Commons:License review/Requests
Requests for license reviewer rights
(Translate) (purge this page's cache)
|
Kindly read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files before applying for the right.
To become a reviewer, you need 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 compatible with Wikimedia Commons and which are not, and be dedicated to license reviewing every so often and offer their assistance in clearing the backlogs. Relevant knowledge can be demonstrated by regularly participating in deletion requests or in New Files Patrolling.
Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify your knowledge. A few days later (usually 48 hours), a reviewer or an administrator will determine the possible outcome of the request based on the input received from the community. The closing admin/reviewer will grant the right if there are no objections and add the applicant 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.
Click the button to submit your request. Alternatively, copy the code below to the bottom of this page, 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:REVISIONUSER}}==
{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}
- Note for Admins/Reviewers: To close a request, please wrap the entire section excluding the section heading with {{Frh}} and {{Frf}}. If the request is successful, please leave this message
{{subst:image-reviewerWelcome}}--~~~~on the applicant's user talk page.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 5 days. |
Matr1x-101
This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.
- Matr1x-101 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
- Reason: Hello, I am a major contributor on Wikimedia Commons. I am a patroller and I am also frequently active on forums COM:DR, COM:UNDEL, and COM:VPC. I also have reported quite a few copyvios and unauthorised DWs from Category:All media needing categories as of 2016. I have read COM:LR before applying and I therefore believe I have a more than sufficient understanding of licence reviewing and general copyright rules, as well as all related applicable policies on Commons. Thank you, --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 13:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Scheduled to end: 13:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
- Well, this is quiet. I guess I'll give User:Matr1x-101 the customary quiz: Which of these would you accept, which would you decline, and why? Cheat at your peril: one of the answers in the request I stole it from is wrong now :)
- —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- 1. Decline: All rights reserved on Flickr, which is not allowed on Commons.
- 2. Accept: License was changed from "All rights reserved" to cc-by-sa-2.0, the latter of which is allowed on Commons. Photographer's account looks like a professional papparazi, so probably not a copyvio. (was this the one that changed lol?)
- 3. Accept: As the work of a federal U.S. govt official, it is public domain.
- 4. Decline: Clear copyvio of some magazine per COM:BOOK. We'd need VRT permission if we wanted it here on Commons.
- 5. Accept: Looking at the top of the magazine it says "1896", meaning it was probably published in 1896, so {{PD-US-expired}} can be used. Looking at this magazine's Wikipedia page (link), it was made and edited solely by Georg Hirth. He died in 1916, so German copyright expired in 1986 (70pma). So {{PD-old-auto}} can be added with the parameter of 1916 for the deathyear.
- --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- You come across the following files, Please say whether you would accept or decline and why:
- Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- 1. Decline: A copyvio of some British soap opera. Not PD either since the soap opera only started in 1975.
- 2. Decline: Licenced as cc-by-nc-2.0, which is not allowed on Commons.
- 3. Accept: Licenced as cc-by-sa-2.0. Was previously licenced as cc-by-nc-2.0, but that has been changed. Tineye only turns up one result and that website gives credit to the Flickr link so probably not a copyvio.
- 4. Decline: The video is a compilation of car crashes. Not the author's original work. Therefore the author has no right to licence under cc-by.
- --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Completely forgot the licence history now exists for Flickr!, Thank you for answering these. –Davey2010Talk 14:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Support looks good to me! —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Done Granted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
