The tragedy of Commons

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
75 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Nathan Awrich



On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to
> prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the
> copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright
> that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.

You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.

> The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the

No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.

> majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files
> that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown
> request is received that removes the doubt.

There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.

Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would
not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly
run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the
"hasten the day" lobbyists.

> In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as:
> Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images
> Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel,
> we demand that you do.

No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.

> Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the
> Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it.
> Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to
> disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
> Reasonable people: But they can't!
> Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to.
> *Repeat*

No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides
the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone
else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.

I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly
parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.

Fae
--


If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to attacking other posters. 

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Alex Brollo
I'm a it.wikisource user, and I followed and read this interesting talk; Commons data repository is extremely important in our work roadmap as you know. I reported too this talk into our village pump. In brief: the more other projects users are encouraged/forced to use Commons as the main/exclusive media repository,  the more Commons has to be seen as a service for other projects, and local upload can be discouraged; the more Commons is considered an indipendent project, the more users should be encouraged to choose freely between Commons or local upload. 

Alex


2014-06-26 16:15 GMT+02:00 Nathan <[hidden email]>:



On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to
> prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the
> copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright
> that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.

You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.

> The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the

No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.

> majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files
> that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown
> request is received that removes the doubt.

There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.

Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would
not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly
run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the
"hasten the day" lobbyists.

> In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as:
> Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images
> Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel,
> we demand that you do.

No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.

> Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the
> Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it.
> Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to
> disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
> Reasonable people: But they can't!
> Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to.
> *Repeat*

No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides
the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone
else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.

I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly
parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.

Fae
--


If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to attacking other posters. 

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 26 June 2014 15:15, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse
> Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of
> making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to
> describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be
> great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to
> attacking other posters.

Hi Nathan,

Interesting feedback, thanks. Certainly it was inappropriate to make
an accusation that Gerard followed me to Commons. It probably is a
coincidence that this is the first time I can recall that he has ever
replied to an email of mine on this list.

I am unsure how to interpret your feedback that I am misusing this
list, against the following, could you explain a little further
please?

1. "The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host"
- I would really appreciate a link to this legal advice, as it solves
the problem entirely, as we can use it were there any future legal
case. A similar claim was made during the RFC but nobody was able to
supply a link to evidence at that time.

2. " Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli
government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
 Reasonable people: But they can't!"
 - If this was not intended to be a parody, could someone provide a
link to these statements, or where it was agreed that Commons admins
are not reasonable people.

3. "When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny
that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument
becomes a puddle."
- Could someone provide a link to where I "insisted" in this way?

4. "I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has
anyone else in this thread."
- I may have missed something, but my statement here was true from
what I can see of posts on this thread.

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

geni
In reply to this post by Chris McKenna



On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.

The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown request is received that removes the doubt.

In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as:
Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images
Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel, we demand that you do.
Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it.
Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
Reasonable people: But they can't!
Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to.
*Repeat*



The obvious problem with the ah  "Reasonable people's" argument is that the British government has done exactly that so "can't" clearly isn't correct. That aside the position is based on a falsehood. There is no real question that the isreali does in fact hold certian copyrights in countries that don't follow the rule of the shorter term. Claiming otherwise mostly indicates a lack of familularity with copyright. What we need is a statement that they either surrender those copyrights or that they won't enforce them.

Personally I think the problem is that the Israeli government hasn't been asked (I'm more than happy to provide help with the wording of the question if that's the problem for our Israeli wikipedians) but given the complexity of Israeli politics it would be impossible to rule out other possibilities until the question is asked.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by geni
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:11 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
Thanks,
     GerardM


The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?

OK, both sides of this debate are now entirely fictional! The Israeli government has not disclaimed any copyrights on these images. The images are public domain in Israel and copyrighted in US. As to whether Israel would choose to assert its US copyrights, no one knows besides the government of Israel. Perhaps someone should ask them, instead of everyone presuming to speak for them.

Ryan Kaldari


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gnangarra
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright


On 27 June 2014 07:30, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:11 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
Thanks,
     GerardM


The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?

OK, both sides of this debate are now entirely fictional! The Israeli government has not disclaimed any copyrights on these images. The images are public domain in Israel and copyrighted in US. As to whether Israel would choose to assert its US copyrights, no one knows besides the government of Israel. Perhaps someone should ask them, instead of everyone presuming to speak for them.

Ryan Kaldari


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Daniel Schwen-2
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright

Haha, yes, of course they are! The rationale for demanding to go back to the dark ages of local file hosting is the hope that copyright laws would be _ignored_ on those projects. This sounds like a pipe dream to me. :-)
Daniel

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Neel Gupta
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
Which is why I suggested...
"...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction."


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Hi,

2014-06-24 22:04 GMT+05:30 Nathan <[hidden email]>:

>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>> 2. It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
>>> that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
>>>
>>> That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine
>>> toothbrush
>>> to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
>>
>> The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a
>> good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on
>> the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable
>> to host.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
>> possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
>> unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then
>> it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required
>> by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the
>> US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it
>> must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who
>> has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and
>> self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of
>> English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the
>> images know that there are questions about a file.
>>
>> Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host
>> of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
>> alternative, reliable service project initiated.
>>
>> ----
>> Chris McKenna
>
> Precisely, and well said. Projects should encourage contributors to upload
> files locally, discourage and discontinue processes for moving files to
> Commons, and begin working on the problem of making files across projects
> searchable so that deprecating Commons as a project repository does not
> become a long term barrier to file usage.
>
> Commons is an independent project, not responsible to other WMF projects?
> Fine.

No, that's not fine.
I am for encouraging upload to Commons, not locally, but at the same time,
because people take time and resources to upload these files, Commons review
should ensure that these files are not deleted for spurious reasons,
like it happens some times.

> Let Commons users visit other projects, locate files that meet their
> rules, and copy them to Commons themselves. That way people like Yann and
> others need not familiarize themselves with Commons rules or worry about
> files being deleted; if Commons wants the files they can get them, or not.

FYI, I am one oldest contributor to Commons, and I have been admin
there for about 9 years (I don't remember exactly).

> ~Nathan

Yann

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Fæ
Hoi Fae,
Please indicate where I claim that you have said anything against the Israeli government. I have not as far as I am aware.

You assume that I have something against you personally. I do not know you except for the arguments that you use. I observe that you easily find offence and it is becoming obvious that you believe that I try to victimise you.. Now why would I? What is there for me to gain? I try and stay on subject and argue my points. Some of the points I made, particularly the ones where I pointed out to you that you do not move on and away from your former office I will agree that they address you personally. However, I do argue that you can and should do better .. I even pointed out how you could do that and why.

Fae, please look at the way you have been arguing. You have indicated several times now that you want me to shut up. Going so far that I should not come back unless I came up with a project showing and proving my point.. I did exactly that. Where you assume that I am trolling and victimising you, I would like for you to consider your behaviour towards me.
Thanks,
    GerardM


On 26 June 2014 12:29, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2014 11:11, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that
> it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it
> expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this
> you don't understand?

No doubt Gerard understands what he is doing perfectly well. Trolling.

Gerard, please provide a diff for your claim against me that I have
said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. It is
highly offensive, and in my view would be an excellent rationale for
list moderation due to it being a public and personal slur against
another contributor.


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Rama Neko
Hi,

2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.

Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
  -- Rama

Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.

On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.

Mainly, yes.

Yann


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be.
-- Rama

(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and corporations?


On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:

The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.

Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
  -- Rama

Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.

On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.

Mainly, yes.

Yann


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
What you are saying is that when Commons is used more, *you* will be less likely to consider the position of others. This is EXACTLY the kind of argument/position we can do without. What is called for is a willingness to listen and consider view points. With a blanket statement like this you close the door to dialogue.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 27 June 2014 18:04, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be.
-- Rama

(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and corporations?


On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:

The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.

Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
  -- Rama

Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.

On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.

Mainly, yes.

Yann


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
On 27 June 2014 18:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> What you are saying is that when Commons is used more, *you* will be less
> likely to consider the position of others. This is EXACTLY the kind of
> argument/position we can do without. What is called for is a willingness to
> listen and consider view points. With a blanket statement like this you
> close the door to dialogue.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 27 June 2014 18:04, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by
>> other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly
>> make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free
>> licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be.
>> -- Rama

Gerard,

Rama made a general and impersonal statement, your comment makes it a
personal ad hominim one ("*you*"), and attempts to marginalize Rama's
point while putting yourself in superior position of speaking for the
community ("we").

Please don't do that, it's appears pointlessly aggressive and inflamatory.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Neel Gupta
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Which is why I suggested...

"...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction."


Ryan Kaldari

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
1234