User talk:Krassotkin



--Amitie 10g (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Garnek.plEdit

Hi. Thank you very much for review of this photo. Can you also review this one by the same person? Other user didn't see cc: by under the picture and marked it as needing a permission. Thanks in advance. Muri (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, outdated, because mentioned user has just realized his fault and reviewed this photo. But one more time thanks for your help with other photos. :) Muri (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

File renaming guidelines complianceEdit

What exactly does not comply, please?

Danny B. 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • #1: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better". --sasha (krassotkin) 11:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I provided the 2. To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays. reason. (There are at least two people of the same name.)
Danny B. 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarifications. I renamed the file. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture croppedEdit

Hello, I am sending you this message to inform that I cropped one of your pictures by putting the license, your name, and all the legal things that needed to be made. I hope it does not bother you, and tell me if you want me to removes it or if something is missing. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifiates (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 February 2016‎ (UTC)

  • @Lifiates It's all right, thank you for your contribution to Commons. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with establishing licence rightsEdit

Greetings Krassotkin. Would you be able to help me establish license right for this entry?,_Cabo_Rojo.jpg

Bots continue to tag it, but it is within the (CC BY 2.0), which is compatible with Wikicommons. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador 09:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for you help. It was all an unintentional mistake, which I explained here. Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)



In 2013, Voice of America, now independant from US government, changed the license. Published media are with A NC clause.

So only medias from Voice of America < 2013 could be uploaded to Commons.

The template states "this template is valid only for material published before June 2013. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA.". --Dereckson (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files:

--sasha (krassotkin) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not coherent among language versions:
The template you put states: "See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Note also that there are conflicting statements on several of the language web sites, but that the Terms of Use on the parent site,, very clearly state that the NC policy extends to all of the VOA sites.".
When there are contradictory statements between language versions, we should consider the most recent and restrictive ones, by Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.
--Dereckson (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It is clear that VOA has created a confusing situation by not conforming all of the local sites to its worldwide policy. It is equally clear what the world-wide policy is and that we cannot rely on any of the statements on the local sites to keep images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comments. But that's just our opinion. I sent them a formal request. It is strange that no one has done this before. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For information, I still have this answer only: "We will clarify the policy and get back to you shortly. I need to get in touch with the department that handles such policies" (2016-02-29). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dereckson, @Jameslwoodward, @INeverCry, @NickK and all interested (invite, please).

After extensive correspondence I have this response:

Dear Mr. Krassotkin,

There are no barriers in linking to VOA content, or citing our material with credit. If the Wikimedia Foundation has additional questions for whatever reason, we can arrange for additional discussions with our marketing/licensing departments. Material produced solely by VOA is governed under the following statutes:

Please be aware that a portion of the material on our sites comes from third parties and does not fall under Title 17, Section 105. That distinction is laid out in our Terms of Service, available here. Such material may not be republished without permission of the copyright owner.


Scot Riddlesberger

Scot Riddlesberger

Acting Director, Public Relations

Rm. 3453

330 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C., 20237

I can send this response to OTRS. We must change our mind (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA) and restore all deleted images. At least it concerns language projects of VOA with valid Public Domain license, as I wrote above. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think OTRS is the next step indeed, if they accept it they could restore the files themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I sent this answer to the OTRS. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC) P. S. [Ticket#: 2016030510006404] and [Ticket#: 2016030510006413]. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that this changes anything. The main VOA Web site is very clear that VOA material is NC. I don't think we can rely on an opinion of a non-officer staff member that contradicts the Web site. I suspect strongly that the writer does not understand that Commons requires that material be free for all use, including commercial use -- he is thinking only of WP as an educational use.
In order to reverse our stand on VOA, I think that we need a message from an officer of VOA, ideally the General Counsel, that very explicitly deals with the NC clause on the main Web site and the contradictions on several of the individual language sites. Also, by our rules such messages must go directly to OTRS from the source -- forwarding is not generally permitted.
I have taken ownership of the two OTRS tickets and put them on hold until we get a resolution of the differences here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It directly contradicts VOA's stated policy on its Web site. If I had received that answer, I would have written back and asked why the response differed from the stated policy.
In order to change our policy, I think you need to ask questions such as the following:
"Mr. Riddlesberger:
At it says
"The content appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may download the downloadable content items appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites for your personal use only."
Your e-mail contradicts that. Since WMF projects require that all media by free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works, we need a very clear statement that the VOA Web site is wrong.
Later on the same page, it defines "VOA News and Information Websites":
"This website, all websites linked in the ‘Sites by Language’ tab at the top of this page, as well as all news, information, and features available on these websites (collectively, “VOA News and Information Websites”)..."
That makes it clear that the non-commercial policy cited above applies to all of your Web sites worldwide. Notwithstanding that, many of your foreign language sites (including at least the Russian, Turkish, and Chinese) say that their material is free for all uses. If WMF is to reuse your material from those sites we need clarification of that as well.
Yours truly,
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim: Heh... Yes, I agree. I originally asked these questions ("including at least the Russian, Ukrainian and Turkish" with quotations and references to the differences in the policies:). Initially, I asked these questions to the local sites (ru, uk, tr). Then they translated my letters and sent its to the main office. Now it turns out that I am asking the same thing. :) Therefore it will be good idea if you to ask them directly. You and any interested can send me your e-mail addresses publicly here or privately and I connect you to our discussion with VOA. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: What is your decision? This is urgent issue. We have a lot of problems in Wikimedia Projects due to the lack of a clear outcome on Commons. Now, everything depends only on you. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all up to me -- it is up those who believe images should be kept to prove beyond a significant doubt that they are freely licensed. Also, I firmly believe that Commons jobs that can be done by non-Administrators should be done by non-Administrators, leaving active Administrators to do the work that only they can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: I did everything. I asked the right questions (similar to your) and got answers. I can send you my original letters to verify this, but they are in Russian and Ukrainian. Now I have a clear and unequivocal answer from the copyright holder. But you continue to insist on your position. Above I wrote why is it wrong initially. You ignore my arguments and the official response from the copyright holder. You do not want to ask questions directly. You also have blocked the possibility of addressing this issue by anyone else. I do not know what to do. Sorry :( --sasha (krassotkin) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: Thank you for your direct request to VOA. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jim: There are also ways to proof the integrity of forwarded messages, for example by forwarding the raw eml file which often contains a w:DKIM signature from the source mail server ( in our case). Does OTRS accept more 'technical' proofs like such? This is roughly as technical as using GnuPG in w:Template:User committed identity. --Arthur2e5 Crap·Toy 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoria2e5 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The VOA has not responded to me either. The acknowledged my request, never got back to me. The VOA images have to be deleted. Not public domain. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a pity. But I still try. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • For information:
    • Mr. Riddlesberger has not responded to our emails since 2 March. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I started all over again and was tied up with Mr. Kligerman from Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Perhaps this is the information about him: 1, 2. He said: "Thank you for staying on top of this issue. We have located the proper persons to meet and address your follow up questions. I fully expect that we respond with the answer that you seek next week". I gave him the questions of Jim. And Mr. Kligerman also stopped to answer questions. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I still hope to resolve this issue and I am working on it. If someone is willing to help I recommend to contact with BBG (about), US Department of State (contact) and US politicians. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if anyone have noticed this but the wording regarding "noncommercial use" was quietly removed on VOA's TERMS OF USE/PRIVACY POLICY page between Mar 30 and Apr 5, according to the Wayback Machine ([1][2]). --Wcam (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting, thank you! But now the English site has no indication of the license... and therefore it has a strict copyright. :( --sasha (krassotkin) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Now the email from VOA would be useful since the link it contains clearly states public domain, and nothing on the VOA website contradicts it now. In my opinion after OTRS processes the email, all VOA files may be restored. --Wcam (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • @Jim: What do you think about it? --sasha (krassotkin) 08:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:RD-180.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Dereckson (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
thanks bro,for moving the file :) Prompri (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Prompri. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Welcome, Today I had a weird problem.whenever I used my picture( with code in my userpage I didn't see my picture.Wiki displayed me a mature content,I am 14 & this hurt me a lot(also gave me mental depression.Does this happen here usually? (I'm new here).Now this issue has been solved by renaming the file ... Prompri (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Prompri: Here are no some Wikipedia templates (they are displayed in red). They should not be used. I posted the picture on your page. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I guess the pic. displayed in the very beginning(in the main Wiki) was a blocked content in the same name "Promise" , I used this fancy name becuz my real nick name is Promise :3.Thanks for the help.~Promise Prompri (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming declinedEdit

Hi, I've a question about your declination on this renaming request. Why did you allege that the request "does not comply with renaming guidelines"? There is an obvious mistake on the file name (in fact, "my" own mistake so I uploaded the photo) so the character depicted is Goofy, not Pluto. I'll be awaiting for your comments, thanks. - Fma12 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


File:Fatma Sultana kći Sulejmana I 2014-06-06 10-04.jpg -> File:Haseki Hürrem Sultan (Roxelana).jpg.

Александр, добрый вечер! Подскажите, зачем оставлять совершенно некорректное перенаправление [[File:Fatma Sultana kći Sulejmana I 2014-06-06 10-04.jpg]]?--Migel Sances Huares (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Из-за этого редиректа у меня возник небольшой конфликт с каким-то бараном из Серб-ХорвВики--Migel Sances Huares (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Migel Sances Huares: Редиректы оставляются обычно для целосности внутренних и внешних ссылок. Во-первых, чтобы у нас они ни откуда не пропадали, а то делинкинг включений постоянно глючит. Во-вторых, мы же для внешнего пользователя тоже работаем, кто-то в соцсетях использовал, или ещё где-то более критично. Неиспользуемые, а тем более вводящие в заблуждения редиректы чистятся при необходимости. Для этого нужно подать запрос на быстрое удаление: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. --sasha (krassotkin) 04:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of Yankees Uniform ImageEdit


Here's the issue. I really wish I could find the records of this situation, but I couldn't find it anywhere. When the original uploader uploaded the image, he uploaded it under a different name, but added it to the page for the team, replacing an image that was there. So, since this was taking it's place, I requested a file change under reason #4, bringing it into line with other images in the project.

However, as with all others of these images, it became out of date, and I uploaded a new version more accurate to the current year. That's when the uploader became belligerent, shouting that I was trying to pass his own work as my own, even though in uploading my version I changed all attribution on the image's page to me, yet he still claimed I was stealing his work. Despite that file name, as with all uniform images across baseball, football, and hockey, are placeholders for the current uniform of that team, being updated by numerous people. I've already gotten numerous people come to me on my talk pages and request this be corrected. There's no place for inaccuracy in this sphere, but the uploader won't let me correct it, so I wish to upload a new image with a file name in step with the project, in accord with reason #4, but before I can do that, I need to rename this image, get it out of my way, and never deal with this user again. Sorry if my original reasoning wasn't clear enough, but given there was such a small space to write out the reason, I didn't want to get too unwieldy. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A little extra note. Sorry. I forgot to mention this before. This was not my first choice. I asked the user to rename the file himself so that we could both continue on with our lives, he could have his image, and the project could continue working well. That was November 8, however, and there has been no response. With the season beginning, it has now become too late to wait anymore, so I am trying to go this route to fix this issue. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Silent Wind of Doom: You can upload the correct file with a new name and replace it in the articles. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • All right. I will do that, but here's the issue. When I upload that image, the file name will be out of line with the other file names in the project. Therefore, it should be renamed under reason #4. However, the name that belongs to the project is being taken up by this file. As this file only has the file name because I changed it under reason #4, but it no longer qualifies for that, and another file qualifies better, can we not change this file's name? --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Silent Wind of Doom: Such renaming is not necessary. You can select any understandable name. For example: ALE-Uniform-NYY 2.png or any other. --sasha (krassotkin) 22:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thank you very much for your correcting my mistake.(SORACHI MARU HIYAMA MARU) Akoihsin (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :-) --sasha (krassotkin) 06:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:China Zhenjiang Runzhou.pngEdit

I draw hundreds locator maps of China, which are used in many articles about chinese administrative unites. Recently I misprinted a name of one new file and asked for renaming, because now it doesn't match standard links from such articles. Unfortunately, instead of renaming a file EXACTLY as I asked for, some person decided to "improve" the name. Why you cannot simply follow the rules and rename a file _exactly_according_to_uploader_request_ ? As I can see here, on your talkpage, you wrote "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better". It is just such a case: somebody, who will never work with this map, decided to rename it only "because the new name looks a bit better". As you can see, it is a direct contradiction with file renaming's gudelines ((#1)). --Slb nsk (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Slb nsk: The template reads: "this media object be renamed to ... or another more suitable name". Usually we do not rename files, if the final name looks worse than it is accepted. But now your arguments seem acceptable. Can you show examples of locator maps with this name? --sasha (krassotkin) 10:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Bronnitsy (Moscow oblast) (1883).pngEdit

Брест Бронницы 1781 1883 Брянск из Винклера.jpg
Coat of Arms of Bronnitsy (Moscow oblast) (1883).png

Здравствуйте, Александр! Вы отклонили переименование файла и запросили источник. Станица из гербовника П.П. фон Винклера - вполне авторитетна. Если согласны с ним - сами исправьте год в названии файла. С уважением, So categorical (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC) .

  • @So categorical: Это не очень моя тема, поэтому конечно бы предпочёл, чтобы в этом вопросе разобрались специалисты, а мне пришлось лишь воплотить подведённый ими итог. Но раз начали попробуем... В наименовании подобных файлов иногда указывается последняя дата, после которой изображение меняется. Поэтому а) нужен источник на год, до которого этот герб существовал в таком виде; б) что означает второй год в наименовании приведённой страницы гербовника? --sasha (krassotkin) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • На странице 4 герба: Брест-Литовск (Высочайше утверждён 06.04.1845), Бронницы (20.12.1781), Бронницы (16.03.1883), Брянск (16.8.1781). Дёйствительно, с 16.03.1883 у г. Бронницы новый герб. So categorical (talk)
      • So categorical: ОК. Значит тогда ничего не меняем. На будущее, переименовывающие обычно очень далеки от бесчисленного множества узкоспециализированных тематик, хотя и хорошо разбираются в принятых у нас правилах и сложившихся традициях именования, в том числе и тематических. Поэтому при подаче запроса желательно приводить подробное обоснование с необходимыми ссылками, чтобы им проще было разобраться. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Хорошо, пусть остаётся как было. Видеть не первую, а последнюю дату использования как-то не привычно, как и порядок месяц-число-год. Извините за беспокойство. С уважением, So categorical (talk) .
Return to the user page of "Krassotkin".