User talk:MGA73/Archive 7

This DR

I saw how you and Pieter voted in this DR but I have to disagree here. This is a dangerous precedent if the image is passed and there are no other passed photos from this flickr account here because as Abigor told me (when he gave me trusted user status), you must not mark your own images. No one actually saw the image uploaded on a free license. In this case, the flickrowner could say there are no images from his account here and he could threaten to sue Commons and then the project would have problems. I can honestly say that 99% of the images which the uploader (T Gun) uploaded was passed by me with no problems but captain tucker failed one and I am nominating this one. When there are *zero* photos from silver doctor's account here, then the onus is on Commons to prove the image was free, not on silver doctor. Trust only goes so far.

That is why I informed the uploader twice to order a flickrreview here and here but he did not listen to me as I had to order one for his last flickr image here: File:Cambridge War Memorial.jpg If he had ordered a flickrreview for the Ripon photo, there would be no problems. What a pity this situation had to arise. Even you have tagged one of Gun's images for deletion. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your worries. We had the same problem with MAC9-images. There we had to trust that user knew what he did. Same with images uploaded by admins. If you look at File:Flickr - Brinki - 733-fridge.jpg it is uploaded and reviewed by same user. Thomas Gun should order Flickrreview when uploading new images if not we should delete them (acting against better knowing). But with older images we have no choise but to delete or trust. --MGA73 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying. With Mac9, I could tell that he really knew the right license. When you filed that mass DR, I contacted many flickr owners. Several changed the license. But in one case, a flickrowner didn't alter the license but while he didn't change the license, he authorised the use of his then 2 images by using the OTRS permission template itself. That was one reason I knew that we could certainly trust Mac9....which I had no doubt. The same is true for Guety...when one looks at his flickr page and virtually all the images pass review. I noticed that this single image: File:NBC Tower, Chicago.jpg was on an unfree license so I contacted the flickr owner...and he changed the license this July. So, I knew that Guety could be trusted too. (though he long ago left Commons) I just hope with the Ripon image, the captain has some success in getting a positive response from the flickrowner. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: As an aside, the flickrbot sometimes marks images strangely. I uploaded this photo as 'cc by sa 2.0'...and yet it claims the license was "cc by 2.0" which is impossible. Very strange indeed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. When I look at the history [1] the license on Commons was "cc by 2.0". The Flickr image links to "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en" so it is correct to change the license to 'cc by sa 2.0'. --MGA73 (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:London bridge homestead.jpg

I already wrote her a flickr mail to ask for proper permission. Hekerui (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Super. I tried to get Captain-tucker to do that but no need now. Lets see what she says. --MGA73 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:In-Salah-citadel.jpg

I missed that they are different people. I left a note for the original uploader. You could've done that too, doesn't take long ;) Hekerui (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot problems

Hi. What's wrong with the bot? It marks derivative work like this, this or this, which are perfectly valid. I'll manually revert those on my watchlist, but I hope the bot is stopped. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is becomming a problem, means the bot is filling up the manual review queue with LOTS of these... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here for this reason. It marked this this as needing a Flickr review (which then automatically failed!) despite it being a crop of an already reviewed Flickr image. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with the bot. It does what I told it to do. It finds images that link to Flickr and request a review with a few exceptions. 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.

I chose not to skip images with a "RetouchedPicture-template" because there is no guarantee that all "originals" has been checked. Better safe than sorry.

All failed images will end up in a category where it will be checked. When I find derivates I just copy the flickrreview-template from the original so it is clear that the image is verified. You can either wait for us to finish the cleanup or you can help if you have the time to do it.

And last: The bot has finished. It was planed to be a one time run. --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't call it a success if the bot automatically relicenses a perfectly fine image from CC-by-sa-3.0 back to 2.0 without consent of the person creating the derivative work, as here :/ Hekerui (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not my bot that changed the license. The Flickreview bot checks the license on Flickr. It probably wonders why you can use a differend license that the author did on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a derivative work of the one on flickr, obviously. Seems like you don't understand how licensing works, what kind of an admin are you? Hekerui (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that I squeeze in here. I do not totally agree. I have changed the license of this crop of a flickr image ([2]) because IMHO cropping does not give you authorship. So the original license should be used. --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I already told you it was NOT my bot that changed the license. --MGA73 (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, but the bot SHOULD know. Hekerui (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Normaly the bot skipps images that does not have the same size so I also wonder why it acted that way. But As you can se below Leoboudv did not find any problems with the derivated images so in case I run the bot again I will make it skip images that uses the derivate-templates. But sadly we did find some other images with problems. So no more bot-work until we have cleaned up what we already found :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check. About maybe 50% were unmarked images while the other 50% were images derived from already marked images. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Waldorf Astoria Hotel main entrance Park Avenue.jpg

This may be a copy vio. Wallyg has NOT licensed his flickr images freely since the week between 12 March & 19 March 2007 from Para's records as this shows and the license has clear NC and ND restrictions. Wallyg refused to even respond to a flickr mail I sent him last year about licensing an image freely. What do you think? The uploader also uploaded this image which has ND restrictions: File:Waldorf Astoria Hotel main entrance frontal Park Avenue.jpg This is a problem when the uploader marks his own images....potential for abuse if he/she is not trusted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Same issue here: File:Waldorf Astoria Hotel tower Baptist Church Park Avenue Manhattan NYC.jpg ND restriction. It looks like the uploader typed in the pass. I can see lawsuits here...and wally would certainly be entitled to sue Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrot a note to the uploader. Feel free to mark any images as copyvio if Multichil and I missed some. Thanks for noticing. --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Good. I was surprised that no one checked the flckr review bot. I just checked what images it passed today and I saw those three pictures. When I saw the image by wally...you know who, I almost had a heart attack! He is American (from NJ) and the WMF foundation is based in the US and wally knows some of his pictures are here. That is how I could easily see a lawsuit...and the Americans love lawsuits. In contrast, we Canadians are not as prone to this problem since the loser in a trial usually pays part or all of the winner's court fees which discourages frivolous suits. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Please please order your bot to place a {{Flickrreview}} on flickr images uploaded by user Paris 16 here who also does Not order flickrreviews. (at least the ones which have not been marked) I have marked some of his pictures but there is too many and its late at night now. A few pictures will fail due to license changes but most will pass...judging from the quality of his work. If you speak French, it would be nice if you could tell him to type in {{Flickrreview}} whenever he uses images from flickr. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for ordering flickrreviews on Paris 16's flickr image. I was very tired last night. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Military ranks

Hi! Thanks for your comment! I decided to speedy delete it for three main reasons: 1) earlier this month at least one other admin speedy deleted a number of such files; 2) the template you are reffering to has been there for over two years now and as there is still no licence, it's quite possible we haven't got any rights to hold it througout this period; e) I didn't want to spam the DR by creating such a number of very similar requests. Anyway, I accept this may be controversial, so I'm now stopping those deletions. I won't restore those files for a time being (I'm not sure it's really needed and it would take over 60 files to restore), but I'm willing to do this as soon as a wider solution of this problem is found. Please keep me updated if you know anything new on this. Powerek38 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Made comment at your page. --MGA73 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, as my speedy dels prooved to be rather controversial, I am now restoring all the files and nominating them for deletion in the normal procedure. Obviously I hope they will be kept but the licences issue needs to be solved. If you would like to take part in discussions, please take a look at today's deletion requests page (and possibly tomorrow's as I may lack the time to do it all at once). Powerek38 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yeah we really need 50 active admins to help clean up here :-) Problem is that when we drown in work things not always go as we hope. I'm really not supposed to be here - I should work on dawiki ;-) I will look at it later (probably not today since I'm on my way to a meeting tonight. --MGA73 (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Its OK MGA. I don't mind correcting licenses...if I have the time. Right now, I have a bit more time. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But letting the bot do it or using {{flickrreview|...|changed=cc-whatever}} makes it visible on the page that license has been changed. --MGA73 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Have you seen this DR Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is why flickrreview (or check with a bot) is good. You can't argue license when it is reviewed :-) By the way there is still unreviewed images out there... They are hard to find without tagging to many unneccecary. I did some yesterday but will not flood the system by adding a lot. Sadly it is hard to sort images from FlickLickr away (they should be ok). I let the bot do a review on some free FlickrLickr images just to get an extra review and maybe an image in higer resoution? --MGA73 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed that. There were many FlickrLickr images. It would have been nice if I didn't have to type in the pass for them but I don't think you operate that bot. Tomorrow or the day after I may be busy but hopefully other trusted users know what FlickrLickr images means and don't fail them if the flickr license has changed. Unfortunately since some users still don't order flickrreviews, there are indeed some unmarked flickr images here...but finding them is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:10, 21 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)

Ved du hvad der kom ud af det? --Necessary Evil (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Der diskuteres også steder som her Commons:Deletion requests/Danish military insignia og her Commons_talk:Licensing#Deprecated_licenses. Der er vist ingen endelig løsning. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost permission?

Hi! I sent the permission about these pictures on Sunday. Did you get it? --BluesD (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I could not see it in the OTRS system. Sorry. Could you check the spelling of the mail adress you send the permissions to? --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think, it isn't in the OTRS system, because I didn't get an answer to my e-mail. Shall I write down my e-mail address here? --BluesD (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No if you do so anyone can see it. Anyway we can't do anything before the author sends a mail to OTRS or changes the license on Flickr. Maybe you can ask the author again in a few days? --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I spent again the e-mail with the permission. If the Commons will not get the e-mail, in this site there is a significant sentence:

„All sizes of this photo are available for download under a Creative Commons license.“

The two picture (#1, #2) are under this licenc, which is enable in Commons too. --BluesD (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Some E-mail permissions sent to OTRS get placed in the junk folder for unknown reasons. So, its better to contact someone with OTRS authorisation ASAP before the folder gets cleaned out and the message is deleted. The captain has the same problem here Concerning this image MGA, one cannot contact the flickr owner or the uploader (today), so please look at the uploader's record here to see if he can be trusted...or not. Its a heavily used photo. If you don't think the uploader can be trusted, just delete it.
• File:Sighisoara-Tower-Clock.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know junk mails are kept for a longer period so they should be safe. But regarding the mail. Was it a mail from the user on Flickr or a mail you wrote yourself?

Yes it is correct that the text says "All sizes of this photo are available for download under a Creative Commons license.". But if you click the link with the license you get to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en where it says "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic". The problem is "Noncommercial" (Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses). That is why we need a mail from the uploader on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what should I do? --BluesD (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can contact the user on Flickr and ask 1) if the license on Flickr can be changed (then we can make a new review) or 2) if user will mail a permission to OTRS. On your talk page there is a link to a standard-request + mail address. If you are still unsure I can ask another user that has a lot of experience with contacting Flickr users. --MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to the author for change the license for this: [3] --BluesD (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is it I assume. (Fulltext search for the image name/URL works well in such cases.) --Tgr (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:DovesPressBible.jpg

Would PD-Old apply to this image above?

• As an aside, please check the uploader's record and make a decision here...whether to keep, delete or DR this image. It should not stay in the image not found category forever.
• File:Sighisoara-Tower-Clock.jpg

• By the way. You are right. There are still some unmarked flickr images here. I found a cache of images today and either marked them or ordered flickrreviews for the lower quality ones.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Last one I think it should stay Para made this edith [4] so we know it's from Flickr. It is not a proof but it could be an indication that either license or permission (comments) was ok.

As for the first one I'm not sure. First problem is if the book is PD-old and second problem is if we would accept the photo without knowing if photographer gave permission (we would with PD-art in some cases). Could ask on Commons talk:PD files :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: I did not check the file history. If Para gave the source then he would have passed it at the time. I think it should be kept as a flickrreview on Para's part since we can't contact either the uploader or flickr owner. Para even mentions the license. So, I'll type in the pass for Para--and let him know about it. As for the other image, I have to agree with you. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Makrellterner pa Pir 1.jpg & File:Mochuelo Común ( Athene noctua )(1).jpg

This uploader is Not an Admin or a trusted user and yet he passed the images himself...and the licenses today are unfree. So, was it free at upload? Who knows? This is what can get Commons in trouble--when someone else does not mark a person's uploads. He uploaded some other images which have failed review though most have passed. Maybe he is doing a copy vio but when the uploader marks his own 'uploads', Commons may have legal problems. I wonder how many other images he has uploaded this way.

I see only 1 other image from the first flickr account image here and wonder if the license was really free. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: I hope you saw my message above--especially on the first image, MGA. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not good. If user is a trusted user or can pass "the test" then ok. If not we should delete or ask Flickr user. --MGA73 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:У крепостной стены.jpg and others Russian names

Hi. You refused to rename Russian files 'cos "english names are not required". It's true, but there is another problem: Russian encoding is not very comfortable - in some cases (for example if you are working outside Russia) the name of file is converting in things like D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%%D0%A or [][][][][] like if it was Chinese or Japanese filename. The English names are not required, but the Latin alphabet is. As I'm Russian for me it is nothing related to politics, only usability. So please rename them.--Shakko (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest you make a topic at the Commons:File renaming talk page. Latin alphabet is not mentioned as one of the reasons. If all non latin letters are to be renamed it would probably be thousand of files. Maybe also a topic on the Commons:Village pump? --MGA73 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about the possibility of some new rule or what? I really don't know how it works - if it may cause many work it surely should be discussed. I don't say to prohibit, only to avoid. This is screen shot from my comp - almost all Russian letters are OK, exept some filenames. (If I'm adding it not in wiki-article but in my blog, the code is looking weird). What I think also - if somebody (from Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia) uploaded picture with filename in на кириллице, or some Jew with his אָלֶף-בֵּית עִבְרִי, or with Arabian أبجدية عربية - he is doing it only for people of his culture. If it is done with Latin - it became universal. It's like file description - if info is only in minor alphabet you as Admin not always can understand who is author, is the lisence and source OK, etc. (using Google translate can be bored with many files) - and if English description is added - you can check.--Shakko (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes a new "rule" :-) I know it looks "funny" but since it has been accepted for years I do not wish to make that decision myself even if would prefer English names myself. There are hardly any people that can read all languages in the world so that is why descriptions can be added in several languages. --MGA73 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was tired by this when I've cheked categories for Russian Orthodox churches in China, it was quite a job, ohh. You see, I think for pages-galleries native alphabet it is OK (like Иван IV - for tsar Ivan the Terrible), but nor for filenames. Do we have a rule about languages of discriptions? If you want can you please start the discussion? cos' I'm not a forum's person and to be true I'm quite ashamed of my poor English grammar ^_^ --Shakko (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He he if I did not have Word to help me check my would look a lot worse. It is probably not hard to start a debate. Just make a new topic and give your good arguments like you did here :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you let the girl to do men's Admin's work )) Okey, I wrote at both places[5][6] Let's see if there will be some reaction.--Shakko (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Do you think the others users would listen to me or a nice girl? ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mgabot

If you can, please use your bot to move this 3 images to Commons. They are all of high resolution:

[7] , [8] & [9]

• As an aside, I need your advice here. I typed in a flickr Magnus Manske bot pass for this photo which recently failed review. It was uploaded by a bot...and not the uploader. Was I right to do this? If I am wrong, please revert my pass:
• File:Mycteria leucocephala -walking-8.jpg

It looks a little like this other image from the same account where there is a pass from the bot: File:Sachin Nigam - starry moon (by-sa).jpg Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the three images (File:X 36 locomotive.jpg, File:Tambo Parlor Car.jpg and File:O'Shaughnessy Dam.jpg).

I'm not sure about the review. Normally yes but it looks like somthing go wrong during transfer. No text was added. User:Snowmanradio fixed the upload 4 minutes later and he/she has over 14,000 oploads according to user page. So I think we are pretty safe. --MGA73 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was told once by an Admin that if a flickr image is uploaded by a bot, it should be OK. Thanks for moving those 3 high resolution photos. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Rename needs confirmation

Hey, I've seen that you have edited the template {{Rename needs confirmation}}. Since the category is empty by now, I'm just wondering if we need this any longer. The template was for when the bot moved the files and wanted to make sure that the move is correct. Now with the move ability built into the MediaWiki software, the bot is no longer needed, just like the approved users, because admins are able to distinguish if a move is correct or not. Thus, doesn't the template become redundant and should be deleted? --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. To be honest it was the wrong template I edited ;-) I found out when it did not work. If the bot has stopped permanently it would be a good idea to "clean up" by deleting templates, categories etc. so we only have the right one left. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've deleted the template and the category, hopefully I didn't forget anything. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)