogę. Twoje uzależnienie opublikowania na commons zdjęcia samolotu od oceny Twojej dzialności na Wikipedii jest po prostu śmieszne. jeśli uważasz, że robisz komuś jakąś łaskę to wybacz - nikomu łaski nie robisz. zdjęcie wcześniej czy później się pojawi bez Twojej łaski. a co do rozwoju to miałem nadziję, że zmądrzałeś od czasu nieszczęsnego komiksu, którym zaspamowałeś kilkadziesiąt Wikipedii. ale jak widać po tej stronie niczego się nie nauczyłeś. całą Twoją radosną twórczość komiksową powinno się usunąć z commons a Ty powinienś mieć globalnego bana na wszystkie projekty Wikimedia. to nie jest projekt dla kogoś, który chce tu coś komuś udowadniać i prezentować twórczość własną. pozdrawiam. - John Belushi (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC) ps. jest jednak nadzieja, że na Twoim przykładzie fundacja wyciągnie wnioski na przyszłość jak pl.wiki zrobiła z hasłem pl:Henryk Batuta

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Read my response to Hoa binh telling me to fuck off above. The same goes to you champ. russavia (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
w swoim czasie - John Belushi (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Russavia - Please don't encourage people to make me have to edit Meta with an oppose vote. Please... INeverCry 19:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • INeverCry why not encourage them? They are free to talk absolute bullshit about me here and make all sort of nasty comments about me (with total impunity mind you) and say I should be banned. So the likes of Hoa binh, John Belushi, Piotr967 should put their money where their mouths are, or seriously they should simply be quiet. Seleucidis there's no need to apologise for their behaviour -- it's disgraceful behaviour indeed but I see it as no more than nasty trolling on their part. You'll see how these 3 have come to Commons and are hounding the admin who blocked Hoa binh for a week and in the case of John Belushi above he is engaging in outright lying. There no place on our projects for nasty people like that IMHO. You both have a fantastic day :) russavia (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP! PLEASE!

What do you not understand? I respectfully request that everyone leave this alone unless you have the authority to override consensus, or have performed the undelete, or have something else to say that is NOT related to the URAA or positions on or arguments about appropriateness of URAA-impacted content. It's not a vote or a !vote. --Elvey (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What you do not understand? If you want an echo chamber go elsewhere. Our projects are built on discussion and collaboration. No-one has the authority to override consensus on our project, but the PRP RfC was the community consensus which overrides the URAA RfC. Do you not get that? russavia (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the appropriateness of my asking for undeletion Yann disagrees with you; he asked me to post asking for undeletion. Steinsplitter disagrees with you too. I get _that_. That close by odder was an overreach, based on what the RFC was mainly, and also, based on the !votes. PRP is a bad policy, for reasons I've explained before, and this URAA stuff is a great example of it being used to justify arbitrary abuse. But as I said, I'm not here to re-litigate. I'm done. --Elvey (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Russavia about this, i was really surprised to see this reaction by Dennis. Can you give me some advice? How i can solve this problem with admin, as this is not normal admin behavior. How can i raise a question about this somewhere? Thanks in advance! --Anastan (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Anastan my advice is don't edit war, don't overwrite files but upload them under new names if they involve border changes, etc. In relation to Denniss he would be well advised to not use the tools in future on subjects where he is clearly involved and has a heavy opinion on the matter at hand. It is best left to other admins to deal with; even protecting files should be left to others. There's plenty of admins around who can do the needed things when required. russavia (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Russavia, i hope that we will not need further actions. But next time when Dennis do something like that, i will go for de-administration process, and a lot more. Dont worry about rules, i know them very well, and i will not brake them. --Anastan (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

Sure thing. Not a problem. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it last night (my time) when checking the Twitter feed. Silly, but we went to the base one afternoon in 2013 to take him some caribou meat and I forgot to take my camera. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 19:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your fantastic work over the years. Thank you. Victorgrigas (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Victorgrigas thanks for that, much appreciated. And likewise to you too mate. russavia (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi. Did I miss something about this image? It seemed to come as CC-BY from a rather legitimate source (TNL - National Liberal Youth, the youth organization of the party he is (was) in).—Andrei S. Talk 07:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the image was uploaded to Flickr the same day as it was uploaded to Commons, and it is available elsewhere on the internet. Additionally, the youth wing of the party can't release it under a free licence (if it is really the youth wing account on Flickr); permission needs to come from the actual party. It can be undeleted via COM:OTRS. russavia (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for undeleting shipwrecks in the Netherlands, I was trigger happy with the delete button and deleted the wrong category. Face palm myslef.--KTo288 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we've seen worse on Commons, right INeverCry :) russavia (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
And on en.wiki; I once batch deleted about 250 article talkpages from what I thought was a list of orphans, only to find out they were talkpages of live articles. I very quickly learned how to batch undelete. When I make mistakes, I don't fuck around... INeverCry 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So

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

That worked out well for ya, and BTW, as already said, TLAM was not, never was, and is not about to be, me. And seeing you, and the usual suspects clamouring on the SPI page is funny as, well it begins with F. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with the fact that your DS account has been unblocked as per your request on English Wikipedia. If you intend on staying unblocked here on Commons, if I were you I would be doing constructive editing. If you do get involved on Commons, just be aware that being constantly taken to AN/U and the like, will probably not bode well for yourself.
I am not active on your sockpuppet case on English Wikipedia and have no intention of getting involved in your issues past the information which I posted to your talk page which related to correspondence I had with that project's Arbcom a couple of years ago. Past that, you sincerely aren't important enough to me that I would want to spend further time even thinking about you. I'm glad that I seem to weigh heavy on your mind though. :) russavia (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re:Please chill

I'm always open to mutual respect, but when you (all) starts to impose things, and not act as you should be, I will act as you deserve. I'm not a nice guy that are not reactive, or something like that, I have all the patience to help, to discuss ideas, to receive newbies..., but none with people that uses doubtful mechanism to not allow others change/improve things, or even discuss about it... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment

I have reverted it. It's probably going to keep going on, even though I removed the comments in question. Hopefully an administrator seeing my report of him on COM:AN/V will take care of him soon. DLindsley Need something? 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And, apparently, in your closing here, you misspelled my username. Don't worry. I've corrected it. DLindsley Need something? 15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

monument to the conquerors of space

Careful with images of this. Russian freedom of panorama law doesn't allow for them.Geni (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space was mentioned in the deletion reason.Geni (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Geni right, but there's no way to track it. When we know the dates of death of those who hold copyright over the work, we add "Category:Undelete in XXXX" to the DR. As it stands now, when the copyright holders are deceased and the work is out of copyright we have no way of determining the files we need to undelete. Let's say that in a weeks time the work is destroyed the project would then need to find photographs when the copyright is expired. etc, etc, etc. This is why DRs should always be used for FOP deletions. russavia (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't need that level of bureaucracy. Clearing out the Monument to the Conquerors of Space category of images from people who don't read instructions is a regular occurrence and doesn't require further bureaucracy. If the deletion database lasts long term running searches on it would be pretty trivial in any case.Geni (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not bureaucracy. I despise bureaucracy as much as the next person. It's about making it easier for all editors/admins in the future if the need arises. I wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to run a search on the deletion database, but I do know how to check a DR and undelete files from there if files are listed. And I am not the only person, I suspect, on our projects who is not a geek in that regard. Again, please use DRs in future for FOP deletions. Use COM:VFC to make it an easy process. Thanks russavia (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Check COM:CSD:

3. Derivative work of non-free content.<translate>

Derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content). This does not include Freedom of panorama cases.
That is, FOP cases should not be speedied as copyvios unless the uploader also violated the photographer's copyright, or unless a user reposts a file which previously has been deleted after a deletion discussion.
If a file has a known undeletion year but no deletion request, then the file name can be added to the wikitext on the category page. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Geni I undeleted the 5 images and then DR'ed them and closed it straight away. Please follow this in future and what Stefan4 mentions directly above. Cheers, russavia (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you...

...see that? Cheers --Dura-Ace (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dura-Ace yep, I did, I'm @commonsaviation. I will be working on Commons:WikiProject_Aviation/Outreach/Organisations in the coming days, then I'll be getting in touch with them. russavia (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of National Defense

I got the reply, so I'll let you know as soon as I can access their website. — Revi 08:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

검토결과 대한민국 국군 플리커 상에서 국방부와 각 군만이 전적으로 저작권을 보유하고 있는

사진들에 관한 사용 제한을 변경하는 것이 맞다고 판단되어, 자유로운 사용이 가능하도록 아래와 같이 조치하였습니다.

- 기존 : CC BY-NC-ND (저작자표시-비영리-변경금지)
- 변경 : CC BY-SA (저작자 표시 - 동일조건변경허락)

They said that they made CC BY SA to images which MND and Army/Navy/Air Force owns the copyright. (some images are work of external photographers, according to them.) Please ckeck (and if possible I'll upload them.) — Revi 08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
-revi that is awesome news! Great work mate! I have begun to upload the images to Category:Photographs by the Korean Ministry of Defence. There is around 4,000 in total it would appear. Again, great work! russavia (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me once upload is done, so I can notify the kowiki community for our new 4,000 images for use. Thanks, — Revi 13:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
-revi the upload is now done. There's around 200 photos which didn't upload for some reason, perhaps I'll ask Zhuyifei1999 to do another pass with his bot once he's finished another job for me :) Again, great work on getting them to finally come to the party with relicencing. russavia (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem :D I notified kowiki VP (Misc), and enwiki WikiProject Korea. Salvidrim!‎ notified WikiProject Military history. — Revi 07:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Images failed to upload properly

Dear Russavia,

You have many images here which failed to upload properly. Just letting you know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi Russavia. Something went wrong with your VFC task. Could you please fix it? --Leyo 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Leyo thanks for letting me know, I think it is all fixed now. russavia (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 09:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Jean Pascale Labille, International Development Cooperation Minister in Belgium addresses the gathering (10841366336).

Hello, Russavia, did I get it right and you are the uploader of this file? I added it to the article of Jean-Pascale Labille, and on got this reaction. Consequently I undid my edits on the different (de, fr, nl, pl) wikipedia. Obviously this file should be renamed because of #5. Any idea what to do as it is also uncategorized? Thank you for your time. Btw, the image on your usertalkpage over here: megacool. Lotje (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lotje thanks for the notice. I have left a message on the photo page on Flickr asking for clarification. In the meantime I will rename the image here to remove the name. It's obviously someone important, we just need to find out who it is :) Cheers, russavia (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:FlyVista Boeing 737-300 taking off from Kiev Zhulyany Airport.jpeg

File:FlyVista Boeing 737-300 taking off from Kiev Zhulyany Airport.jpeg 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 ∙ +/−

Josve05a (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:FlyVista Boeing 737-300 taking off from Kiev Zhulyany Airport.jpeg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FlyVista Boeing 737-300 taking off from Kiev Zhulyany Airport.jpeg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Josve05a (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Is {{AlexPigariev}} supposed to have an OTRS ticket? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Stefan4: I beleive it should have, yes. It however is in Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission. Josve05a (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    Josve05a I am no longer submitting tickets to OTRS for "verification". The OTRS admin team is an abusive boys club clique who use their positions to play pathetic wikipolitical games. I will no longer be utilising that system so long as Commons does not have any oversight/control at all. I get permission from hundreds of photographers for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of images every year. The moment that I get an email back from a person with the necessary statements affirming the release of those image under a CC licence, they are then licenced under that licence. It doesn't require an email to be sent to OTRS to make that release valid. I will, however, be happy to have the permission verified by the ODRS system, if you would like me to do that. I have removed the template from that category you mentioned above, and will ensure it is not present on the other 10 templates I will be creating today, which will cover the release of around 8,000 images. Regards, russavia (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: I'm not sure what your issue is with OTRS, however, as someone who has handeled tickets for you before, I will willingly do this for you again. If you have a problem with the system, by all means try and change the system, but trying to disrupt the project will not result in any positive outcome for anyone. Frankly, I'm not bothered about permissions personally; I mainly do tickets on request, or when the backlogs get too high. Feel free to forward them to my personal email address if you wish; I'm no Common's admin, but doing so will save a whole lot of drama in the longer term. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 my issue with OTRS is very simple. It's a corrupt boys-club that acts in detriment to Commons, and is not answerable in one iota to Commons. Several months ago, Fæ was kept out of Wikimedia UK, that chapter going spending thousands of dollars on laywers to do so, and there was a disgusting display on Facebook, which even saw participation from Jan-Bart (the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the WMF). After all was said and done, Fae was kept out of WMUK, and as a result his access to WMUK OTRS queues, rightly, should have been revoked. Instead, the OTRS team, acting alone, I don't know, decided to revoke ALL OTRS access for Fae, including Commons permissions queues.

Requests for reasoning from OTRS admins on IRC by myself, Odder, Nick, Steinsplitter and multiple other editors were ignored, stating that they don't discuss "personnel" issues. The fact that the revocation of access from one of Commons' hardest working editors, and a person who helped to keep OTRS queues within working limits, requires some explanation to this community.

In a discussion with Cbrown1023, Fae was told:

  1. "OTRS is completely based on trust and a working environment where we can be sure things are kept private and issue free. We're on the front of the lines when dealing with people external to our organization, so we need to make sure these principles are all kept up." -- there is no evidence that Fae has abused the trust of the community or OTRS in his OTRS work.
  2. "It's not related to a specific complaint, honestly. I'll be straight with you because I think you deserve it: the drama to activity ratio, just wasn't good enough." -- there is no evidence that Fae has created any drama on OTRS; there's only evidence that his OTRS activities have been of the highest standard.
  3. "No, we don't handle personnel issues publicly. The fact that you want a "public statement" on your removal from OTRS is also quite worrisome is one of the reasons your account was removed. We didn't accuse you of anything or "smear your name"; the only thing that showed up on OTRS wiki was that your account was removed." -- how dare Fae, and how dare this community expect some sort of explanation as to why his OTRS access was yanked.
  4. "We did not receive a complaint. You requested more access to OTRS on the Café, which triggered a review of your work, within OTRS and outside of OTRS, to see if we should grant that request." -- when asked by Fae if OTRS had received a complaint by a certain individual (who has subjected Fae to institutional harassment at WMUK), that was the response. It was a fair question, given this individual joined a LGBT group and also entered the #wikimedia-commons (for the first time since like forever) at the exact same time as this OTRS nonsense was occurring. But ok, there was no complaint, so what did their review turn up? Did it turn up anything that this community should be concerned about? If there was happenings on OTRS that is troublesome, this community needs to know about it, so that a complete review of Fae's work on Commons can take place, and corrective action taken. No evidence of any problems has been forthcoming from the OTRS teams.
  5. "I was actually one of the few in our discussion who defended your recent work, but, as I said in my e-mail, the issue is that we require very high levels of turst and confidence. While you have done good work on permissions recently, our trust is just not high enough for that to continue." -- this means that amongst the OTRS admins (Daniel, Jredmond, Keegan, Mailer diablo, Pajz, Raymond, Rjd0060 and Tiptoety) there were those who had issues with his work and/or being able to trust Fae with Commons permissions queues.
  6. "I don't know where you heard your OTRS access was removed after a complaint, because that's simply not true. There were several discussions over several months that ultimately led to our decision. The recent info-en request, combined with the recent removal from WMUK, was just one piece of a much broader discussion." -- this is the kicker, and it's *facepalm* material for the OTRS admin team. Only in December 2013 (I think it was), the OTRS admins decided to give Fae back access to Commons permissions on OTRS. Given that this discussion has supposedly taking place over several months, why the fuck did they give him access in the first place. Here they are revoking access because of a loss of trust, but at the same time it should never have been given to him in the first place. This OTRS team couldn't be trusted to organise a root in a brothel with a pocket full of cash and a hard-on.
  7. "When reviewing your access a few months ago, your requiring access to WMUK did play a role in keeping your OTRS account open. It wasn't a key reason to remove your OTRS account here though." -- so what was the key reason, again?
  8. "But I think we're nearing the end of our conversation. As you know, this is much more than we normally discuss issues. I have to go out and I'm sure your husband is home by now, so I'll let you go. Thanks again for your service and I do wish you the best of luck!" -- yep, no real answers were forthcoming, and that's all we as OTRS admins are going to say; a whole lot of nothing.

It is pretty clear that these OTRS admins have wielded access to OTRS as a weapon against Fae in an attempt to isolate him from this community. Love him, or hate him, it can not be denied that Fae has always acted at the highest calibre that we expect of editors on OTRS. Anyone who doubts this, would be advised to look at ticket:2014033110012549 (AFBorchert could also give some input here). That ticket, which was a sensitive one, was dealt with precisely how it should have been handled, and dare I say it, many in the Commons community may not have dealt with it as Fae did!

That decision by OTRS in relation to Fae is what is the real disruption on this project.

As to my refusal to submit anything to OTRS in future, this is largely as a result of the OTRS admin team's despicable behaviour in relation to Fae, tied in with the recent consolidation of "power" over OTRS so that this community has absolutely zero input into how OTRS is run, and this community needs to cop it sweet. I say no.

Over the years, dare I say it, I have been one of those editors who has had enormous amounts of success in getting hundreds of thousands of media files being made available to us under Wikimedia Commons compatible licences. These success include: {{Kremlin.ru}}, {{FCO}}, hundreds of Category:Aviation photographers; all of which have had permissions submitted to OTRS. Many of my other successes have been by way of Flickr and other avenues.

Now, I am taking a stand for what is right and in defence of the shoddy treatment that was dished out by the OTRS admins, most of whom are never active on Commons in any great, way, shape or form, towards one of the hardest workest OTRS members that this project has had, and a stand against OTRS administration in general As one can see from this I am again hard-at-work getting enormous amounts of photographs made available to us on Commons, and also recruiting numerous photographers to join us here on Commons directly. I am also in talks with numerous organisations by way of my outreach activities on Twitter and elsewhere, for the release of hopefully huge amounts of materials which will of benefit to free culture specifically, and to Wikimedia projects in general.

The fact is, as soon as I receive permission on email with the statement releasing the works under a free licence, those works are freely licenced. I am happy to provide the permission to someone I trust to review them, but I do not trust the OTRS system in general, so long as those running it act in complete detriment to Commons, and disrupt this project by way of disrupting the work of its editors. russavia (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respects, this sounds exactly like what we would call on enwiki Disrupting to make a point. If you have an issue with the system, feel free to propose a new system, but use the old system until the time the new one appears. I would also note that "several months" is not likely to go back to December 2013, however as I have not seen the relevant conversations, I couldn't comment further. I would note that Commons:Permission (although just a proposed policy) notes that "Unless the source declares a free license (if there is a source link) somewhere for an image, permission must be logged in the OTRS system or the image will be deleted for having no permission." To be fair, I would expect more from an admin, but maybe not. I'm not familiar with the background to this, however it seems to be a dispute over one users access to OTRS being revoked. Now that was a decision by the admins, however choosing to paint us all with the same brush when most of us have no idea about this whole issue is unfair. If your issue is with the OTRS admins actions, feel free to contact the WMF about this, however the ratio of usefulness to drama here is very low indeed. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Mdann52 the "disrupting to make a point" was done by the OTRS admin team, who have basically said "We can do whatever the hell we want, we are not answerable to anyone, even if it affects the Commons community." The stand I am taking isn't the disruption, but the blowback from such disgraceful behaviour.
As to the quote you mentioned: "Unless the source declares a free license (if there is a source link) somewhere for an image, permission must be logged in the OTRS system or the image will be deleted for having no permission." this isn't exactly right. For example {{RichardVandervord}} emailed me permission. I could utilise his works ANYWHERE under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence because I have received his explicit statement licencing his works under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The statement that it will be deleted for no permission is erroneous, because I have just emailed Richard thanking him for his permission, and instead of cc'ing it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, I have cc'ed you. I know the permission is valid; you can now see that the permission is valid. There's no need for me to email this to OTRS, and being deleted as "no permission" would be wrong.
Let me make it known also, that I am not painting the entire OTRS team with the same brush. My comments about OTRS being wielded as a weapon to isolate hard-working Commons editors, and other comments, are not directed at those who work on OTRS, but are firmly directed at the administration of that system. As to contacting the WMF about this issue, it is pointless, especially as the Chairman of the WMF Board of Trustees, was one of those were participating in the disgraceful display on Facebook; and given his zero edit count on Commons (as per his username), he seriously won't know, nor care, about issues that affects Commons.
I now have permission for approximately 10,000 photos which can be used under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence, but which will not be kept on Commons because I refuse to use a system that is run by several people who have used OTRS access in an inappropriate way to isolate an editor, and who do not have this projects best interests at heart. Of course, the content is more important for us, but sometimes people have to stand up (pardon the pun on that given the subject) and refuse to work within a system, even if there is some detriment to themselves. russavia (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I never doubted whether there was permission; The only thing I was pointing out was a proposed policy mentioned this. In any case, I see where you are coming from; Giving Commons some say in who has or has not got access is fairly common sense. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, I would first of all thank you for your contributions to the project; the Google Spreadsheet reads impressive. It is unfortunate that you do not wish to follow establish protocol and submit the emails to OTRS. There are various advantages to that: For one, other Commons users have chance to review the statement. This is an important instrument of accountability; by requesting to keep the files on Commons and simultaneously refusing to provide documentation to back the claim, other users cannot check the validity of it as it is clearly overly complicated to specifically request from you, on a case by case basis, what documentation you have. Second, you or other users to whom you forward that statement might not be part of this project ten years from now. What then? Third, there is effectively not much value in someone on the internet stating that "permission was received" for a certain file. If I tell someone that they gave permission and they later claim "no, I didn't," we, as a community, do not have any basis for refuting that since we do not have anything to back our claim. While it might not be your intention, a decision to not use OTRS is thus, unfortunately, effectively imposing vast amounts of extra work on Commons and OTRS volunteers.
As regards the structure of OTRS in general, I would like to emphasize that your suggestion that "this community has absolutely zero input into how OTRS is run" is not accurate, at least not the way I understand it. The "problem," if you so will, with "running OTRS" (which is probably not the best way to put it) is that there is huge independence on the agents' side, and that agents come from very different backgrounds (Commons users vs. Wikimedia users from different project). We do have some rough guidelines as to how things should be processed, but there is not much control over whether individuals apply these practices, and many aspects are not codified at all. If you have any suggestions in this regard, we would love to hear them (maybe we as OTRS agents should also have a debate on these standards with the wider community rather than just other OTRS agents, given that in some respects it's ultimately community policies that we are expected to apply; there have been attempts at an internal discussion on common standards to that end in the past, but they didn't really spur enough interest). There is also no "recent consolidation of "power" over OTRS" that I know of. To the contrary, the admin team is actively supporting efforts towards an empowerment of language communities (workshops come to mind, for instance, like in Cologne in January, where agents discuss and agree on standard practices). — Pajz (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pajz thanks for your comments here. The complaints that I have are not against the OTRS agents, who do a fantastic job, including Fæ, but the complaints are directed towards the OTRS admins, of which you are one, who have used access to OTRS as a tool of isolation towards one of Commons' best OTRS agents. Everything else you present is immaterial.

Since I have said I will refuse to submit to OTRS any permissions, which are valid and which can be verified as being so by Mdann52 and Odder (both being editors I have forwarded them to as part of my "thanks" responses to those who have made their works available under the CC licence), the following will not be able to hosted on Commons, according to some:

  1. {{DenisFedorko}} - 706 photos
  2. {{AlexPigariev}} - 50 photos
  3. {{RodionKuznetsov}} - 241 photos
  4. {{LanceBroad}} - 370 photos
  5. {{AndrewMuller}} - 281 photos
  6. {{RichardVandervord}} - 3,000 photos
  7. {{AmirAhadi}} - 20 photos
  8. {{MehmetMustafaÇelik}} - 2,500 photos
  9. {{Jenyk}} - 300 photos - permission for these came in as I was writing this reply
  10. {{AndreyMakarov}} - 153 photos - permission for these came in as I was writing this reply

This list will grow day-by-day and the numbers will only increase dramatically. That's approx 7,630 photos, from the permissions I have so far processed in email, which will be kept off Commons, simply because I refuse to submit those permissions to OTRS, and even though they have been verified by trusted Commons users and/or current OTRS agents. As you can see from the spreadsheet, and my uploads in general, I have a pretty good success rate in getting materials CC released, so the figures will be much higher going into the future. The other option that has been suggested to me, and I have rejected out-of-hand, is that I should stop getting materials released under CC licencing. That would be detrimental to free culture in general.

There was no valid reason for the removal of Fae's OTRS access, that much is plainly clear, and it is also very, very clear that it was used as a method to attempt to isolate him within the Commons community. If I was caught out acting the way that the OTRS admins have been in the case of Fae, I would be taking stock and looking at the consequences of those actions. The immediate above is the consequences of those actions.

There is no policy on Commons that requires the use of Wikimedia OTRS, and there are other options available that would enable me to bypass Wikimedia OTRS completely. http://www.osticket.com is one of them. I'm not a tech geek, but it does look pretty easy to set-up, a domain and hosting are pretty cheap, and access needn't be controlled by a small out-of-touch group on Meta, who by all accounts still do not "get it".

So Pajz, here's the score, and I'd appreciate it if you could pass this on to other OTRS admins. There are two course of action that can take place here:

  1. Fae is given back access to the permissions-commons OTRS queues immediately, and I will continue to use the existing Wikimedia OTRS system, or
  2. I will set up OSticket, which will eliminate the need to utilise the Wikimedia OTRS system altogether, and turn it over to Commons community control. Such a system could easily replace all functions for Commons as they relate to OTRS, and not just permissions, if the community wants that to happen. I am, of course, happy to use it exclusively for my permissions if the wider community doesn't want it to be utilised further.

The first option would, believe it or not, be preferable because it would avoid a schism which I do not actually wish to see happen.

This is a stand I should have taken back when OTRS admins used OTRS access as a wikipolitical tool against Fae. russavia (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that any alternative to OTRS is likely to need approval from the legal team. I've notified them of this thread so they can comment as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_20&oldid=142871549"