User talk:MGA73/Archive 2

Re: Category:Danish military ranks

Yes, for Danish ranks there is Category:Military rank insignia of the Royal Danish Air Force that have a correct shade of colour: [1], [2]. Cheers, F l a n k e r (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh interessting. I have been told, that the dark color was wrong and that the light color was correct. I will ask the person again. Anyway. --MGA73 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Endnu en af Allan71's

Hej, mon ikke denne du kan slette denne, selvom jeg åbenbart glemte at få den med på listen: File:Zero_Points_Lengths_Graph_1.png Nillerdk (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you delete something for me??

Could you delete the image [[::File:Efaewt.JPG]] for me, I accidentally uploaded the wrong image under the wrong file name. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is gone now. You can also just uploade the file under the correct name and tag the old one with {{bad name|<good name>}}. --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if that happens again I will know the proper procedure. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

It is frank vandalism. The inscription on the poster is altered - the slander there is written--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the author might have nominated any image for deletion. Isn't so? --George Mel (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, that I understand what you mean. The user nominated File:Людмила Алексеева 15 февраля 2009 Москва.jpg for deletion which is ok. But doing so information was deleted. I asked the user not to delete info and later completed the deletion request and suggested the user to be more specific in the deletion request than just "vandalism". You can see at the users talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Terrace Gardens

See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/juicyverve/2252916184/ and its rights.

--BHJ (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you only need to add the link on your images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith on Mac9

Mac9's work is high quality. I have made a clear response here and I have even flickrmailed someone about 12 images uploaded by Mac9...and am waiting for a response but you are trying to delete them all now? Can you not wait 6 months? Please assume some good faith: when someone has 2,050+ images on Commons, he is certainly trustworthy. And so am I since both Admin Kanonkas and MBisanz have asked me on my talkpage to be a flickr reviewer...though I am not ready yet here. If you have some good faith, you would withdraw the deletion request. I am trustworthy and I saved this image which I had placed on DR after I decided to contact the flickr owner [3] just to be sure.

Now I wonder what the person who sees the 12 images thinks of me after he sees your mass deletion request...on them. He would think I am just desperate....no thanks to you sadly. When I contact people, I tell them straight away that they can license the images freely or have them deleted. But if this person sees the mass DR note on each of the 12 images uploaded long ago by Mac9, he may not even bother to reply to my request now. How is this progress for WikiCommons?

You should tag Urban instead. Please look at this message where I saved 8 of his (illegal) images by Mrs Harrsch...because she knows me since I contacted her on previous images like this: File:Bust of Constantius II (Mary Harrsch).jpg Please close the DR on Mac9 and let me try to rescue 12 of his images from the "possibly unfree category." With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2 tasks

Dear Admin MGA73,

I received a flickr message saying that the flickr owner has changed the license to cc by 2.0 for this image:

• File:Vinci05.jpg

If you can confirm this, please pass it...as an Admin.

Secondly, I mentioned this already in the mass DR, can you please remove the Dr request on these 12 photos by lordy99: [4] I flickrmailed him on July 14 asking if he would allow them to be licensed freely on an OTRS ticket. But he has been away from his account thus far since June. Please give me some time. If lordy99 refuses, I said I will tag them all as copy vios. I have had to do this to many images uploaded by Urban where I am 100% certain they had NC and ND restrictions...but I just want to be sure. Can you give me some good faith here, please? As an aside, these images may be deleted now. I have given my reasons in the mass DR discussion:

• File:Roma-torre delle milizie.jpg
• File:Orgosolo05.jpg
• File:Orgosolo06.jpg
• File:Orgosolo04.jpg
• File:Orgosolo03.jpg and
• File:Pompei-villa dei misteri01.jpg

Its a pity the last photo has to go but the flickr owner says in his profile he wants to be paid for commercial uses of his photos. So, it can't be kept. But please give some consideration on lordy99's 12 images...for now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

2 comments

Did you see my good faith request on removing lordy99's 12 images from the mass DR...at present? Can you offer some good faith here sir? You have not replied to my inquiry...and this is not a very positive sign at all.

As an aside, can you please close this DR by me as a "delete." Reading it now gives me a headache...since it was certainly 'CC by NC SA' at time of upload...as Lupo pointed out. There is no doubt it was Non-Commercial. I missed this note. Sadly, there are no other images of Ushak carpets on Commons but such is life. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Leoboudv I did see it. No need to hurry if you ask me - deletion requests are normaly open for at least a week but they could be open for many months (we still have open requests fron January) so there is still time. And as you can se there are both "delete" and "keep" votes so the result could become "Kept" and then all our problems would be solved. I'm not sure removing the files from the DR is good solution. As long as they are there they are "safe". If I remove the DR they are out "in the open" again and someone could nominate them 5 seconds after or tag them with "copyvio" or even speedy delete them.

I did leave a note on the DR where I said that some of them are "in progress" and we could keep them a little longer than the others. If they should be deleted before the Flickr-user changes the license or send a permission, the images can be restored. So they are not lost. But I'm sure the closing admin would leave the ones in progress open some extra weeks.

We have an other problem at the moment. The Flickr review bot is down so we risk ending op with the same problem with new files. So images in Category:Flickr review needed should be reviewed manually ASAP. So we newer run out of work.

I closed the DR you suggested even if it was not a week old. By the way are you ever on IRC? --MGA73 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• No. Its only my first full day as a trusted user...only because the flickr bot has been down for almost a week and the backlog is large. I did not plan to be a trusted user yet and cannot be an Admin as I have a full time job. I got 2 replies by people saying they would change the license today but I'll have to check the license to be sure. Regards --Leoboudv (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Flickr change of license?

Dear Admin MGA73,

Would a 'flickr change of license' tag be acceptable for 2 of the 3 images here that were uploaded in October 2005 by Mac9? I ask this since there is strong evidence from FlickrLickr that Julie Kertesz (july70) photos were licensed freely in 2005 and 2006 according to this (it is the same person from the source link) I contacted her and she only licensed 1 image yesterday as cc by 2.0 while the other 2 she placed an ND restriction. However, from FlickrLickr, we know her images were licensed freely in 2005 and 2006....and many from FlickrLickr were uploaded in 2006 after Mac9 uploaded the 3 images. What do you think? If you agree, the DR on her 2 images which did not pass flickr review can be cancelled here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Leoboudv, I think that it sounds reasonable. You are welcome to leave a small comment next to the images in the DR so it is easy to se which one are in progress etc. (see my comment at the DR). --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I will make a comment in this DR about her 2 unpassed photos here about a "flickr change of license" for these 2 photos only. Thank You for your remarks. I knew...her images were free in 2005/2006 because sadly Admin Nilfanion's bot unnecessarily reviewed Flickrlickr images...which were certainly free at upload and I had to type in the FlickrLickr pass after Lupo told me how to do this. So many of these photos were uploaded from Julie Kertesz's account that I cannot forget her name. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE: I reluctantly passed this image today: File:Lucca-piazzanfiteattro01.jpg since the bot is down. I'm afraid most of the easy ones have been passed. I contacted 3 people yesterday...and only 1 person changed a license so far. The rest I thought would not since they license their photos as 'ARR' today...and they did not bother to reply to me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot offer

Thank you much for your comment on my talk page. Yes, a bot help tagging my images I think could be very helpful. Perhaps something that could add "migration=opt-out" to the license tags of all images with "Infrogmation" in the author field? Other suggestions? (Amazing that there seems no provision for people who have opted out to get that opting out recognized by adding their name to a list! For the record, while I would be happy to add CC-by-sa-3.0 to almost all of my images if I were asked, I very strongly disagree with an author's work being placed under some license other than what the author specified by any party who has not been authorized to do so by the author.) Thanks again for your offer of help, and let me know what I could do to make this happen. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed so I will not start today. I think it would be nice, if the images could use the same license - I guess it makes it easyer to fix with the bot. It would be nice if you could tell excatly which license I should put on the images like {{self|migration=opt-out|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-all}}? And also if this license should go on all images and if not how I can tell which images to correct and which not to correct. --MGA73 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'd prefer something like "self|migration=opt-out|" followed by whatever licenses already are on the images. Sorry, my original photos are not all licensed the same now, and I'm not inclined to make them all the same. Wherever I've licensed an image under an older Creative Commons license, I'd be willing to add the current version of the same license as well. However I'm not sure removing the older licenses would be appropriate-- licenses are not supposed to be revoked, plus for example the vast amount of material on Flicker under 2.0 Cc licenses shows that to still be a useful and much used license. Other thoughts? Thanks again. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah-Hah! I notice there is Template:License migration opt-out. I presume just adding would take care of the situation? Infrogmation (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that changeing license could be a problem. But you can add new ones if it is your own pic. I do not know this new template. Using the "self|migration=opt-out|" should work, so maybe we should just use that. --MGA73 (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, adding either one seems to work, so whatever is easier for the bot. Don't worry if it is technically redundant or supposedly unneeded in some cases. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know adding the template directly does not work. I did a test-run earlyer and it resulted in some redundant/unneded so i stopped. I have been away all evening so thats why my bot only changed a few. --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I see the test bot edits by User:MGA73bot2. Actually they look fine to me. I am aware that adding such templates may not resolve all issues and in many cases may be technically redundant. Still, I think it would be a great help. I would rather have the template on many of my images where it might not be strictly needed, than to be lacking on images where it should be. If you could authorize your bot to add similar templates to other photos by Infrogmation, I would much appreciate it and think it would be a very valuable step. (If you can't or would prefer not to have your bot do this, please let me know that as well, so I can try requesting at Commons:Bots/Work requests instead. If you have any other suggestions, I'd welcome hearing them.) Thanks much again. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The plan is to add the opt-out on all your images and change the ones already migrated. My bot is busy on sv-wiki right now and I'm adjusting the script to make no (or alt least almost no) mistakes. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Please keep me informed and let me know if I can do anything to help. Best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your excellent bot work. I was wondering if the pre-template era images might be more of a problem for the bot; it indeed seems to have made a few mistakes for example [5] [6]. I also note that BotMultichill has started opting out my images as well, and correctly did this [7], so I hope between the two bots any mistakes will be taken care of. Thanks again. Infrogmation (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You'r welcome. Adding the template {{License migration opt-out}} is a bit of a problem for the bots. But one of the edits I can't understand why it was not prevented by the bots. But it should not be a problem to do an extra check when migration is over and change "Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated" to "migration=opt-out" on all of your files and those in Category:License migration opt-out. You mentioned that you would be willing to add 3.0 on some of your images. It would be nice if you would give it a thought when you finde an image that has been changed agains plans by the bot. --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The bots still don't seem be noticing the "Licence migration opt-out" template [8], in case you weren't aware. On the other topic, yes, I would be interested in adding the most recent equivilent CC license to my images licenced under older CC licenses, and also expanding the array of licenses permitted for my photos in the "Hurricane Katrina" categories. After your bot is finished with the "license migration" project, let me know if it would be availible for that sort of work and I'll give you the specifications. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh :-( Well as I said we REALLY ned to do a cleanup after bots are all done. Tnx for letting me know. If you are willing to change license for some of your images please let me know. If you have a category or a list it should be possible to do without to much work. Say when at anytime :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Elektronskallerne

er allerede korrekt kategoriseret. Måske kunne du botte Check-skabelonen væk? Nillerdk (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hej Niller! Det kan jeg godt, men planen var, at ham, der bad mig gendanne dem lige skulle tjekke beskrivelserne. Ud over kategorien de er i nu, kunne man jo også sætte dem i de relevante kategorier for grundstoffer (helium, brint, jern, øl osv.). Spring dem bare over i første omgang. Jeg botter dem væk, hvis han ikke gør noget ved dem snart. --MGA73 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Så er de bottet væk. Så ser kategorien også mere overkommelig ud. Der kan jo iøvrigt altid rettes bagefter selvom flytningen er tjekket. --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Can all uses of this image which failed flickrreview: File:Shaklee Terraces San Francisco.jpg be replaced with this image which has secure copyright:

• File:Shaklee Terraces.jpg

Then the failed image can be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv! It is great that you such a great work trying to fix the bad Flickr images. I really whish we had more like you here. I also noticed that you have made this much shorter Category:Flickr images needing human review. I have tryed to do the same the last few days but new images kept showing up so the list did not go the right way.

Now to your question. Replacing by bot should be reserved to duplicates if you ask me. If we just replace image without checking we risk that the image will be on pages two times. Also we risk that it is replaced where it should not be replaced (like here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shaklee Terraces San Francisco).

That a image can be replaced are not relevant. We can't keep images just because we can't find a replacement. If there is a problem with a image we can use it as way to decide if we want to spend the time contacting the uploader on Flicker trying to get him/her to chance the license or send a permission to OTRS. We shold judge the images by facts (does the image have a free license or do we have a proof that it once did) or if we trust the uploader. If we trust the uploader we could tag all his/her images as passed unless we have reason to believe that user made a mistake. The image here was uploaded by User:Solipsist that was an admin from 12 August 2005 to 15 September 2007 where rights were removed (user was below activity level, as per policy). I se no reason not to trust the user but maybe some of "the older users" can verify that. If we can't find support for that we should open a DR (not speedy). --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry I did not know the uploader was an Admin at the time. The image: File:Shaklee Terraces San Francisco.jpg should then be kept. But can it be tagged with a 'flickr change of license' tag? Secondly, is it possible if you could flickrpass it as an image of a 'trusted' former Admin? After all it was uploaded after this person became an Admin...so he should know the license. Or should the uploader only do this? Just curious. As for Thomas Hawk, I know some of his images were licensed freely in the past like this and this and this which are FlickrLickr but today he licenses all his photos as ARR. As an aside, is there a tool for me to find how many images I have uploaded to Commons? I've lost track sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way out of the door (going to a short vacation and the family are standing in the door waiting for me so it will be very short. I think the image could be tagged just like the FlickrLickr images. You should be able to see your images here [9]. By the way look here User:MGA73/Sandbox plan to nominate some more images for deletion after my vacation. Have to go. See ya! --MGA73 (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. Yes, I would support a Mass DR of Urban's pictures...which failed flickr review. I have received many many angry replies from flickr owners on his photos here (about the NC restriction) that I usually just tag them as copy vios....but Urban has uploaded too many photos for 1 ordinary person (ike me) to keep track off. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Hi. Thank you, but I follow these istructions:

If the image is currently available on Flickr with a license which is not acceptable on Commons, do not update the license tag. Instead modify the review tag to {{flickrreview|YourUsername|Date|CurrentFlickrLicense}}. This places it in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images.

Are they wrong?--Trixt (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Trixt! You found the text in Category:Flickr images needing human review? I think that this text is only meant for images that for some reason could not be reviewed by the bot and are therefore found in this category. If a image is once reviewed and found ok there is no reason to review it again. --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Flickreview#Instructions for reviewers. Probably you are right.--Trixt (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I hope so :-D The first step is "The image is initially in Category:Flickr review needed." I think it means that you should only review images in this cat or subcats. And as long as the bot is running you only need to look in the subcats. --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

I contacted a flickr owner here and she has changed the license to 'cc by sa' after 2 flickrmails to clarify the right license:

• File:Verona-giardinogiusti01.jpg

I don't think there are many more photos which one can save from Mac9's old uploads. But if these were Urban's photos, I am certain that I could get only 1 or 2 images licensed freely. The people who change the license on Mac9's photos often do so because they know it was uploaded when they licensed their photos freely in 2005/2006. Thank You MGA73. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your User page

I've found two minor typos on your user page:
Quote: On Commons I monstly check if files transfered from dawiki have a valid licence etc., are transfered ok with all available informations and are in the right category.

My bot have also tried to find categories to uncategorized files. --Nameless23 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I updated the text (it was outdated). Hope the new text are ok now. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Admin MGA73,

I have voted to delete all of Urban's failed images. On another matter, I have decided to place a flickr change of license and to cancel your DR on this single image here: [10] (see the 'Update' paragraph). I give clear reasons. I also made a clear statement today in the image discussion here my reasons for why I have done this. I said I trust Mac9 here due to the clear FlickrLickr evidence....and that I have no objections to the rest of the images being deleted since lordy99 has refused to respond to my flickrmail message. I hope you accept my 1 difficult decision here. As an aside, I am still working to contact other owners to pass other images...and have achieved these 2 successes in the last 2 days: here and here I hope I am trustworthy in your eyes MGA73 and that you will not object to my decision here on that one image by Mac9. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We also need to figure out what to do with images that have failed flickr review but are kept. As long as they are are marked as faild the are in the "bad" category (Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR) and that makes it hard to maintain it. If they are kept i suggest we mark them at reviewed by Mac9. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, MGA73!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Brussels. Saint Michael and Gudula Cathedral.jpg is uncategorized since 31 July 2009.
• Image:Audenarde. Hôtel de Ville (detail).jpg is uncategorized since 31 July 2009.

File:Robert Louis Stevenson 1885.jpg

The Robert Stevenson image is certainly public domain since the author died more than 70 years ago. I checked and checked all through the web until I found this from a reliable source regarding the date the author and photographer died: [11] I have discussed such 'no known restriction' images here but it seems Lupo is away.

It looks like the uploader used Adobe CS (from the metadata) to increase its resolution. As an aside, the uploader, Lobo de Hokkaido, is trusted and I have seen his many good photos here. If you have a question about the image, please feel free to ask him how he managed to increase the resolution. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Super. Just wanted to make sure you noted the difference in size :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tilladelse eller ikke?

Hej Hvis der er tilladelse, kan du så ikke bare indsætte den for File:Gammel_Herlevgaard.jpg og de fire Kirkeby-fotografier: File:Gammel_kirkeby.jpg, File:Kirkeby_(Humlum_Sogn)_2006.jpg, File:Kirkeby_(Humlum_Sogn)_2008.jpg, File:Kirkeby_1906a.jpg? Nillerdk (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tilladelsen lyder på billederne på hjemmesiden. Den er ikke formuleret særlig "tilladelsesagtigt", for det primære formål var vist at give tilladelse til at bruge teksten på hjemmesiden. Billederne er formentlig nogen han har arvet eller fået. Har næppe taget dem selv. Og normalt er det jo sådan når man får billeder at afsenderen ikke udtrykkeligt siger "Her lille Peter. Du må få disse billeder og du har tilladelse til at disponere over dem som du vil. Jeg fraskriver mig retten... o.s.v." :-) Min forbindelse er ikke særlig god på ferien, så vil gerne vente med at se på det til efter ferien. Hvis de er sletningstruede må du lige sige til. --MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing

Hello, thanks for the tip, but the bot can't really detect images that were uploaded to Flickr under a false license, can it? Have a look at Category:Eurovision 2005 - there is a whole bunch of really suspicious images that were just approved by the bot (they're all low-res; most probably were not taken by the Flickr uploader). I also caught this image File:Katara movie.jpg, which is definitely a copyrighted movie screen, which would otherwise be approved by the bot as well.

Though I did miss the File:Frank Sinclair 2.jpg license, thanks for that. Óðinn (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, the File:Edward Paul Reyes Flight Deck.jpg was not private when I approved it. Must've been changed just now... Óðinn (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No it can'n. Sadly. Humans are still needed for that. And a Flickr review is no garantee that the image is ok. If you find an image you are not sure is ok then pass it and nominate it for deletion. That way we are sure the license is verified if image ends up beeing kept. A shame with the private picture. I hoped you could see more (I have a free account). --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, is there any procedure for cases like this here? I understand that the CC license is non-revocable, but what happens if it can no longer be verified? Óðinn (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Flicker allows users to change the license and there is no history so thats one of the reasons why we have Flickr review. I'm not sure where the best place to read is but Category:Flickr has some links. --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Óðinn (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)