User talk:Lymantria/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

File:Adebisi Shank band whole.jpg

I can't tell if this image is 'own work' or a flickrwash. Same issue with this other image...but I haven't updated its source. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems okay to me. I marked them. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You for your help Admin Lymantria. With flickr, one can never be sure sometimes. By the way, in this small 9 photo PD Files for Review Category, there are some old images which no one has marked such as this, this which was likely taken before May 1945 since this ship was sunk in April 1945--unfortunately I don't know if it was indeed taken in Norway?--and this image which could be marked. Please just take a look at them. If there are any which are OK, please feel free to mark it. If not, perhaps it may be time to delete them unfortunately. Personally, I'm skeptical that this 1913 photo here under a pd license is 'own work' when the image is so old....but it might have been taken before 1917 and be PD. Kind Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yeats Tomb.jpg
  • As an aside, this image license above could be updated since an Admin uploaded it here but unfortunately his English is very basic at level 1 and I don't know the original wikipedia source/author. I assume its from the Hebrew wiki. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the upload is done before October 10, 2008, there is no real urgent need to update. The image is indeed imported from he-wiki and taken in Ireland (Ireland has FOP), I would hence guess this is PD-author. But perhaps it is best to keep it the way it is. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is good to know then that there is no problem with the present license. Thank You for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Flickr redesign of their web site

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Flickr may redesign their web site for showing images because I can't see the license easily today. See this image below:

On the flickr source , the license doesn't appear right away and I have to click on the three horizontal circles at the right ('More Actions’) & click Download/All Sizes to see the Actual License. But if I sign into my flickr account, I can immediately see the flickr license without going to the 'original image' option. Apparently this is the "new photo experience beta" design at flickr--that is the message I get when I sign into my flickr account...but it is a real pain unfortunately to easily verify licenses if you are not logged into flickr. Flickr says the design is not permanent but who knows what will happen.

The precise flickr message is:

"Flickr is about the amazing photos you capture and the communities that you build around these photos. The goal of our photo page redesign is to provide you with a fast photo browsing experience and an easy interface to build & maintain relationships. Over the last 4 weeks, we received a lot of feedback from the Flickr community regarding the photo page design. Based on the feedback, we are experimenting with different variations of the photo page to identify the best experience. While we continue to develop the beta experience, we want your feedback. In case you need some of the missing functionality, you can easily opt-out and go back to the old experience."

I don't know how this will end up but I think Flickr looks more and more like Instagram which will not make our tasks easier. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is less simple to find the license. I did not log in to commons, clicked on the (i) info sign and since then I can see the license and some other info by default. But indeed, the instagram like looks don't make our tasks easier. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone uploaded this image from a flickr account with only One image...and a reviewer failed it originally. However, from the flickr account profile, the photo appears to be connected to the copyright owner since it is linked to the flickr account owner's personal webpage. I ordered a flickrreview on the assumption that the flickr account owner owns the rights to this picture...which was apparently taken yesterday. If you think this is 'own work', I suppose you don't have to do anything. But if you think this image was stolen or needs OTRS permission, you may wish to file a speedy delete, copy vio or npd tag. I am uncertain if my actions here were correct as this uploader only has one image on Commons. PS: The image was on the source but originally typed this way. Thank You Admin Lymantria, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Image

Do you know what is the license problem with this image? It has reasonable camera metadata. This is another image that has the same issue but has OK camera metadata. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I asked Admin Zelenko here on another PD Image for Review on December 19. Based on his reply, the image definitely dates before 1943. I don't know if that means it can be passed as likely PD however. Perhaps, you may know the answer? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the first issue is that in de PD-author template the author is to be added. For the second image, I think you did the right thing to pass it. Things may change if an author is found. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Noeeta pupillata, dorsal view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Two images with OTRS tickets & 3 Govt of India images

This image has OTRS permission but I am not sure how to correct the pd-attribution issue. The uploader did not take the image. Could you fix it?

This November 2013 image is reportedly from a private archive. But with only 1 image from this uploader, can we trust it is own work? In wiki, we trust a newbie/new contributor but what are the rules on Commons for new uploaders?

Finally, does the Government of India freely license images on their web site? An uploader makes this claim on at least four images here, here, here and here. If this is true, perhaps, you can also correct the pd-attribution issues. If not, it may be time to file a DR on them.

As an aside, I fixed 50 pd-attribution problems on images in this category on Sunday. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is an family photo. The release of the picture in the public domain is covered by the OTRS-ticket and it seems fine to me. I added the no permission tagg to the second picture. Natuur12 (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank You. But are the 4 Government of India images free or unfree? When there are 4 pictures from a government web site, it is a big issue sadly. If they are free, please correct the license for them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that they are in the public domaine if you look at the permission stated at the website. Maybe the attribution tagg can be used but I'm not a 100% sure. It is not cc-by-sa either as stated under permission. You may use this files but not in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. So the question is, is this permission sufficient for commons and are those files not free enough. Natuur12 (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Admin Lymantria knows the answer for the 4 Indian government photos and will take the correct action--whether its a DR or not. As for me, I have corrected the Khadr family photo license and will have to sign off now as its 1:21 AM in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Thank You Natuur12, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does one do with the 4 government of India pictures. Are they free Lymantria? --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank You. Its quite OK. You have to celebrate Christmas with your family and friends just as I had to do so too. Thanks for resolving the issue. The CC BY SA license statement by the uploader confused me as I did not see any such license. PS: This Category fell from 365 images before you and I took some action to 292 images. If there is any other images that you wish to pass, please feel free to have a look. I passed the easy ones. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you or Natuur12 know who was the person who got this image OTRS'ed, please feel free to add a name to the pd-license template. I'm afraid, I don't know. If not I suppose this image will remain in this category here for the time being but no one will delete it. This lady is a Dutch woman. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. This picture was provided by R. Nijboer. However, this ticket covers pictures uploaded by a specific user provided by R. Nijboer. This image is not his own work since it is to old. Se lived from 1900 till 27 March 1936. The ticket covers images provided by R. Nijboer, including this one. But I'm not sure that he is the copyrighholder because of the age of the picture. It is likely that he owns the original picture but that doesnot make him the copyrightholder and I don't believe that this image in the public domain. It could be, but there is some reasonabel doubt since it was taken between, circa 1920 and 1936. Therefor I don't believe that the OTRS-ticket is sufficiant to cover the PD-satus of the image. Natuur12 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I think it is best to use {{PD-EU-anonymous}} here. I can't read OTRS-messages, and as the OTRS-ticket is originally to en-wiki, I think you'd have to address an en-wiki-OTRS-member to be sure what the contents of the ticket are exactly. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can read this ticket ass well since I got acces to all the permission queue's. (I was abel to confirm that the person who granted the permission couldn't have taken the picture via the OTRS-ticket and the ticket gives no further explanation how he became the copyrightholder) The author is unknown but this doesn't mean that it is an anonymous work. We just didn't find out the name of the photographer but he may verry well published it under his own name. Since it is likely that this photograph comes from someone's personal photocollection it is hard te determine if the work is anonymous or not. Kind regards Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, I overthought this myself as well, there still is some doubt. In the 1930's it was not unusual to have the photographer's signature or address sticker on the photograph backside, when it was an official one. Perhaps R. Nijboer can check his original image on this. If not, we should start a DR. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:HRH Sophie, Countess of Wessex.jpg

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Do you or Natuur12 know if this image is copyright free? There is a link given for it. If it is, then someone or some organization should be attributed. I cannot tell unfortunately. This is the Wikipedia talkpage of the original Wikipedia uploader but it says nothing about whether this image is free or a copyright violation...since this image is sourced to wikia.royalty and his deleted images are non-free media files. The only question is who licensed the image freely first and owns the copyright--and I don't know the answer sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the source. It's a Wikia licened under the cc-by-sa-3.0 so the public domain tagg seems to be wrong. There is no Exif data, there is no known author and it looks like a professional photograph. The file has no licening tagg at the Wikia. So the question is, who makes all those pictures and who gave permission to use them. Most pf the pictures have no licening tagg. I'm quite reluctand with uploading images from wkia's since a lot of them are not a reliable source. I looked on they internet and found this website. According to the date (2011/03/24) this picture was used on this site before it was uploaded to the Wikia (April 20, 2011) I am starting to doubt that they are in fact the copyrightholder and that it is an unreliable source. Unfortoanatly the waybackmachine has no printscreen which is old enough. But I looked further and found this image which was uploaded at 15 september 2005 to Picassa as all rights served. So I don't believe that this image is freely licened and that is definatly not in the public domain. The source is unreliable and it was uploaded as all rights served elswhere before it was uploaded to the wikia. Natuur12 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You. I will file a copy vio on it...and let the Admin decide whether to delete it right away or convert it to a regular DR. With wikia images, I don't know where the original image comes from until I saw the picasa site. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Leoboudv, for mentioning this image, and thank you, Natuur12, for your research. Speedy deleted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 death category

Dear Lymantria,

I will be reducing my activities on Commons by the start of February 2014 due to my job. I understand that Commons is a volunteer project but still it is surprising to see 2013 death cats missing for many important people as in this 4 examples: Anette Funicello, David Frost, Richie Havens, Italian PM Giulio Andreotti& Patti Page

Patti Page died on January 1, 2013 and my local Canadian TV news station had a short 4-5 minute broadcast of notable people who died in 2013--and she was the first broadcast since she died the first in 2013 but she sold millions of music records in her time and even the 1985 blockbuster film Back to the Future I had a poster displaying her. Older fans remember Funicello and her tragic MS disease, too. Its strange that the Italian contributors forgot to put a cat for Andreotti who died in May 2013. If these people were omitted in the 2013 death cat, then this list would have major gaps. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 List

Dear Admin Lymantria,

That 2013 obituary list is quite good. I did not know Chuck Muncie died in 2013 sadly either. I think I got most of the rest now. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I found another here and here. That's about it, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

267th Chemical Company, Red Hat Storage Area at Johnston Atoll in late 1970's.jpg

Lymantria, My understanding was that the license associated with this photo or required by Commons has an exception to photos already in the Public Domain for another reason. Since the photo of other military members in uniform during service was taken by a military member on a military base (or feasibly a military contractor who notes after being taken into custody, permission of base commander to keep and distribute along with more photos of a similar nature-Though any photography at a military base would require the permission of the base commander. The image should be in the Public Domain regardless of the flicker licence. I hope you will reconsider the deletion and I thank you for any insight or assistance (and also for the link to the flicker tool). Contacting the user who uploaded the file requires a flicker account which I do not have.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this man was not in military service, hence not a federal employee, and therefore his photographs are not in Public Domain by law. Permission by the commander is something different. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to determine his employer (whether military, government agency, or private contractor) from the Photograph(s). This was the late 1970's and it is only one remote possibility he was a contractor or traveler there. May I ask how your were determine the employer so easily? I am still searching. Would it be possible to contact the Ficker user on my behalf in order to request modification of the license? There seem to be a lot of files on flicker where the user has assigned their own license to images already in the public domain. Such as this one or this one for example where the users have no ownership right. How is this typically addressed? Is there a tool to find the original photo elsewhere (using metadata etc)? Thank you again for any assistance.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to determine it, but it is what his story suggests. Being arrested at a military site and having to explain you are not a spy is not the most logical thing for a military in active service, so at least there is reasonable doubt. And it must be better for keeping the image. Of course you may ask the Flickr-owner to release the image under a free license. If it is crystal-clear that an image is in PD, then that overrules the private license. For a military image, it would be needed if the photographer was known (with military rank for instance). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would surprise me at this top secret base, where typical uniform was shorts and sandals. Every Gov agency was here but the unit pictured- the 267th Chemical company (and likely those doing the "arresting") were Army and originally had an even more secret mission related to Project 112. Whether they were a member of the military or not, anyone taking photos of the security checkpoint of a chemical weapon storage area would be challenged for authorization and if they didn't have it, they'd be taken into custody and/or to the commander. I'm working on Johnston Atoll and have a Red Hat draft in my sandbox. Have a look.Johnvr4 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Thanks for your reply on my image. There is one final matter. Please feel free to say in the DR above if this image I filed a DR on--which I passed--can be kept for Commons. I don't know if it is OK or not. If you don't wish to make a reply, that's OK too. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reacted there. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 images

Is there anything that should be done about cleaning up these 2 image's licensing. The second image has a source but I don't know if its free...as its in Russian but there is a link to its terms of use also in Cyrillic.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the first image license, but did not dive into it further. The second image I deleted copyvio. I did not find any reference to a free license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 interesting PD-author images

There are 3 interesting PD-author images here:

In the first image, someone claims that the above image is from NASA but can this be proven today? If so, this image can be rescued from this category.

In this second image, someone did not use a bot to transfer this image from Russian Wikipedia. They just grabbed it from a Wikipedia site and put a link to its original Wikipedia site. The Commons user even says that GennadyL is on Ukrainian wiki when he is on Russian wiki. The final version of the original Russian wiki image is of higher resolution and has no timestamp, too. What is the solution here--or is it too late to fix the problem? I see this problem many times where people don't use the 'move to commons bot' because maybe they don't know this bot exists.

    • I would copy the relevant information and upload the most actual image. People are not aware on how to copy images correctly to commons, indeed. That is somewhat difficult sometimes.
  • File:Windmill Beach banner 2.JPG

This is a simple question. Someone created a derivative of an image on Commons. In this case who would you credit as the Author--the original creator of the image OR the creator of this derivative image above? I never did know the answer here.

    • The presented solution is the best: credit each contributor for his part. However, the derivation is only a crop - in such case the second author doesn't really contribute something copyrightable and may remain unmentioned. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:S.paleolog reconstruction04.jpg

Please feel free to attribute the author here if you can. The author is not a user but a Russian wikipedia article on a person, so I don't know how you give pd attribution to it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This DR

Could you or Natuur12 view and perhaps vote in this DR before it is closed? I assume that this image of a building interior is prohibited on Commons since Italy has no COM:FOP but it is a picture of an elevator--though not an ordinary picture. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't know if you or Natuur12 is around but I don't know if Commons can keep this image. While the uploader seems reliable, it would have been nice to know the identity of the source--and even with the high resolution--there is no metadata. The image is not used, so unless someone wishes to E-mail the uploader on his talkpage, would/should Commons keep this 2005 image? Its a hard call. Sorry. Its the uploader's own work from this edit as the uploader is the "source"--I assume that is the right reading. Can someone give him attribution? I'm just so very tired. I have to sign off now as its 2:10 AM in Vancouver, Canada. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hmm, regulations on PD may not have been as strict in 2005 as they are now. It could well be that a simple "PD" was sufficient. I wouldn't put too much energy in it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader didn't type in a license and Jarek tagged it as no license. I first passed this image and then revoked my pass. But should someone just type in the license and pass the image...in this case? The lack of a license seems to be a technicality. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PBB Protein CRH image.jpg== & ==File:PBB Protein NR1I3 image.jpg

If you agree that these 2 images are indeed in the public domain, how would you prefer to give attribution to a bot. There are probably 25-30 such images in this category. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to do this correctly either, and I am short of time diving further into it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

If you can, please feel free to state if this image can be kept without COM:OTRS permission. I have no clear views on it, just some doubts whether the flickr owner owns its copyright outright. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These images from Belarus

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Someone from Russia or Belarus uploaded 150+ images onto panoramio review and there are too many to mark. Unfortunately I am busy and no one else marks them anymore it seems. Some of them--only you may know whether its safe to pass or fail since there is no FOP in this country. Please feel free to decide below among these images. One is a new bridge and one is a 1952 train terminal building:

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last 3 images

Dear Lymantria,

There are the three final panoramio images from Belarus. If you think they are OK for Commons, please feel free to mark them. If not please file a DR. The rest have been dealt with now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa review

Dear Lymantria,

A bot uploaded 800 images to picasa review about 1 week ago. Alan, I and another reviewer have been marking some images. But could you mark or fail these images below. Some were taken from Innoprom 2012 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. All but the last image which is from Montenegro are from Russia and both states have no COM:FOP. Which images is OK for Commons and which is a copyright violation? Only an Admin can tell for certain. Some images are props and some have 2D graffito on them...so I don't know the solution.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Even an administrator can't be certain here! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also add these two strange ones from panoramio:

The rest are from Innoprom 2012 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the imageas, and nominated a couple of the images. Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These 5 images/music files

Can you consider marking these files? I don't know if they are OK for Commons.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I need some thoughts on these. Perhaps I won't find time to quietly consider these before Monday. The Deave Matthew Band doesn't seem to be suitable for commons though. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

If you have any views about this DR, please make a comment. Its a modern bridge in Montenegro which has no FOP, I believe. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Dear Lymantria,

I don't know if you or Natuur12 have time. If you have some time, please check this DR and try to make a reply. Perhaps I was mistaken in filing a DR here? I don't know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr bot malfunction

Dear Lymantria,

There is a flickr bot malfunction as I stated here Do you know someone who can resolve it? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. It seems that Flickr has changed its flags, and that would be easily repairable. I suggest you to post a message to User talk:FlickreviewR and perhaps Commons:Bots/Work requests. As the source is available according to User:FlickreviewR, perhaps someone is willing to take over the bot and repair it first of course. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Lymantria,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian FOP?

Dear Lymantria,

In human flickr review, there are many images of single buildings with the title 'Bucharest' but Romania has no COM:FOP. Some images are unique. If you believe that the images violate Romanian FOP laws, please file a mass DR on them as I am not sure if the images should be passed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv, I see that there are many images in Flickr human review, and it is okay to just check the license and do a rough test on rightfulness only. I noticed the Bucharest images as well, and many may be out of copyright or nondescript enough. Some of them are not - but a mass DR is not the right solution. Single DR's can be started any time. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr redesign

Dear Lymantria,

With the new flickr permanent redesign, is it impossible to copy the text for a flickr image if one chooses to upload it here. In my photo here, it seems I cannot copy the descriptive text under '1670 Faenza Italian jar' that I typed, I notice...if I wished to upload the image here. I'm not a fan of this new redesign but now its permanent and people cannot opt out of it anymore at flickr. Any views on copying the text? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I copy-paste "1670 Faenza Italian jar This is a 1670 Faenza? (according to the museum label) storage jar from Italy. The date 1670 is near the base of the jar. This item is today part of the collection of the Koerner European Ceramic Gallery of the UBC Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver, Canada.Its museum catalogue number is Ce299". Just by selecting the text and right clicking.... Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank You! Previously, I could always highlight the text and then type CTRL+C but when I do that now, I get an Opps message. So, I did what you suggested and it works. I should have tried using the mouse. Thank You for the tip.

PS: This flickr redesign is permanent now and some people aren't happy Maybe I'm conservative but this redesign is a bit too much for me. I prefer the old flickr/current panoramio/picasa design but such is life. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred the old flickr layout, but probably we'll get used to it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramio categories

Dear Lymantria,

Can you create a Here for this new Panoramio category now that a Panoramio review bot has been created?

Secondly, can you add descriptions to this category above as well as to these two categories below here and here which are so new that they have no description? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, This is not my forte! I tried to make a description here, but I am not sure how images end up here so I left this unwritten. Are those rejected by the bot? How are they marked then? This seemed already dealt with. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Felipe_Alvarez_Vilchez.jpg

Hi Lymantria, you seem to have missed the deletion of the title file of this DR. Perhaps you missed the fact that File:Felipe Alvarez Vilches.jpg and File:Felipe Alvarez Vilchez.jpg were different? Anyway, Vilchez still exists. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yes, I missed that! Thank you for mentioning. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Do you have an opinion on this DR, I filed? I don't know the uploader. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andre The Giant trophy.jpg

Can Commons keep this trophy? I don't know. It is designed after this wrestler Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my opinion we can't. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 images

Dear Lymantria,

In this image, the flickr account owner states he wants a "cc by sa 3.0 US" license for his image on his account profile? Can you give him such a license--as I did not know this existed?

Secondly, if this image here simple enough to be passed--as it has the Google name? It looks simple but with the copyright lawyers who can be certain. You or Natuur12 may know the answer.

I did some of the zombies but they are pretty nasty. Natuur12 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images from this Flickr account

Can images from this flickr account be blacklisted? Someone has been uploading images from this account here but they should all be speedy deleted. See this DR where the uploader uploaded the images again. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the user. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dera Admin Lymantria,

These images should be deleted if possible. The images were uploaded before the account was added to the bad account list. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These images was also uploaded before the blacklist sadly. I ordered a new review but they still remain on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rotatebot is not working

Dear Lymantria,

Rotatebot has not worked since May 5, 2014. Do you know who can resolve this problem? The backlog will only grow and its operator's activity is sporadic Can you E-mail him/her or can someone else fix the problem. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

If you can give your views on this DR, please feel free to do so as I don't know if these images need OTRS permission or not. If I have made a mistake, please make a reply in the DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv, The NOAH image seems to be a design and not an actual building. I am quite unsure if the Flickr-account holder is the actual copyright holder. Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vlindertje

Hoi Lymantria, File:Rups van ?.jpg is geüpload voor Wiki Loves Earth, alleen weten we niet zeker om welke soort het precies gaat. Natuur12 heeft het vermoeden dat het om een donsvlinder (Euproctis similis) gaat. Zou jij hier even een blik op kunnen werpen voor een second opionion? Dank alvast! Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik denk een grote beer, maar ben niet 100% zeker. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chelostoma campanularum.jpg

Hallo Lymantria, Allereerst dank voor je onaflatende betrokkenheid en tijd en werk die je in wikipedia stopt! Het was me opgevallen dat de determinatie van het Chelostoma campanularum.jpg op commons niet correct is. Het betreft hier een vlieg, geen klokjesbij (dat is te zien aan de antennes). Op waarneming.nl is het inmiddels ook een zweefvlieg onbekend geworden. Het is me nog niet gelukt om te determineren wat voor een beestje het dan wel is. Zou je toch de titel van het bestand en/of de bijgaande tekst kunnen wijzigen in iets minder verwarrends ? Bedankt en gegroet Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

✓ Done en bedankt voor je complimenten! Je doet zelf ook veel goed werk, en met name het plaatsen van veel afbeeldingen op nl mag niet onderschat worden. Dank! Groet, Lymantria (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lymantria/Archive_7&oldid=703002268"