User talk:Russavia/Archive 15

Your resignation

An amulet for you, to protect you from evil people

A day before yesterday Tarot card said that "it will be a deliberate decision". Argentina cries for you. --Seleucidis (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't cry for me Argentina. I much prefer this. russavia (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agweed. Me no wike teh dwamahz. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 15:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worse... Wnt (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Flickr uploads

Hello, please see Commons:Bots/Requests/Hazard-Bot 13.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done russavia (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2013 (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!

Affected:

• File:Statue (8167966930).jpg

And also:

• File:Statue (8167970453).jpg

Yours sincerely, ghouston (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Hi. [1] - author of photo (= uploader) did not obtained consent to publish the photograph from Alfred Miodowicz [2] ("pytasz czy może pan A.Miodowicz wyraził zgodę byś zrobił mu zdjęcie? - nie, nie pytałem go o to" - "no, I did not ask him"). Uploader stated that A. Miodowicz is a notable person and the photo was made in public place (cementery) and during a state funeral. Therefore, according to uploader consent is not required. In my opinion, A. Miodowicz of course is a notable person but Miodowicz was not there in his capacity of a public figure performing a public duty; he was there only as a father of deceased. Additionally, the "state" status of funeral is not clear - yes, there were the Premier of Poland and many other VIPs but we do not know if the government funded and organized the funeral. A. Miodowicz and his son were famous politicians, so the Premier and other politicians could come to the funeral as friends of the deceased and his father. --Piotr967 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It seems you managed somehow to get my discussion with the uploader translated, so it seems my help is not needed any more, right? If not, just tell me - I will gladly do what I can. Cheers, Marcgalrespons 20:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've now nominated the image for deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JRKRUK_20130829_ALFRED_MIODOWICZ_BUSKO_IMG_3314.jpg. If the uploader isn't proficient in English, please do translate anything that they might need to know. Thanks for help with this. russavia (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, thank you for starting the deletion procedure. I wouldn't know how to do it. Now the photo is deleted lege artis. I have informed the photographer about the outcome and suggested to make an appointment with sir Miodowicz-senior to take a picture of him to illustrate his biography in Wikipedia, because they both probably live in the same town. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I had the same thought about the photographer trying to get a photo another way. Perhaps they might be interested in doing a Wikinews "interview" with them; that way they could get a photo and get it in use on wikinews at the same time. Just an idea. russavia (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Passing comment

File:Baptism of Poland.Mural in Gniezno.JPG - not PD. I pinged the author who agrees. Speedy or deletion? You know better. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it to DR here. For such cases it's usually better to use DR, because we can track them by way of categories, so if laws should change in the future we can easily undelete the image. russavia (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi
This is out of the blue, but I've seen your name around and thought you might be able to provide some useful insight ... I was part of a group working on Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot_(10) until the bot operator retired. I've approached several other active uploaders to continue the project, with no luck. I'm concerned that I've ignored some kind of social norm - is there a rule among bot operators to not finish someone else's work? I've mapped the rest of the DPLA open content here and was hoping to get some interest (also did a batch upload request).

I'm a newbie for sure, and would appreciate your thoughts. Perhaps it's just a bad project? Thanks in advance. Bdcousineau (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, there's no unwritten rule that others can't finish others "work"; the lack of response may simply be that editors are busy doing other things. Given that the editor involved is no longer active, I might suggest that you approach editors such as User:Fae, User:Multichill, User:とある白い猫 (White Cat), User:Yarl or User:Dcoetzee to begin with and see if any of them would be interested in taking over the job; it's a massive one for sure, and would be a longer term project. Try that, and let me know how you go, and we can look at something else if that's not successful. Cheers, russavia (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply to you at batch upload request to keep the discussion contained in one location. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually I have already contacted User:Fae User:Multichill and User:Dcoetzee - and as you say, everyone is busy (which is great, really). It is a massive project, but an exciting one (at least in my mind!). Looks like User:とある白い猫 has stepped up - I will follow up there and check in with you at some point. Cheers, Bdcousineau (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Polandball News banner.png

File:Polandball News banner.png 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!

darkweasel94 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup)

Hello!

Do you ever plan to "clean up" those files in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup)? By now, you keep on filling it up. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, they are being cleaned up at the rate of couple thousand a day. So it's simply turnover of new files, plus doing some stuff which others are going to work on. russavia (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I'd be willing to help. I have school, so I will not be able to make many edits a day, but when I can, if you tell me how you want it to be, then I'll help. I'd love to also make a couple thousand contributions a day myself ;) Anyway, I'd love to help. WorldTraveller101 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am (slowly but surely) working on some of these files as well, and trying to recruit some others into the process. Most of the files I've seen are great additions, well worth giving them proper categories, names, descriptions, etc. -Pete F (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Лицензирование

Я вижу, что вы привлекаете снимки разных фотографов по свободной лицензии. Скажите пожалуйста, как вам удаётся уговорить этих фотографов, чтобы они отказались от продажи своих фотографий и разрешили их бесплатную эксплуатацию? Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Do you have any sources in particular in mind that you want to get relicenced? The thing is, I have different "spiels" which I use for different sources, mainly depending on who they are. I'd be happy to help. russavia (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Просьба о пересмотре решения по Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Armenia & Nagorno-Karabakh

Прошу вас, пересмотреть свое решение по вышеприведенной странице. Так как, я не прошу удалить страницу проекта, потому что как я и там указал, проект под названием Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Armenia существует без всяких проблем. А страница которую я предлагаю к удалению содержит в своем названии политический подтекст. Нагорный-Карабах является международно признанной частью Азербайджана, и оккупировано Арменией. Получается данный вики-проект поддерживает эту оккупацию, так как относит оккупированные территории к оккупировавшей их стране. Всякие доводы против этого утверждения несостоятельны, ибо чем можно обосновать использование флага несуществующего государства в списке стран участниц и чем же это не провокация и подчеркивание политического подтекста?! Это почти то же самое, что отнести Курильские острова к Японии или же Калининград к Польше. Если вас эти доводы и примеры не удовлетворяют, могу привести массу других. Это же немыслимо, что бы серьезный проект выражал поддержку оккупации. --Wertuose (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issues at hand here, and it isn't going to be solved by deletion. It has to be resolved by discussion -- much like the real-life Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Whilst it may be too late for this year's WLM competition, I will make the suggestion that next year any NK competition perhaps be held as a joint-competition run by Azeri and Armenian editors, and make it inclusive of all areas of NK. If editors want to do that, I'd be happy to get involved in that project if it is viable. russavia (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps

You can populate Creator:Fedor Solntsev further? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how you mean? Do you mean with images? If so, I'm really not sure where one would start...artworks isn't my strong point unfortunately. Any ideas? russavia (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no, I meant - perhaps you could link it to the ru/uk wiki article, and add some infobox details. I based it on Creator:Jan Matejko, but as you'll notice it's much stripped - and I am not sure who else to ask about this around here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I'm not too sure of the details that would be needed, and where to find them, etc, but I will ask a Russian editor and see what they might be able to do with it. russavia (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Not Voting Sucks (3010815738).jpg

Isn't this photo non-free? (Isn't this puppet from some kind of TV show for children?) Trijnstel_talk 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed non-free, it's not COM:FOP compliant being in the US, etc. I've gone ahead and deleted it, thanks for bringing to my attention. russavia (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Category:Fantasia in Morocco.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Problem: The image does not match the scope. Easy to fix --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you think it doesn't match the scope? Of course it does. russavia (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• If I click on the scope I do not see the image. The correct scope, will be Fantasia in Morocco.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Fixed by adding in upper category. И. Максим (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• No it is not like that. The image is now over-categorized. The scope must be: Fantasia in Morocco. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Done. И. Максим (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Муссем (фольклорный фестиваль) в Тан-Тане (Марокко).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Муссем (фольклорный фестиваль) в Тан-Тане (Марокко).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Onam greetings!

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OnaSadya

Elephants

Can't say that i liked your proposal to deletec those pictures. How about if it were YOUR pictures, just how would you feel about that ? Those were good pictures. And it was public art.

I guess you missed the part where it was ME who uploaded the photos in the first place. russavia (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Crazy.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gloucester_Docks_at_Night.jpeg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gloucester_Docks_at_Night.jpeg

I will assume good faith and that they had the same filename or some such technical issue. Fix it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Assume good faith, but drop the attitude and be polite. russavia (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, and I've also done what you should have done; that being adding categories to the image. No need to thank me. russavia (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Replacing edit

I replaced this edit. It's up to Jimbo and there are certainly no 'wild allegations' given they are diffs. Please do not remove. Peter Damian (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The person has been blocked on this project and on en.wp for making accusations against an editor. We do not tolerate harassment on this project. Revert it again and you will be blocked. russavia (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these threats. No allegations were made on that page, but rather a set of diffs which suggested inappropriate behaviour. Peter Damian (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Sure. I will may get shot down in flames but no big deal. I have thick skin.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

Can you please clarify what you mean by 'harassment'? Is highlighting inappropriate behaviour 'harassment'? Peter Damian (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Buildings in Bulgaria

How would you interpret Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Bulgaria with regards to buildings created by still living architects, or those with pma < 70 years? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not OK for Commons, so they are free to be taken to DR, and added to Category:Bulgarian FOP cases. If you have multiple images of the same building to DR, do it via a mass DR. VisualFile Change might be of help there. russavia (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I will be doing mass cleanups, but it's good to know about this stuff. In the meantime, here's a problem - look at the source at File:Crowd fleeing sounds of gunfire near Westgate.jpg. Probably needs a proper OTRS needed tag, same for other recent uploads of that author. I also find File:Marcin Swiecicki.jpg suspicious, but how do we tackle this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Moldova FOP

Not far from the FOP topic started above, can you please undelete the rest of the files under Category:Moldovan FOP cases? Per Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/08#Stale undeletion request regarding Moldovan FOP cases. Thanks. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 23 September 2013 06:56 (UTC)

 Done with the kind help of User:Steinsplitter. If you want to go through and search for other possible Moldovan FOP cases, add them to above category and drop us a line. russavia (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Me be very thankful :) //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 23 September 2013 11:59 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget that your and Steinsplitter's efforts had led to Донор's return to commons. Hooray! //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 23 September 2013 12:05 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, and glad to see a prodigal son return to Commons. Now we need to encourage more and more Moldovan photos to be taken -- a big step could be WLM Moldova next year. What you think? russavia (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Positive from my side. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 23 September 2013 22:28 (UTC)

Propose reinstating the edits you removed

Hi Russavia. As Jimmy prefers that people don't censor his talk page and since he has asked for the answers supplied by the IP, I propose reinstating them tomorrow. Just giving fair warning. Peter Damian (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Do it Peter, and you have already been warned of the consequences. It will take me all of 1 minute to put together the materials together which demonstrate that this editor has been subjected to harassment, and this is just an extension of it. Don't make me do it, because whatever block I will place will not be pretty. russavia (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK I have been threatened with blood-curdling consequences and I am still thinking about it. Does the threat trump the child protection aspect, that is the question. Peter Damian (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK as a compromise I have left a message here. Hope that is OK, regards Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have yet again removed it. Harassment is harassment, and what other projects allow editors to get away with they are not getting away with it here. If I wasn't offline I would have blocked you, but to do so now would appear punitive, but be aware you will be blocked if you continue. This goes to others who try pulling the same stunts. russavia (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Church (8099320231).jpg

Where was this photo taken, please? I have done my best to categorise it, but it is impossible to do properly without a location. Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm not too sure where they were taken as the Flickr photographer doesn't include that info, but I've added to an additional category which might be useful in later identifying it correctly. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia

Due to missing FOP, images from Slovenia are a mess. When working on the speedy-queue, I found several of your Flickr-uploads among them, which might explain why you weren't been notified, when they had been nominated: File:Parlamento esloveno (8554767953).jpg, File:Triple bridge + Prešeren Square (8554817645).jpg, File:Triple Bridge (8555889778).jpg, File:Franciscan church of the Annunciation (8555890080).jpg, File:Dragon bridge (8554806687) (2).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've added the files to the relevant DR discussions, so that they can be undeleted in the future, and have deleted them as per those previous discussions. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Please do not revert edits made in good faith, consisting simply of links to other pages in Wikipedia. Please do no accuse good faith editors of harassment. I have reinstated here. Please do not remove again without discussion and please do not make empty 'block' threats. Peter Damian (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You were warned, and you have now been blocked for 3 days. russavia (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Peter, as I had answered to your (?, 50.174.76.70) first posting on Jimbo's talkpage already, Jimbo is not active on Commons. Before he was lured again to Commons 5 days ago (only to leave a rather questionable comment), he hadn't edited here for more than 4 months. So, it is useless to post to Commons if you really want to get his attention. If the picture insinuated by your diffs is real, then IMO this situation needs really to be taken care of by the foundation. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

When checking for Jimbo's activity, I stumbled on his last edit[3] which I consider rather inappropriate and deleterious especially towards Jim, when considering his last comment at this thread User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Image_copyright_problem. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why JW decided to chime in there, do you know if it was posted elsewhere? russavia (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea at all and have become aware of it only today. It's the more strange as it was Jimbos first and only edit after 4 months of silence and as the image File:Spixara.jpg isn't even a very good shot. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana Stadtzentrum 01.jpg

Hi, could you please comment on File:Ljubljana Stadtzentrum 01.jpg? You closed it as de minimis when it was nominated, but I'm not sure why - the architecture of the bridge is well visible and the image would be radically different without it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know what Russavia's motivation was, but I agree that the bridge is de minimis on that photo: the main purpose of the photo is to show the Category:Ljubljana Central Pharmacy. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As per Stefan4, the bridge in this photo is arbitrary to the overall image, of which the main subject is the LCP. We agree to disagree on this no problem, and I wouldn't object to it being taken to an individual DR for this to be discussed further if required. russavia (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Little tombstone.ogv, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Little tombstone.ogv has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Chocolates

Only you know why. Seleucidis (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's think of a reason to have a gay super fun time next week. --Fæ (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• @ Fae: do you refer to me? Well, sorry but I must disappoint you, because I am not interested in a "gay super fun" as you have suggested. It must be very windy on the roof, so this boy should better put on a pair of woollen knickers to avoid getting a bladder infection and as a result having to run to the toilet every five minutes. It is also absolutely better to keep the private parts private (covered) and show them only to the one (1) you love. If one shows it to everybody, then where is the mystery, the exclusiveness and the uniqueness of two lovers being intimately together? That's right - it is gone. --Seleucidis (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Hmmm; it seems Alexander Kargaltsev had some bad experience in Russia. But I wonder how these types of works/response help the community he belongs. JKadavoor Jee 12:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Sasha had a poor experience in Russia. Even though there are gay bars and clubs and a thriving internet based gay scene (many young gay guys there entirely depend on Gaydar and Grindr to socialize), intolerance and discrimination is still commonplace for those that are openly gay. Sasha is now a well regarded artist living in New York where his artworks reflect his NY gay lifestyle. Yes, some of his "arty" photos are nude studies, but it is definitely art that conveys emotion underpinned by elements of the NY Zeitgeist, rather than pointless exhibitionism. Personally I think that Commons should publicly recognize him in some way for being one of the few professional artists who freely release his photography on a free reuse licence and is a friend of Commons, whilst making his living selling originals of the same works. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes; some of his work are very touching. I sympathize (on his bad experience) and respect his skills (but not for the one portrayed above). Thanks for the info. JKadavoor Jee 10:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm all ok now; what I had to have done took just under an hour to have done, but had to wait for 4 days to have done. Just gotta take it easy for a few days now, so you guys are stuck with me after all. russavia (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Take it easy, better to be a little indulgent rather than stress yourself. Commons will still be SNAFU however long you need. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft puzzle

Hi, Articseahorse raised a question about File:CHINA AVIATION MUSEUM AT DATANSHAN CHINA OCT 2012 (8915922269).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Maybe you can take a look? We might have enough needing special investigation to share a list somewhere.

Glad to see you back in the sling so quickly. I'm home again, so I'll check the pending spreadsheet this week. Came back with a cold, so behind on several things. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Success bash of 'Aashiqui 2'at Escobar.jpg

This file cannot be in the deletion request it has the license of original post on Bollywood Hungama. Just click on the link below, and slide until you found the file, it has been cropped and well-presented in Wikimedia, as the picture portrayed a Living Biography. I do not found anything wrong in that. There is been definitely a misapprehension about this. Aisha Sequeira (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2013 (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!

Affected:

• File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8228947281).jpg

And also:

• File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8228952113).jpg
• File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8230018982).jpg

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Old soviet building (8229119199).jpg

You uploaded this. According to w:List of tallest buildings in the Baltic states, the building is from 1977, and there is no FOP. Do you think that the façade may pass as {{PD-ineligible}} in this case? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Просьба

Здраствуйте уважаемый админ, прошу помогать, участник Fry1989 нечитая правит, смотрите. какая разница здесь [4] и здесь [5]. а написано Revert political POV.

А здесь [6] уже прошло 3 года, и никому не пришло дать реверт, а он сделал, помоему у него есть некоторые проблемы .--6AND5 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:KMART WISHING TREE APPEAL (8180788865).jpg

File:KMART WISHING TREE APPEAL (8180788865).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!

High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for filling your talk page with that messages; I am checking the Eva Rinaldi flickr stream right now. Is it okay for you not to nominate those files for deletion. I paste the links here and if you disagree, then a DR should get launched. --High Contrast (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob, if you wish, such derivative works, you can move directly into Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (delete) and I can delete them en masse. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

New files for deletions are:

• File:Maurice Rinaldi (7246138332).jpg
• File:The BMW Sydney Carnival (6906880422).jpg
• File:The Living End (6895625899).jpg
• File:Vince Cantali (6861042819).jpg

--High Contrast (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Armenia flag map

It's NOT in use on all these projects, it's a cache problem, I returned the original map. The user is trying to force their POV and that is not acceptable, as soon as they do that, it should be deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware that NPOV does not exist on Commons except for extreme cases, but I can not allow this user to violate the policy on projects where it does exist. By keeping this file speedily without even allowing a community analysis of the matter, you have made my job ever more difficult. And of course you have not weighed in on the matter on AN regarding the several maps the user has overwritten to support their POV instead of uploading separately, or that they edit warred on the original file until it was protected. If you don't care enough about that, you shouldn't care enough to speedy keep one of my nominations. But of course it never matters when I'm on the right side of things, only when I'm on the wrong side so you can punish me more. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no rhyme nor reason that the image should be deleted. Yes, it is presenting an irredentist POV, but we should be hosting such things. The trick is to note how the image differs within the description. If they are pushing POV on other projects, those projects can deal with the issue. The issue as it pertains to Commons is dealt with by simply letting other projects decide when and how they will use such images. russavia (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv

Hi. Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv, I'm not sure this file should have been deleted. Does any jurisdiction treat possession of depictions of zoophilia as a crime? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete the file, but I'm not going to challenge an undeletion request. The reason for deletion was done to protect us as a project in case the video contains human-animal sex, and without knowing whether such acts are legal in Florida and Virginia, we have to apply COM:PRP. If you wish to investigate this further and request an undeletion based on those results, then feel free. Cheers, russavia (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for/help getting legal images on flicker

I am looking to see if I find legal images off of flicker for the Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and the CASA 2.111 with Spanish Air Force markings rather then the German markings. I am trying to see if I can find a image like this to replace the ones being used on the main description.

I am trying to find legit images to replace the ones being use now. Any help in this would be welcomed.

Articseahorse (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Articseahorse, I will see what I can find for you, and if I am successful, I will certainly let you know. Cheers, russavia (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing airports

Could you take a look at Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners#Categorization_conventions and think about creating the handful of missing airport categories. I'm attempting to have a reasonable stab at identifying commonly used missing airports as I go along rather than all in advance, particularly as the source metadata can be inconsistent, certainly between forums. I'm not promising that all the aircraft uploads will have initial categories of this type, but it's a reasonable approach I think. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bidini 2010 and earlier

In this example, and others from 2010, you can see the JetPhotos watermark embossed on the photo itself. Let me know what you think is best, it could be that we have to skip these and earlier uploads from Bidini unless we can access the unwatermarked versions. Until we know for sure, I am skipping the rest of Bidini's collection as the watermark appears consistently applied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would continue to upload the images, as we have editors who specialise in removing watermarks from photos. russavia (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I just found the same problem with the next photographer, EugeneButler. If there's a pattern, it may be that before 2010, uploads to JP all had these watermarks. Unfortunately the marks also seem to move about rather than being in the same place. I'll go back and finish Bidini as you suggest. --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Problematic (?) file description

Hi Russavia:

Somebody raised a complaint about the misuse of file descriptions like this at w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_image_summaries_are_used_to_advertise_things. While checking similar files, I saw most of the files under Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Eva Rinaldi) have similar issues. Is it an issue needs our attention? JKadavoor Jee 07:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the abridged version? Since the last anti-Commons rant by Jimmy I refuse to look at his English Wikipedia talk page. If it has to do with descriptions of Eva Rinaldi's photos, then yes they are being worked on. Cheers, russavia (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The concern raised can be briefed as "Wikipedia image summaries are used to advertise things". While browsing through that user's user page, I see little evidence for a anti Common nature. I think there is some problem if we do not carefully monitor the file descriptions of Flickr uploads; there are many promotional contents in some people's photo streams. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a page

Where we list institutions/people we are trying to contact to get permission for use of their images? As in, I sometimes contact people on flickr and ask them to relicense their photos. Often, they don't reply, but if we had a central place we could list them, so numerous volunteers could ask, maybe that would get their attention? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no on project page that I know of. I keep a Google spreadsheet that I use to note people to contact, those who have responded, streams to upload, etc. Not sure if its worthwhile sharing it publicly, or whether there is a point in getting something on project. russavia (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2 x Saab JAS-39 Gripen and 2 x Aero L-159 of the Czech Air Force, based at AFB Čáslav, inflight.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2 x Saab JAS-39 Gripen and 2 x Aero L-159 of the Czech Air Force, based at AFB Čáslav, inflight.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/JKadavoor Jee 08:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)