Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:LRR

Requests for license reviewer rightsEdit

Archive (latest archive)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Before requesting, please read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files and Picasa Web Albums files.

To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons. They should also be dedicated in license reviewing every so often and offer their help in the backlogs. Post your request below, so that the community can voice their opinions. The community may ask a few questions to verify the user's knowledge. After a few days, a reviewer or administrator determines whether there are no severe objections to the candidate. If there are not, the user will close the request and add the candidate to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.

To apply, submit your request at the bottom of this page. Copy the code below and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours).

{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

Contents

BalajijagadeshEdit

  • Balajijagadesh (talk contributions deleted user contributions recent activity logs block log global contribs SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: More than two thousand out of copyright books in the Tamil language are added to the commons in 2016. The license of these files are not reviewed. Because the file name and source details are in Tamil language. To clear the backlog, I wish to volunteer for license review of Tamil books uploaded in commons. In addition A brief intro about me. I am in commons from 2010. I have uploaded more than 1800 files. Many of them orginial work. Some are derivative translational work. I have contributed many useful pictures which are used in many wikipedia articles. Regards. -- Balaji (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 06:38, (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  • Oppose Files with expired copyright generally don't need a license review. Also, when I looked at your contributions File:Bio Pic Of PeriasamyThooran.jpeg was the latest edit. You imported this file from enwiki, blindly believing the claim "I created this work entirely by myself." for a photo of someone who died in 1987. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken. Also I can understand your concern. I did a reverse search of the image in google before uploading to commons. I couldnt find anything controversial. The file was tagged as move to commons in the wikipage. Hence I moved that file. If it is not appropriate I am ready to resolve it positively and learn on the way. For this incident opposing my application i feel harsh. please do check the good work/original works done by me for the last 8 years. Kind regards. -- Balaji (talk)
@Balajijagadesh: I guess English Wikipedia doesn't police copyvios as thoroughly as Commons does. Frankly I already knew that. I also see plenty of good uploads, though in all those temple pictures you didn't declare (for example with {{Licensed-PD}} what the permission for the sculptures is. I guess {{PD-old-100-expired}} for the ancient stuff and {{FoP-India}} for anything more recent.
File:Input font problem in tawikipedia.png: you linked the source article, but not the images. (which would be annoying if the article was deleted or the images were changed) Also the entire screenshot is "own work", but you didn't write the article.
File:Chowmahal palace (14).jpg is obvious COM:DW. Please continue contributing, but you have a bit more to learn before you could be a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Alexis Jazz: thanks for taking time to explain the problems in my work. I will add all these to my learnings and improve in the future. Kind regards. -- Balaji (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
hi@Alexis Jazz: //Also the entire screenshot is "own work", but you didn't write the article.// I didn't understand this line. 'own work' states that the picture(screenshot) is created by me. not the content inside the picture right? correct me if i am wrong. -- Balaji (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Balajijagadesh: without any other attribution, "own work" means that you claim everything, the screenshot, the depicted article and the depicted photos as "own work". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Alexis, Whilst mistakes do happen this mistake should not of happened, I'm also unimpressed with their reply "The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken" - Just because no action was taken it doesn't mean the file's okay and it's worth mentioning the file has barely been edited. 鈥Davey2010Talk 10:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Davey2010: from Alexis words // I guess English Wikipedia doesn't police copyvios as thoroughly as Commons does.// I didnt know this. With this new understanding I conclude my statement "The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken" is not good. I will add this to my learnings as well. Anyway thanks for taking your time to comment on this. Kind regards - Balaji (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)