User talk:Stifle/Archive 6

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

IndiaFM ticket

Stifle can you please check Ticket:2008030310010794 and see whether the licensing is correct? A huge number of images uploaded are pending on the outcome of this ticket. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:John Vandenberg is now dealing with this ticket; he should be able to give you the lowdown. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful. REgaring the images in Category:Re-Invention World Tour, can you please delete them as listed in the Ticket? Mad-Eyes.net is refusing to send a mail from their id, and is insisting that I send their permission forwarded to OTRS. I explained them that Commons is not accepting it, but oh well. Sorry for all the inconvenience. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 03:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You might want to pass this one to COM:AN where an admin with automated tools will pick it up. I am very busy at the moment. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Important request

PLEASE READ THE THING I WROTE BELOW,THANK YOU!

  • Discloser (IMPORTANT)

P.S. << you can remove or purge this notice after you have done reading it, this is IMPORTANT >>


Its me, about the 4thJune2021 deleted logs , about the election thing. I wrote that as 219.74.154.180 ok? All i want you to don’t want you to do is to make amendments(reverted it back, as long as my response is not there then i am find for you using that page) to that 4th June 2021 deleted logs page. All i want is to eradicate that page of what i have written, i will settle it somewhere because i settle at the wrong place , you see. So there is no point it to be debatable not make it ancient.Make sure other administrators that are in charge of this are well informed and notified. Thank you. Reference : Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 4 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.74.154.180 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

File:WBBaker.jpg

Hi! You approved the permission for the image above. What about this one File:WBBakerPromotional.jpg? Perhaps you could ask if we could get one for that image also? --MGA73 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The ticket from that image will cover the other one. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:OTRS received as of 1 December 2009

Hi! Could you also check the images in this category? I noticed OTRS has been removed from this image File:October 87 - Khalis-loyal Muja.jpg. Was that supposed to happen? --MGA73 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The four images in the category do not have permission. We received an email releasing those four and five other images under an invalid licence, and when I asked for clarification, we got permission for the other five images but not the four in the category.
The removal of OTRS from that other image appears to have been by accident. I've restored it. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you please issue OTRS ticket for the following image:

The individual (Daijiworld Media Pvt Ltd Mangalore) have already sent evidence of their permission to Wikimedia. --

Sanfy (talk)

14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS tickets don't work that way. When someone processes the email we received, they will either reply to it requesting further information, or reply confirming the permission is good and tag the image accordingly. There is currently a backlog of approximately 1½ months processing OTRS emails, so please be patient. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Ciscobra.jpg

Good job. Thank you. Leandromartinez (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Jacopo_Werther_Coordinates_Political_Compass.png

I use this file in my user page in Italian Wikipedia. Please undelete it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buenos Aires-Recoleta-P2090056.jpg

Hi, I think you closed this DR too early. Discussion is still going on at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Argentina, and right now COM:FOP#Argentina states FOP covers buildings only. So could you please re-open the DR, and wait for the situation to be clarified before closing it? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Too early? It's been open for 3 months :| How long more? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well too early in the sense that the discussion about changing the FOP status of Argentina is not over yet. And clearly, the result of the DR depends on the result of that discussion. If you insist on closing it now, then it should be a delete, since our current COM:FOP#Argentina says there is no FOP for sculptures. Seeing that you closed it as kept, I thought you were anticipating a change of that status, but as I said, I think it's too early to tell. –Tryphon☂ 08:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Michail Fedin

The original claim of nominator that "author of photo don't understand what is CC" is misleading, the author clearly published his works cc-by-sa, moreover he has provided explanation of the basic terms of license (see author page autotranslated. The only problem is the lack of version number. This problem has been discussed on Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_26#Creative_Commons_license_without_any_version_information and prevailing opinion was that CC licenses without version number are acceptable. Only nominator was against the acceptance, but in even he did finally admit that the arguments of his opponent are surely logical, but he still have some reservations (unfortunately, that line in the discussion timestamped 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) was not translated from Russian). Please reconsiderate your decision and leave files undeleted (per community consensus shown on Commons_talk:Licensing), or reopen the deletion discussion. --M5 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, wouldn't it have been nice if the people who held this opinion had voted against deletion, no? I'll reopen the discussion, but in the absence of keep voters soon it'll be deleted again soon. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Desarrollo.jpg

Hi. You closed the mass deletion request, but you seem to have forgotten this file. --Leyo 10:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.jpg

Hi Stifle. I undid your npd tagging of this image file. I didn't upload the photo (I just found a larger version on the source webpage) but the uploader claimed it was his/her own work, so npd doesn't seem appropriate here. In addition, he/she has been active in the past in proving his/her own authorship (see File:Peter gabriel 31081978 02 400.jpg). If you know something I don't, let me know. -Gump Stump (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You uploaded a larger version of the image and there is no evidence that the uploader wished to release it at that resolution. I'm not disputing the original image. Sorry if that was unclear, but you need to prove that User:Helwik agreed you could upload the higher resolution image. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I didn't realize that was a problem. I thought the cc license applied to the creative work, not the creative work at the resolution it was uploaded as (unless specified separately by the author). Is there a Commons policy you can refer me to? I can't find mention of that in the text of the cc license itself. In the meantime, I'll revert the image and remove the npd template. -Gump Stump (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of any, but I would suggest checking at COM:VP. An uploader may for example release a low-resolution of an image under a free license while retaining rights to a larger version, in case he may wish to sell it. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Angela_Romeo.jpg

Help! Thx. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What has this got to do with me? Stifle (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As I just also replied on my talk page, you solved this last time which is being used frivolously as one of the arguments in this new situation. Please see the current deletion discussion where that previous case has been dragged into it! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There are several other OTRS agents who have contributed to the discussion and I agree with them. To retain the image the owner of the image should send this email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. Thx. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help reviewing this file: File:Mossen Pere de Queralt.jpg

Hello, Stifle

I need help reviewing this file: File:Mossen Pere de Queralt.jpg. Apparently, it is transferred from Wikipedia but I can't even figure out what exactly it is. Could you please assist if you can? Or, do you know anyone who can help?

Fleet Command (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The full description from the file page on Wikipedia was transferred over verbatim. I don't know what else there is that can be done. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Thanks anyway. Fleet Command (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket request

Hello Stifle, this photo was taken from flickr website a while ago, but still need a ticket checked, may you provide it? Bye! --95.251.19.250 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Flickr images aren't processed via the OTRS system. Instead you should tag the image {{Flickrreview}}. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurt_Aepli_watercolor_renderings.jpg

File:Kurt_Aepli_watercolor_renderings.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 ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Christuskirche_Nürnberg-Steinbühl.jpg

File:Christuskirche_Nürnberg-Steinbühl.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 ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hey stifle how are you? Cna you please check the copyright of this image File:Madonna sex 0241658 erotic.png? I don't think it can come under free documentation. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 03:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please delete this. Thanks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T.B._Cunha.jpg

Joyson Noel Holla at me 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename request

Any chance you can deal with the move request made on my enwiki talk page? Because this is not a controversial move, I asked Stan about a week ago but he has not been around for a while. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone has created it under the new name. I've deleted the incorrectly-spelled one. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears the original editor also created the correct version but still asked for the original to be renamed. All's well that ends well. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Photograph.jpg

FYI, the following e-mail was sent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Photograph.jpg ] agree to publish that work under the free license (BY) & (ND) —I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Gary R.Englert, March 29, 2011

<Mooney1084v (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)>

File:Digambar Kamat.jpg

Please delete this image. The person who i thought was the author has just informed me that the image does not belong to him, but to the Department of Information and Publicity, Govt of Goa. Joyson Noel Holla at me 09:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Creative Rights

Hi. If you are knowledgible of rights issues, would you please carefully check my two recent uploads: this and this, and inform me if everything is correct with that license-thing and if it's alright to use these two scans on Wikipedia, given that in both cases the person showing in the images has yielded all rights of use to us on Wiki. Thank you, /Orrling (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What's required is authorization from the person who took the photographs, not the person depicted. In Israel, currently photos taken in 1960 or earlier have expired copyright. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Blender.svg

Hello, Stifle. I have trouble finding deletion review page in Commons. Does it exists? Because the following looks like a joke to me:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blender.svg

We have no input and no consensus; also it certainly doesn't look like {{Pd-ineligible}} to me.

What do you think I should do about it? Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no DRV for kept images, only COM:RFU. You can make appeals at COM:AN. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope you forgive me for not waiting seven days for your reply. (No sarcasm intended; I indeed re-nominated the image for deletion after 24 hours.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Crotch rope.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:Crotch rope.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:Crotch rope.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Kramer Associates (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Jessica Mae Stover

Hello, I am suspicious about the pictures from User:Redwing2, here and at enwiki. The user uploaded pictures of Jessica Mae Stover, stating, he created them himself. All pictures are small, have no metadata and are from different places/situations and have different styles.

On the last picture in enwiki you added the OTRS, could you please check the permission, if that all is really okay? Thanks, --CennoxX (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Route de Fronton, le centre d'Aucamville.jpg

Somehow your closing got lost/not saved. Please fix. --Denniss (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion

Please recover Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andronikov.png and I will add the license template, for this is my own work. Thank you. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

a minor point on formerly free Afghan images

I left a note following the heads-up I got when File:Fareeda Kuchi.jpg was nominated for deletion. It is a minor point. I informed the contributor who nominated the image, and since you were the administrator who deleted it, I thought I should inform you, too.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu images

You seem to have tagged all the Brianna Wu images ([1] for example) as needing evidence of permission. Said permission is clearly visible on their source page, http://www.briannawu.net/#/photos/. "Rights granted by photographer Shannon Grant. All of these images are released to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. They may be used for any purpose, commercial or personal. The specific legal language may be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode" Please revert all your edits. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Stifle. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2018 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you. – Kwj2772 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Danny10599

Dates in file descriptions are still wrong. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd like me to do, can you clarify please? Stifle (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Stifle

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Stifle,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fake reason

Hi. Sorry, now I noticed that you deleted some images, like this one. The reason was “Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required”, but probably is a mistake, I wrote already to user A1Cafel that the photo was taken by me and I never upload on Facebook. Shouldn't be this kind of reason proved? Can you please let me know what is the solution in this case? How can be restore the photos? Thank you. --Babu (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If nobody contests the Deletion Request we have to assume that the reason is valid. As you were advised by A1Cafel, you can reupload the image with full EXIF metadata and at full resolution and there will be no problem. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

While this is technically possible, unless the creators of the the sound logos waive their right to have their work attributed during the duration of the contest, it would be a breach of the CC-BY-SA license to hide attribution. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_6&oldid=789928397"