Samsara

::::::::::As for a unified tool, well, maybe I'm wrong, but I still find a tool and a bot different. A tool has an interface for users to ease the transfer of the files, but the bot does the post-processing of files from all kinds of sources. Perhaps the tool can do some of the work of the bot, but in the currently, it cannot, as explained above (code manipulation), unless it is written in some other ways in the future --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes - a tool that does more things on the server side. It's just that I've realised over the last 24 hours that "waiting", as the OP suggested, doesn't work particularly well for me. I'd have to completely change my workflow and have a "waiting" folder on the desktop for my edits, and then hope I don't forget to upload those items. So I guess I do mind waiting, but if the result is that I'll be requested to wait, I guess I won't be uploading. It would be nice if people could be flexible and understand that some of us are trying to achieve a certain level of quality in our contributions, and that a poorly white balanced image is not acceptable and needs fixing, not waiting. In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that if I have to sacrifice quality or change my workflow to be slower, then I might prefer to spend my time in other ways. [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] ([[User talk:Samsara#top|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:[[User:Samsara|Samsara]], another option for you is to apply for a license reviewer right. I think it is fine as you're an experience admin in EN and working on media too. A license reviewer can [[Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr|upload directly from the URL]] and I think it doesn't require a review. I may wrong as I don't remember it correctly. [[User:Jkadavoor|<span style="color:red;">J</span>]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|e]][[:Category:User:Jkadavoor|<span style="color:red;">e</span>]] 17:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::Thanks, {{u|Jkadavoor|Jee}}. Upon your suggestion, I looked at that, and it seems that one is not meant to review one's own uploads: ''Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may not review their own uploads [...]'' Source: [[Commons:License review#Instructions for reviewers]]. It probably changed since you last looked at it. Regards, [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] ([[User talk:Samsara#top|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::I should add that I cannot recall, from memory, that there has ever been such a case. I may have added the phrase pre-emptively. So the onus of finding a relevant case, again, would be on you as the one making an allegation, if you wish to do so. [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] ([[User talk:Samsara#top|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:::I am not making any allegation. I'm simply pointing out that your text seems to imply that you do not feel you are responsible for the copyright status of works that you transfer to Commons, as long as they were flagged for transfer elsewhere. That is not the case... when you upload a file to Commons, you are responsible for ensuring that it complies with our policies before you do so. [[User:Revent|<span style="color:#151B54;font-family:Garamond ">Revent</span>]]^{[[User talk:Revent|<b style="font-family:Garamond ;color:#006400">talk</b>]]} 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)