User talk:MGA73/Archive 17

File:Minangprocession.jpg

Hi MGA73, thanks for the message about Minangprocession.jpg & Rumahgadangcarvings.jpg. Would you be able to restore Minangprocession.jpg and I'll forward the email providing permissions from the author (Marc-Antoine Dunai) to OTRS. Cheers. (MichaelJLowe (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Done. File:Minangprocession.jpg is restored and I added {{OTRS pending}}. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please revert your unblock:

Here's a timescale:

• ShakataGaiNi gives him a final warning, listing behaviour that will get him blocked.[1]
• Pieter immediately begins nominating her(?) images for deletion. Whatever the merits, it's really suspicious he immediately begins concentratin on her uploads. [2], [3], [4]. This gives strong credence to the idea he's reviewing with the primary purpose to harass.
• After her warning, Pieter makes several edits that give a strong appearance of disrupting Commons to make a point. He posted [5], then went to discussions related to de minimus and commented, in one case linking to his complaint: [6] and [7].
• 24 hour block applied by me, since he was under so many warnings already that boundary-pushing behaviour was a problem.
• Pieter appeals.
• Peter Symonds unblocks, warning him to stick to behaviour advice, but saying that he thought that it wasn't clearly trollish enough for him to have to be blocked at that time.
• Pieter almost immediately violates the terms of his final warning, by attempting to reopen an OTRS discussion. [8] This is forbidden for him to do, on pain of indef block. [9]
• I block Pieter indefinitely.
• I change my mind, reducing it to one month.
• You do not even bother asking me for my evidence, and unblock.

I'm sorry, but if someone is given a final warning, he's bound by that final warning. Your claim that he was "just discussing" is nonsense, given that he immediately jumped to complainign about Shakata's uploads the very moment she warned him. He's using this to harass, and your unblock is out of line.

I don't want to create a wheel war, but you were required to discuss unblocks witht he blocking admin, which you did not, or you'd have heard this already. Are you even aware of the lengthy discussion about him on COM:AN/UP? Please reinstate the block. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is a very sad case. I gave my reasons on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎. I have also had disagreements with Pieter and sometimes I wanted to ban him forever. But in many cases he is right - he just sometimes have a bad way of saying it.

You/we can block him for doing things he was told not to do. But if you review the whole case again

1) Should he have been told to stay away in the first place?

2) Did he get a fair chance?

I think that the case is not so clear in this case. Cirt did some bad uploads but Pieter was "beaten" for starting deletion requests. In the ideal world Cirt would have said "Thank you" and have fixed the problems. So I hope that when you think at again you will conclude that perhaps Pieter did not get a fair chance.

Also I hope we can end this case without further blocking and unblocking. I have unblocked once and will not unblock again if an other admin finds it right to block Pieter. But as I said I think that a block period at one month was too much for trying to close the OTRS-gate with a good description of the author.

I will go to bed now. If you or any other admin feel that my descision of unblocking was not right feel free to find a better solution. --MGA73 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me again?

Once I made a mistake twice and you helped to delete the photos. I tried to upload (twice) this week a photo of the band, Return to Forever. But the problem is, in Wikipedia, someone already uploaded a "fair use" photo of an album cover with the same name so the photo can't be used with the name I gave it when I uploaded it to Commons. I tried it two times and then saw the problem. Can you delete the two "Return to Forever" photo uploads I tried this week? I'll have to try it again with a different upload name!! Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want I can just rename one of the images to File:Return to Forever 1974.jpg or something like that? --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time for me to go to bed. I renamed file to the name above. Please let me know you need anything else. --MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Wikimedia Community Logo-Commons Cabal.svg

Hello! This file is based loosely on the copyrighted logo, but is no longer a derivative work; it's only a DW of the PD File:Wikimedia Community Logo-Cabal.svg. My previous versions were DWs, but WarX's update changed the only part that was a derivative, the arrow at the top. I created the two lower parts of the outer circle and the inner arrows myself.

I'm open to deleting the past versions containing the old arrow if necessary. Cheers, -- Editor at Large • talk 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The derivative wouldn't have mattered. The Wikimedia Foundation gives a lot of freedom to its editors to make changes and "parody" logos. Blurpeace 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be wrong. When I checked I thought the three images here looked very much like each other:

• 
  File:Wikimedia Community Logo-Commons Cabal.svg
• 
  File:Commons-logo.svg
• 
  File:Wikimedia Community Logo-Commons from a blue planet.svg

Seeing them in a gallery showes that they do look a bit like eachother but they are also different. --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The point to making a parody logo is that they resemble the original ;) There are a lot of differences however, and the resemblance mostly ends with the general appearance rather than with any of the details. A derivative is when parts of the original are directly used in the new work, and that isn't the case here. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah with some help I understand :-D --MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

no license

Hi, I've just see your messages about deleted pages. I warned the user I had used some of its pictures for wikimedia commons. It seems he didn't like it because he has hidden all his pictures since that. I asked him but didn't get any answer. You can still find some pages in google cache ( http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:bevkWC12fr0J:www.flickr.com/photos/shkti/4278659541/+http://www.flickr.com/photos/shkti/4278659541/&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a ) but I think it's better to remove these pictures (listed on my talk page ) Symac (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is correct - license for File:F-33600-Parc de Fontaudin.jpg / http://www.flickr.com/photos/shkti/4278659541/ is {{Cc-by-2.0}}. I suggested our "Flickr expert" to contact user (User_talk:Captain-tucker#A_handfull_of_deleted_images) because he has a lot of succes asking users to license images free. Let's wait a few days before we delete. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I now see that the user is no longer on flickr, so I think we'll never get an answer. You can delete them, it's in my neighbourhood, I'll try to replace them. Symac (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think the same. I deleted the images. Thank you for your notice. --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing not?

I think you may have missed a "not" in the second last sentence here ;) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not or no not :-) Thank you for noticing the difference :-D --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion before and after Pieters blocks is something of the more confusing&messy I've seen in a while. During the whole process you seem to me to have been a voice of reason, looking for possible solutions and compromise. Makes me rather proud that I supported you RfA way back when... Keep up the good work and good luck (and sorry that I can't think of any way I could contribute to solving this mess). Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm happy to hear that you think I did well. I'm just sorry that my original suggestion (Cirt check his uploads and Pieter gives Cirt a break) did not work. Ind I never forgot your support and help in the begnning. --MGA73 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You saying the opposite of what you mean is becoming sort of a habit at AN/U [10] ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Michael, As an expert in OTRS, could you make a reply to Salim's talkpage about OTRS'ing images which he recently uploaded from Frank Key's site. (Its a couple of photos) I am not an expert here, sorry. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv. I voted keep on the DR and perhaps the others that commented the DR will agree that no OTRS is needed. If not and if noone else do I will ask Frank Key myself. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, an OTRS message is safer but I voted to keep now. There is just so much flickwashing that (sadly) I don't always assume good faith now. As an aside, I notice there is several photos here but have to leave Commons soon. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we wait a few days. It the other users accept that no OTRS is needed we can review the other files. If not we should get an OTRS for them all. --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Salim sent me a message here. I think what he says is reasonable as long as it is connected to Key. If you have a response, perhaps it is better if you send a message to Salim himself for any OTRS permission if any is needed. I ask you this since you know such copyright matters. Personally, it is clear to me that Salim is trustworthy but maybe asking an OTRS message from Key is better? I...don't know the answer. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Cecil

Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment on Cecil's talk page. It is indeed sad that she simply deleted my comment without reading it, because it contained an explanation that I did not deliberately ignore the archive notice but made a mistake. Unfortunately Cecil remains convinced that I am rude, lacking in good faith and in the habit of "posting sneaky suspicions", yet seems unwilling to listen to anything I try to say to convince her otherwise. I won't try leaving further comments lest this escalate further. Once again, I thank you for your efforts. Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary School Entrance.jpg

If possible, please check the OTRS permission for this image. Its for a high school near my home and that is why I recognised its name. I am not sure if the image can be kept since the uploader didn't use the right license at upload. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not able to find a permission for this image. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• That is what I suspected sadly. It should face a formal DR in this case. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ticket numbers

Hello. I don't know it and the files have been deleted from Polish Wikipedia a long time ago... I have asked one of our admins for help, maybe he can fix it. pjahr @ 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done :) pjahr @ 07:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect - thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:FranzLidz5&25&2009.jpg

I have re-reviewed the file, and added an OTRS received that you might want to look into. Cheers, ZooFari 03:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But you could have fixed if you agreed it was ok :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi MGA73, maybe this is part of your plan, but, e.g. File:Desiree Horton.jpg‎ already has a ticket, probably in the wrong format though.

BTW would check if the ticket matches the files. It seems to me that we get too many "self-portraits" from some OTRS team members. -- User:Docu at 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is to find all images with no ticket or with a bad syntax (that will probably not work 100 % since it is hard to find all ways to make it wrong). Once the bot is finished and all are in the same category then a bot can fix those with a bad syntax. It is easier to work on a category with 300(?) images than on on one with 95,000. --MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that include edits like this one? Will they be post-fixed? Best Hekerui (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Danm... Was not supposed to happen. But yes it will be fixed either by a bot or manually. You are ofcourse all welcome to assist. As Docu say perhaps it would be a good idea to check ticket since OTRS volounteers should know the syntax so a wrong syntax could mean it is not added by a OTRS volounteer. --MGA73 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Окрестности села Янурусово (Ишимбайский район).jpg

Hi, MGA73! Autor its workrs - Mcat78, post server in ya.ru. Send e-mail (reply) 2010-16-4 21:09 UTС. First e-mail to 2010-27-2. Check. Gud Luck!--102RB (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I found one # 2010041610044423 but I need help reading it. --MGA73 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why?! Meaning on english same absolutely - permission and links to the gallery. Question : why so long to wait for an answer?--102RB (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is in Russian and I do not understand Russian :-) Also I could only find the mail from April 16 and it is not unusual that it takes a few weeks to look at permissions because we normally take the old ones first. But I left a note on the OTRS noticeboard so lets hope that a Russian speaking user takes a look at it soon. --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Russian, also :) First e-mail send to 2010-27-2. Autor (Mcat78) reply its letter 2010-16-4. No answer. --102RB (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A Question on Flickr review?

Is there a reason why the backup at flickr review is now almost 180 photos? Just curious. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, the uploader claims this is copyright free here. All I know is he asked if it could be used in wikipedia....but its not possible to AGF given his talkpage. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The backlog probably had 2 reasons: 1) many uploads and 2) bot had problems to start (I think that Toolserver has some problems). But I noticed that bot has reviewed most of the images.

As for the bridge user should forward the permission to OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

加入什麼日期？To add what date?

• 中文：你好，我不明白你的意思。你說〝開始刪除的日期〞，怎麼回事？我已經加入日期July 1st, 1842了，還有什麼問題？另外，你會說中文嗎？
• English:Hi,I don't understand what you mean.You said the date of "starting process of deletion",so what happended? I've added the date of July 1st, 1842 already,is there any problem? By the way,do you speak Chinese?--俠刀行 (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! No, I do not understand Chineese. I have read my edit description again and agree that it could be better :-) As far as I can tell you are talking about this image File:British troops capture Chin-Keang-Foo.jpg. You have added {{OTRS pending}} and that is used to tell others that you have send a permission from the author/photographer via e-mail to OTRS system. The relevant date would be the day you added this template or sendethe permission - that would be April 18, 2010.

The process is this: Someone uploads an image to Commons. If they send a permission to OTRS they can add {{OTRS pending}} to inform others that a permission is on the way. When the permission has been approved the template is changed to {{PermissionOTRS}}. And then all is fine. But sometimes no permission is send or it gets lost. Therefore we have a system that makes sure that 30 days after the template is added then a reminder is given to uploader. If uploader do not react within a few weeks the image is deleted.

If you have send a permission you should just wait and see if it is approved (it normally takes a few weeks). If you did not send a permission you should remove the {{{{{OTRS pending}}}}}}

• English:THAT's too bad.You don't speak this beautiful language.Forget it.I didn't send a permission to anyone.It doesn't need {{{{{{{{{{{OTRS pending}}}}}}}}}}}}} to show how copyright works.Now,do you have any idea to avoid my image to be deleted? I don't know its author.The copyright of this image should be over 70 years.What license can use I for it?--俠刀行 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A question:Is my grammar of message all right?Any mistake?--俠刀行 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I deleted the OTRS pending and changed license to {{PD-art}}. The image should be safe now. As for your grammar I'm not the right person to ask because I'm not not a native English :-) But you should add a "blank" after "." and "," :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your change anyway. Your Danish. Hmm,it's not my favor at all. The only thing that I know is Danmark was colony of UK.--俠刀行 (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not excactly a colony. UK won a sea battle once. But the vikings had occupied England long ago :-D --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Asembo1.jpg

Hi a disclaimer above the photos says they can be used free of copyright. Can you ensure I have the correct license tag?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the permission on source you have chosen the best license. I uploaded larger version. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe we should rather ask to be certain. We are not "the media". Do one of you want to request an OTRS permission? Otherwise I can try. Nillerdk (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking will not do any harm. I thought of the 'permission' and we are perhaps not 'the media' but one media :-). I'm still on vacation so you are most welcome to ask. --MGA73 (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:PAulini at 2009, ARIA awards.jpg

Dear Michael,

Is there really an OTRS message here for the above image? The flickr account only has 9 photos...all solely of Paulini and I wonder if he/she is the copyright owner. Its not easy to AGF when a flickr owner has so few images because uploaders try to slip all kinds of images into Commons this way as you likely know.

But from the uploader's talkpage, he seems to be saying that it is his picture, and that he placed it on flickr. Also, the resolution is not supertiny. So, maybe I should just AGF here then. What do you think. (If the OTRS checks out, you could even give approval yourself provided the license and perhaps the identity of the photographer is given) Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I did not know it was a flickr wash. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I could not find anything in OTRS system. If anything usefull shows up we can undelete. --MGA73 (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pulqui II Argentine Museum.jpg

Dear MGA73,

There seems to be some kind of permission (for wikipedia) implicitly given on the flickr link. I don't know if it is on OTRS but you can perhaps check for it. Or perhaps you may wish to consider sending a flickrmail to the flickr owner (Andres) for either a license change or confirmation that the typed permission on the image file is true. I notice...he also lists an E-mail address on his profile. What do you think? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Are you around MGA73? --Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm still on vacation but I just checked. There is a permission. But as you can see from the file page it is not 'perfect'. Perhaps the captain can take a look? --MGA73 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll see if he is available. Unfortunately, both you and captain tucker are on vacation at the same time. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, the flickr author responsed to my Flickrmail directly licensing this image using CC-BY-SA-3.0, so I made a PDF of that and added it to the OTRS ticket so this image is all set.--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your desysop proposal

I ask you to reconsider your desysop proposal as posted. There are current processes for desysopping admins so it is unneeded. My concern is that is going to cause increased hostility toward administrators that are working in good faith. And it is important that we do what we can to decrease community conflict among users. So, I would appreciate if you would strike it. Regard, FloNight♥♥♥ 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As you might notice the heading is a question (not a suggestion) and in the text I say "I feel tempted to suggest...". So in fact it is not a proposal but a notice to everyone to "Think and check". It was meant as that - desysopping should ofcourse only be used if some admin uses the opportunity to delete images that should not be deleted.

It was actually Jimbo that first talked about desysopping. As you might notice Jimbo already closed the issue with "There will be no desysoppings for those doing this work." but no one seems to nitice that. So I doubt it would do any difference what I write on that page. --MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think it would lower the heat in the discussion if you would withdraw it. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I could tell it was allready a big fight when I made that comment. But if that is all it takes... --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

;-) I appreciate you doing it. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

File:RodParsley.jpg is clearly [11]. On en.Wikipedia the uploader has claimed to be the creator of this work. It's interesting that there it was added to an article by an IP which is clearly his. He's a very inexperienced user, so I'll go lightly with him right now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But there is no need to inform an admins if a {{Copyvio}} has been added to the image. I see that an other admin deleted the file all ready. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ticket -Gala-Yuzawa.jpg

Dear Michael,

Are 11 year old train tickets copyrightable? If they are, please file a DR or a copyvio. The uploader is very reliable but he may have made an honest mistake here. If not, please pass it. I don't know the situation and think it should not languish under picasa review for days and weeks because people are unsure what to do....like me sadly. I just marked the other 3 picasa images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: As an aside, is there a tool or button that allows a user to see how many pictures is coming into Commons every month for say the past 12 months? I have gained the impression that the flow of images into Commons has slowed down noticeably considerably compared to 2009. It seems to be stuck at around 6.5 to 6.6 million today compared to last year. But maybe I am wrong? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First the ticket. That depends on how the ticket looks like. In this case it is just text so I can't imagine that anyone could win a claim in court that it is copyrightable. If there was an artistic logo or something on the ticket then it would be copyrighted.

I'm sure there is a statistic somewhere so you can see how many images are uploaden. But I do not know where to look. But yes I also thinks that uploads have slowed down a bit since Multichill has no batch uploads running at the moment. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

幫忙 Help

English: I made Creator:Felice Beato, please help to fill up all info. I'm unable to finish it. Please. Sorry I don't make a Chinese version this time, I guess you don't need it.--俠刀行 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fill in information. I think that template will translate into Chineese? --MGA73 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)