User talk:MGA73/Archive 5

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

MGA73bot2 question

Hello, just curious why User:MGA73bot2 marked the file Kuvastills.jpg as not eligible for migration. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari! That is because of the OTRS permission. If there is a permission that is almost every time a proof that file has been published somewhere before. The bot first ran this job after files from before november 2008 was fixed. This file was from a film and it is from december 2008. You might be able to find some OTRS that could have been migrated but better safe than sorry? --MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CNG tag

Could you please use your bot to apply the {{CNG}} tag to all CNG image coin files here: [1] ? Only some files from this site have the correct OTRS ticket. Stifle verified the permission for all OTRS coins in this DR Many files don't have this tag--just "The Copyright holder allows the image to be used, etc" if they are cited as the source...which means another DR can happen again. I can't go through the 300-400 CNG coins which still lack the proper CNG OTRS permission ticket. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, do you trust Malepheasant on this image?

I see almost no copyright problems with this user's talkpage--except 1 minor one by me. He claims the license was cc by 2.0 at upload and I see no reason not to trust him. But the flickr owner warns in her profile that she takes copyright violations of her photos seriously. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I added {{CNG}} to the images I could find.
I do not know Malepheasant and sadly we have no proof. If you do not whish to ask Flickr-user you could start a DR and ask people to judge if Malepheasant was a trusted user. --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. I don't know Malepheasant too and I will likely do a DR in a short while. There is only 1 other image from this person's account here which passed flickr review but that is not good enough here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

 Comment: The flickr owner agreed to change the license for this single image...but I was not brave enough to mark it. So, I asked someone else to inspect the license...just to be safe:

That is a nice image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Secondly, I am willing to trust Airunp on this image: File:Vall de Núria.jpg Should I type a pass for it or not...in your opinion? Please look at the brief DR discussion. Today the flickr owner licenses his photos as ARR but that was not the case in 2007. There is some grounds for a license change between the time of upload and first review, I think. If I pass it, then the DR should be closed as it is going nowhere.
  • As an aside, I decided reluctantly to type in a pass for 1 image. I gave my reasons here This uploader seems to know the right license. If you disagree, please revert my flickrpass on his behalf. Thank you from Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Does one trust Airunp here or not?

I check his talkpage and the few deletions of his images generally refer to an inferior duplicate or of images which may still be copyrighted rather than deliberate copy vios...except in 1 image you deleted perhaps because it failed flickrreview? But in this case of the Valley, the image is useful and there is circumstantial evidence to suggest it was cc by 2.0 at upload. After all, Airunp uploads 4 images from one person's account on the same day and the first two photos to get marked pass flickrreview whereas the other two took longer and failed flickrreview. If the latter two were ARR, how would Airunp know that the freely licensed ones would be marked first? He could not know this...if one thinks logically. I await a reply from you here. As for the DR, it looks like it is going nowhere...and I had initiated it on your advice. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv. Sorry for keeping you waiting. I have been busy with migrating the latest weeks where I have worked on migration on around 500,000 images on Commons and yesterday and the day before I fixed 25,000 images on enwiki. Still 96,000 images left. I would also like to cleanup old DR and un-DR, fix duplicates, check Flickr-images, help categorizing, transfer images to Commons, work on dawiki and much more. If you and the captain did not maintain Flickr-images it would be a mess. We are to few to keep this nice and clean. Sadly.
I will try to take a look at the images to night. But generally I think, that unless we (or some other trusted users) are pretty sure that the uploader knew what he/she did then we should delete. So if there is an unused file that can be replaced and we are not sure if user can be trusted then we should delete to be sure. Or ask the owner for a permission :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The image I deleted was an image of a painting (COM:DW). I have now commented the two DR's. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I think this one was freely licensed at upload. I only type in a flickrpass if the uploader is trustworthy (I don't do this without a good reason) and he is quite trustworthy from your analysis. I will ask an Admin if the 2 DRs I filed can be closed as keep in this case and if it is closed I will type in a pass. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: As an aside, it is strange that Admin Shizhao does not type a flickr pass for his uploaded image here: File:Hkstylebbq.jpg Maybe he does not understand English well...I cannot say. Anyway, I filed a DR here.
Finally, this other image: File:Shed end.jpg can be passed. I remember seeing it on Para's license change list as 'cc by 2.0' but I cannot find it at present. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I find out by checking "What links here" [2] and do a search (Ctrl+f). --MGA73 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions

This image was deleted but it shows up as cc by 2.0 on Para's list. Is it a painting or a derivative that cannot be on Commons? Should it be restored?

I have a separate question about these 2 old images by mooogmonster: [3] He deleted his flickr account by the end of 2006 sadly. So, we cannot contact him. But do we know anything about the uploader--Viriditas. By the way, I checked on the web and I see that one of mooogmonster's photos was once used on a web site in June 2006 but I don't know if this means it was freely licensed: [4] Normally they would be for a web site to use them...but this is not always the case. Most web sites use images with free flickr licenses but some do not as usual. (By the way, the image to hospitals is also from mooogmonster's account)

This seems to refer to a separate picture than the Boston symphony orchestra photo on Commons. Do you have any views here? The wonton noodle soup image is heavily used on wikipedia. It appears that mooogmonster's 2 images are the worse case scenario...where there is clear evidence this flickr account existed in mid-2006 but no one can verify what the license was. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First image. It should be restored just like the other images on Paras list.
As for Viriditas I looked at deleted usercontributions. There are not many. Sadly the user did not mark any copyvio so that can't be used as a proof that the user knew which licenses were not ok.
You might find this interessting User_talk:Captain-tucker#Some_images_by_User:Morven. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Did the pool thing + a crop of it. Can you please fix those two. As for the first one I will soon undelete all on Para's list if I can't get someone else to do it. --MGA73 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I remember the image of the nude now. As for undeletion requests, it seems that no one acts on them even with Para's evidence. I guess everyone is busy. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: FOP

Buildings can be considered art too. Most FOP provisions apply equally (or only to) buildings, but unfortunately some countries won't get with the program. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree if the building is special some way. I guess you gave me this tip because I commented a DR for a grave with somthing that looked like a cement lid, a cross and some letters. --MGA73 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Have you seen this case I did not notice it until the captain made a comment. Maybe you could contact ALE here. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Perhaps you as a third party may want to inspect this DR of 3 images....by me. It is c.4 months old and I don't know about Yakudza's contributions on Commons compared to Wikipedia. I think that the other Admins are scared to deal with them and I would be too if I faced this situation. As an aside, it does not matter to me if the images are temporarily kept or deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pleiades large.jpg

Please check this out. Was reuploaded after your removal. Thanks. Siebrand 23:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks ok to me now NASA is the source. Tnx. --MGA73 (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DR

Can you please make a comment on this DR Most cases I agree with the captain to delete...but this one is uncertain. If it has to be delete than so be it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • As an aside, can you make decision in this DR? Either pass it in Shizhao's name or delete it if possible. I notified him but he didn't act. Its already 8 days old. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I planed not to comment. That way I can close the DR. As for the last one it was on Paras list ;-) You can have a look and fix the broken information template when you are there :-D --MGA73 (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Sorry I did not know this since I would have to go through the entire list to find it. (I am not an expert here unlike you) I hope the deleted but once free images that are on Para's list will be restored eventually. As for Admin Shizhao, perhaps he did not understand my question to him since his English is just basic. As an aside, this kind of DR is the most difficult. If a person is an Admin on wikipedia it may not prove anything without other evidence because the rules on Commons are different than those on Wikipedia. I have seen too many images on Wikipedia which people upload from their flickr pages...but when one actually checks the flickr link, it is the standard ARR license! Why? Because many people don't know how to change licenses on flickr. This was 1 excellent image I moved from wikipedia where the flickr license was OK:
  • File:Edmundhillarycropped.jpg

Anyway, hopefully, the images on Para's list will be restored eventually. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I Checked all the images in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR and passed 4 that was on Para's lists. --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help here. Hopefully the final deleted images will be restored someday. I know a few (4-5) images here which were deleted because they were renamed with better titles. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This image

Could you move this high resolution image to Commons with your bot please: [5]

I used the 'move to commons' template to transfer many images recently in the past week but it seems to be down again today--the image does not appear here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I had problems with my bot yesterday but I will try later. It seems you added "{{NowCommons|1=File:PiramideTeti.jpg|2=no}}". This template should only be added when the image is on commons. So there must be an error somewhere. --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Think it finally worked :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Asta

Do you know if Asta ever marked any copyvios or did most of his uploaded flickr images pass review from 2006? I see he uploaded these 7 images of castles from S. Roe's flickr account in early 2006 (when there was no flickr review) Two are not from Roe's account. I contacted Roe 4-5 days ago about the license and whether he wanted it deleted from Commons but he just ignored my message. I know this since Roe downloaded a new image today (Sept 20) on his flickr account.

All I know from Internet archive is that Roe licensed some images with an NC & ND restriction while others had a cc by sa license in the past during 2005/2006. Today, its all ARR. Personally, I think most of Asta's images were deleted for failing flickr review though these may/may not have been free at upload. But I cannot be sure. However, Admin Odder seems to agree in many of the file histories here that they are OK. Strange. What does one do? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Leoboudv, it looks like Asta uploaded four (4), flickr images in 2006 that were deleted due to failing Flickrreview: File:Redwood Castle 2.jpg Flickr author: stevefe, File:Graveyard of Dunfermline Abbey.jpg - Flickr author: curlsdiva, File:Aberdeen flats.jpg - Flickr author Kenny Muir, File:Tower-of-David.jpg Flickr author: Mario Lapid. There were a couple others from 2006 that were deleted because the Flickr originals were deleted. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but problem is that Flickrreview did not work at that time. File:Redwood Castle 2.jpg is on this list User:Para/Flickr/Licensing_differences/Compatible with Cc-by-2.0. The other three was not on any good list. So we are back to the same dilemma as always: Trust or no trust :-( --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The image by K. Muir uploaded by Asta is likely not a copy vio because it was uploaded in 2006. There are 4 other images here from Muir's account uploaded in that year including one by Admin Sandstein which was a 'picture of the day.' --Leoboudv (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I notified Roe and asked him if he wanted them deleted and he refuses to reply. Admin Odder thinks they are OK. So, do we trust Asta or not? If you contact Odder and Odder says Asta is trusthworthy, then maybe the images can be passed. If not they have to be deleted. What do you think of my proposal? Is it worth it to contact Odder on the images. It might be in this case since Odder's last edit was today. Um...I've decided to send a message to Odder. I hope Odder can make a reply below on your talkpage. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, I am really surprised that these images came to the surface again, I have completely forgotten I had edited them. I do not know anything about Asta and my edits were based on my trust to Leoboudv (talk · contribs) and such comments he has left on the above-mentioned image's pages. I have assumed Leoboudv's good faith and thought he would not mislead us even in the slightest. I cannot say that Asta is a trustworthy user and if his images seem suspicious, I cannot oppose to deleting them. odder (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: OK now everything is clear. Admin Odder says he cannot say if Asta was a trustworthy user. I had thought that Odder knew Asta personally but I was wrong and I must correct my mistake. In this case, Asta's 7 images of castles here should all be nominated for deletion. Only the image of Mt. Blanc can be kept since it passed review. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User problems

Hi pseudonym,

I agree that I should ignore it, but sometimes pseudonyms like you can find something which does hurt me and because I am not a pseudonym you (not you personally, but you'all) can find a hole in my e-mail defences and keep hammering. I do not say that you contribute to that hammering, but user:sterkebak and user:sterkeBak say/admit they are other sockpuppets of the person handling user:abigor/huib. I have been Hendrik Barend Gerhard Warmelink since 29 April 1960, I do not know since when I am called Erik, but I guess it may even have been before that date. You can put on a new sock (do it daily, and after sports), you can also edit as yourself. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik! The question is NOT if Huib has sockpuppets. The question is if you can and will prove it in the right place. It seems to me that you do not understand the damage you make every time you say someone is og have a sockpuppet. You say someone has admited to be sockpuppet. That is not a proof. You could be lying or they could be lying. Or maybe we just have a differend view of what a sockpuppet is.
That I use a pseudonym should not be relevant. I could have called myself Bill Gates, Christina Rosenbaum or whatever. Yes I could "be hammering on you" but why should I? We are all volunteers to contribute to the goal of Commons and/or Wikipedia and discussing personal issues does not contribute to this goal. --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on 1 picture & a DR

I decided to pass this image. Please look at my clear reasons. If you disagree. Please feel free to revert the pass. I had discussued the issue here with the captain.

I also mentioned a specific DR in the discussion where Admin Ecemaml says he/she personally knew and trusts the uploader. Is this grounds for closing the DR and passing the image? Pls feel free to make a vote to keep or delete. If it is deleted, then so be it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

I hope you saw Admin Odder and my comments above on Asta. Since Odder doesn't personally vouch for this uploader, I think the 7 images of castles uploaded by Asta must be deleted. (even though I see Asta has uploaded many flickr images with the right license) I have nominated 4 of them for deletion as I have other things to do. As an aside, there are a number of genuine images from this flickr account where the license was 'cc by 2.0' on October 9, 2006 and then unfree the next week. Para's records show only some have been restored.

I undeleted this image because the visible portion of the Bell logo on the blimp meets the requirements of {{PD-text-logo}}. Perhaps I should add a {{Trademark}} tag? --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they were missed from your list MGA? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also this can also be restored if there is no art in it. One of the very few images by Urban which had the right license (license changed after October 16, 2006):

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all I'm only half the way through my list and I do not think that Captain-tucker checked all images on his list yet. So if they are ok the links will probably be blue "by themselves". Anyway so far most of the images on my list were copyvios, had problems with FOP, was out of scope or was dupes. Out of the files that I restores almost half was in fact reviewed but someone had removed this and the deleting admin had not noticed. The File:America_West_Airbus_A319_N827AW.jpg is a dupe of Image:America West A319.jpeg. As far as I remember you should be able to see that from the deletion summary (but only admins can check of course). I hope to finish my list this evening and if the links above is not blue because the captain has checked his list I'll of course check these also :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: It is good to know that you are both inspecting more images today. The best ones are indeed from photoman's account. I apologise if I am a bit impatient. I was just worried the images had somehow been missed. All the best in checking out the remainder. I am sure the images above will be restored except for the duplicate. As an aside, did you know I ordered more than 38 flickr reviews today. I found a slew of flickr images which were licensed freely and uploaded in April and May 2006 but Nilfanion's bots never once detected them for review. And since they were all low resolution photos here, I thought it was faster to let the flickr bot upload the maximum resolution image. It makes me wonder...just how many other images are here which have never been reviewed. There must be hundreds or thousands more I'm afraid. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Unfortunately I did not have as must time as I had hoped last night to work on my Para list, only undeleted 12 files. There are al least 250+ more deleted images to review on my list. So it will take a few days at least.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hej MGA73. Jeg har modtaget en OTRS ticket (2009081710017607) vedr. 20-30 slettede billeder. De fleste kræver formentlig slet ingen tilladelse da de er gamle eller PD af anden grund. Gider du undelete dem for mig? De er alle på min "Check" side. Du behøver ikke tilføje {{OTRS received|2009081710017607}}. Det gør jeg selv indenfor kort tid. Eller jeg retter informationerne med det samme. Problemet er at uploaderen har udfyldt "author" og "permission"-felterne forkert med eget navn og CC-licens. Nillerdk (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Så er de undeleted. Jeg kan se i sletteloggen, at der er lidt flere (måske 10). Den kan du evt. også få gendannet, når du har kigget på de andre, hvis du har lyst. --MGA73 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These images

Dear MGA73,

Are these images on your list of compatible but not anymore?

I am certain I saw them on Para's list where they were once licensed freely either as 'cc by' or 'cc by sa' but the license changed. I had the second image (and maybe the third also) deleted since I did not know of Para's list at the time. The last image was unfree one week and then 'cc by 2.0' the next week if I recall correctly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • As an aside, it is strange that the Admins here do not check image histories before they hit the delete button...like this case You lose good images this way. Trusted user Miranda could have been sanctioned for her actions 2 years ago this month...to revert a bot pass. Once an image passes flickrreview, it is passed forever. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look of the images later. I noticed that this File:225563732_2a75a72a23.jpg was removed from the list by an IP-user. Wonder if it was you? I have not checked if Miranda was a trusted user at that time or if she has done this ever since. If we want to be sure she does not do it anymore we could ask her :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes the IP was me. 6 images is sufficient, I think. As for the last photo it was unfree one week and then 'cc by 2.0' if I recall correctly. I assure you these images were marked as free on Para's original list. There are still many photos to be checked on Para's list as the captain has told me. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Para had more than two lists and I think we should check them all. So I think we have work to do for a couple of days more. If the images are on one of the ok-lists there is no need to mention them here. We will come to them as we work our way through the lists. I do not know how the captain works but for me it is easyer to take one list at a time because that way I can copy paste more than if i jump from one list to an other. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The captain is still going through the list. It is a very long list indeed. It looks like your program takes into account the few rare situations on Para's list where the photo was unfree one week and then 'cc by 2.0' the next like the last photo which is of high resolution. It was 'cc by nd' on "2006-12-04" and then the next week on "2006-12-11", the license becomes 'cc by 2.0'...as it is licensed today too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_5&oldid=30100697"