User talk:MGA73/Archive 14

File:B-25 Mitchell - Panchito.jpg

The captain sent a flickrmail to the flickr owner 1 week or so ago asking about this image but the flickr owner was away. I decided to check on the original uploader T. MacInnis and it says here that he has been an Admin on wikipedia for more than 4 years. Since this image, now deleted on the flickr link, was uploaded when the original uploader was already an Admin, do you trust MacInnis? Personally, the image is certainly a real photo and there is good metadata but I don't know if MacInnis would know about the exact license when he uploaded it in 2007. Maybe you can check his record with flickr images on wikipedia because I cannot. Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you can give your views if you are around. This is not an ordinary uploader...but the question is the license. Did he check the license at upload. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally admins should know what they do. If we had some proof it would be nice. I found this http://web.archive.org/web/20070219015931/flickr.com/photos/thevoyagers/311944040/in/set-72157594401819508/ from june 2007 (image "next to" the B-25 and it had a "Non Commercial-license". So we only have trust or no trust. But since it is a "not found" we have no evidence it was not free so I would say we could keep it. --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I guess its better to wait and see if the captain has any success in OTRS'ing the photo. Personally, I doubt this will happen but I may be wrong. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr image tagged with no permission

Hi, yes you can give the permission, this should be public domain. Thanks and Cheers, --Graf zu Pappenheim (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See answer on your talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DR

Dear MGA73,

I assume you have seen this DR by me. Since you have OTRS access, you can check the 'permission' and please try to make a comment here. MBisanz says the permission for Saddam is false and I believe him. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying what was in that OTRS ticket. I have no idea if the person who gave the permission is really from ankawa. But when there is no license stated...that is good enough for a delete. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem :-) Yes either delete or someone could send a mail to ankawa.com and ask. --MGA73 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sheryl Crow at Revlon Run Walk 2007.jpg

This is an unclear case. I had actually passed it and gave the original source...from an image which Did pass flickr review (at least I think it looks like the bot...but Turelio has a different view. So now I wonder if anyone will dare to mark it or if it will gather dust in the 'human review category.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok. As a crop from a reviewed file the license on Flickr is not relevant. --MGA73 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:StJoseph Statue.jpg

Feel free to mark this if it is free as the captain had contacted the flickr owner. (had been in his possibly unfree list) Thank You for your help on the previous image above. Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was lazy so I will let the bot work. Then it can also upload larger version :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I did not notice the higher resolution image in this 1 case. Its better to let the bot upload it then. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Florida Dazzlers.jpg

---

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 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Gator Fans.jpg

---

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 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Kristallnacht Burning synagogue.jpg

Why did your bot ask for a review here? Unless the image is from an institute, it seems unlikely that the flickr owner himself owns the copyright and took the photo 70+years ago. (or at least the license is wrong) It seems like a flickwash to me. Admin Lupo would know more about the copyright of this image since he has dealt with other Kristallnacht images, I recall. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Flickr-images kept comming from enwiki and that often no flickrreview was requested. Therefore I transfered all the Flickr-images I could find (50-60 was ok - the rest should be nominated for deletion on enwiki) and used my bot to request a review. Many of the images came from some library (?) so I did not notice that this one did not. Thank you for noticing. --MGA73 (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK. That's fine but shouldn't a DR be done on the photo? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked around to find something that could help. Found nothing som I made the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the ones with "wrong size". I prefer not to review images I transfered myself. --MGA73 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Marinas.jpg

This photo has a discussion of a CC license on the flickr link but I think the uploader licensed it as 'CC BY NC SA.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah not a very good license. I changed to "not recent" (on this and a few others) to avoid that they were speedied without a good check. Perhaps a mail to the Flickr user(s) can fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on

Special:Contributions/GeographBot :-) Multichill (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PARTY! :-D --MGA73 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr DR's

A couple of Flickr DR's, your input would be appreciated:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:SurfaceTension.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andy Murray at the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup4-crop.jpg

Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work ! --MGA73 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

please take a look

here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korean Vulva2.jpg - you closed the Deletion request, but it was "renewed" Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: The Anon IP also launched this 1 month old DR by the same uploader. The person in the photo is not identifiable and that is the key here. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. I voted keep to the first one - no harm letting an other admin close it this time. I closed the second one. --MGA73 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reaction! Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acting on the second DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:StevenSpielberg.jpg

Can this image which failed flickr review be kept on Commons? It is not a picture of Spielberg himself but of a wax sculpture of Spielberg at Madame Tussauds' Museum. Or is it OK since it was taken at Tussauds London Wax Museum where there is FOP? If it cannot be kept, it should be deleted immediatedly if the Tussauds Museum owns the copyright...as this is most certainly modern art and of a living person too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a DR would be good in this case. I doubt we can keep it. --MGA73 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DR

I got a DR request on my message. Can you just delete the photo per uploader request. The message is here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure! --MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Geograph uploads: categories

Hi MGA - not sure who's best to contact about this, but you seem to be fairly heavily involved – I'd like it pointed out that Category:Trees is a Main category and should not have files added directly to it. Please only use subcategories of it! As it is, I've just been saddled with 95 files which I'll have to recategorise now :-(( Thanks - MPF (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! There will be uploaded up to 250,000 images so some "mistakes" will happen. I'm not sure why they did not end up in Category:Trees in England etc. Once upload is finished we can perhaps use bots to cleanup in the categories with most misplaced images. But we can probably only categorize by location (and not which type of tree it is). --MGA73 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go through them and any that are identifiable to species, I'll put in the species category. I doubt it'll be many though as the pics are so small. - MPF (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, MGA73!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Madjid-Bougherra-SWFC.jpg was uncategorized on 30 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DR

If the uploader/flickr owner placed this image on wikipedia, he placed it on a free license and it could be kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, there are a few thousand flickr images on wikipedia here . I have transferred many to Commons which had free licenses (ie. they all passed flickr review). But most or almost all of the rest are either 'ARR' or have 'NC/ND' restrictions. So, if someone transfers a photo from wiki to Commons with an unfree flickr source, what guarantee do the Admins here know that it was once free? Almost none. Many uploaders on wiki don't check the flickr license. They just upload the photo whatever the consequences. That is why I think that AGF (as in possibly unfree) should apply to photos which were uploaded 4 months ago or earlier on wiki. Newer uploaded photos (less than 4 months old on wiki) should just be deleted....I think because the chance of a license change on flickr is much smaller. What do you think? With best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I wonder what was the 6 million image on Commons? I cannot find any reference to it. IMO, it is easier to get photos on Commons than to create new wiki articles where they are stuck at around 3.178 million articles. I am sure a significant portion of this number are just basic stubs on minor unnotable people or orphaned wiki articles with no verifiable references unlike this article I wrote which was even featured on DYK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah uploading images is easy

  

  This was Commons’ file #6,000,000

  . Our job here is to make sure that the hardworking users of Wikipedia has files to put on their articles.

I transfered 60 images to Commons and gave an en-admin a tip of 50 images (now deleted). I will look at the other images you gave me so we can transfer the free ones and delete (or save via mail to Flickr users or search in web archive or whatever) the other ones. --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help on that image. If you can please mark this image I moved from wiki: File:Gaitasanabresa.jpg Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you. I am not comfortable marking images which I transferred from wiki. It is always better for someone else to check the license instead. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the bot can review I let it otherwise I let an other user review "my" images :-) I found ~4.300 images en enwiki. With a little help I now have this list en:User:Killiondude/Flickr images on Commons of images on enwiki that links to the same flickr-page as some images on Commons do. So it should either be a dupe a crop or an edited version. Once they are done we can perhaps get the Flickr-bot-operator to check the remaining images and if license is ok we can move them to Flickr. We could also do them manually or move them all to commons and review them there. I hope we can check them while they are on enwiki. But lets see. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Its better if a bot transfers these images but the flickr license must be free when it is transferred here. If not there will be lots of problems here and one cannot ask the captain to contact all the flickr owners to change licenses. (it would be in the thousands) I thought 80-90% had unfree flickr licenses on wiki. But I did transfer some good images with a cc by or cc by sa license. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah. If we choose to transfer all images I think we should speedy all images that fail or only keep the best of the best for further checkup. But I think it is possoble to get a list of ok images. If so it would be easier to look at the rest on enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

de:Kategorie:Guerilla

hi MGA73, your bot screwed up here. just for your information. cheers --Saltose (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There was a bad iw on the category. --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

i see! so i learned something - next time i can fix it myself ;-) --Saltose (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that iw-bots might add the iw again and then we are back where we started. But perhaps I should add a small text on my bot page so you can see what it does :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Geograph cats

Hi MGA73, this weekend I'm probably going to have everything in Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/cats to clean up checked by my bot. That should have cleaned up a lot. Now I created Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/top categories to find the overpopulated categories. Could you use your bot to create topic by county categories for the top overpopulated topics? Topics to do (more is possible):

• Coasts - in Geography of <county> and higher level category
• Beaches - in Coasts of <county> and higher level category
• Churches - in Buildings in <county> and higher level category
• Roads - in Transport in <county> and higher level category
• Farms - in Agriculture in <county> and higher level category
• Forests - in Geography of <county> and higher level category
• Farm buildings - in Farms in <county>, Buildings in <county> and higher level category
• Houses - Buildings in <county> and higher level category

I hope you can help me out here. Multichill (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have created XXX in <county> allready (for England) - see Commons:Batch_uploading/Geograph/cat-matrix#Sub-matrix_for_counties. Do you have something else in mind? --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I created the categories + a few more from the list. Once bots have worked on them some categories should be deleted. Like Coasts of Whatever where Whatever does not have coasts :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:1992 Rapture.jpg

---

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 19:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:UBC MOA sign.jpg

Dear MGA73,

I assume that signs on public streets for public museums or buildings is permitted on Commons...like this one in Canada??

• As for me, I have 84 or 85 images to place on Commons but have little time to upload them here. I still have quite a bit more pictures to upload here when I have the time as its 2:35 AM here now. I also placed some lower quality images on my other account We'll goodnight...but I hope you can answer my question. Burned out in Vancouver! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think it was ok because of COM:FOP#Canada. But other countries might have different rules.

Also this temporary category en:Category:Flickr images on Commons is almost empty and then it is time to move a lot of free Flickrimages from enwiki :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I started moving images to Commons so there might be some extra files to review. But once it is done we should have less work in the time to come :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Trigger happy"

Hi MGA73, please be so kind not to repeat misrepresentations as if an admin gives a warning and blocks 4 minutes after I agree with Multichill that the admin is "trigger happy". As I had already outlined to you, I blocked the bot as the bot maintainer was already notified two days before and the bot continued with his broken edits. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert! Yes I remember our discussion and I was only explaining why I think Multichill used that wording ad that time because that turned up in his RFB. If you had said "Hi Multichill! You recieved a notice a few days ago (link) that bot did xxx. Your bot is still doing that so I blocked it." them I'm sure he would not have called you "Trigger happy". What he sas was a notice and 4 minutes later a block. It was just that I tried to explain. I also know that you two talk about it after and that he (and you I hope) has no hard feelings in that case. But that did not prevent someone from using it as an argument. Ad it was the only reason I brought it up again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, thank you for your explanation. When I wrote my initial message at Multichill's talk page, I was not aware of the previous comment. I found it shortly afterwards and this motivated me along with the continued unfortunate edits by the bot to block it. I could have mentioned this point in my block message but at that time but I did not want to have my notice sound like an accusation. We all know that we cannot be ready to respond to the requests at the talk page all the time. Given that, I assumed that it would be perhaps better to suspend the bot. I am however not "trigger happy" and it was surely not my intention to upset a hard-working bot maintainer. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I know your intentions were good. I was only trying to explain why Multichill got a littel "unhappy" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Sara Tavares 2.jpg

---

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 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:YushanSeaCloud.jpg

---

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 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Badawit naqib.jpg

File:Badawit naqib.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Leoboudv (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Beatles Houston sculpture.jpg

File:Beatles Houston sculpture.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

No FOP in the US. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Denverairportmural.jpg

File:Denverairportmural.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

No FOP in the US. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

... I got a wrong list to upload images from :-( --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:FountainAtTheCentreOfTheWor.jpg

File:FountainAtTheCentreOfTheWor.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Leoboudv (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and nominated for deletion on enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Rugby league play the ball.jpg

Can you fix the info template here please? I don't know what the problem is. I have tried all the solutions and nothing works. With Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done It works now. Don't really know what was wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I didn't know it could be solved so easily. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ford and fords

Ford Motor Company is not a fords. Marek Banach (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I know but thank your for telling me :-D I guess that my bot made a bad edit somewhere and if you tell me where I can have a look (my bot has thousands of edits and I would hate to check them all). --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this related topic User_talk:Multichill#Fords. I will comment there. --MGA73 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:SA06posters.PNG

File:SA06posters.PNG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid that not even COM:FOP#Australia can save it. --MGA73 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your notice. Hope you like the 86+ images I placed on my userpage. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:CerneAbbasHomer.jpg

I have seen this photo for several days now but not marked it. If it is a derivative image of the Simpsons, please delete it. If not, please pass it. I don't know the rules here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! This is too funny. Maybe it is fan art. I passed it and nominated it for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Oldchurch.jpg

Thanks. I did not know what to do there. Anyway, this image from the flickr source does not match the one on Commons. Maybe someone...replaced the image while it was on wiki? The flickr image is much better too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes someone uploaded a new image on top. Version from Flickr should be uploaded. I doubt the other version is free. --MGA73 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Fiber optic2.jpg

File:Fiber optic2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Leoboudv (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Good you noticed. --MGA73 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Joanrivers.jpg

File:Joanrivers.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about the 2 DRs...but I hope you saw my message on old church above. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. It is good that copyvios get cleaned out. If there ever is an next time I should remember to check more than just the Flickr License before I do a mass transfer. To bad images are not better checked on enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Someone has made a response in this DR. Maybe you should give your opinion if you have any. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Also feel free to mark this one photo with a cc by sa 3.0 license: File:John Prendergast World Affairs.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)