User talk:MGA73/Archive 6

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Deleted_images_from_Flickr_that_is_on_User:Para.27s_lists

I have closed the undelete request, Do you want to take one list User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible and I will take the other User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore?--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I will :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So far I have checked down to File:Pseudoplatystoma tigrinum.jpg. Not many images to undelete since most were not ok. But found some that was reviewed but where someone removed the review. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All done. I also checked a few of "your" images. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I undeleted around 40 images during the day today, looks like I am about getting close to 1/4 of the way through. Will keep at it. Cheers!--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: There are a few more to undelete, I believe. I had this image undeleted and then renamed but there were still a few more from this set (with the strange original file number) where the license changed after Oct. 9, 2006. There is also this image: File:Ribadesella (Asturias) 01.jpg which I remember well....because gulp! I had it deleted. It was of high resolution too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Question When I started doing these undeletions I checked to see if there was a higher resolution version on Flickr and uploaded those. My reasoning was that since there is no 'upload a new version' on Flickr (as far as I am aware) that the higher resolution version must have existed when Para created his lists. I was questioned about this practice by Túrelio on my talk page here. I was curious as to your opinion? If you could reply on my talk page to keep the conversation in one place that would be great. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You noted my comment I see :-) Well I did an other list User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by-sa. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This one is done to User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by recently except for the files now on your talk page :-D --MGA73 (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Miranda

Do you know of any other cases like this by Miranda where this trusted user changed the bot pass review in 2007 to fail and the image was deleted? Just curious? If she did not know the rules in 2007, they should all be restored if there are no FOP or copy vio problems.

This is strange...I thought the Admins here check to see if an image passed review first before they delete photos. I guess even Admins make mistakes. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, it looks like the captain has gone most of Para's images. I was wondering about this though which was once 'cc by 2.0'. Is it a picture of modern art that cannot be restored, a derivative or is it really a picture of Santorini that can be restored? Just curious:

File:Santorini Thira Panoramic.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Leoboudv. As I said there is more lists still not checked. This one is on User:Para/Flickr/Identical_licenses/Cc-by_recently which has around 4.000 images. It should get blue a little later.

I might find this image interessting File:Itiba.jpg.

As for Miranda I know of no other cases and I have no good idea how to find out. It the deleted images are not on Para's list it is hard to find out. --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: It looks like the ones on the lists which are not copy vios have really been all been restored...at first glance. Its a pity about Miranda but I have seen some FlickrLickr images which have been restored too which makes me wonder why they were deleted in the first place. As an aside, it is nice to know that the image of Santorini is really that of Santorini. (I wasn't sure.) It is a nice picture too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Skal Knud ikke have en stemme for Bubber?

[1] Nillerdk (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeg kender ikke helt kriterierne, men jeg synes det er godt. Skal lige spørge en om procedurerne :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This image

I notice that Para gave the flickr source for these 2 photos in 2006: File:Kenilworth Castle 02.jpg & File:Kenilworth Castle 04.jpg Can one assume that Para knew the license was cc by sa when he gave the source...or else he would have nominated them for deletion? I contacted the copyright owner (Roe) but he refuses to make a reply. If so, it may be passed. Personally, I think Asta knew what licenses were OK but I can't pass an image on a feeling.

I checked S. Roe's flickr account on Internet archive in 2005/2006 and some of his photos were licensed as 'cc by nc sa' and others are 'cc by sa' whereas today they are all ARR. But there is nothing on these 2 photos. So, Roe had different licenses for his images....which is a problem. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If he gave source it is likely he checked the license. But I think I asked him once if an edit = review and he said no. Best thing would be to ask Para if he would review the images. --MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I asked Para the question you suggested and he replied he did not check the license. So, one is stuck. This is a problem for this important and heavily used image which Para also gave the source for but did not check the license: File:Naan.jpg Does one trust Deeptrivia here or not? All I know (from the captain) is he has now 10 deleted images--maybe the license changed? But he has also uploaded many flickr images which pass flickr review. Deeptrivia does not appear to be like Urban who had no clue about the right license. The copyright owner has deleted his flickr account so one cannot contact him. In my opinion, since Para gave the source, it certainly came from the copyright owner's account. The problem is trust? Do you trust the uploader here? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I just noticed that there is one more list User:Para/Flickr/Licensing changes. As you can se there is some red links on this one and not all are dupes, FOP etc. So we better check this one also. Once this list is done maybe some of the deleted files from Deeptrivias talk page will be undeleted and makeing it look better. I will look at the list later. Lets cross fingers. --MGA73 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. I thought that you and the captain had restored all the ones which were licensed freely on flickr already. The rest are those which have NC or ND restrictions on flickr. I wish you the best of luck. However, I doubt the photo would turn up here if the account was deleted since Para's site only detected license changes. So, we are left with the same problem--trust or no trust. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No no. But if some of the users deleted files are restored it looks better on the talk page... Just found a new list by the way User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by always (-L) --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Now User:Para/Flickr/Licensing changes is done... --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Deeptrivia has to many deletions. So since I do not know this user I can't recomend as a trusted user. --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK then. I suppose someone will have to place a DR on Deeptrivia's image above eventually. Thanks for cleaning up that final list of images from Para's list. There were some good images there indeed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi, thanks for your comments on the bot request. If you read further down #Discussion, you will notice that I address some of your concerns about deletion. In the related CfD, I don't think anybody thought of keeping the old names as redirects, the main problem with these thousands of categories is that their name isn't particularly explicit. Manual deletion doesn't seem to be very practical either. Anyways, if you take the time to do it, I'd be glad if you would read through it and file the corresponding bot request. -- User:Docu at 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read the comments before I voted. If needed both Multichill and I can delete with our bots and admins have other tools so we can delete many pages in no time. --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is your bot approved to do so? -- User:Docu at 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No but I am. And if I use my bot to delete images it will be deleted in my name. I would also be able to undelete if somthing goes wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you currently operating bots under your user name? -- User:Docu at 09:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Neel Jani 2006.jpg

Can we trust Morio? Do you have any stats on him? I see at least 5 other images here from Lockwood's account all from the same 2006 race. It appears not unreasonable to assume this image was also licensed freely at upload. I recall that some of Morio's images were restored from Para's list as was some from Skully Collins who also uploaded images from this account. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, maybe this image here: File:Indian naan bread.jpg can replace all uses of this heavily used but unfree image here by D'trivia below:

• File:Naan.jpg

Just an idea, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see we have more images from that Flickr user [2]. Some were ok and some were not. That tells me that the user did not have same license for all images (otherwise the file would be on one of Para's ok-lists). So I would say we can't keep this one. --MGA73 (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. But can you replace all uses of this image: File:Naan.jpg with this other image I uploaded here: File:Indian naan bread.jpg ? Then the unfree image by Deeptrivia can be deleted by you. You can do this as an Admin. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --MGA73 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind help here MGA73. It is appreciated. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudden deletion

You deleted, but did not close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Eiffel bleu 01.JPG. What was your reasoning? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is a mess. It was discussed in two DR's - the other is Commons:Deletion requests/Eiffel Tower by night. Anyway I restored this image but still think it should be deleted. I told why in the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not understand French copyright. It seems so extremist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That was why I decided to stop the debate in "the big DR" so it could be discussed image by image (or a few at a time if they are much alike). Lets hope they change the law soon :-D --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PNG duplicate

Hi MGA73, I know that SVG can't replace a PNG, but File:Flag of Afghanistan 1974.svg.png and File:Flag of Afghanistan (1978).png are simply PNG render (like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Flag_of_Afghanistan_1974.svg/600px-Flag_of_Afghanistan_1974.svg.png, made by Wikimedia renderer engine) of the File:Flag of Afghanistan 1974.svg and File:Flag of Afghanistan (1978).svg respectively. So this two pictures are useless duplicate of two automatic PNG generation. I hope I've explained myself well... Cheers, --F l a n k e r (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First: I'm a chicken so I do not like to delete as superceeded by a svg ;-) Second: Commons is a site for free media for the whole world - not just Wiki-projects. So out in the big world there can be a person that would like to use the flag in a Word-document. And Word does not like svg-files. I'm sure that other programs have problems with svg also. That is one of the reasons that we keep both versions. --MGA73 (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK for the first one (err... I don't understand it so well...), but for the second, as I said, there is already the PNG, 600px-Flag_of_Afghanistan_1974.svg.png that is the same file as Flag_of_Afghanistan_1974.svg.png. As you can see is exatly the same file with the same extension and the same dimension (26721 byte). --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

UK-Navy-OFx.gif

Hej MGA73, ved du hvorfor en hel masse UK-Navy-OFx.gif er blevet slettet? (File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif, File:UK-Navy-OF2.gif, File:UK-Navy-OF3.gif, File:UK-Navy-OF4.gif, File:UK-Navy-OF5.gif... File:UK-Navy-OF8.gif). Så vidt jeg husker havde de et If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, ({{Military-Insignia}}) som Zscout370 har misforstået til no source or license since May 2007. Kan du hjælpe? --Necessary Evil (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeg kigger på det. --MGA73 (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrrg. Det er lidt tungt nogle gange... Du er velkommen til at kigge forbi Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Speedy.27ed_files_with_.7Bmilitary_insignia.7D. --MGA73 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This final list

I hope you and the captain can go through Para's final "CC-by always" list here: User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by always (-L) in your free time. So, far nothing has happened here. Maybe there are a few jewels here. Who knows? --Leoboudv (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to spend some time on the list over the next few days. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing that I could find that could be undeleted in User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by always (-L). Lots of duplicates, some DW, FOP, etc... --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking them still just to be sure. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did some tests (had no time to do them all yet) and it is getting harder and harder to find good files. --MGA73 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Ole_Bill_Inside_IWM.jpg

Do you want to close this DR for the above image as keep or delete? Personally, I believe it was licensed freely at upload because after my DR, Rbutcher submitted a lot of old Commons images he uploaded for flickrreview. They all had the right free license. I remember because I had to mark many of them. I don't see a reason not to trust the uploader. What do you think? Maybe you have some stats on the uploader. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: As an aside, I think this is the most important image which you restored for obvious reasons:

• File:September 11 2001 just collapsed.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is just one of the images which Rbutcher requested a flickr review months after upload. Do we trust Rcbutcher or not? I don't see any problems in this specific case...but what do you think? If we trust him, the DR which I initiated, must be closed as keep. If not, it should be deleted. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it would have been nice if image was reviewed sooner. Has anyone asked the flickr owner? --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I haven't asked the flickr owner. I wish I had the stats for the number of images I passed which were uploaded by Rcbutcher but I don't. However, the uploader is adamant it was licensed freely at upload and given the other images from this flickr account, I can't disagree. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: This is 1 image that Nilfanion's bot detected in 2008 by the uploader from this account: File:15inchGunsIWMRearView2.jpg Also, I found at least 3 images from other accounts where Rcbutcher ordered a flickrreview after my DR above and I had to mark them. they are here:

• File:BL 9.2 inch Howitzer Mother IWM 3 April 2008.jpg
• File:BL5.5inch-50cal-MkI-NavalGun-IWM-August2006300px.jpg
• File:BL 9.2 inch Howitzer AWM.jpg

He seems to know the right license indeed--look at the time difference between the first upload and the final review by me. That is why I believe one can trust Rcbutcher. If one can trust him then the DR can be closed as keep rather than delete. Its entirely your call. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Do you have any stats on this uploader--like the number of images uploaded from flickr which passed flickrreview and any deleted images? As I said, I don't see a problem in AGF here but you can scrutinize his record if you want. As an aside, feel free to vote in this DR Thank You and goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lenge siden sist

jeg er litt aktiv igjen, men mest med mindre redigeringer på Wikipedia (norsk og engelsk) - blir nok en stund til jeg (kanskje) blir aktiv på Commons igjen. Håper alt er bra med deg. Kunne du tatt en kikk på denne, virker som om tillatelse og slikt er i orden - er vel rett og slett ingen som har sett på den på en stund. Beste hilsen Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hej Finn! Ja det er længe siden. Godt at høre fra dig igen. Jeg holder ferie, men det var en let opgave du havde til mig, så den kunne jeg godt klare :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Takk for hjelpen :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for acting on that image. I hope you are able to read this important DR closely and make a vote. If you feel deletion is the proper course, feel free to vote delete. Personally, it would appear all the flickrowner's images were cc by sa (from all the evidence) until recently. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Thanks for marking unmarked images for flickrreview. There are still a few people who upload images without ordering a {{Flickrreview}} and I had to notify them. There must be hundreds more such images here. It looks like your bot is working correctly and most of the unmarked images have been passed. You may want to continue the experiment for a few more days. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• After maybe 3 or 4 full days, you should stop your bot as it may be too much for us reviewers to handle. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MGA73. You have new messages at Blurpeace's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–blurpeace ^(talk) 23:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickrreview

This Flickrreview marks are a pain. Marking them without any reason for Flickrreview with a bot - that will not appear on someones watchlist - is similar to directly delete them. --Martin H. (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's not the same as a deletion. Only if deleting admin likes to delete images without checking. If you see some admin deleting images with an OTRS-permission feel free to start a de-sysop. The images that fails Flickreview will show up in a category where they will all be checked. The "problem" with these images was that it had a user-template instead of a ordenary OTRS-tag (I told the bot to skip any images with "OTRS"). We expected that some cleanup was needed but getting a flickrreview is important if we want to reduce the risk of images being deleted on Flickr or marked with an unfree license on Flickr before they are checked. But thank you for assisting in cleanup. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now all images by User:Escapedtowisconsin, who also uploaded his images to Flickr and wanted to have a link to his flick upload, had their flickrreview, their speedy tag and a revert. This images are on my watchlist because I edited them once - there may be other users from Flickr who gave Commons a try but used Flickr in the source field or somewhere else. As long as Flickrreviewers are so careless and not check ALL information (not only the license, also version history, user page, user names, flickr user page) images should not unnecessarily marked with Flickrreview. --Martin H. (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the problem is that some images needed to be marked for Flickrreview. I even found some from 2006. There is no 100 % perfect way of finding all images that should be reviewed and only those. Doing it this way make sure we find most of the images and as for the ones that does not need a review we should just make sure that noone deletes them without checking. If you can find the images that need a check in a better way I would be happy to hear how. So far I only checked for images that has the text string "Permission=" So there sould be others out there (like "Permission =" or without "permission"). --MGA73 (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your comments. As an aside, I am surprised you passed the entire set of Tbilisi images like this:

• File:Tbilisi, Georgia 1 (I).jpg and this:
• File:Tbilisi, Georgia 1 (M).jpg and this:
• File:Tbilisi, Georgia 1 (A).jpg and this:
• File:Tbilisi, Georgia 1 (H).jpg and many more given that this is the only source given. I assume the images are on the flickr owner's photostream somewhere but there is no guarantee of course. I tried to check his photostream but it is too large for me. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But I suppose this is not a problem since Camaron also passed an image here: File:Tbilisi, Georgia 1 (J).jpg here. As an aside, some of the photos by this flickr owner like this image I uploaded here are of very high resolution indeed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The links shows a huge image from where all the images have been cropped. That huge image was and is free so all the crops are too. --MGA73 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh I see now. Its all crops of that one single high resolution image. It was easy to miss this at first. As for Nilsfanion, I may ask him about his bot. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nilfabot

I find Nilfabot's behaviour to be very strange. It fixes licenses by removing the flickr pass as in this action It has done this to hundreds of images. (I added back the pass for this photo) This is asking for problems. Anyone who does not see the pass will assumed it did not pass the review and will nominate the image for deletion if the license is not free today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If the image is a "self" we could live without but only if it is clear that there is a self. Have you asked the bot-owner what is going on? --MGA73 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Admin Nilsfanion has explained to me that those images were a 'self made' one...and so the flickr owner can license them as 'cc by sa 2.5' here' Nilsfanion told me the Nilfabot run was just for this particular user's images here So, I was in the wrong and am reverting my edits here to this users images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah if we are sure that user is the same license on Flickr is not relevant. --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Miami County Courthouse clock and Justice.jpg

Thanks for fixing the license! Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about that problem. I just looked at the license. I also agree on this:
• File:EdisonMiranda.png

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its OK on the license. If you don't change the license, sometimes you get a strange flickrreview message saying the license don't match and it is uncertain if it was really valid...like this which can cause lots of problems. I decided to mark that manually. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with that edit? --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There was the strange message that "it is unknown if the license was ever valid" which is really unfortunate. Anyway, have you seen this DR When there are no other images from the flickr account, its not possible to pass the image in my view sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. The bot can't tell if license was ever correct since Flickr has no history. If you add the review manually and add "|changed=xxx" then you get the same result. That way it is clear that "we" changed the license. --MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)