User talk:MGA73/Archive 18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POTY2009

Hello. Finally we are going to open POTY2009. Will you help its translations? Thank you!--miya (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sadly I was away for a few days... But I started translation. --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Panoramio review

Dear MGA,

Thank you for your clarification above. I have a question on this category I have marked a few images here but it is too many for me (right now). I think that maybe only 20% can be kept but the rest are either unfree or were never free in the first place. But since no one marks them, no one knows which are free. I will chose not to mark an image if I see that the copyright owner was notified of a photos presence here. But would you consider marking some photos? Just a suggestion...if you have some free time. Some images here , here and here from this user are licensed freely. He has more in this category but it is almost 1 AM here now. The pictures have been on Commons for more than 1 year already but no one marks them. I usually mark picasa images until I found a few in this separate class. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it seems that this is a forgotten category. It is now down to 74 images. As far as I remember I added a link to the category from the Flickr review category to get more attention to the category. I also contacted one of the uploaders some time ago to make him get a permission from some mass upload he made once. Some of the images has some sort of permission on Panoramio but is is not in English. I suggest we review all that is ok and then take the others one by one when we have some time. The new ones can be tagged with no permission but the old ones might need a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah! Thank you for marking the ones which were free here. I said that I thought that most of the Panoramio images were never free at all. I based my judgement on the fact that the Commons uploader's name is Not the same as the Panoramio account owner's name. So, its 2 different people here. Also, The Commons uploader uses the restrictive 'copyright free if' license tag which is suspicious. Even I could do this if I want to....but I don't. That is why I say if the uploader was not notified, the image should face a formal DR. I moved this image to Commons from English wikipedia with this restrictive license but there is no doubt the uploader is the photographer:
  • File:Precinct of Montu 002.jpg I then told Lasse what I did on his wiki talkpage and he never replied to my message so I guess he is OK with my actions here....since he can speak English. But such is not the case with the remaining images. So, I guess one can assume the worst. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The user I talked about was not the same user as the one on Panoramio. But in a DR (?) he told that the Panoramio-user was his friend. So it should be easy to get the user to confirm that on Panoramio. No confirmation -> we delete. I have not checked all images so there might still be some easy ones left to save. --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Feel free to review and pass, I believe, those images where permission was given by the flickr owner in cases of old images from 2005-2008, according to Lupo. Please especially read this discussion I had with Admin Lupo on this Panoramio problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  • PS: I notice there are many Russian images with Cyrillic titles here that you can mark. They are at the bottom of the category but have an acceptable license I see. I think it is between 20-35 pictures if you have the time. I have marked many but there are more. Sometimes the uploader strangely gives the wrong license like in this case when 'cc by 3.0' is the right one and gives clear attribution. I have changed a few licenses by this uploader and passed the photo. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Wow! So you were the one who was able to mark those c.60 Russian images. The Russian Insider user uploads many images from panoramio but sadly no one marked them...until now. On the Mandela stadium, Admin Lupo and Turelio confirmed my worst fears. In cropping so much to focus on that image, the uploader destroyed De Minimis. It is really unfortunate that South Africa does not follow British Commonwealth laws but the Afrikaners are like the Burmese; a proud and independent people who hate being ruled by a foreign land (the UK) and wish to make their own laws. Its a pity I was too late to see this deleted image which has sat here for more than 1 year.
  • File:Тулома.jpg It was a great photo too. But I have 1 flickr account and that is enough for me. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Panoramio images

Did you know there are likely more panoramio images here which have not been tagged for review. I found this batch here and only the first was tagged for review. I predict the rest would fail review since they are all licensed as ARR and there is no indication so far that the uploader had the copyright owner's permission. I don't have an account on panoramio anyway and don't speak the language. Maybe your bot could detect more hidden panoramio images but this is just an idea. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure there is more. I would probably be a good idea to have a bot look for more images. I have thought more about the backlog in this category. I'm sure I reviewed all the images when I "found" the category some weeks ago. It seems that someone suddenly marked a lot of old images for review.
Thank you for your great work! You are a super star!!! --MGA73 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I removed many of the panoramio review tags from Jorgebarrios' own images but there still some other images by him to deal with. Hopefully, you can remove the tags from his images too. I think the number of panoramio images needing review is now down to c.433 pictures . I only typed in a message to mark 1 photo myself of this airport in Tunisia. I contacted Lupo about this special case. Its past 10:30 PM now and I'm tired. I must have marked almost 100+ images by now. Good luck marking them in your free time, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment To Jorge Barrios. No if you control an account on Commons and one on Panoramio or Flickr or somewhere else then a review is not needed. Sometimes we ask users to make an edit on their account to verify that it really is the same user. Not because we do not trust users but as an easy way to be sure and to protect other peoples rights to their images. Could I perhaps make you add a note/link on http://www.panoramio.com/user/jorgebarrios linking to User:Jorgebarrios?
To both. I used my bot to find and mark images that (might) need a review. It is easy to find and fix images once it is verified that they do not need an review (like if it is own work). I created {{Panoramioreviewunnecessary}} to add on files that do not need an review. Just removing the template will result in the bot tagging them again or makeing it hard to use bot to find unreviewed files in the future. --MGA73 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The category is 285 photos. I think the most that can pass have already been marked but there are still a few more which can be passed. However I lack the time. Monday was a public holiday in Canada so I had some free time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:HMS Bristol alongside Whale Island-1.JPG

The panoramio category is less than 160 photos. (though there is 1 uploader named Insider who uploads a slew of images from this site with the correct license just today. (I hope you mark the unmarked photos in your free time since I marked many already) The rest Must probably be failed though a few likely can still be passed as I do 'miss' some images. But you must make a decision on this photo above--whether it is a panoramio wash (ie. stolen) or 'own work.' I cannot tell since it is the uploader's only image here. It may be own work since the description is quite good and has the correct metadata by the uploader but it is hard to be sure with just 1 image. If you are willing to assume good faith, please pass it yourself. Thank You Michael, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The DR on the image was just filed after I sent this message to you. But my basic question remains. It is either own work or it is not. Who do you believe? I have told the nominator of my message to you here on his talkpage...because I asked you this question before he filed this DR. I find it striking that he knows many details in this picture to make me wonder if it can be own work but I cannot be sure. As I have said, I have no panoramio account, only flickr. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment First thank you Leoboudv for your great work cleaning up! Yes I mark a few images when I have time. But as many others I have much more work I would like to do than I have time to do it in. So sometimes I do not review images for some time. I also think that it is ok if images stay for a few weeks before they are reviewed so you can take a day off without feeling bad :-)
As for the image I will comment on the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope you do comment on it. It is a quality photo...and may be deleted before anyone can confirm or deny if this is own work as the uploader says. If you have a panoramio account, that would be better still to contact the copyright owner, I suppose. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you know any Admins here who have a Panoramio account. Just curious. Does E. Zelenko have one as a Russian Admin I wonder. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Perhaps we should have a template just like the one to link to Flickr accounts :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Then it looks like we can't save this image because of Nard's actions here...unless Nard knows someone on panoramio here who is an Admin/trusted user sadly. How unfortunate. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

License reviewer

You are receiving this message because you have importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js') in your monobook.js or vector.js. The License cv tab has a new function, please see the documentation for configuration or report errors in a new section on that page. Thank you, ZooFari 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Lake in Il'inogorsk SE2.jpg & File:Lake in Il'inogorsk E1.jpg

Dear MGA73,

Do you trust Lzhl to pass these 2 images above. The original sources seem to have timed out or were deleted but I think I trust him because I passed these 2 similar looking photos below and the original panoramio source is still there. What do you think? They were all uploaded on the same day.

Anyway, its your call. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked panoramio user here http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11924118 - lets hope for a good answer :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Dear MGA,

Thank you for saving this image: File:HMS Bristol alongside Whale Island-1.JPG where the license was changed to cc by sa generic. Do you know anything about picasa or panoramio? Are they European based picture collection web sites? I see many foreign language (ie. Cyrillic) users here and I'm guessing that this is the case. I hope the images of the other 2 lakes can be saved too. But if they are deleted, I suppose that 2 out of 4 photos is better than nothing. The unfortunate thing is these photos are not used anywhere except on Lzhl's gallery. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some Geograph categories

Hi MGA73, I was browsing Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/top categories and Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/categories. For the following categories county subcategories should be created (lot of them already exist). When the filter database caught up (monday morning) we should probably run the bots on these categories. Could you create the missing subcats?

Thank you, Multichill (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You will like Template talk:Intersect categories#Subcategories!. Multichill (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah! I'm creating the subcategories now and I'm using "Intersect categories" like last time - so it would be nice if it works even better now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I added even more coolness to the intersect_categories.py bot. I added the option -bigcat:. You can use it to have the bot split out a category like Category:Farmhouses in England (currently running on that one). It uses the sortkey of the sortcategory to find out what category to intersect it with. Seems to work quite well. Multichill (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Worked great, I seem to have missed Category:Fields in Scotland. Could you create the subcats? Multichill (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Enjoy! :-D --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mount Pleasant Street NW.jpg

The flickr author specifically requests on the url a "cc by 3.0 license", not cc by 2.0. Shouldn't Commons honour his request? If yes, plesae pass it on this license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would add 3.0 (or both). --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help here. By the way. I sent a message to Admin Lupo on this DR. But, if you could contact the panoramio owner to ask if he will licenses the image on a CC BY or CC BY SA generic license (or type on the url that he licenses the picture on either of the 2 licenses), it could be kept. Otherwise. It must be deleted for the reasons I gave in the DR. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Vale and other nuances

Hi MGA73. I see that your bot has been busy creating sets of subcategories for the geograph project files. At least one area has given a problem, namely Category:Vale of Glamorgan. The previous subcats were a mix of the terms "...of Vale of Glamorgan" (incorrect) and "...of the Vale of Glamorgan" (gramatically and idiomatically correct; standard usage). I spent some time getting everything into new "...of the Vale of Glamorgan" subcats and now I find a whole bunch more with the incorrect term have appeared. It's an easy enough mistake, but I can assure you that "the Vale" is the correct term when used in a sentence such as "a building in the Vale of Glamorgan". Anyway, obviously all the terms used should match and now we have a mixture again. Could you please get your bot to change all the new subcats - except *Archaeology of..., which I've done myself - to the normal form "... of the Vale of Glamorgan"? (it might seem like an anomaly but 'Vale of Glamorgan' itself is fine for the main cat - English is a peculiar language and things would be more straightforward in Welsh!). By the way, I've also place the existing subcategories *Archaeological sites of [county] into the new *Archaeology of... categories. They don't exist for every county yet so maybe that's why the bot missed them? I don't mind too much if they are replaced by the *Archaeology of... categories - perhaps we don't need both at county level? - but it's no big deal. Cheers, Anatiomaros (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved the categories now. Hope I got them all :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks fine, thank you very much. I wonder if I could possibly ask another favour when your bot has nothing to do (no big hurry)? For some reason we have the Category:Penarth, Wales (also in the Vale of Glamorgan). There is no other Penarth in Wales or elsewhere. Plain 'Penarth' is the article name on sister projects. Problem is it contains 49 files and two subcats, otherwise I'd move them to Category:Penarth myself. Like I say, there's no great hurry, but if you find the time it would be helpful. Diolch/Thanks, Anatiomaros (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the reason for the "funny" name is this one en:Penarth, Delaware :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Good detective work. Probably has a population of 10! Are we ever likely to have a category for it here? To most people Penarth (Wales) is Penarth and it's quite a well-known place. I nearly created Category:Penarth myself a few months back when it turned up as red so the chances are that someone will do so some time in the future anyway. Ah well, there are worse things in life... :-) Anatiomaros (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This DC Minyan Message

Dear Admin MGA73,

You told me once that you have dealt with a situation where the uploader and the photographer know each other. In this case, the photograph I refer to is this one below:

Could you contact the uploader here and confirm if this is the case? I have chosen not to mark it but to remark on it. As you know, I have no OTRS access and am not an Admin. And I have no desire to be one since I have not much free time in my job. Feel free to tell him that you know me and that you are responding to a request by me to verify if what he says about the author's permission is true...or not? At present the license is almost free except for the ND restriction but it is still not free enough. (maybe the uploader can get OTRS permission here if what he says is true?) What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The license on is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ now. That is ok. Except for the GFDL-part. --MGA73 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That is good then that there is OTRS permission. Its a pity the picture is a little lower resolution but its useful. I take photos at high resolutions if possible. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr

Hi. I notice that you made this diff crossing out "So far the best argument for age is that Stillwaterising claims to be an expert in underage girls."

First, I've never claimed that I'm an expert in underage girls. You can search on or off wiki, never said. I find the statement libelous (slander) and would like you to remove it, not just cross it out. I could take this to AN/U if I need to, but I would prefer not to.

I've made some remarks before that didn't seem to come out right when other people viewed them so I'm rather understand how what sounds right at the time in your head can look bad for others once in print. And I'm saying this looks bad on me, so please delete the text in the quote above. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MGA73 shouldn't delete that because we do not (and should not) edit the past. Actually, the original comment might shred a bad light on MGA73 rather than on you. Nillerdk (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason I wrote as I did was this comment [2] where you state that a girl is 10.5-15.3 years old (notice it is not 10-15 but 10.5 and 15.3 it sounds very precise). In my opinion only people with some sort of education in medicine or whatever should claim to be "an expert" in judging the age of girls. As you can se I crossed the wording + added "sorry" shortly after I have written the comment because it did not sound the way it was intented (and before someone else commented it). --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mountains of Kent

Category discussion notification Category:Mountains of Kent has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

whoever is master of this drone...

It is pulling "non-free" out of original edit histories, of images bot-uploaded to Commons, which tags were corrected before upload. The histories are preserved but the images are not non-free and should not be speedied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know that some images should not be speedied but I would expect that some images should. I expect admins to check before they choose to delete. The reason for the "one time bot-run" is that a user uploaded thousands of images without checking properly and therefore there was a high risk that images might be fair use or otherwise "bad". To avoid that images stayed on commons for weeks, months or years before someone checked those images, I choose this solution ([3]). It is not good but sadly I know no better alernative. If a check shows that images are ok is possible to make the bot remove the speedy-tag again. --MGA73 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Renames

Hi! Thank you for advice. I try to use it from this time.Ten-nen 23:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Opuntia0 filtered.jpg

I am making an article on an educational website for Cylindropuntia mortolensis and I don't have any images. I was hoping you could confirm permission so I could use it.

Thanks

--WikiaGuy (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is in French so I cannot read the permission. But I think that it would be safe to use it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks --WikiaGuy (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on ticket 2010033010047441

Could you take a look at the forwarded permission in ticket 2010033010047441 and let me know if you think it is ok? I took this ticket when I first became an agent and tried to get a direct reply from the copyright holder (in India) but after several attempts he has never replied back. Just wanted another opinion on accepting the forwarded email. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I think it is a sort of "for Wikipedia"-permission so we have some arguments to delete. But the permission does say "PD" and the copyright holder should know what PD means. You also send him a mail and told him what that mean and if he did not like that he could have replyed. So we also have some arguments to keep it. So I think it is "in the grey zone". --MGA73 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:VicRawl.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

Hello MGA73, I made a mistake in naming this image File:File-Nicola Piovani.jpg. You could move it to File:Nicola Piovani.jpg? Thank you, --RanZag (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure ✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious User?!

Hi, we "met" some time ago. As you are admin on commons I would like to ask you to have a look at the contributions of User:Arnaud 25 ([4]). I currently found 2 copyright violations of him: File:Rotfeuerfisch nah.JPG and File:Rotfeuerfisch.JPG; please look at the history of the images as well. In these cases the user picked some de: images uploaded them in a downscaled size to commons, claimed own authorship and changed the license from PD to GFDL. I'm a bit concerned that this was not caused by nescience but it could have been his full intent. A look to his talk page does not increase my trust in this user. There could be a lot of more copyright violations by this user, but I don't know how to check this and how to react. Could you please investigate. Thanks a lot. --Jutta234 (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes you are right. That does not look good. Sadly this user has thousands of uploads so it is not easy to check. I hope that the user just did not know how to do it right. I found another example you might be able to help me with File:Cruas-1.JPG perhaps from de:Superphenix-3.JPG. This image and images like File:Peugeot 402 Custom.jpg has the upload summery "...de.wikipedia...". Perhaps we can search for these images and check some more. I will also inform uploader when you have checked the new image(s) i mentioned above. We should not check - uploader should clean up own mess. If uploader has made no mistakes since 2007 we should not block user. --MGA73 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a search and found these:

  1. (show/hide) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (diff | hist) N File:Bill gates' house2.jpg ? ({{Information |Description={{fr|1=Maison de Bill Gates}} |Source=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20091125062420!Bill_gates%27_house.jpg |Author=W.marsh |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }})
  2. (show/hide) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (diff | hist) N File:Newmexico naturalhistorymuseum outside.jpg ? ({{Information |Description={{en|1=The entrance to the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science.}} |Source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newmexico_naturalhistorymuseum_outside.jpg |Author=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerryPlanet |Date=12 N)
  3. (show/hide) 07:27, 13 November 2007 (diff | hist) File:Charles-Rolls.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Charles Rolls |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C-Rolls.jpg] |Date=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C-Rolls.jpg] |Author=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C-Rolls.jpg] |Permission= |other_versions= }})
  4. (show/hide) 16:17, 11 November 2007 (diff | hist) File:Wright Flyer III above.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Wright Flyer III de 1905 |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg] |Date=1905 |Author=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg] |Permission= |other_versions= }})
  5. (show/hide) 19:31, 13 August 2007 (diff | hist) File:La Virée 2.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Groupe acadien La Virée |Source=[http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:Valanice&action=edit Utilisateur:Valanice] |Date=2007 |Author=User:Arnaud 25 & [http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:V)
  6. (show/hide) 19:30, 13 August 2007 (diff | hist) File:La Virée 1.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Groupe acadien La Virée |Source=[http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:Valanice&action=edit Utilisateur:Valanice] |Date=2007 |Author=User:Arnaud 25 & [http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:V)
  7. (show/hide) 10:55, 27 July 2007 (diff | hist) File:Hallofmirrors.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Galerie des Glaces du Chateau de Versailles |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hallofmirrors.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hallofmirrors.jpg] |Date=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hallofmirrors.jpg http:/)
  8. (show/hide) 13:00, 21 July 2007 (diff | hist) File:Martyrdom Michelangelo.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=" Le Martyr de Saint Pierre " par Michel-Ange |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martyrdom_Michelangelo.jpg] |Date=15eme siècle |Author=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martyrdom_Michelangelo.jpg] |Permission= |ot)
  9. (show/hide) 11:15, 20 July 2007 (diff | hist) File:BaronessEphrussideRothschild.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Barone Ephrusside Rothschild |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BaronessEphrussideRothschild.jpg] |Date=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BaronessEphrussideRothschild.jpg] |Author=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B)
  10. (show/hide) 15:43, 8 June 2007 (diff | hist) File:Shadow1interior.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shadow1interior.jpg] |Date=2006 |Author=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shadow1interior.jpg] |Permission=Libre de droit - Domaien Publique |other_versio)
  11. (show/hide) 09:53, 4 June 2007 (diff | hist) File:Cruas-1.JPG ? ({{Information |Description=Centrale Nucleaire de Cruas en Provence (France) |Source=[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Cruas-1.JPG] |Date=2005 |Author=[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Cruas-1.JPG] |Permission=Libre de Droit - Domaine Publique |other_v)
  12. (show/hide) 13:50, 1 May 2007 (diff | hist) File:Elifaz 152PAN.jpg ? ({{Information |Description=panoramique Mer rouge |Source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elifaz_152PAN.jpg] |Date=2007 |Author=User:Arnaud 25 }})
  13. (show/hide) 11:19, 1 May 2007 (diff | hist) File:Rotfeuerfisch.JPG ? ({{Information |Description=Pterois volitans (rascasse) |Source=[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rotfeuerfisch.JPG] |Date=2007 |Author=User:Arnaud 25 }})
  14. (show/hide) 07:52, 16 April 2007 (diff | hist) File:Wimbit-MercedesJellinek.jpg ? (Mercedes Jellinek - libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wimbit-MercedesJellinek.jpg])
  15. (show/hide) 07:46, 16 April 2007 (diff | hist) File:Wimbit-Jellinek-Main.jpg ? (Emil Jellinek - Libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wimbit-Jellinek-Main.jpg])
  16. (show/hide) 07:44, 16 April 2007 (diff | hist) File:Wimbit-Jellinek-ClassicPic.jpg ? (Emil Jellinek - Libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wimbit-Jellinek-Main.jpg])
  17. (show/hide) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (diff | hist) File:Georges Cuvier 3.jpg ? (Georges Cuvier - Libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vincentwfa.jpg])
  18. (show/hide) 12:01, 5 April 2007 (diff | hist) File:Peugeot 402 Custom.jpg ? (Peugeot 402 customisée - Libre de droit from [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Peugeot_402_rod.jpg])
  19. (show/hide) 01:18, 24 March 2007 (diff | hist) File:Sangreal.jpg ? (Saint Graal de la légende du Roi Arthur et des Chevaliers de la Table Ronde . Libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sangreal.jpg])
  20. (show/hide) 20:11, 23 March 2007 (diff | hist) File:Ferrari 512 TR 2.JPG ? (Ferrari 512 TR libre de droit from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:512tr_side.JPG])
  21. (show/hide) 20:10, 23 March 2007 (diff | hist) File:Ferrari 512 TR 1.jpg ? (Ferrari 512 TR from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:512_f3q.jpg])
  22. (show/hide) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (diff | hist) File:Ponte dell'Accademia.jpg ? (Ponte dell'Accademia de Venise " GNU Free Documentation License " from [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Ponte_dell'Accademia.jpg])
  23. (show/hide) 20:05, 11 January 2007 (diff | hist) File:Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild 2.jpg ? (Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild 2 libre de droit from english version [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_0317.jpg])
  24. (show/hide) 18:09, 23 November 2006 (diff | hist) File:Statue Vercingetorix Alesia.jpg ? (Statue de Vercingetorix à Alesia Photo découpée issue de [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Statue_Vercingetorix_Alesia.JPG] libre de droit)
  25. (show/hide) 16:52, 29 September 2006 (diff | hist) File:Leonard de Vinci.jpg ? (Photo retaillée issue de wikicomon libre de droit [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leonardo_da_Vinci01.jpg originale deWikicommon])

We could start to check the ones from de-wiki. But there could also be some where summary does not mention the source. --MGA73 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ive checked now File:Cruas-1.JPG. Here he gave as source and author just a plain link to de:Datei:Cruas-1.JPG which was a duplicate of de:Datei:Superphenix-3.JPG. This got corrected by an IP within the next edit. The size and the license were OK in the first version of this immage.
In File:Peugeot 402 Custom.jpg it looks more or less the same. Size and License were OK in the first commons-version of Arnaud 25. Here he gave short text Libre de droit from [1] and a link to the de: image. The google-translation Royalty-free from [1] of it makes me wonder what he could intent.
In your long list the 2 images out of 2010 looking more or less OK. File:Bill gates' house2.jpg is the uncropped first version of File:Bill gates' house.jpg with correct author; the license got changed from CC2 to CC3. In File:Newmexico naturalhistorymuseum outside.jpg] the author and license are OK but the size got downscaled. It seems it is the preview image of the e: description page which is still existing.
From the 2007 list I only checked a few like File:Elifaz 152PAN.jpg or File:Shadow1interior.jpg. As they are not from de: I cannot check the removed versions of these images on en: or where ever. Therefor I cannot decide if the licenses or sizes are OK or not. But the sources, authors and so on he put in the commons files are not realy sensefull in most of the cases; mostly a link back to the removed image file back to the language he picked them from. File:Statue Vercingetorix Alesia.jpg is a "nice" one as well: a cropped version of fr:Fichier:Statue Vercingetorix Alesia.JPG without orig. author but correct lincense.
In total I get the impression that the user hopefully just does or didn't know how to make it correctly, which is realy surprizing by a user this thousends of uploads here. Surprizing that he didn't learned it and surprizing that he didn't got "help" by who ever on commons. There could be even a lot more cpvio's on commons for images he dowcaled or cropped whithout giving a source of a different project. If he choosed different names for such images as in the other projects there is nearly no chance to find them.
Last thing: I checked several of his "this year" uploads. In the most of them the same type of camera is in the metadata (a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 95 IS) even the images are about very different themes. It looks the same person with the same camera created these images. And this person ist most likely himself. So: no Problems for the most of his "this year" uploads.
regards --Jutta234 (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_18&oldid=40995515"