User talk:MGA73/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stop the Bot

Hey,

Disturbed to see this - the time for migration has expired and this image isn't even eligible (uploaded post Nov 08) --Fir0002 www 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your notice. This edit was a mistake. As you can see here Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration images uploaded before August 1, 2009 can still be migrated. And as you can see here Category:License migration candidates there is still a lot of files to check (more than 63,000).
On the other hand I believe this edit is illegal [1] since licenses is non-revocable. And by this edit you removed a {{GFDL}}. If you vant to opt-out you can do this. --MGA73 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Refer to this discussion --Fir0002 www 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

These images

Should I pass these images by A. Kucsma/The Loopweaver: [2]

Some have flickrlinks and some not. According to my records, I contacted her on flickr on June 22, 2009 about these pictures to ask if she uploaded them. (her last upload on flick was June 30 so she received my message) But she never replied to my message or changed the flickr license. Since the uploader says "own work", can I go ahead and pass it? As you can see, some images have been marked as fail and others have not been marked at all! That is why I am certain there are other flickr images on Commons which no bot has tagged for marking.

Anyway, its a simple question...do I pass it on good faith or just ignore the photos? Her marked pictures like this File:Phalenopsis 3 blooms.JPG or this: File:Marché Bonsecours and Foliage.jpg take up some space in the possibly unfree category. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would pass images where Para's lists says license was ok. On other images I would start a DR but vote keep if I found the user trustworthy. That way more people can comment and we hopefully would get a keep just like Mac9's images. I don't think we have a better place than a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: A. Kucsma never changed the license on her pictures. Once I had a lot of images OTRS'ed when I contacted someone on flickr and he admitted he uploaded certain very high resolution images from his Wikimedia Commons account. (no, it is it is not this case here) If I had contacted Lupo as I did here , he might possibly say AGF. In this case, the person I contacted changed the license...but he was not happy he had to do this. So, I felt 'better' if Lupo marked it instead. Anyway, I send another message to Kucsma and I hope she will not ignore me...but I doubt she will respond. Since she did not reply to protest in my June 22, 2009 flickrmail that she did not upload the images, I believe it is likely her account. I have marked those 2 images you told me by Uber. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot relicense problems

Hi. I noticed some problem relicenses by your bot. example 1 changed one of my images, though from our earlier discussion you know I have opted out. example 2 in addition to the same problem, image is already licensed cc-by-3.0, so I would have thought that migration would have been redundant. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank your for your notice. First file: Problem was that the file was for some reason not fixed in the first botrun where we searched by your name and it did not have the text "opt-out" so thats why it slipped through. The plan is still to do a extra check when migration is over to see if any of your files has been migrated. Second file: The differend templates should prevent, that files with a 3.0 end up with the candidates and second we made lists of all candidates, that also have a 3.0-category. But you forgot to add "self|" so therefore the 3.0 was not "active". Both files should be ok now. Thanks. --MGA73 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Licence

Hi, Sorry for my english. But I would know what are the advantages and inconvenient in adding the licence 3.0. Thank you. Regards, --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My english is in no way perfect :-) You can read more here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ and here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. I am no expert but as I read it there is no major differences. The reason I asked was the Licensing update project. If you agree to change it can be done by a bot. If not images has to be checked one by one to decide if license can be migrated. And you have a lot of images so it would be nice if you agreed. --MGA73 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't understand it at all but I want to trust on you, could you change it on all my pictures? Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes I can. --MGA73 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, not "all". Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much !--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm sorry to disturb you. Would you consider restoring this image:

I am 100% sure it was uploaded by Urban...but in this case Para's table shows its flickr license was 'cc by 2.0' on October 16, 2006. If you wish to restore images which were shown to be free on Para's table, perhaps you should consider using a bot but one must be careful since, in a few cases, the image flickr license is ARR 1 week before on flickr and then "cc by 2.0" a week later. Para's table can be complex for an Admin to know which image was free. Whenever I pass an image, I give the direct reference to the Table and the precise flickr id #. This way, everything is clear. I have no more undeletion requests except the one above. I told the same to MBisanz.

I will concentrate on other stuff like the backlog of new flickr images and I also have personal work to do. The flickreview bot right now only marks a few images and then it stops suddenly and the backlog is 90 or once even 140+ images. I hope you can help on that 1 last image I mentioned. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Ok. I'll have a look at the new flickr images later. --MGA73 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: It might be better to get that new 'technician' to fix the flickr review bot given how it has been behaving recently here if Bryan is away. The backlog is large every day. As an aside, luckily the uploader here was the flickr owner. Many people on flickr don't always know how to change licenses. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure. A quick review should prevent that we get a large number of "hard to check" files. So a stable bot would be nice. Seems nobody has sigened up for the job :-( --MGA73 (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Abigor was good at this but he is away. Sometimes, he marked 100+ images in 1 day when the bot broke down. I think only Juliancolton, the captain and I are marking some of them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The bot can do it "easy" and it makes no mistakes + it also upload the largest version. Having 100 or 10.000 files that need a check is not a problem if we are sure that the bot will check them in a few hours. It looks like it runs at 00, 06 and 18. But I can't see if it does all waiting files or it stops to early. If it does check all files I think that we should not check files manually. I only mark them if size is wrong or bot is down. --MGA73 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thats good news :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for using your bot to pass those images which still survive here and which were licensed freely according to Admin Para's flickr license change table from October 2006-March 2007. I am not a software specialist like you or Nilfanion. That is why I mostly mark images. And yes, the flickr review bot is now functioning properly. Cheers from Canada where we have full FOP, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickr images

I think you are relatively new here, so am I. It just seems strange that WikiCommons is trying to get 5 million images by mid-September to commemorate the 5th anniversary of Commons. And yet, 5 years ago, there was no Flickr review system to verify image licenses except FlickrLickr which many early users did not use. I wonder sometimes just how many good images uploaded on a free license in late 2004, 2005 and most of 2006 were deleted later because the flickr owner changed the license. It must be in the thousands....and now no one can be sure about the license since there was no verification system in place here except FlickrLickr. Sometimes I wonder why Commons didn't have a flickr review system in place in September 2004 to start this catalogue? Today, the only way to save or undelete images is to very carefully examine Para's list. I know there are some poor images there but others are quality photos like these below which were restored. There are others too which are quality photos but one has to carefully check through Para's records to make sure the first flickr license was indeed cc by 2.0 or cc by sa before the change. Here are a few that were restored or passed by me but only after I carefully checked the first flickr license to confirm that they were free:

It would have been a pity if they were lost if Para was not around. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You could start a undeletion request af all images on Para's list except for DW, FOP etc. Just like the images of Mac9 where I undeleted more than 200? --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to delete some pictures, there're uploaded by me

I want to delete some pictures, there're uploaded by me.PK1913 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! If you want to upload them with a new name just do so and add {{badname|Name of the new file}}. If you want to delete them for an other reason and you nominate them for deletion same day they are normally deleted without problems. If they are older they are not always deleted. I suggest you either add "badname" or use the link to the left and tell why you want them deleted. Good luck. --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
How can I do? step?PK1913 (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you tell me here why you want the images deleted? If you prefer help in an other language than English you can check this page Commons:List of administrators by language and find an admin that can help in almost every languages. --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Would you consider an undeletion request for these 2 photos?:

Sorry to disturb you here. Both were cc by 2.0 in Para's October 2006 records. I think the second image can be used for Durie's article. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Deleted_images_from_Flickr_that_is_on_User:Para.27s_lists. I suggest we clean up once and for all. --MGA73 (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I made a reply there supporting the undeletion but it would be nice f these 2 could be undeleted by you as I could use 1 of them now. I don't know what are in the other images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok then :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. When I pass old images I add {{Flickr-change-of-license}} --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on Commons images

Thanks for the note on the license change. I have added them to the 2 restored images now. Just a comment: I see here that Commons says it has 4.992 million images now. I guess Commons is trying to reach the 5 million mark. But in truth, I wonder if 5-10% of this number are just p*rn or non-encyclopedic images which people upload here everyday? I'd rather have a low or medium resolution quality photo like these below than junk sadly:

I think this is the problem with statistics. They often don't tell the whole truth. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Its 4.995 million images here now in just 1 day. I just hope the new images are usable and not p*rn. I have seen 'many' such images here...and wonder if people have better things to do sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm afraid this is a classic p*rn image case in this DR As an aside, how long does it take for the Admin to decide whether to undelete the images on Para's site which were noted by you to be free. Is it 1 week or 2 weeks? I'm just curious, nothing more. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons is not censored so if it's likely the porn could be used in a wiki it can stay here. The DR you mentioned is about missing permission and not that you can see some skin.
As for the undeletion request it depends on the reason to ask undeletion. If it is a own work but uploader forgot a license then it can be done right away if uploader request it. Other requests can take months - just as a DR can. Except for the reason I think the amount om time to use will also play a role. It took me sevaral hours to undelete and check the images Mac9 had uploaded and this request will probably also take many days unless you use a bot. So I do not think, that there is many admins that will take this job. --MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification on Commons policies here. It looks like it will take a long time before the freely licensed images on Para's list are ever undeleted unless one makes individual requests. The main problem here is that only Admins know what is behind the undeleted images...if it is a quality high resolution photo or an out of focus and almost unusable one. (there are a few I see here which fall in this category) But such is life and I am not in a rush. As an aside, I see 4.999 million images here now. I think that by tomorrow morning in Vancouver, Canada, it will be 5 million at this rate. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
My plan is to do it myself if nobody else will. But I will let it be open for at least a week so users will have a chance to comment. I will either do them one by one or use a bot to undelete and add review by Para 2006-xxxx + Flickr-change-of-license so I (or we) only have to replace xxxx with the correct date from Para's list (+ change license if a wrong one is used). If there is problems with FOP or DW images should be deleted again. --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Kjøbenhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg

Hi, can I ask you a favor? Would transcribe the headline, e.g. "Im Stænderst og repræsentativ Forsatning" and translate it? -- User:Docu at 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The text was "Om stændersk og repræsentativ Forfatning". I had problems with one word but I got help on the Danish IRC. The test would be "On Estate and representative constitution". --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it. Seems that spelling and font changed since ;) -- User:Docu at 14:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is hard to read :-) But it helps when you know the language. --MGA73 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Evagoras-Stater 733597 C.jpg

What does your correction mean? -- Haubi (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! All images with a GFDL license might be eligible to be migrated. This image has two templates that uses GFDL: {{CNG}} and {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. There is only need for one migration (the "Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated") and adding "|migration=redundant" makes the {{License migration announcement}} disappear from the image. You can see the notice if you look in the file history. --MGA73 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to Commons

Do you know why the reason why the move to commons bot is down as Lupo noted here? I can't read German. I had transferred 1-2 images to Commons and nothing appears here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No do not know the reason. They just talk about that it is down. Nothing specific about reason or when it will be up again. If you have a link to the image I can try to transfer it with my own bot. --MGA73 (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you have the time, these are the 2 wikipedia images I am trying to move to Commons. The first image is truly a quality image. Here they are: [3] and [4]

I had 'transferred' them here with my TUSC account...but it does not show up on Commons at all. Good luck and thanks for your kind response. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They should be at commons now. But page needs a cleanup :-) Enjoy! --MGA73 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Moving is easy [5]. Finding the files that can be moved takes time. We have to make sure license is ok before we move. If you make a list of files to move I could do it in no time. --MGA73 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Evagoras-Stater 733597 C.jpg

What does your correction mean? -- Haubi (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! All images with a GFDL license might be eligible to be migrated. This image has two templates that uses GFDL: {{CNG}} and {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. There is only need for one migration (the "Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated") and adding "|migration=redundant" makes the {{License migration announcement}} disappear from the image. You can see the notice if you look in the file history. --MGA73 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to Commons

Do you know why the reason why the move to commons bot is down as Lupo noted here? I can't read German. I had transferred 1-2 images to Commons and nothing appears here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No do not know the reason. They just talk about that it is down. Nothing specific about reason or when it will be up again. If you have a link to the image I can try to transfer it with my own bot. --MGA73 (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you have the time, these are the 2 wikipedia images I am trying to move to Commons. The first image is truly a quality image. Here they are: [6] and [7]

I had 'transferred' them here with my TUSC account...but it does not show up on Commons at all. Good luck and thanks for your kind response. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They should be at commons now. But page needs a cleanup :-) Enjoy! --MGA73 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Moving is easy [8]. Finding the files that can be moved takes time. We have to make sure license is ok before we move. If you make a list of files to move I could do it in no time. --MGA73 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This DR

When I find some good quality images to transfer, I will certainly give you the links to them on wikipedia to move them here. (I only move high resolution images) On another issue, have you seen this DR You told me that I could type in a flickr pass if we trust the uploader. But what does one do in this case where the uploader emphatically claims the license was 'cc by sa' (not cc by nc sa) when he uploaded them here? Do you believe him or not...on Mt. St. Helens? This is the problem when there was no flickr review system from 2004 until November 2006 on Commons. People can can change licenses on flickr at the blink of an eye.

I don't know the uploader but I don't see a reason why one should not trust him....at first glance since there is no large history of image deletion warnings on his talkpage. I only nominated 1 of his images for deletion because the license changed and it failed flickrreview like this case....but he did not have any opportunity to respond. Now he has here. So, the same hard question arises: do you believe him or not? Please make a response here . If you trust him, pls pass the image and close the DR. If not, just ignore it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for making a decision on that DR. While it wasn't a great image of St. Helens, it was in use and I thought the uploader had got the flickr license changed. But because I did not know Ilya personally, I was uncertain about typing a flickrpass since I was risking my credibility here. Pieter though seems to know everyone on Commons and he did not like my comment on the situation here. So, I thought that maybe a third party like you should take a closer look at the situation. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Most people always says that the biggest problem with wikipedia is that it is vandalised so often. But the largest problem with Commons is not vandalism but rather copyright violations like this case If I had not spotted it under 'latest files', it could be here for months. But now I wonder if I am right since the uploader is apparently trusted? The strange thing is he is not on this list which makes me wonder if he is lying here too?

I wonder sometimes just how many other copy vios there are on Commons? Just think how many legal problems Commons can face sadly. Even captain tucker says he cannot believe the amount of photos that people claim they took. I wonder if you agree? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, that there is differend kinds of copyvios 1) people knowing what they do, but they don't care 2) people takeing images from Flickr where it is licensed freely but sadly the Flickruser has "stolen" it from somewhere and 3) people thinking it is ok like with the Farrari where the webpage has a place with downloads. The user probably thinks, that if they let you download the stuff it is free and ok for commons - he even adds the link and did not try to hide the watermark.
We do not need the first type of users. They should be blocked. Users doing 2 and/or 3 should be told how it works on Commons and hopefully they will learn. If you look at the DR's then admins do not always agree. It just tells that it can be hard to decise sometimes. --MGA73 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are indeed many copyvios here and we'll never manage to eradicate them all. Don't give up! Continue your useful work! Also keep in mind that Wikimedia Foundation usually can't be held responsible. It is the uploader doing a criminal act. I don't care if he/she gets convicted. In my opinion, we are neither hunting copyvios to protect Wikimedia Foundation nor to protect the uploader from legal action, but rather to protect potential re-users of "our" files. The common example is: Consider someone publishing a printed book based on our files/Wikipedia articles. The intention could be to give it away in poor parts of the world. Consider then that one of the files used is a copyvio. The copyright holder might sue the publisher of the book and effectively prevent the distribution of it. A bad situation for the publisher, because he just used one of "our" files thinking it was good... Also a bad situation for Commons - not because of potential legal action but because of our reputation. Nillerdk (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note that there are (too) many copy vios here. If I upload a picture from flickr which is licensed freely, I check 2 or 3 times to make sure he/she really took it and did not steal it from someone else. In most cases, I contact the flickr owner and ask for a license change. This DR is different though in that the uploader here now declares himself to be 'a trusted user' like me. But I thought only a Admin can make you a trusted user? Either the uploader is confused about Common's procedures or he does not have good intentions sadly. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
WTF!!! I will check that! --MGA73 (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Was not a trusted user. I asked an other admin to do a second check and you can see the result here [9]. Thank you for noticing! --MGA73 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. It looked like a simple way to avoid scrutiny which is why I am doubtful of his picture. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_4&oldid=29018548"