Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2010

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hi my fellow editors at commons. I wish to be granted the tools to be a flickrreviewer because I have uploaded numerous images from flickr in the past and have a thorough knowledge of what license and tags apply. Hence I believe I can be of help to the community by reducing backlogs in flickr review and notifying admins of files which donot satisfy the flickr licensing criteria. -- Legolas ^{from Mirkwood} 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose, I see your work have been improved and I appreciate your efforts to obtain permission for some photos of events we not yet have, but in question Im not sure if you are the best choice for reviewer. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to explain a bit more? -- Legolas ^{from Mirkwood} 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Legolas. The oppose made conflicting statements and at best the reasoning is very vague. It should not be a big deal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the block log, see the talk page history and see User talk:EdwardCullen for sockpuppetry. --Martin H. (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose because this user was blocked by reason of uploading copyvios. --High Contrast (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per above consensus. Blurpeace 07:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I want to start reviewing pictures from flickr to make sure they are free licenses like CC-BY, GFDL, and CC-BY-SA, and Public domain. I also want to make sure the pictures actually are free and are not taken from a unfree image. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support per being trusted and active enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• done Pmlineditor ∞ 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I think I know the general license policy of Commons, and that Category:Flickr images needing human review could use another hand. ZooFari 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Sure, trustworthy contributor. Blurpeace 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, trusted and knows policies –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Reliable user. --High Contrast (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hi! Although my main project is the German Wikipedia, I’m often dealing with pictures here on Commons. So I’d like to help reviewing the flickr images. I think I do know the important things as I’m member of the Dateiüberprüfung on de. The license policy on Commons is known to me, too. Regards, Ireas ^{talk•de•en} 07:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, no objections and trusted user from de.wp license checking team. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I'd like to become a Flickr-reviewer because I spend my time at Commons checking files and statusses and would like to help out at the Flickr-moves aswell. I often use Flickr as a resource for free usable images and upload them to Commons. The policices on licenses are known to me. Krinkle^talk 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, no issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good choice. Pmlineditor (t · c) 12:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good help is always needed. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Active on enwiki, including work at their area, and getting a bit more involved here.  fetchcomms☛ 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Sure, definitely has enough experience; listens to me blabber on about copyright everyday in #wikipedia-en-afc. Blurpeace 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support seems to know what he is doing --Justass (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Some experience here, familiar with the wiki format and seems unlikely to deliberately misuse this right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted Pmlineditor ^discuss 08:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have been uploading images from flickr that have the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA license and I would like to help review flickr uploads that require human attention. Bsadowski1 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Trusted, knows what he is doing. Pmlineditor ^discuss 08:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Trusted and knowledgable. fr33kman -s- 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Have worked with him on enwiki and have found him to be a trusted and clueful user.  fetchcomms☛ 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have already uploaded a small number of selected flickr images and I want to upload more, since I feel that flickr is a great source of images. I do have a good understanding of copyright and licensing issues, and I am able to understand copyrighted images tagged as "free". I'm a long time contributor and admin+buraucrat at el.wikipedia and el.wikisource. --Geraki ^T_L^G 16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Trusted contributor at multiple wikis, fairly active at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Definitely --High Contrast (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Trustworthy on other projects = Trustworthy here.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support OTRS volunteer, crat/sysop elsewhere, no issues with this user here either.  fetchcomms☛ 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blurpeace 12:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I usually search images on flickr, and if they are usefull and have license - I upload them. Also I know what CC is, and the difference between CC licenses. Also I am a rollbacker and editor of Ru wiki, was a temporary admin of ab wiki and ka wikis. :)Gaeser (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Trusted contributor, fairly active at Commons. Geagea (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; no objections in a couple weeks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Though mostly active on EN, I have a good understanding of copyright policies on Commons, and I'd like to help out.  Chzz  ►  09:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Trusted user and knows about CC licenses. Killiondude (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blurpeace 22:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have a solid knowledge of the different CC and GPL licenses and about 2000 edits on commons and 5000 globally. Besides commons I'm mainly active in the german wikipedia. --DieBuche (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Knows what he's doing. ZooFari 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support--Justass (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blurpeace 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Here on Commons I mainly upload from Flickr. I know Commons licence politics and the difference between licences. I have more than 5500 edits here. Also I am an admin on Polish Wikisource, see -> here and I have a few thousand edits on Polish Wikipedia. Electron ^<Talk?> 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Question In the past you uploaded some images that were deleted as violation of Freedom of panorama and Derivative works, have you read and understood those policies, that not only Flickr license but also the subject matters? --Justass (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It was in the past - during this time I learn much. Also some of these photos had questionable and unclear status and were going to stick with "De minimis" if we talking about FOP or it were the photos of costumes looks like from "Star Wars" and other films. It was before the discussion -> Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan when we decided that costumes made by fans generally are utilitar things and they are alowed on commons and we made Template:Costume. After that I have no time and a will to please admins to undelete a big couple of them (many of them are going to stick with the costume template). Electron ^<Talk?> 12:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support--Justass (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ZooFari 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Justass (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I've got a pretty good track record over the past 3 years of uploading my own work or sourcing non-dubious nicely-licensed flickr items. See also my wikipedia track record. I have a relatively modest number of edits in commons, but a lot of experience in CC licensing. For example I led a successful project for the w:SuperCollider software documentation to transition from GPL to CC-BY-SA, including securing agreement from dozens of contributors for the transition. (See dev mailinglist discussion archive) I have also published scientific datasets under CC, with the agreement of the contributing parties, e.g. this multi-contributor annotated beatboxing data. Mcld (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? I'm puzzled why the user below me is getting supports but I'm getting no comment at all! :( --Mcld (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68 edits on commons & 10 in the File namespace on en.wiki is a bit low i think --DieBuche (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just low, but *very* low OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, given the amount of grace time, in addition to the above concerns, there is no consensus for approval. Blurpeace 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Requesting permission to be a reviewer so that I could at least review my uploads. :) I often upload images from Flickr,and the flag would speed up the whole process. I also check several categories (i.e. "Anime" and "Manga") on regular basis, so I feel that Reviewer thing would be really useful. I am an experienced user in Wikipedia, I know the rules and copyright issues. -- deerstop. 17:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reviewing is not a good practice. Flickr image uploaders are prone to mistakes (such as using a wrong source link) that are better spotted if some else reviews your images. In general, however, I'd support you becoming a reviewer for Category:Flickr images needing human review. ZooFari 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Flinfo sometimes gets the links wrong? I had absolutely no idea about it. o_O It always worked fine for me. -- deerstop. 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you use Flinfo then the bot can continue to do it :). ZooFari 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to suggest that you don't need to go through the hassle of reviewing images that the bot is capable of doing. Looking through your uploads, most, if not all, Flickr images you've uploaded were reviewed by the bot successfully because you use Flinfo. Users who crop or adjust images go to the main upload form manually (and as I said, they are capable of mistakes, reviewers see it often) and that's when human-reviewing kicks in. I support you becoming a reviewer regardless, but there's no real need if the purpose is for self-reviewing and not for backlog involvement. ZooFari 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, I intend to help with human reviews if I get the reviewer's flag. But I also hoped that an annoying bot will stop pestering me, flooding my watchlist with his edits. :) -- deerstop. 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

А почему вы не используете Flickr2Commons для загрузки изображений? Удобнейшая вещь (там нужно получить TUSC-аккаунт, но это очень быстро и требуется только один раз). Trycatch (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flinfo тcоже удобная программа, она хуже разве? -- deerstop. 20:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

С Flinfo приходится делать два лишних действия -- сохранять файл на диске, потом указывать путь в форме. Flickr2Commons же загружает файлы самостоятельно, в один клик. Trycatch (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ZooFari 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

In the last few years I have become more and familiar with Creative Commons licenses and the spirit of Wikimedia Commons to provide free or equivalent images for use with simple attribution. Over that time I have come to see the benifit of free images, art and other media made available for the general public while allowing the creator attribution rights. I believe in the inalienable rights of the artist in public domain which I believe to mean the right of original attribution is never waived with public domain and that no one has the right to falsely attempt to establish themselves as the originator of such images.

I have accounts at both Flickr and Picasa but upload all my CC or public domain releases straight to Wiki media Commons.

I firmly believe in consensus of the community and hope to become more envolved in adding quality images for use under the licenses Wikimedia accepts.. Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I'm afraid this and this shows you need to learn a bit more about acceptable Commons licenses, considering that the licenses in question are highly involved with Flickr. ZooFari 15:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose [1] shows indeed that there is a lack of understanding the different valid licenses that can be used for the flickr transfer. This is the heart of the task to verify Flickr uploads. --Neozoon (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please, if it is appropriate here. Your links are merely illustartive of actions but give no context to why they prove a misunderstanding of CC, flicker review policy or accepted CC licenses at Wikimedia Commons. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions show you misunderstand the license policy. Plus, all Flickr images under Creative Commons are based on CC-2.0 licenses, if your analysis were to be correct, I don't see why you would be interested. ZooFari 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose after reading village pump discussion. Multichill (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Echo Multichill OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, unsuccessful per above consensus. Blurpeace 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

(Archived from Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files/reviewers - Note Picasa --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I am a Flickr reviewer, I would like to extend my position checker for Picasa. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodrigo - I've decided to say that all approved Flickr reviewers are automatically Picasa Web Albums reviewers as well. I've marked over 1500 images with my bot that require review, so welcome and thank you! Please do not review any of the images in Category:Images by Volker Prasuhn or with a {{Change-of-license}} tag - I'm arranging OTRS permission for these. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you need help with this category? For I am also OTRS volunteer. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just submitted the OTRS permission for that category, and I'm right now marking all the files in this category {{OTRS-pending}} and as {{Picasareviewunnecessary}} (and updating the source to be a bit more accurate). No rush on getting this permission through, I'll just have my bot mark them OTRS verified once they are. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for Flickr per Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers/archive_7#User:Rodrigo.Argenton. You may also review for Picasa. Thank you for helping out. --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

(Archived from Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files/reviewers - Note Picasa --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It would be useful for me to become an reviewer. I'm not admin anywhere, but I have been entrusted as an OTRS-agent for English, German and Danish queues. I do have a sufficient knowledge of license policy on Commons.Nillerdk (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, seems ok. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You are now a reviewer. Your name is added to Commons:Flickr_images/reviewers/list. As a reviewer you can review Flickr, Picasa and Panoramio. Thank you for helping out. --MGA73 (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I would like to help out reviewing Flickr pictures. I want to be as useful as possible :). It will be fun to do this. After all of this time around Commons, I have learned a lot about copyright and Flickr licenses. Thanks. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good next step for Diego and would endorse him becoming a Flickr reviewer. ZooFari 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few issues here. First, I believe that reviewers should be approachable on Commons about their actions on Commons. Your talk page currently discourages contact here and states that you will be unresponsive. Secondly, you were recently blocked for various abuses of editing privileges, in which copyright problems were a factor. As far as I can see, the three-month restriction which you agreed to for the block to be lifted is still in effect. Finally, you've recently had other privileges revoked after apparently misusing them. Taken as a whole, I feel compelled to  oppose for now. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, I don't trust Diego to handle requests concerning copyright at this time. Blurpeace 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The topic that LX brings up is a concern. --Neozoon (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't think he has the experience we need. -Nard the Bard 20:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose see LX's comment. --High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above consensus. ZooFari 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have demonstrated a good knowledge of acceptable licenses for Commons, and would like to help out reviewing files. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support seems to know what (s)he is doing --Neozoon (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He" :) and thank you for the support. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support trusted user. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --ZooFari 17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ZooFari 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I made mistakes on my first account (the images were indeed in the public domain, but the images were incorrectly labeled on the sources) so I created this one which I only use for Commons. Despite my embarassing mistakes, I have made zero mistakes on this account. I have uploaded Flickr images myself which have all been approved by the Flickr review bot. On top of that, I am an experienced Wikipedia contributor that is an autoreviewer and a reviewer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joe_Chill. I'm annoyed by how many copyright violations including from Flickr are on Wikimedia Commons. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of your old account? (Joe Chill (talk · contribs) seems to have only uploaded two files) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I should have clarified it. One of the images was deleted by my request. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I figured out the problem. I gave the image to Innotata to upload: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gymnothorax_moringa_illustration.jpg. In that case, I didn't just embarrass myself. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Less than 50 edits and first edit on June 2nd, 2010 makes it impossible to evaluate the user's reliability. --High Contrast (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done [2] ZooFari 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I believe I know enough about the different copyright licenses that can be used on commons to review flickr images. I noticed there is a backlog of images needing reviewed and I would like to help. I regularly edit on the English wikipedia and usually upload photos to commons rather than a specific project. I release all my work to the public domain or use creative commons licences when I need to so I know about the accepted flickr licenses. Tb240904 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I'm afraid ~20 edits on Commons is a bit too low to judge your experience. ZooFari 17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose agree with ZooFari --Neozoon (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I would like to assist reviewing Flickr files on Commons. I've been a member of Commons since January 7, 2008. I've uploaded over 300 photos to Commons using various licenses. Some of those have been moved from the English Wikipedia, while some others have been from scans of old newspapers. I've even uploaded some images from Flickr myself.--Rockfang (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Rockfang is an experienced editor on en.wiki and commons and seems to know what he is doing. --Neozoon (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Agree. ZooFari 04:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Electron ^<Talk?> 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  SupportGeagea (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have made over 1800 contributions on Commons in four years, including uploading many images. As a longstanding Flickr user also, I'm very familiar with that site. As an admin on en, I am familiar with free content policies. Jonathunder (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I see no counterindications... Electron ^<Talk?> 23:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support trusted user. ZooFari 15:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Endorse per ZF. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 SupportGeagea (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support thanks for helping us --Neozoon (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support--Gaeser (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I never had problems with the images and licensing from flickr, I just want to contribute more in the Commons. Take a look at my contributions. Truu (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I looked at his contributions, user only active since short time but did not find "mistakes" --Neozoon (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful - Only one person took part in this request, despite this being a commonly viewed request page. No objections at all were raised, and I also reviewed the requestor's edits to ensure that nothing would cause me, personally, to oppose: I found nothing. Since the request has been up since 10 days and the minimum is 2, I feel if any objections were going to be raised, they would have. I looked and found no guideline or policy as to a minimum number of people supporting, so the user is promoted. fr33kman -s- 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I search Flickr to find images to illustrate en articles that have no images. I almost always use Flickr2Commons, but it seems that it now requires manual review. I am more than happy to perform such manual review: I have been an active editor in en for 7 years, and in Commons since the beginning of Commons, so I am well-aware of and sensitive to the limitation of commons to free media. If it looks like there is any doubt about the free nature of an image, I do not upload it. You can see my contributions at Special:Contributions/Hike395 or with the Gallery tool. Thanks for your consideration. Hike395 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support experienced user on commons and en.wiki --Neozoon (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Geagea (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful fr33kman -s- 03:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Currently I search Flickr for images with suitable license and upload it. Besides, if I able to convinced the author to publish a particular image under any suitable license, then I upload that image too. I have primarily worked on transferred free images here from various Wikimedia projects. I have almost 1000 edits here. I am reviewer and rollbacker in enwiki and a sysop in bnwikt. Thanks for your consideration. — Tanvir 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question about the one of your recent uploads File:Woman In Boyshorts.jpg. It's tagged as CC-BY-SA-3.0 (image at flickr tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.0) and it lacks a flickrreview tag. Why? Trycatch (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the license tag manually, because I missed it in the time of upload. The 3 instead of 2 was nothing but a mistake. I am aware of Flickr license, because I asked the author to release it under suitable license, as it was copyrighted before upload. And I missed the flickrreview tag because I was in a hurry, and didn't noticed. I know this type of mistakes are bold. Particularly in this time. BTW, I've corrected all those errors. — Tanvir 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. It's great that you are working on obtaining permissions for useful images. Trycatch (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 17:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have over 14,000 edits on the Commons. I discussed some improvements awhile back to the wording of the Flickr upload page, and so I understand the acceptable licenses. There is a lot of work to do, and the more reviewers the better. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Seems a risponsible user. Electron ^<Talk?> 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Seems to be o.k. Geagea (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support — Tanvir 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support --Neozoon (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

As a longtime wikipedia user from Japan, I want more and more Japan-related images to be on wikipedia articles, in as many language versions as possible. And I believe that the files from flickr would help a lot; that's why I would like to help out as a reviewer myself. I have been taking part in a Wikimedia project since 2003, have made 3,000+ edits here, and have placed some DRs to date (like this and this). So I think I have enough knowledge on Commons license policy to handle such files. Thanks in advance. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I do not speak japanese, but his/her activities on commons have been constructive till. (I did not see many copyright related activities in the last time) --Neozoon (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Agree with Neozoon. Geagea (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Promoted - Tiptoety ^talk 19:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I'm familiar with licensing and can help with image reviewing. I am sysop in ru.wiki and OTRS-agent Rubin16 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully  agree. A reliable, clever, responsible user. Quite familiar with licenses. --George M. (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Promoted - Tiptoety ^talk 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I want to help with license review. I have some experience on Commons (>1 year, ~2500 edits) and a reasonable good understanding of the licensing and flickr image import issues -- flickrwashing, flickrvio, low resolution import, problems with FOP/DW, personality rights, etc. Trycatch (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to ask:)? Of course  Strong support.--George M. (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Geagea (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 06:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

As an administrator on en.wikipedia, media copyright/licensing is my area of expertise. I would love to offer all the help I can to the Wikimedia Commons, whose scope is more closely related to the field in which I most frequently work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Should be trusted to deal with Flickr uploads. Geagea (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support of course. Trycatch (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I sometimes import images from flickr and from picasa. I would like to be license reviewer. Dnikitin (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support nothing against.--George M. (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support trusted user. But it's better not to review your own uploads. Trycatch (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Promoted - Tiptoety ^talk 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I like to help when I see an unreviewed image - like it happened today when I was in #wikimedia-commons. I have good knowledge of licenses and upload flickr images from time to time by myself using flick2commons. Just some days ago I helped in redesigning the CC templates at de.wikipedia. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions -

can you please find (and upload) one phot from flickr and one from picasa?

Can we use this file on commons?--George M. (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. I do not use picasa and will not review picasa files. So I will only review flickr files.

Here you are - some new ones especially for you :-)

• File:St Maergen Kirche Winter.jpg
• File:Sendeturm_auf_Feldberg_-_Eisabfall-Schild.jpg
• File:Feldberg - lift station (top).jpg
• File:Feldberg - rays of light between clouds.jpg
• File:Feldberg - Haus der Natur.jpg (also reviewed manually to test it - of course it is better if I do not review my own uploads)

We cannot use this file on commons since it is licensed CC-by-nc/2.0/. Non commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons. Additionally the photographers location must be accessible by the public (here: currently unknown) if the building is a work of art (here it is) and the architect's date of death is youngermust be older than 70 years (here: unknown). However, there is no need to check the FOP parameters since the photograph's nc license is not allowed under our policy of free content here.

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) corrected writing error at FOP. --Saibo (Δ) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect -  Support.--George M. (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Try not to forget about the thank you notice - it's some sort of thank's to the user, and annotation for him that we use his file :)--George M. (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's also a template for this - great. I think I will create a flickr account for this purpose. --Saibo (Δ) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Geagea (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Promoted - Tiptoety ^talk 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I have a good knowledge of copyright law and I occasionally upload from Flickr. I am a sysop on en.wikikinews. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please upload one or two images from Flickr/Picasa or Panoramio.
• Can we upload this image on Commons?--George M. (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although a great picture, we cannot due to its license: CC-BY-NC-ND, it is too restrictive for use on Commons. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have uploaded File:Perry, Justus of Keene NH.jpg from Flickr. I do not normally use Picasa, nor am I familiar with it. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good answers,  Support then.--George M. (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Geagea (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

I feel that many images can be used for fair use under Creative Commons and i feel i have a enough know knowledge of copyright laws. . Staffwaterboy (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You only have ~20 edits and some of them demonstrate you should gain some more experience with Commons. You probably are not aware of the actual purpose of this page so I would give it some time before filing another request. In the meantime, you can take a look at the community portal and participate in other administrative areas so that you can learn more about this project. Thanks for you help, ZooFari 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Acather96 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: So far on Commons, I have mainly been transferring files from enwiki and a small amount of my own work, and have recently uploaded files from Flickr as well. On enwiki, I have about 10.5k edits, and my main area of work is in copyright cleanup. I understand the licenses that are and aren't acceptable on Commons, and if you give me scenarios I will show you the actions I would take. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• • I have some questions, it will be wonderful if you answer them.
    • can we upload any of these photoes on commons?
• 1?
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5?

Thank's for answers.--George M. (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image One: No, CC-BY-NC-ND is not OK. Disallows derivative and commercial use.
• Image Two: No CC-BY-NC is not OK. Disallows commercial use.
• Image Three: No, CC-BY-NC-SA is not OK. Disallows commercial use.
• Image Four Yes, CC-BY is OK
• Image Five Yes, CC-BY-SA is OK

Acather96 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Nice work :)--George M. (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Arbitrarily0 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I'd like to help out here on Commons with license reviews. I've uploaded a number of files from Flickr (learning the hard way which licenses are unacceptable back in 2009), and am now very familiar with which licenses Commons allows. Like Acather96 in the request below, I'd be happy to respond to any licensing scenarios. Thanks for your consideration, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello Arbitrarily0,

you uploaded this picture Rays Red Sox from Flicker.

In Flicker the description of the picture reads: "AP Photo/Michael Dwyer"

Flickr version of Rays Red Sox

The Flicker account that uploaded the picture is ncbronte (Flickr Account is marked with the addition No real name given). How did you check that the AP picture is really published under cc-by-sa by the photographer. What did you do to validate that Flicker user ncbronte had the right to publish an AP picture under cc-by-sa?

(Just want to check how you validated that flickr pictures have the right license)

Would you also upload brucespringsteen from the same flickr user?

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I must be perfectly honest, I did not even see this when I uploaded this photo last year. I suspect that ncbronte does not have the rights to publish this photo as CC-BY-SA, but more likely copied it directly from here. If I were to upload this photo again, I would first contact ncbronte (or even Michael Dwyer) to see if it was licensed legitimately. With brucespringsteen, although it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, it would again be necessary to contact ncbronte (for Greetsia Tent/WireImage is credited in the caption). Overall, it's an important lesson that perceived licenses on Flickr and other sites are not to be taken for granted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tagged the file as a {{Copyvio}} and it has since been deleted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• NativeForeigner (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I've done quite a few transfers from flickr to commons before, and I'm well versed in the applicable cc licenses. I'm more than willing to help review flickr images, and so figured I'd put in this request. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Victuallers (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I have been on Commons for some years and loaded over a thousand images. I think I have wide experience of images from Flickr, Geograph, own work, PD Art. I'd actually like to get admin rights but I'm looking for a proposer. Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• • Can we use these images on commons? If yes why? If no, why?

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/beridze/5054363194/in/contacts/ No - doesnt allow derivs in authors lifetime plus 70
2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgienblogspotcom/5036251246/in/contacts/ No - full copyright in authors lifetime plus 70. Need written permission from Wolfgang Korall (which would supersede (and undermine) the stated copyright)
3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/koonce/5062082027/ Doesnt allow commercial or derivs in in authors lifetime plus 70. (Marginal/Panorama issue of artwork too)
4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rappensuncle/183689226/ No - full copyright in authors lifetime plus 70
5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybriks/5062689116/ No - nothing commercial in authors lifetime plus 70
6. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ian_chen/5062079689/ Fine - attribution only required which commons always gives
7. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertrand_man/5062081003/ Fine - Attrib only

--George M. (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. See replies above Victuallers (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - well answered :)--George M. (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted

--Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Elekhh (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I see that despite the long list of reviewers there is a backlog, so I wish to offer my help. I have extensive experience with uploading images from flickr as well as nominating images for deletion. I am regular contributor to FPC, and QI. Elekhh (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Question In your own words, explain the essential things you should look at when reviewing an image, and any courtesies you would be willing to do while you're at it. ZooFari 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly: (1) check whether the uploaded image is the same as the indicated source image; (2) check that the license matches the source license, and whether is one that is accepted by Commons (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) (3) check if the author is indeed the creator and/or copyright holder of the source image. This last step often requires some background research, such as checking the availability of other versions of the same image with higher resolution, earlier creation date, or more detailed description. For instance, in this case the source author appeared to be only re-using and cropping an older image by another flickr user which had a "No Derivative Works" license. To double check I requested clarification from the flickr user, to which he admitted his error and immediately deleted the image from his flickr account. Subsequently I nominated the Commons image for deletion. Let me know if you require further details or have any other specific questions. --Elekhh (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How do you recognize Flickr washing? Geagea (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency within the source user's uploads (such as images from a broad range of geographic locations taken within a narrow timeframe or images taken with a broad range of cameras), user with previously identified copyvio history, and single purpose accounts (limited activity for the purpose of a few uploads, shortly after transferred to Commons) are some of the indications of potential Flickr washing. --Elekhh (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• One more, if you don't mind. You mentioned you have done some Flickr uploading in the past. In the future, should you review the images you upload yourself if it is unable to be done by the bot? ZooFari 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not, my uploads should be reviewed by a neutral reviewer. --Elekhh (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Identifying of Flickr washing is part of reviewer work. There are no specific rules. It could be similar user name, file size bigger then the maximum in Flickr or other indication. Geagea (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Good responses and shows an understanding of the review system. ZooFari 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support.Agree with Geagea and Zoofari:)--George M. (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Seems to know what he is doing. Willkommen im Club lieber Elekhh. Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Promoted. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• VernoWhitney (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I am primarily an editor on enwiki where I work with copyright cleanup. I am also an OTRS volunteer and work with the permission and copyvio queues which frequently bring me here and to flickr to research the licensing status of images. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Question - In your own words, explain the essential things you should look at when reviewing an image, and any courtesies you would be willing to do while you're at it. ZooFari 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Check that it's likely that the image at the external source is actually theirs to release (not a screenshot, magazine cover, etc. and that there's not a wide variety of dissimilar in quality/size/metadata images at the source - since these are indications of likely copyvio), and that the attribution and licenses here and at the external source match and that it's a valid free license (which rules out -NC and -ND CC options, among others). I'd be willing to post and thank them for freely licensing the image, although to be honest that part hadn't really occurred to me before you asked. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - What do you think about the uploadings of user:Thejoebloggsblog. Do you check possibility to Flickr washing? Geagea (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they're a problem, yeah. Company logos are a bad sign - especially more than one company. I would guess that the maps are just Google Maps, and a quick check for an easy to find photo shows that File:Pedalprixlogo.jpg is copied from here. With no indication of association that's copyvio. The car photos are more plausible, but it's not an auspicious start. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. Geagea (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ZooFari 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Promoted --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Ww2censor (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I have been helping out on the commons for years but I'm a very experienced image copyright editor on enwiki and often notice improperly licenced images in articles that are commons uploads so it would be very useful to perform Flickr reviews without having to only manually tag images as copyright violations. Ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some questions - Can we use any of these photos

[3] - No, All rights reserved

[4] - Yes, Creative Commons share-alike with Attribution

[5] - No, All rights reserved

[6] - No, All rights reserved

[7] - No, unacceptable Creative Commons non-commercial licence

--George M. (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded beside each image link. Ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - Can you clarify what you mean by "often notice improperly licenced images in articles that are commons uploads so it would be very useful to perform Flickr reviews without having to only manually tag images as copyright violations"? ZooFari 04:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When reviewing enwiki article images, where I review the copyright status of lots of images, occasionally I find Flickr sourced images uploaded to the commons whose copyright may be in question or even completely false. I can of course simply manually tag such images as copyright violations and let someone else review them later. Obviously I can just do nothing to such images, but being a reviewer will simplify the process and make my reviews more efficient. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What about your own files. Should you review your own files? Geagea (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. Good answers. Good luck :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeser (talk • contribs)
•  Question (to everybody - outside of review) Is Bentley (test question 2) really within scope? --Elekhh (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Elekhh: I wonder why you would question that image. An out of focus image of a dog with the older sa 2.0 licence rather than a 3.0 licence, hardly seems like flickr washing or claiming a false licence. Why do you suggest it might be out of scope? Ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Not a big issue but is better to read COM:SCOPE. Geagea (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support The important is to know which license is ok and which is not. Second you need to be honest. I think Ww2censor passes both requirements. Even crappy images should be reviewed so scope is not a big issue here. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say is a big issue here ("outside of review"), but I also see no point of simply validating an upload which is unlikely to be useful (question was: "Can we use any of these photos?"). Private images of humans are regularly deleted, and I don't see a blurred dog face being any different. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer's task does not include uploading images from Flickr though. The only case where this question would apply is if the reviewer comes across an out-of-scope image. In such case, it is up to the reviewer to tag the image accordingly, but he/she still needs to review the image regardless, using {{Flickrreview}}. While it would have been smart to say that the image shouldn't be uploaded, the important part is that the user recognizes what can be uploaded rather than what should. Anyways, I think I can  Support this user. ZooFari 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George M. start with the tradition of questions. One purpose of the questions is educational. So on this occasion he read COM:LR, COM:FLICKRW or COM:SCOPE in this case. I, of course,  Support. Geagea (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly my intent: educational. Do not oppose the candidate, however as a new reviewer I will abstain from voting. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Mono (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: Familiar with Creative Commons licensing, as well as copyright and Flickr. THENEWMONO (a real person) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Oppose Thanks for volunteering. However, I think you need to become more active in other areas of Commons before being granted the right. You have already requested two rights a few hours ago and this one is not as flexible. The requests for these rights in a short period of time give the impression that you are collecting rights, especially since you have not engaged in activity for one of them (patroller). I want license reviewers to be dedicated to the task and do more than required (like thanking or asking permission from Flickr users). But first you need to demonstrate that with other tools you are granted. ZooFari 04:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose. Agree with ZooFari. When you get a little bit more familiar - you're welcome :).--George M. (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn for now. THENEWMONO (a real person) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Rehman (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: I am currently a Reviewer, Autoreviewer, and Filemover on Commons. I believe I have understood the necessary licensing regulations to offer a helping hand. Though I have, long ago, uploaded bad licensed Flickr images, I assure you it is only a single-occurring human error. I am an active editor, if not here, then globally, and I am able to respond swiftly to queries. Rehman 09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Question - Briefly describe the steps you will do when reviewing an image. ZooFari 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost similar to reviewing the license of some Wikipedia files, or files that are not by the uploader, I would first confirm the source link. Assess the source whether it is really a trustful source, or just another no-no, or in rare cases, things like COM:FLICKRWASH. If all of these are good, I would then check if the uploader uploaded with a similar licence/attribution to that of the source. And once that is done, I would finally check if the licence is acceptable. Hope I didn't miss any :) Rehman 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - File:Jenna-dewan-tatum-photo-by-channing-tatum2.jpg is Flickr washing or not? Geagea (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the users contribution history (and taking the time to respond on the talkpage), the nature of photographs uploaded at the Flickr page, and the "official" website mentioned there (and it's contents). I would review the licence as passed, and not consider that flickr washed. And will only take it down, if the licensing is proven to be invalid. Rehman 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to simple Flickr washing example but there is more in this example. It is true that the user declared that he operate his (Channing Tatum) official site (her), but the name of the file says ...by-channing-tatum2. So the photographer is channing tatum and not the user. As we have the author we still missing permission. Anyway the situation is not clear and more information needed her. Geagea (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Geagea (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support but remember to check for the highest resolutions as well. ZooFari 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• Fæ (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: As a regular OTRS volunteer there are some images that need their review status confirmed as well as copyright or OTRS ticket status (e.g. File:Sharman Joshi partyy.jpg) and it would make a lot of sense to do this based on the same investigation. I am familiar with licence types. Though I have not contributed to managing the reviewer backlog, I am a reasonable regular at the OTRS noticeboard and help with occasional purges of the OTRS backlog. My track record includes loading quite a few images of my own, in particular from the British Museum, plus a fair few original submissions from OTRS and a few with permission from copyright holders that I have requested directly. I have also done a fair amount of Gnomic template work, some original and some by copying over the odd useful Wikipedia template (such as {{Lf}} and {{Divbox}}). Fæ (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Comment The involvement of OTRS is not usual and not realistically for IndiaFM. Can you give an example of an image where an OTRS person is really needed? Or how do you plan to approach your work as an image-reviewer? ZooFari 19:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had in mind a few scenarios the other way around. In the case of File:Sharman Joshi partyy.jpg the template used requires an admin or reviewer to confirm the image fits the OTRS ticket release and as an OTRS volunteer that is neither I cannot finish the job of verification.
  • In terms of approach, I enjoy doing different things on Commons and Wikipedia and sometimes the randomness is part of the enjoyment. Typically over a week I switch between greeting new contributing users, IGLOO dealing with a batch of vandals or random new article issues and detailed follow-ups, detailed research on citations for a longer term article or the backlog at en:wp:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, resolve and investigate several random permission or photosubmission tickets on OTRS, answer some questions on IRC and improve some template code. I would plan to help out with a backlog such as Category:Flickr images needing human review as a source of random images to investigate and resolve probably for at least a handful of sessions every month. BTW, there might be a delay in further questions for a day as I'm taking part in GLAM-WIKI which has a rather busy schedule. Fæ (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - ZooFari 00:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Geagea (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

• LunaHunting (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reasons: Hello, my name is Luna and I would like to grant a permission to become a reviewer. The reason of becoming a reviewer is because I love contributing to Wikipedia Commons and I believe that I can managed being a reviewer. Even though, my images are not use in any article, I would also like to be a reviewer. I have strongly read the Commons:License review, Commons:Flickr files and Commons:Picasa Web Albums files. If I am a reviewer, I will check on images whether it is a non-fair use or fair use. There are lot to it. Thank-you and have a good day! LunaHunting (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

•  Oppose. Sorry, not nearly enough experience, and the files you've uploaded from Flickr have been low-resolution versions, requiring them to be re-uploaded by others. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]