User talk:MGA73/Archive 23

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

Relicense problem

Hi,

Your bot seems to relicense new uploads:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:38Eglise.St.Nicolas.Macherin.JPG&curid=11015776&diff=44771784&oldid=43452253 --Dereckson (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! If you look at the original upload log you can see that the file was originally uploaded on 2006-04-12. That makes an old file. However, it would have been nice if there was a link to where the file was. --MGA73 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, mea culpa for the date misreading. --Dereckson (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all - you are welcome back any time :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

we're on track

Hi Michael, I noticed this edit of yours while skimming through the recent discussions on COM:AN/U and related pages. It is indeed some problems with the recent blocks of long-term users and the rather confrontational discussions concerning them - not least that the admin-corps doesn't seem to be able to find a consensus on how to deal with this, or even to discuss the matter politely. BUT, Commons doesn't need to get "back on track" - we're not seriously off track because of this. It might seem like the project is seriously malfunctioning for those of you who are most involved in trying to sort the current situation out - but for the vast majority of users at this project it is business as usual. Most people around here don't watchlist COM:AN/U ;) You knew that of course, but I thought I'd remind you anyway - in trying times it is (in my experience) good to remember that the world keeps turning even in heated and deadlocked discussions.

Keep up the good work, I sincerely hope you and your fellow-admins find a way to deal with this situation. I guess there isn't a way that will keep everyone happy, but there might be ways to keep as few as possible seriously unhappy... Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I sure hope so and I bet most other users hope for a solution. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hi, thank you for renaming the files I uploaded. Could you please rename File:Jaillot, Alexis-Hubert - Parties Des Archeveschés et Eslectorats De Mayence, De Treves; Du Palatinat et Eslectorat Du Rhein (...) (1696)-manipulated.jpg...) (1696)-manipulated.jpg to File:Jaillot, Alexis-Hubert - Parties Des Archeveschés et Eslectorats De Mayence, De Treves; Du Palatinat et Eslectorat Du Rhein (...) (1696)-manipulated.jpg ? Thanks again, --Fhmann (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the file myself and have asked another administrator to delete the other one. --Fhmann (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What a name :-) Something must have went wrong. I deleted the file now. --MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jeri_Ryan_by_Brian_Wilkins_(2010).jpg

Dear MGA,

I just typed in a cat for 'Jeri Ryan' (at the bottom of the picture) but could you kindly create it with the multi-lingual hot cats option which you know so well? I am not familiar with this option and as you can see, Ryan has won several awards in her career. She is also a graduate from Northwestern university. So, she's an accomplished person. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope Category:Jeri Ryan is ok now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it helps. Thanks for your kind assistance. She was a Miss Illinois winner in 1989 and a Saturn Award winner--which is a major career achievement. That is why my head was spinning. She just had too many awards for me to adequately catalogue. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really want to thank your reconcialiatory tone and the fact that you have zeroed in on the two issues, which is what this is all about.

I welcome your vote, either way it goes, for at least I know that you have stated your points objectively. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope things work out for all of us :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fault

[1] Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration --- To be eligible for relicensing, a file must meet the following conditions (set out in GFDL 1.3, section 11):

  1. Must be licensed under the GFDL 1.3 (including e.g. "GFDL 1.2 or any later version", but not including "GFDL 1.2 only").
  2. Must not be marked as having any "cover texts" or "invariant sections".
  3. Must have been uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before August 1, 2009.
  4. If first published under the GFDL somewhere other than a Wikimedia project, must have been uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before November 1, 2008.

Any file that meets these conditions may also be used under a Creative Commons {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license as of June 15th, 2009. --- 25. Juni 2010(2010-06-25) (original upload date)) that's after not befor !

--Bobo11 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The bot marked the file as "redundant" because there is also a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Redundant or not eligible gives the same result: File is not migrated. It is easer to mark as redundant than not eligible because you do not need to check when file was uploaded, if it was uploaded on some wiki before or if it has been released as GFDL somewhere else than on Wikipedia or Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Dear Michael,

  • I have 2 questions. One is simple and one may be complicated for you.

The easy question is first: If someone uploads a flickr image that is licensed freely (ie: cc by or cc by sa) but forgets to include the license, what is the flickr review bot programmed to do in this case? Will it pass the image and include the license that is on flickr on it OR will it reject the image from inspection?

The second question is the Hard one. After I uploaded the first image of J. Ryan (by Wilkins) which you saw, I received a late flickrmail from someone I had contacted earlier (G. Burke) who changed the license of his image of Ms Ryan. But I got confused and thought it was the person whose image I first legally uploaded (by G. Wilkins) to Commons when it was in fact from (Mr. Burke) below whose image of Ryan is superior:

To make a long story short, I sent this second person (Burke) a thank you note via flickrmail along with Wilkins image to him without realizing that it was not Wilkins! Then, after I sent the message I saw to my horror, it was a different person (G. Burke) and I promptly uploaded Burke's image for flickr review and was panicking! I got the review done just in time because Burke was NOT amused at seeing the image of Ryan I uploaded from Wilkins account...and proceeded to change the license back to 'ARR' within 12 minutes of receiving my first flickrmail. I was also stressed with my own job when I checked his late flickrmail this Thursday that I forgot to check who was the sender and was confused because I had already sent a thank you note to Wilkins on Wednesday. I have now sent a link to the Commons image of Ryan above by Burke to Burke via flickrmail...and a long explanation for my mistake along with an apology. But what happens if Burke decides to reject my apology and asks that this image still be removed from wikipedia? Right now, this is all hypothetical as I have not received a reply back from him...but it seems to me that an image which passes flickr review cannot be revoked or deleted. Anyway, I was so panicked at my mistake, I uploaded the image with the wrong license: I licensed it as 'cc by sa generic" when it was "cc by generic" on flickr for a short time and the flickr bot caught my mistake. (Bots never make mistakes, that's for sure) But within 5-7 minutes of the image passing review, I saw it was 'ARR' again and I got a somewhat 'disappointed' reply from Burke and a statement that he would be changing his Ryan image license back to ARR. I just told him in my flickrmail that he is directly credited in the image title and his photo (along with Wilkin's photo) is used in Ryan's very long and important wiki article. (She indirectly helped make Obama senator of Illinois!) Ryan's article can definitely accomodate 2 images. But what happens if Burke says No! Does one just stick a 'flickr license change tag' on it or will the image go to DR then? I hope he will accept my explanation but am a bit scared right now. I got his flickr message about the license change only after I uploaded the image and just minutes prior to a regular flickr review. Just see the edit summary. Any ideas? I await his reply. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happens if you forget to add a license but asks for a flickrreview. I hope it just adds a license but I'm not sure.
If a file has been reviewed we can keep it. However if uploader changes the license right after (s)he finds out Commons/Wikipedia want's it we could choose to delete to avoid an angry Flickr user. But I just checked and both images are free now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Yes, the flickr owner has changed the license to cc by sa generic...and I have ordered a new review on this license. Clearly he wants the license to be 'cc by sa generic' and not cc by generic. You can mark it if you want or just let the flickrbot mark it. As an aside, does WikiCommons run on GMT time. Its strange that Wikicommons switches the day from 24:00 to 0:00 hours at 5PM in my local Pacific coast time zone in North America (ie. BC, Canada/Oregon/California & Washington state). Just curious.
  • PS: I never thought I would see this image on Commons until 2 days ago:

File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11.jpeg

  • I had discussed it with Eusebius and he said it cannot be a QI image but perhaps a VI image. Personally, this is one image that few people would ever license freely. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I added it on Danish Wikipedia. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:First_RSAF_Typhoon.jpg

File:First_RSAF_Typhoon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I do not know the user so I would not know. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This User

If this user has uploaded many copy vios in 2007 that High Contrast has tagged--as appears probable in this case below and in several other pictures, maybe they should all be deleted. (the ones which are tagged as such)

Just a suggestion, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was transfered from enwiki. I fixed source. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ALFahad_ACP.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:ALFahad_ACP.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Lupo 09:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Robert Duncan McNeill by David Twolan.jpg

Dear Michael,

Please can you create one final cat for this Star Trek actor. He is the last Star Trek one that Commons didn't have...until today. The cat below in the photo is for Robert Duncan McNeill. Can you help? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Started the category now. --MGA73 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Now Commons has a picture for all of the Star Trek regular actors. And that is enough. I waited 11 days for his reply to my flickrmail...and thought he would never respond. So, I was surprised when he replied yesterday (October 20 Canada time) and changed the license. Thanks for all your kind help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File:AMG-Taxi.jpg

This file is from Flickr but the user "Christopher Batt" not exist anymore in Flickr. Uploaded to de.wikipedia in 6.2006 . Other files of this Flickr user pased review: File:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg, File:Freddy Loix.jpg, File:Marcus Grönholm - 2004 Monte Carlo Rally.jpg. The originals in Flickr not exist anymory, as well. What do you think we have to do? Geagea (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Normally I would check if the uploader on Wikipedia can be trusted. If it is a very active user (perhaps an admin) then it is more likely that (s)he checked the license on Flickr correctly when the file was uploaded. Only thing i do not like is that it really looks like [2]. So perhaps a DR? You can vote keep if you think it looks ok. That way we make sure that more users comment. --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. [3] uploaded to Flickr in 2008. Possibly that was the Original from the same Flickr user or one from set of photos from the same Flickr user. Geagea (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AMG-Taxi.jpg. Geagea (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Dear MGA,

There are 2 images here and the low resolution image is a derivative with an OTRS ticket. But the high resolution image has no OTRS ticket. Did the photographer just give permission for the low resolution image to be licensed on an OTRS ticket. I don't see why there is no reason not to use the high resolution photo but the license seems restrictive...without OTRS permission. Here are the 2 pictures with the low resolution image first...with the OTRS ticket:

This is just an inquiry. If the OTRS permision doesn't apply to the second high resolution image....then so be it unfortunately. But can you check the OTRS permission. In both cases, the uploader is identical and I see Turelio had tagged ther low resolution photo for deletion on his talkpage in 2009 until the problem was fixed...but what happened to the high resolution image. If the uploader and photographer are the same person, then the high resolution image should be non-revocable (and might have the ticket too?). If not, then it does not matter. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The permission mention both files so if it is ok for one it is ok for both :-) So I added it on the other file also. Yeah! --MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Lolo peak.jpg

Can you trust this image from this uploader? I don't know if there is really an OTRS message for this image. All 3 images she uploaded have problems and this image resolution is very poor. I nominated one of her uploads for speedydeletion for having COM:DW problems and another failed review with an ARR license. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a permission in OTRS so I deleted the photo and left uploader a note. I marked the last file with "no permission" to inform the user (it seems to be a new user so I think we should help them get started). --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, its certainly a new user who doesn't know about image licenses. I know a friend here who tells me the same thing. He like the photos I upload on Ancient Egypt like this but doesn't know anything about licenses. But that is why he doesn't upload images from flickr which is a good idea. As you know, Ancient Egypt is really my true hobby and Star Trek in a secondary hobby. But whatever which benefits Commons is good enough for me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi MGA, is it possible that your bot does not touch freshly uploaded files? I just had an Edit Conflict with your bot here. That's a bit annoying. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Eichhornia_crassipes_2004-08-11_in_Baja_California.jpg&action=history

However, in general: great work with your bot! :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Saibo! I really love it that users cleanup after a bot transfer so I would hate to make edit conflicts there :-) However, it is a bit hard to avoid. I'm trying to empty Category:License migration candidates and I therefore run different scripts to help doing that. But the good news is that I only run the scripts once so you should not get more than one edit conflict (per day I'm working on the category). The rest of the edits will probably have to be done manually. --MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response MGA73! Okay, if there is no easy way to prevent and it is just once per day is was just bad luck which cannot be prevented. The botedits are better if we have to do all of them manually. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr license

I uploaded these 2 images here under a "cc by sa 2.0 generic" license:

But the problem is the flickr account owner requests a license of 'cc by sa version 3.0 generic' for his images here Is there a solution? Just wondering. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not an easy solution. You could change the license manually and type a review and leave a link to the page mentioned above. If there are many photos from that user we could make a special template that contains the license etc. --MGA73 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you do the first solution to one of the two images of your proposed first solution? I'll follow what you did in the second. I don't think there are many images from this account here. But I cannot be sure. That's why I uploaded only 2 images from his account only--and not more. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your tip here, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Florence-rey.jpg

Isn't this a derivative? It should be deleted by now, I think. No source is given. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This file should be deleted too as a duplicate:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

th.Wikipedia

Hi Michael,

Thanks for offering help in Thai Wikipedia [4]. You need a botflag if you are going to do a lot of edits during peak time. You may request a flag at this page[5]. It might take some times. However, if you leave a message at [6], he may help you jump the queue at his discretion. --taweethaも 23:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you urgently need botflag, you can leave a note at [7], he might be able to help as well. taweethaも--04:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Your botflag is now approved --taweethaも 09:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Michael, please be advised that มีที่คอมมอนส์=NowCommons. So, please do not double tag a file (see [8]/[9] for more detail).
BTW, If you can identify that those files are redundant and need to be deleted en masse, just send me a list of them and I will manage it for you. I am a local admin at Thai Wikipedia and I can run a simple script to do that. This will help you bypass the normal process. --taweethaも 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at [10]. The commons file does not exist. --taweethaも 00:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the messages. I answered on th-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Glabb needs your help

User Glabb asked me a question here but I think that only you can answer the question. The panoramio uploader I think is struggling to get the right license from the panoramio link Glabb provides Glabb needs to know whether he can upload the picture. The panoramio account owner replies consistently in Chinese but the critical thing is on July 19 he says this: "您好，cc-by许可证是什么？你可以用这张图片。谢谢！"

From my Google Chinese to English translation, the panoramio account owner says: "Hello, cc-by license is what? You can use this picture. Thank you!" according to this search result (I hope it doesn't time out when you receive my message).

Please give Glabb a reply on his talkpage as I said to him that I will be contacting you. Is this permission sufficient for Glabb to upload the image? Only you can know the answer. Finally, on October 12, the panoramio account owner says this He doesn't know how to do the license...but I think he wishes to allow it to be used here. Pls. tell Glabb your response. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Left a note :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture tranfer

Hello dear MGA73,

Can you please transfer the pictures seen in this article Viaduc vu Moresnet to commons. As far as possible all pictures made by myself may be transferred to commons. If there is a license problem, please notice me. I tink the pictures are more usefull on commons than lonely on lb:Wiki. Thanks and best regards. Les Meloures (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse :-) The three photos are now on Commons. When I have some time I will look for your photos on lb-wiki and transfer them to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

West Gate of Ching-Keang-Foo-2.JPG

Hi, again. Help to check this one. The grammartical use needs to be noticed.--俠刀行 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that "the Braves" is a location but it is probably one of the sides in the war. I added a few links - perhaps someone can improve the description if needed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Data organisation on ornithology pages

I have started three discussion threads on User talk:Dysmorodrepanis, and I will be grateful for you input. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I looked at your comments and there is not much I can add right now. Lets see what the response is. --MGA73 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This image

Maybe you can keep this image? I had filed an initial speedy delete which was converted to a regular DR. Then I changed my mind after I saw other people's comments. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I have asked a user to use more edit summaries some time ago. He has been setting up a lot of page and category moves (see this recent edit), and without an edit summary I think users can miss what is happening. What would you advise? Snowmanradio (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a note to the user. --MGA73 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The user has been using the minor edit box on nearly all his edits recently; however, the ones I checked were not what I would call minor. I had advised him about this on his talk page on 6 Nov 2010. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

En tjeneste

Jeg har bemærket, at du velvilligt udfører tjenester for andre. Så jeg vil bede dig om at lade din bot køre alle filer igennem her og markere dem med {{subst:npd}}. Når det er gjort, skal jeg nok underrette brugeren bagefter. --|EPO| da: 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Selvfølgelig da :-) Men er du sikker på at filer som File:Tbgermany.png kræver en tilladelse? Hvis du ser på [11] så er hovedparten af filerne flag. --MGA73 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Det kan nok diskuteres, hvorvidt flag er omfattede af ophavsret (og er blevet diskuteret!). Men jeg tvivler på, at det enten er PD-Denmark 50 eller PD-self. Så npd er fuldstændig gyldig. --|EPO| da: 21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_23&oldid=46385492"