User talk:MGA73/Archive 3

Bot changes: migration=relicense

Hi, in cases like [1] the bot does not change the actually used template, but one which is just a comment with "nowiki" around. Can you have a look at it? Thanks! --Svencb (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn... Thank you... --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at it now and my bot should ignore templates in a nowiki-tag. I also ran a cleanup on migrated files. So I hope most of the errors have been corrected now. I will run a few extra cleanups. Tanks again for telling me. --MGA73 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing! --Svencb (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I would say that in most cases, the 'images not found category' are images which were legitimately uploaded on a free license. And captain tucker has and is still contacting almost all the flickr owners here...but some flickr accounts are orphaned today (no new activity for years) or the images are gone because the flickr account was deleted. He just got 2 replies here and here today for OTRS. In this category, one must use careful judgment. If the uploader has a good history, the image is used a lot on wikipedia and the first failed flickr review occured more than 1 year after upload, then as Admin Nilsfanion once told me, one could AGF. In other cases, the flickr owner refuses to reply....which tells you something. If it was a copy vio of my image, I would be demanding for it to be deleted! I filed a few DRs includings this suspicious case (no FlickrLickr images from his account & the image failed review within a few months of upload) when I got confirmation from the flickr owner that it was a copy vio.

On the other hand, this image below was almost certainly free at upload. It was uploaded by user Guety whose other flickr images all passed flickr review...because he knew what licenses were OK. Better yet, Admin Paddy on WikiCommons (at that time) also edited the image on the very same day it was uploaded. An Admin would have checked the license for an image of a celebrity. If there is 1 image where I accept good faith, this is the one. Captain tucker has contacted Saudi (the copyright owner but this is an orphaned account--no new pictures for 2 yrs since August 2007. It was only reviewed about 18 months after upload which is incredible because there was no flickr review system here in February 2005. Like me, Saudi has a basic flickr account, so only his latest 200 photos are kept; earlier images are automatically deleted per flickr policy for such accounts. Finally, his image of Gellar is in use which is important--if it was not in use, then assuming good faith doesn't make any sense as in this case where MBisanz reluctantly deleted an image for this very reason. Saudi, the copyright owner licenses all his images as cc by 2.0.

• File:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg

The 92-93 photos in the 'image not found' category is not unacceptably large...although it could merit a future re-examination, of course. When I first starting targetting this category, it had 293 images in January 2009. There were many cases where the image was still actually on the flickrlink...but the flickr review bot wrongly tagged it as image not found. And no one bothered to check sadly. So I ordered a new review. In other cases, they were FlickrLickr images...where I just had to type in the FlickrLickr pass. Right now, let captain tucker continue his work here. As an aside, I have finished with Mac9's images but I will wait until August 18 to see if anyone else replies. After that the remainder can be deleted. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv. I have noticed that you and Captain tucker does a great job trying to sort things out. Wonderful! Every copyvio is one to many. Problem is that if user is inactive or does not answer then we have no choice but to trust the uploader or delete the file. Sadly.

Looking at other files from a Flickr account can be a hint but I do not think it is a strong proof. Lets say a Flickr user has 100 images where 50 has cc-by-sa-2.0 and 50 cc-by-nc-sa-2.0. If I upload 30 pictures with an ok license and 1 with a bad one then statistic will show 30 good images and one failed. Then one might say "Oh that users images are ok. We can see that user used cc-by-sa-2.0 because there is 30 images passed by the Flickr bot.". If that was 2 years ago it is hard to find out now because the Flickr user might have 300 images now all tagged with a nc-license.

In my view we should mark images by trusted Commons users as reviewed, get permission from Flickr users where possible and delete the rest. We may not have a replacement now but if image are deleted and are missing in the Wikipedia-projects I bet that someone will soon upload a usable file. It is ~200 files out of more than 4,000,000 that have failed Flickr review. So it would only be a minor damage to loose them.

You are doing a great job cleaning up so maybe I should let you nominate the files for deletion if you give up saving the file? --MGA73 (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hanoi.jpg

Dear Admin MGA73,

I have looked very closely at this image which is in the Mass DR. I have flickrmailed the copyright owner (D. Magalie) in late July but 1. they completely ignore my message (since they upload new photos days after I send my message) and 2. they do not complain about its use on Commons either. I wondered why? So....I decided to check very closely to see if there is any evidence if this flickr account's images were ever licensed freely. I turned up 10 FlickrLickr images alone here which were uploaded in 2007 from this flickr account. This is more than 1 full year after Mac9's image above was uploaded in 11 October 2005. Given this information, do you think I could remove the image of Hanoi above from the mass DR and tag it with a flickr 'change of license' tag.' Is this reasonable to you? What do you think?

Since you are the nominator, you should make the decision here. Please know that I will respect--and accept--whatever decision you make. Thank You from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above I think it could be used as a hint but not as a proof. Doing a search like that will only show excisting files and not deleted files if any. However it would be a good argument why to trust Mac9. So I thing you should put that argument in the DR and them we could hope that the final result would "kept" for all of the files. :-) Oh and no need to call me "Dear Admin..." that I'm an admin does not make me special or make my word worth more than yours. ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way images like File:WashingtonDC.jpg are still in a "bad image-category". Tagging them as reviewed by Mac) would solve that problem. So it would be nice if the result was "kept". --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I made a comment here: File:WashingtonDC.jpg I hope that is enough. I did contact her and she told me she licensed them freely at taht time but not today. I will make a comment on the Hanoi image in the mass DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing license information for migration -> double licenses producing by bot

Hi MGA73,

Here your bot makes an mistake. It added |migration=relicense, but there is also an CC-by-sa-3.0 Tag, so |migration=redundant will be the correct tag. Please have a look to your bot (I didn't view through its contributions), if there anything is right and it is accepting already given CC-by-(SA)-3.0 tags. With greetings --Quedel (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quedel. Yeah I know. Found out yesteerday, that somthing was wrong. I need to run a cleanup to correct double license. Thank you for the tip. --MGA73 (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now done more cleanup-runs with the bot. I hope all errors have been corrected now. I will do an extra check in a few days when toolserver-data has been updated. --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This image

I contacted the photographer here and it resulted in this DR by me. There are a few old FlickrLickr images from Todd Klassy's account...but this is not one of them. Am I right in assuming we should just delete it in this case....just to be safe. It is a valuable image to the flickr owner. Perhaps you are not a lawyer...but some guidance is appreciated. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not a lawyer :-) Since the image was never reviewed by a bot or trusted user it depends on the uploaders history. Is it a well known and trusted user or is it someone we do not know well? If the uploader is not a trusted user I would say delete it. We should not keep images unless we feel damn sure we are right. With this user I would say delete. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank You. That is exactly what I thought too. The guy makes money from it and it is not a FlickrLickr image. So, it is a serious matter to him and his wishes should be followed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Emergency request: If possible, do you know an Admin who could close this DR and delete this failed image. The owner has just replied and he wants it deleted ASAP. He is also pressing me to delete other images here and I tell him it is impossible because they are FlickrLickr photos unlike this picture. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I talked to a few. No one seems to like to do a speedy of a four year old image. If it has waited that long there should be no harm in waiting until the DR is seven days old. I already voted so I prefer that it is sombody else than me, that close. --MGA73 (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I guess Todd will have to wait. I gave him the 'contact us' link on Commons...and I hope he will not ask me to delete the other images again. The others are FlickrLickr photos and should be non-revocable...right? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If FlickrLickr are safe we can keep them all. If not :-( But that they are validated does not mean that we can-t delete. Like if images are of no use or low quality etc. --MGA73 (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please

Please look [2] Thanks. Levent Abi (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. Levent Abi (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot needs more smarts to handle 'merging' of licenses

I think your bot will have to be smarter if it wants to merge licenses. Perhaps just put < nowiki > around them (you could change them to {{tl:license}} but I don't think tl passes through 2nd and 3rd etc parameters. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a number of these edits, the reason for the duplicated license is generally that people are citing the source of the image and noting what the license was there. So it is just a bit of commentary. You could perhaps replace the extra license by going from {{GFDL}} to (GFDL) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I stopped my bot until we find out what is best. The problem seems to be the oldest files. When deleting the GDFL on new files (mostly in the "Permission = " the result will be a message "See below". --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is the Permision= field it may be part of a sentence (eg describing where the permision came from). Perhaps only replace it if is on the line by itself. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Maybe an Admin you know can close this DR as a delete now that it is almost 7 full days please. Just an idea. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The most obvios DR's are normally closed "on time". And with the number om delete-votes this one should be obvious. If noone closed it by tonight I will look at it (I prefer only to close DR's I have not voted in). --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note on Uberraschungbilder's images. I have seen a few images in the possibly unfree cat where he even notes which photos passed flickr review and which failed because the copyright owner changed the license. His evidence is compelling. By the way, the DR has been closed as delete. Thank goodness. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I passed Überraschungsbilder's images because of this statistic He has even more image file edits than Mac9 here. Unbelievable! --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was quite active. As you can se there is more images with flickr-change-of-license [3]. I suggest we make a list of the images in the category per user and unless we can mark them as reviewed (like if uploaded by an admin) then nominate them for deletion. If result is kept like with Mac9 then we can mark them also. --MGA73 (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should make a decision here. Many images by wallyg (Wally Gobetz) lie here and have their licenses tagged with change of flickr review. When I contacted him once on a picture, he never replied. So, I think maybe he once licensed his images freely but not today. Anyway, the list is just 300 in possibly unfree and all the easy ones have been dealt with. The rest are complex. If its just uploader and 1 or 2 images, I would say delete. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm trying to find a way to get lists of who uploaded the images and how many uploads they have. That way we could easily see if it is a new or very active user that have uploaded the images. Hope the list will be available soon. --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Airunp may be OK but I am not sure since I don't know him. He uploaded this photo and this which appears to have been licensed freely at upload but I cannot be sure...since I don't know him. That is the problem. Maybe you should decide here to pass it with AGF or just fail it. Its hard to say. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm still quite new on Commons I do not know many of the old users. I think we should start DR's on these old images and wither suggest a deletion or a kept. That way others can comment. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This image

Would you consider flickrpassing this image?:

• File:Saint-Gilles-les-Bains.jpg

Look at the actual flickr source where there is a reference to the photo on Commons. I doubt flickrmailing the copyright owner will result in anything as the flickr account has been dormant for almost 2 years since December 2007. Its likely orphaned...and the uploader is long gone. If not, the image should just be deleted. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also this DR can be closed as keep. Would you consider doing a flickrpass in Admin JeremyA's name. I can't do this since I voted in it already. But you are a third party. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I passed a few existing images like this and this but if you or Para want to actually restore deleted images, please check to see if there has been a formal DR first. If there is a formal DR like this case or if the flickr owner asked for it to be deleted and you or Para or another Admin restores the image, the copyright owner will go crazy! It is better to offer some good faith...and let the image remain deleted. Commons does not need many angry people on flickr telling other flickr owners how they thought their photos were deleted...only to be restored again! This will only bring a bad reputation to this site...and fewer people on flickr may want to release their photos here. An angry person will tell 10 or 20 people who will tell another 10 or 20 people...and we all know how this story will end. Not well at all for Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would use the date from the list on the flickr review template on the images. As for the DR we could restore if the image was on a list as free (it seems your example was not). But if there is replacements and/or if the image is not "brilliant" I guess there is no reason spending hours looking at old, deleted images (and maybe risk angry Flick users). --MGA73 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		Here's a little thank you for all the hard work you're doing helping us clean up those old deletion requests. It's a dirty job and usually a thankless job, but I want to change that by saying... Thank you. :-) Rocket000 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. I can't believe we still had 2006 DR still open! Talk about a backlog...

Thank you very much :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

short note

Hi MGA,

I will be out the country for a couple of weeks maybe 1 maybe 5 we don't really know a end date..

I have posted a note on my user page telling people to go to you or two other administrators when the need help and I am not there, I hope you enjoy may fan club that post topics daily :)

I will speak to you soon again :)

Huib talk 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I hope I get som fans of my own :-) Enjoy your hollyday. --MGA73 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2 images

Would you like to restore 2 images? I had sent a message here to Tryphon but he is injured. Here was my message. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why restore if you want them deleted? And it seems that only one of the images are deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Did not notice the text under the heading. Both images are now back so you can fix them. --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help here. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2 images

Dear MGA73,

If possible, please restore these images:

• File:Castor Palazzo Reale.jpg
• File:Bjorkman and Woodbridge doubles Wimbledon 2004.jpg

The first appears as 'cc by sa 2.0' in Table 2006-10-16 – 2006-10-30 of Para's page....while the second is 'cc by 2.0' As an aside, was Para the only Admin who did license checks in 2006? His table covers the period from October 2006 to March 2007. Just curious. I have passed most of the images listed here as free by Para. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. No I think there were a few others. But I'm not sure when they started tagging images as reviewd. Maybe the images was checked and found ok, but if images were not tagged it can be hard to remember (and prove) if an images was checked. As far as I can tell Captain-tucker and you have contacted almost every user where there might be hope, so as for the rest of the images if they are not on the list and user has not proven to be trustworthy then I se no other option than to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I have passed them now and given my reasons from Para's clear evidence. Captain tucker said it was regrettable that some images would have to be deleted but, as he noted, it has to happen eventually. I see 1 or 2 deleted images nominated by me & the captain respectively where a certain flickr owner claimed his images from 2006 had a NC restriction when it was actually cc by 2.0 from Para's records. I checked and then saw a few other images from this person's account passed flickr review here as 'cc by 2.0' too. I guess not everyone on flickr is honest...but such is life. (They weren't great photos luckily!) Goodbye from BC, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Was this from an image by Mac9? The uploader is Salko...but the reviewer is Mac9. I cannot see the deleted image:

• File:Trinità di saccarigia.jpg

If it is, maybe you can type a flickrpass here for this image on Mac9's behalf. I don't know. I may contact you in 1-2 days for 1 final undeletion request for some images by Mac9. But right now, I am very busy with work. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice Images by User:Mac9 failed Flickreview? Multichill (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is actually better with an Admin if he trusts you. At present I have no idea whether it was Mac9 who first uploaded the deleted image or Salko. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Dear MGA73, Do you know who uploaded the original (now deleted image)? Can you confirm if it was Mac9...or not? Its all a mystery to me sadly. As an aside, this category is not truly correct. Sometimes I check a flickr owner's name whose images are here and I see some new images here which were never detected or marked by Nilfanion's or your bots. There are likely a few more still on Commons that have not been marked. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Made a note at File talk:Trinità di saccarigia.jpg. Yes there is probably untagged Flickr images. Maybe we could make a bot request flickrreview on all images in Category:Flickr + subcategories that does not have a review-license. --MGA73 (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for confirming it was indeed Mac9 who uploaded it. I did not know. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help restore these 4 images

Dear MGA73,

Could you please help restore these 4 images below. They are all recorded as 'cc by 2.0' in Para's records...but if no one restores them I cannot pass them naturally:

• File:Onsen tamago at minshuku Korakuen, Nagano by Blue Lotus.jpg
• File:Fusilli con porri e vongole by Blue Lotus.jpg
• File:IAI Westwind.jpg

And the last one: File:Universität Jussieu.jpg

On the last photo, I just found out from Para's evidence that the flickr owner (Hu.go) lied to me on the Jussieu image! It shows up as 'cc by 2.0' in Para's October 2, 2006 records. I wasn't sure if Para was right and I thought that maybe Para made a mistake...until I saw these images from his account which are FlickrLickr. Para does not make mistakes with his records! It is time to correct an injustice, I think on the Jussieu photo...especially since I was the nominator. Please help let me pass them all. I would not disturb you anymore on restoring any other images. I just hope that all Mac9's images will be restored one day. Thank You from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Remember to review them ASAP to avoid new deletion :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cbcfremantle old crest.png

Hello, I would like to nominate this image. It is being used for vandalism on English Wikipedia and being that it is obviously "Pedobear", I don't think it serves much of a true purpose other than vandalism. Could you please nominate it for deletion? I don't know how here on Commons, on en.wiki, yeah, here...not so much. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk 10:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cbcfremantle old crest.png. You can nominate by clicking the link to the left "Nominate for deletion" (when you have the image on your screen). --MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sweet! Didn't know that, learned something new there. Many thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk

File:Jonny Wilkinson 016.jpg

Re: Missing permission File:Jonny Wilkinson 016.jpg MGA73 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been changed twice and now it's good ! Thanks. Ddfree (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is good. Next time just change the image ans answer on your talk page :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for your help. There must be hundreds of Mac9 images deleted in the past partly by me but mostly by other Admins. As an aside, if I see an image by Foundert, I will likely pass it. He seems to have known the right licenses as in this case here

This is likely another of his images which is now deleted:

• File:Universität York.jpg

It was cc by sa on 01/01/2007. Would you consider restoring this 1 image? Just curious. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Regards,

•  Done You could make an undeletion request on all deleted images on Paras list. --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks MGA73. I made a final request to Admin MBisanz here but he is away After that, I am finished with undeletion. I cannot identify most of the images--especially the ones just with numbers in them and no proper title. You CAN undelete them if you want, but 2 photos in my message to MBisanz must be deleted. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: As an aside, can Commons trust Liftarn? I notice he correctly uploaded this image on a free license in early October 2006 according to Para's records: File:Starwars-tatooine.jpg (It was still cc by sa on October 16, 2006)

But what does one do with these 2 images from early 2006 by him:

• File:Saab9-2x iota.jpg
• File:Saab9-2x iota rear.jpg

Do we type a flickrpass for him or not? Captain tucker contacted the flickrowner but he is away. (no new images since October 2008) Should we just delete them? I asked Liftarn here and his reply is not 100% clear to me. Do you advise deletion or typing a flickrpass for the images in his name dated to 20 April 2006? I don't know if I trust him but he seems to say the license is right, I think. But his talkpage shows some issues. What do you think? Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)