User talk:Russavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 8 June 2014 (→‎Unblock request: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


User:Russavia/Top


Unblock preparatory information

Unblock text in progress

Photographs/media work

I have always been a prolific uploader of media to our projects, and have been also been pro-active and prolific in obtaining media under relicencing and the like from a multitude of photographers, organisations and governments. As I go through my uploads, I make it a point to get relevant media into relevant articles at that time. An example of this is File:Ralph Gonsalves (cropped).jpg which is in use across multiple projects on a multitude of articles -- this photo is not in use at all on English Wikipedia, which instead still uses this poorer quality image. Due to the sheer amount of image work I do, I get images into use where relevant as I finish working on them, as can be seen by my contributions on, for example, Polish Wikipedia, and then I move onto the next image. Below are examples of such media.

Extended content
Firdaus Latif

Firdaus Latif is a professional news photographer from Malaysia who relicenced his photos to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. His photos are found at Commons:Category:Photographs by Firdaus Latif

Amongst his photos which could be on this project include:

Matt @ PEK

Matt @ PEK is a regular world traveller who relicenced his photos to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. His photos can be found at Commons:Category:Files from Matt @ PEK Flickr stream

Amongst his photos which could be on this project include:

Austrian Airlines

Austrian Airlines relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Files from Austrian Airlines Flickr stream

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

Brussels Airport

Brussels Airport relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Files from Brussels Airport Flickr stream

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility

The Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Files from the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility Flickr stream

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

Aerocardal

Aerocardal relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs by Aerocardal

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

Bahrain International Airport

Bahrain International Airport relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Files from Bahrain International Airport Flickr stream

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

Uri Tours

Uri Tours relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs by Uri Tours

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

World Trade Organization
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Department for International Development
RAF-YYV
Congress of Peru
Grzegorz Jereczek

Grzegorz Jereczek is a Polish photographer who relicenced his Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. His photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs by Grzegorz Jereczek

Amongst his photos which could be used on this project include:


Jetstar

Jetstar Airways relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs by Jetstar Airways

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

AusAID

AusAID relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:

United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo relicenced their Flickr stream to CC-BY-SA from (C) ARR after a request from myself. Their photos are at Commons:Category:Photographs by MONUSCO

Amongst their photos which could be used on this project include:


Other
Aviation

Numerous aviation photographers have relicenced their photographs after requests from myself.

Amongst photos which could be used on this project include:

Adding NFCC images which arent suitable for Commons

Article work

Articles which I will be working on include:

Articles which I intend on creating, mainly by way of media I've uploaded include:

Other articles I was looking at creating:

Dealing with copyright and image issues

Moves

WikiProject work

Air Caribbean (Puerto Rico)

Dear Russavia: Thanks for creating Air Caribbean (Puerto Rico)! For a guy from Perth, you sure know a LOT about Puerto Rican aviation history! (I sure wish I on the other hand, knew as much about Australian Aviation history, but I can only go as far as Qantas and Ansett Airlines, lol!)

God bless!

Antonio weirdo kangaroo Martin aqui 23:26, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Message for User:Philg88 -- Masikryong Ski Resort

@Philg88:, thanks for writing the above article, as you can see I had it at User_talk:Russavia#Article_work to create.

I see, however, that the article only uses one image. The photos in Commons:Category:Masikryong Ski Resort were kindly released under a CC licence by Uri Tours after a request by myself. I made mention of the Masikryong Ski Resort article as one possible use for their photos (i.e. encouraging article development). I am going to make contact with the, and show them this article, but I was hoping you might take on board some suggestions in relation to images in the article.

When I discussed the relicencing with Uri Tours in a series of back-and-forth emails, I did mention to them that their images would be especially useful for North Korean articles, and I also asked them to keep me informed on hits to Flickr and whether they see any noticeable increase from their images being on Commons -- an aviation photographer who relicenced after my request noted a massive surge in traffic to his Flickr stream. I want to use Uri Tours a one part in a multi-faceted case study on why companies should make their images available under a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licence.

But at the end of the day, it is editorial discretion on whether to include images or not, and with such a wide range of images available, and relevant to direct article content, we could probably be more liberal in our use of images on articles. Thoughts welcome. Russavia (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russavia, and thanks for the ping. First of all, I didn't realise that you had plans to create the Masikryong article - I only search the main space when creating articles so my apologies if you had put any work into this.
On the specific points that you mention:
  • I found the photos on Flickr before I found them on Commons (what a wonderful surprise to discover that they were CC-BYSA!) and picked the one that featured snow, a skilift and mountains as I thought that would be the most representative/appropriate. I'm no fan of flooding short paragraph articles like this one with pictures as it creates a lot of whitespace, but I don't see why there couldn't be a gallery of three or four images across the bottom rather than breaking up the text. Feel free to go ahead and add it as you see fit - [update] I now see that your are blocked so I can do it.
  • While the original draft of the article included the name of the company that the Swiss government proscribed from selling ski lifts to the resort, I took it out because I considered a mention would be non-neutral –the deal was cancelled after all. From what I can see and based on my own experience of the sport, the lifts in use are way behind current state of the market technology [1] [2] — I also read a comment in a blog somewhere that they were made by a Chinese rather than a western company. As for other equipment, this snow groomer is made by an Italian company but (perhaps understandably given the sanctions) I cannot find a reference to back that up. However including the photo with a caption mentioning the groomer's origin would not breach any Wikipedia guidelines as far as I can see.
  • I'm all for encouraging everyone in the world to release their copyrights under CC-BYSA and for Wikipedia to improve its coverage of North Korean topics. I plan to translate the Masikryong article into Chinese (as they are likely to be the largest slice of foreign visitors), which would no doubt please Uri Tours and by extension fire their enthusiasm for engaging with Wikipedia.
 Philg88 ♦talk 05:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Philg88: Thanks for response. I'll leave it up to your discretion to include what photos you see fit in the article. In relation to the Husky photo, it would be ok to include this in the article with a caption denoting the make of the snow groomer. Whether it is a high value image for that article is up to you -- it could possibly go into an article on snow groomers -- that way you can get an internal link to the Masikryong article too. I would think that higher value images for the Masikryong article would be those which show the facilities, rather than the equipment. But all up to you.
It would be good to see the Masikryong article in other languages too, I might have a word to a couple of Korean editors and they might like to do the Korean version of it. In relation to Uri Tours, they are a US-based company, so I'm not too sure how much of their business they get from China. But it's just good to have a commercial company engage with us by releasing their materials. I will be dropping them a note in the coming days with a link to the Masikryong article so that they can see how their images are being used. I'll be sure to pass on any feedback to you which I may get back. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Russavia. I've added a gallery with four images rather than flood the article. I agree that the groomer isn't really apposite - it could be on any piste at any resort. I hope you can inspire a Korean language version, that would be great. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff @Philg88: look forward to seeing more DPRK articles from you in future too. Russavia (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations from Encyclopædia Britannica

WP article Date and diff copyvio introduced EB article Diffchecker Date copyvio removed Time copyvio in article Date copyvio revdelled Notes
Émile Durkheim 14 June 2009 [3] [4] [5] 10 April 2014 [6] 1761 days Not done * The copyright violation was introduced by M3taphysical (talk · contribs)
  • The copyright violation was first brought up for discussion on 21 April 2010
  • The article underwent a GA review in June 2011 and was conducted and passed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs).
  • The issue of copyright violation has since been brought up several times on the talk page, and has been ignored, and edit warred over on the article itself
  • The copyright violation was brought to my attention on 9 April 2014
  • I raised the issue with Tom Morris in public on IRC. He said would look at it, but was at work at that time.
  • I raised the issue on IRC on #wikipedia-en. GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) removed the "plagiarism"
  • When I explained to GorillaWarfare that copyright violations should be revdelled, and mentioned that copyright violations affect the ability to redistribute our content, in no small part due to any revision being able to re-used, she stated she would not be revdelling at this time.
  • I re-asked Tom Morris (talk · contribs) to look at it 24 hours later. This request was ignored.
  • The article is still rated as GA, and the copyright violation is still in the article history.
  • Revdel requested on 27 April 2014 by Psychonaut (talk · contribs)
  • Sent email to legal@wikimedia.org on 5 May 2014 to inform them of this issue. No response as of 13 May 2014.
  • Contacted EB on 13 May 2014 to inform them of this copyright violation, and the community's seemingly refusal to deal with it appropriately.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)

Are you trying to be disruptive, or are you just clueless? Please stop drama mongering. If you perceive a problem but others don't agree, you have to accept that sometimes you won't get your way. Making threats of this nature is not helpful at all. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we normally rev-del copyright violations in article history when they're pointed out. Maggie? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, Anthonyhcole, but it's highly dependent on what admin sees it and the circumstances. I myself try to rev delete when the content is large and restoration (inadvertent or otherwise) seems likely, but there's always a balance with transparency when the copyvio has been in history for a while. There is currently no policy that requires such deletion. Coincidentally, legal is working on a WikiLegal statement related to the question of copyright problems in article histories, meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories. I don't believe it is 100% complete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: thank you for advising of this. I will keep tabs on how this progresses, and I may post on the talk page. Whilst I understand that Legal will opine from the point of view of US law, and will comment almost entirely on how it directly affects the WMF as the host of such materials, one thing it likely will not touch on is the ethical considerations that projects need to consider, and of course this goes for all projects, whether that be English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, etc. Instead of calling it meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories perhaps Legal could rename it to meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikimedia project Page Histories so that it applies as Legal advice as it pertains to protection of the WMF across all of our projects, not just Wikipedia. Essentially what I see it being said at the end is that the WMF is just the host, will comply with valid DMCA notices, that US law needs to be followed, and that editors are legally responsible for their edits.
But Maggie, in relation to your comment on obtaining a balance with transparency, couldn't a solution to this across all projects be similar to this example on Commons. Revdel the text of the page history, but leave the edit summary and the editor name as is. The article above might be seen as quite an extreme example in some regards, especially as the copyright violation was in the article for going on five years, but in your position as an editor would the following be best practice:
  • Remove the copyright violation and before saving keep a copy of the article minus the copyright violation
  • Revdel the article text but not the edit summary or the editor (this is especially important due to licencing requirements
  • After revdelling, replace the current version of the text with the copy that was saved (minus the copyright violation) and simply use a link to the article history as the edit summary (which is sufficient to comply with the attribution requirements that we agree to when we edit) and perhaps mention it is text from revision XXX to YYY minus copyvio.
That way the 5 year history of the article is not completely lost (only the copyright violation is) and the transparency is still kept. The only issue then would be is there more copyright violations in the article that if the admin dealing with it would then be responsible for (as per the section already on Meta). Is this something as an editor you could broadly agree with?
As noted at Wikipedia:Copyright violations copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. and we often forget that our content is CC licenced specifically so it can be redistributed, even for profit, and that as a project (the entire WMF-hosted projects) we have an ethical obligation to the re-users of our content to make sure that we hold ourselves to the highest possible editorial standards and follow the same best practices that those we aim to emulate and surpass. We also need to recognise that not all of our re-users are in the United States, and many countries to do not have the extensive fair use laws that the US has, and that we want to re-users to safely redistribute our content, particularly in the Global South; where I am aware of in the past people distributing CDs with Wikipedia content on the streets for a nominal charge, but which still makes it commercial usage, and which could cause problems for the very people we want to redistribute our content.
This is obviously something that isn't really recognised widely here on Wikipedia, due to the endgame being about pageviews on the project, whereas on Commons it is about actively encouraging the content to be re-used on WMF projects, and elsewhere both online and offline. So I hope you understand my good faith concerns here and why I have raised them. Russavia (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency isn't only about usernames, however. Transparency is about being able to see who added what, when. When content is rev-deleted, the history of an article is no longer searchable for that. Therein lies the primary objection I've seen to using rev deletion on older copyright issues, and I have encountered this objection when using rev deletion myself. This is an old, old discussion on Wikipedia - it predates my participation by many years. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages. The fact that page histories may contain content that is not compatibly licensed is noted at MediaWiki:History copyright and discussed at Help:Page history. I'm afraid that to change this practice would probably require a pretty major discussion on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a different situation if the problematic content represented most of the article, or if it were present in only a small number of revisions. Here, however, it represents a small portion of the article and the request is that we delete hundreds of revisions (with their associated attributions). It is perfectly reasonable not to do so, and I question Russavia's good faith in pressing this issue in the way that he has. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is indefinitely blocked and has a history of being blocked, if we can't assume his good faith even on his talk page posts, then it is time to block his access to his own talk page. There is actually no loss of communication involved in this additional block, Russavia can post to his heart's content on his Commons talk page, and if he says anything worth saying, Wikipedia editors can be directed there by his more sympathetic peers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message for User:Alifazal -- James Mwakibolwa

@Alifazal: I noticed you have put some MONUSCO photos into use, great stuff. I also see that you are from Tanzania. Perhaps you might like to create the article for James Mwakibolwa. We have a photo of Mwakibolwa on Commons from MONUSCO, and it might make for an interesting WP:DYK -- we don't see many Tanzanian DYKs here on the project. Just giving you a heads up. Russavia (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Russavia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd like to propose that the block on myself be lifted. I was blocked in June 2013, and the block was put up for community discussion, with an immediate consensus supporting the block. The reason for the block is that I had drafted an article that discussed Jimmy Wales in a way that offended him, and included supporting media (which I solicited) hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

The media was removed from English Wikipedia (but not Commons). I am not seeking to reopen the discussion about whether that content should be restored to Wikipedia, and since the block I have not pursued the issue in a disruptive manner. Rather, I have made valuable posts to my talk page, highlighting places in which unrelated Wikipedia content is out of compliance with our copyright policies.

I have consistently made high quality contributions to both Wikipedia and Commons, and whilst it is true that I have been involved in some controversies, the depth of my commitment to the vision of our projects is amply demonstrated by the majority of my contributions. This block should be lifted so I can continue to engage as a good faith member of our community. Thank you for your consideration. Russavia (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'd like to propose that the block on myself be lifted. I was blocked in June 2013, and the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#I_have_just_blocked_Russavia_indefinitely|block was put up for community discussion]], with an immediate consensus supporting the block. The reason for the block is that I had [[Pricasso|drafted an article]] that discussed Jimmy Wales in a way that offended him, and included supporting media (which I solicited) hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The media was removed from English Wikipedia (but not Commons). I am not seeking to reopen the discussion about whether that content should be restored to Wikipedia, and since the block I have not pursued the issue in a disruptive manner. Rather, I have made valuable posts to my talk page, highlighting places in which unrelated Wikipedia content is out of compliance with our copyright policies. I have consistently made high quality contributions to both Wikipedia and Commons, and whilst it is true that I have been involved in some controversies, the depth of my commitment to the vision of our projects is amply demonstrated by the majority of my contributions. This block should be lifted so I can continue to engage as a good faith member of our community. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia#top|talk]]) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'd like to propose that the block on myself be lifted. I was blocked in June 2013, and the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#I_have_just_blocked_Russavia_indefinitely|block was put up for community discussion]], with an immediate consensus supporting the block. The reason for the block is that I had [[Pricasso|drafted an article]] that discussed Jimmy Wales in a way that offended him, and included supporting media (which I solicited) hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The media was removed from English Wikipedia (but not Commons). I am not seeking to reopen the discussion about whether that content should be restored to Wikipedia, and since the block I have not pursued the issue in a disruptive manner. Rather, I have made valuable posts to my talk page, highlighting places in which unrelated Wikipedia content is out of compliance with our copyright policies. I have consistently made high quality contributions to both Wikipedia and Commons, and whilst it is true that I have been involved in some controversies, the depth of my commitment to the vision of our projects is amply demonstrated by the majority of my contributions. This block should be lifted so I can continue to engage as a good faith member of our community. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia#top|talk]]) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'd like to propose that the block on myself be lifted. I was blocked in June 2013, and the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#I_have_just_blocked_Russavia_indefinitely|block was put up for community discussion]], with an immediate consensus supporting the block. The reason for the block is that I had [[Pricasso|drafted an article]] that discussed Jimmy Wales in a way that offended him, and included supporting media (which I solicited) hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The media was removed from English Wikipedia (but not Commons). I am not seeking to reopen the discussion about whether that content should be restored to Wikipedia, and since the block I have not pursued the issue in a disruptive manner. Rather, I have made valuable posts to my talk page, highlighting places in which unrelated Wikipedia content is out of compliance with our copyright policies. I have consistently made high quality contributions to both Wikipedia and Commons, and whilst it is true that I have been involved in some controversies, the depth of my commitment to the vision of our projects is amply demonstrated by the majority of my contributions. This block should be lifted so I can continue to engage as a good faith member of our community. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia#top|talk]]) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&oldid=612097273"