Wikimedia Commons

User talk:MGA73/Archive 56

< User talk:MGA73
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Leoboudv in topic A comment

New discussion

Latest comment: 1 month ago27 comments2 people in discussion

So, yes. Your bot should pass all the PDM tagged flickr images except 3 images from this flickrwashing account unless you know of anymore flickrwashing accounts. I have to go to bed know but most PDM images are basically own work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with those are derivative works. Bot can't tell if something is a derivative work. It can only tell if the license on Flickr is good or not. And if some users are bad the bot can put them on the naughty list. The question is if there are any bad Flickr users in the category. If you have time it would be great if you could hunt for bad photos before the bot passes them. --MGA73 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Its like I said, when you go in this Category you can easily figure out which images are 'own work' and which are not safe to review. Most are safe to review except this obvious case....which was the uploader's only image here.

Good night. I have Have Good Friday mass today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I made a little test. If the file is licensed {{PDMark-owner}} the bot will not pass it Special:Diff/864127010 but if I change to {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} the bot will pass Special:Diff/864127231.
If I do it like that the bot will check if the flickr user is black listed. --MGA73 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I have been testing a bit more. The files go to Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review and if they are passed they are removed again. So the first files in the category are some that could not be passed by Flickreview bot. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • OK that is quite fine. so perhaps other reviewers can pass them, too. I have Good Friday mass soon and will be resting later. I reviewed 3 or 4 images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yes they might need a human review. If you review some make sure you start from the top. The bot is still working on the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yes my bot will remove the temporary template. If the file have the usual {{Flickrreview}} then the Flickr review bot have not checked it yet. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: The bot allready reviewed them earlier so all we need to do is fix like this: Special:Diff/864203359. We just need to check if it is likely the Flickr user is/was the copyright holder of if it is a derivative work or for some other reason should not be passed. If there are many from one account the bot can fix. --MGA73 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
And I have not listed it in the category because it is a sub category of Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. Also there is no reason to have more reviewers look at the files right now while the bot is still working on them. --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I will go to bed too. My bot will not remove the temporary review template while I sleep. But Flickrreview bot should finish all the files it can. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: My bot have now asked for a flickr review for all files tagged with PD-licenses. My guess is that it will catch most of the old photos. I hope that there will only be a few files left in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review that does not look like own work after that. The Flickr review bot will need a few hours to work on he files (it is currently working on files starting with the letter P). --MGA73 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment: That is a good idea. My Catholic church mass was 3 hours long and I will be signing off soon as its 2:35 AM here now in Mero Vancouver, Canada. I filed a DR on these 3 photos: ****image
  • image
  • image

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: You're the best :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: All done now. Good thing is that there are not that many files left in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review now that the Flickr review bot reviewed all the files it could. Sadly I can't think of a way to make the bot skip those that are possibly bad. --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  • As for Elusive Muse it is interesting; they claim their photos are PD and they are not on a blacklist as I passed one of their photos with no problems.

Regarding Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review some of the photos were marked as PDM at upload, so I typed in a pass but the images are still here since your bot will have to remove the extra review tag. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Yes all the photos were marked PDM at the upload. The Flickr review bot confirmed that. The only thing left to do is to try to spot copyvios.
I will have a look at the accounts you mentioned above later. --MGA73 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I could easily just pass all the photos. But I think we should try to see if we can spot most of the bad files before we do that. There is no need to rush because the Flickr review bot allready confirmed the license. So its not like the other reviews where speed is important to avoid loss of files because they were not reviewed before the file was deleted or license was changed. --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Signing off

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Michael, I'm signing off and have Easter mass on Sunday. If you are interested, here are 2 'own work accounts.

  • Rob Mitchell He licensed his older 2015 and maybe 2016 photos as PDM.
  • Flickr id#: 46958463@N06

This account has a few images under PDM, like these 2 below and several more:

Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  •   Comment: This flickr account below also has legitimate PDM images.
  • Ministerio de la Produccion Flickr id#: ministeriodelaproduccion has 743 images Most images are not passed or people type in the wrong cc0 license.
  • Also this flickr account below:

Tyler Brenot Flickr id#: 152474924@N02 at 72 images Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also do

Both are PDM licensed.

There are also ALL PDM licensed images from

There are many PDM images from

There are still some PDM images from

There are some PDM images from Bonnie Moreland BUT here Flickr id# is actually: icetsarina as you can see here at 186 images Some images she licensed as cc0 and were passed and others are PD-Mark and did not pass like those below...and more.


Finally, there are PDM images from

I think its harder to get find single flickr accounts with large amounts of legitimate images now. But at least you brought down the large PDM category from 95,000 images and that may be good enough. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Four accounts

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Dear MGA73,

Here are three flickr accounts with some PDM images whose flickr id number does not match the flickr profile page.

They have a bit more images with a PDM license

There are some PDM images from Bonnie Moreland BUT her Flickr id# was once actually: icetsarina as you can see here at 186 images Some images she licensed as cc0 and were passed and others are PD-Mark and did not pass like those below...and more.


  • Here is a Regular PDM image account with the same flickr id name. The images are definitely own work.
  • David Steadman Flickr id#: davidgsteadman at 141 images

I ordered new reviews for one or two images from David Steadman...like the one below but there are many more images that have the wrong license tag.


Hi Leoboudv! I'm thinking if it was a good idea to add "Category:Files from <user id-number> Flickr stream" to all the files in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. That would mean there would be a lot of red categories that could be found via Special:WantedCategories or by clicking a random file and see what category it is in.
It should be easy to see if all the files in the category looks like own work or not. If yes they can all be passed and if not they can all be failed.
It should be easy for the bot to pass all files in a category because it will only have to work on those specific files and not all the 20k files.
If there are only 1 file or 2 in the category it may be easier just to pass the file(s) manually. The category should either be removed or the <user id-number> should probably be changed to the name and the category should be created.
What do you think? (I will work on the links above before I decise).--MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I decided to mark the files in Category:Files from tormentor4555 Flickr stream. I doubt the old photos are own work but it is possibly PD for other reasons. But now they are in a single category they are easier to spot if someone think they are not PD. --MGA73 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just found out my bot skipped some files because some were licensed "PDM" instead of the usual "PDMark-owner" etc. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I agree that many images Category:Files from tormentor4555 Flickr stream are not own work. I tried to review one and got a bad authors mesage. But at least, it is easier to spot a few clear copy vios. As for your bot skipping some images because they were licensed as PDM, it would explain why some flickr account images were missed by your MGAbot.
  • Here are 9 Reliable flickr accounts with all PDM images:







Examples:

All their images are PDM licensed. Apart from this File:Iredell County Historical Society (51312982327).jpg newspaper image from 1971, the photos are almost certainly PD or are simple printed text that do not meet the threshold of copyright.


  • Lark Ascending Flickr id#: vwilliams at 309 images has virtually all PDM images on Commons. Today Lark's images are ARR but only since June 10, 2023 from my check of his flickr photostream. Before that date, it was all licensed as PDM...and he did not change the license of his images from PDM before June 10, 2023.


Example: File:PMO IMG 3622 (40547323203).jpg & File:PMO IMG 4927 (47460557772).jpg

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Leoboudv! All marked. Or so I hope :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A comment

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Thank You Michael,

I think from now on that most of the images in the now smaller PDM category is still own work but it will not be easy to find many images from just one flickr account. Images from these 2 flickr accounts are most likely copy vios below. The first flickr account has only 11 images from the 1950s or 1960s.

As an aside, I did find one legitimate own work flickr account below with a bit more images:

@Leoboudv: Yeah it will most likely be smaller accounts now. My but is not adding a user category (like Category:Files from 121653663@N05 Flickr stream) to all the files. Once all files are tagged it will be very easy to see how many files there are from the same user. --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. Just to let you know that you don't have to worry about any new flickr images for a while due to this issue The backlog was 100 when I first posted the message and now its 900+. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a second legitimate own work flickr account below with some images:

I had reviewed these 2 of her images below:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


Here is a third legitimate own work flickr account below with some images:


I just did the first test run. All files from Category:Files from 49017692@N05 Flickr stream was passed and category changed to Category:Files from Eric Corriel Flickr stream. It seeems to work well (and fast compared to old way).

I will start working on the other categories when I have some time.

Perhaps you could scan for bad files and tag those? --MGA73 (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Leoboudv yes it seems to go rather well now. Nice catch with the categories that allready existed under another name. There will probably be some where I will miss that and create duplicate categories. But its easy to fix with a category redirect.--MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_56&oldid=874736518"
Return to the user page of "MGA73/Archive 56".