User talk:MGA73/Archive 55

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

File:Infinity Train HBO Max logo.webp

And what about File:Infinity Train series logo.png? I think that unlike other uploads by this user, this image may be well below US ToO and {{PD-textlogo}} could be applicable. Also, do you think that giving the user only 7 seconds for explanation and/or fixing the licensing information is OK? Ankry (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ankry!
Per the talk page the user uploaded several copyvios. Including File:Plakat serialu animowanego.jpg tagged as a speedy by you. So I decided to delete all the uploads but left a "no permission" so user can see the files were deleted and also know what to do if user have/get a valid permission. I think a "No permission" is more "friendly" than a copyvio template.
I think File:Infinity Train series logo.png could be {{PD-textlogo}} so I would not speedy delete that. --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, so I have requested its undeletion. Please, comment there if you disagree. I agree that all other uploads by this user were copyvios, but this one, IMO, was not (just licensing was incorrect). Ankry (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This

@MGA73: Your bot has committed a blatant error here. Please take a look ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi The Aafī! Thank you for letting me know.
I checked the edits and it seems that this is the only case. The reason for the error is that I did not expect anyone to edit the files while I was working on them.
First I made a list of files to edit. Then the bot work on pages where there is some text (search pattern ".+"). Once that is finished the second run works on files that are not tagged in the first run (asuming that it is files with no text so using search pattern ".?" and skipping files with "no license"). I did not take take into account that someone could fix the file between first and second bot run. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Ahh okay. @MGA73, several files have been fixed by active editors. I have also tried to fix some of the fair-use files. I'm certain that this backlog is going to be cleared in a few months since everything is easily categorised now. Thanks to you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:DEF CON 1부.png

File:DEF CON 1부.png 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 ∙ +/−

Enyavar (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

New {{Flickrreview}} request by a bot

Dear MGA73,

Could you order your ask a bot to place new {{Flickrreview}} tags for all images on Wikimedia Commons with this flickr code: 77742560  ? This flickr account by shankar s has now been removed here from the Bad author's list but his photos here are mostly clogged in this Category It was agreed by other users that the images in this account are basically the author's own pictures.

I believe there are 5986 images from this account on Wikimedia Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there someone who runs a bot like you or someone who can order a bot to do this done perhaps Taivo ? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I can do it but it seem that most files was reviewed and passed earlier but someone decided to do a new review. If any files have been deleted or if the license was changed the review will fail. But in that case users should check the file history to see if it was ever reviewed and passed. --MGA73 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I did some today. I will do more tomorrow. I think it is best to hold a little break so the Flickr review bot have a chance to check new uploads too. --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Just an update. The flickrbot has now reviewed all the shankar s photos that your bot tagged for review on March 18, 2024. I believe the images were all passed. So, I guess you can ask your bot to tag a new batch of photos in this Category for flickrreview. Thanks for all your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Your flickrreview order this morning (your time) went through quite well and shankar s did not delete any of his flickr images on Commons. I only had to review 2 images...and one was a derivative of an image that already passed review. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yeah I did some before work and will do the rest later. Happy only 2 failed. I also did a few others like File:DSC 0053 (2698943856).jpg that bot did not review earlier. --MGA73 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: All should be tagged now. I also added some files to Category:Photographs by shankar s.. The total number do not match the search result 100% for some reason. --MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

PDM images uploaded years ago

Dear MGA73,

I have one last question. Do we pass or fail these 2 images that were reviewed by the flickrbot as PD-Mark years ago..but not passed since PDM was not accepted back then but now the flickr author either changed the license or deleted the image? If yes, how would you review it?

Hi Leoboudv! I reviewed a few earlier like this Special:Diff/861618763. I copied the original review and changed it to passed. But perhaps also change the license to {{PDMark-owner}} would be better. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can your bot pass certain images from one Flickr account

Dear MGA73, Can your bot pass the 1680+ images from this Flickr account by doing this simple action as in changing the original PDM flickr tag to pass?

The flickr account owner has now deleted his account but the flickrbot confirms the images were PDM at upload. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I think it would make sense to do that. I wonder if we should just do that or if we should ask somewhere if there is concensus to do that (just like when it was agreed that shankar s was okay). --MGA73 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The flickr bot says the license was PD-Mark at upload. So, it makes sense. But its your decision here. The uploader is Orizan and he does not make mistakes with licenses with other images stuck in the PD Category need human review which have not been deleted. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I think we should do it. However, if I add a category like Category:Photographs by shankar s. because then it should be easy to scan the category for files that does not look like own work. For example old black and white photos etc. --MGA73 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ooops allready exist as Category:Files from khteWisconsin Flickr stream. --MGA73 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

An idea

  • A Comment: This Category has 96,000 images and most (maybe 90%) still have images at the flickr source. Maybe the images in this Category could be tagged with {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} & {{Flickrreview}} by your bot to reduce this amount and it would place those where the images were deleted on the flickrlink into a smaller images not found category. Then the PD-Mark images could be reviewed...if the flickrbot said they were licensed as pd-mark at upload as these 3 cases below.

These 3 images would then end up in the images not found category and can manually be passed perhaps by anyone since the bot said the license was pd-mark at upload and the uploader is certainly trustworthy. But if the bot said the deleted image was not found, I would not touch it.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} & {{Flickrreview}} causes the flickrbot to pass an image as in this case and this second case --Leoboudv (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be worth working on that idea. The risk are files that are now own work. For example old photos. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if there is any reason to ask Flickrreview bot to do a new review. If it allready confirmed the license it will just give the bot extra work. What needs to be done is for someone to judge if the photo looks like own work. If we think that it is it would be easier just to have my bot pass it like it did with files from khteWisconsin. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could start by checking the bigger flickr user categories like Category:Photographs by Mathias Appel and then pass those if we think it is most likely own work. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

These 4-5 flickr account owners still license their images as PD-Mark and their images are certainly their own work. Your bot could just 'pass' their images on Commons below...if the bot said the imamge was pdmark. If not, why not ask your bot tag them with a new {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} & {{Flickrreview}}

I may be away this weekend but these numbers from the 4-5 accounts above are manageable, I think for a new flickrreview on a {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} license to have the bot actually pass their photos. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Yes those accounts looked like own work so I fixed them. However, it seems that the number of files do not match 100%. I noticed this account Category:Photographs by Prefeitura de Pelotas. It also says "Arquivo de Fotos" so I wonder if it is own work or just a collection of photos. --MGA73 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The reason may be perhaps because I reviewed some images....and knew there were a lot more. "Arquivo de Fotos" translates as "Photo Archive". Why wouldn't the Prefecture de Pelotas have an archive of pictures. I thought it was if a different professional photographer was named that it was unsafe to review. Just my thoughts. Nothing more. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • OK. Their photos do name a photographer like 'Foto Rodrigo Chagas' etc. In this situation, we don't know if the photographer was paid by the prefecture so it may be unsafe to pass them indeed. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yeah. Anyway the files are reviewed by a bot so there is no rush working on them. :-) I noticed that there are other categories too. Like Category:Flickr images by miguel.discart needing human review. I wonder why bot did not review those. --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The Discart images are clearly own work but the bot review says "size not found". I don't know why it says that if the image is not cropped...but it happens. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I asked bot for a new review. That fixed most of them. But time to sleep here... See ya! --MGA73 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

2 accounts

Could your account pass any flickr images licensed as PDM from these 2 accounts:

I keep finding his images trapped in the 95,000 category like this File:Uncas Skipper, Hesperia uncas, female, Hart's Draw Road, 6900', Abajo Mountains, Utah. 28 June 2019, Robb Hannawacker 2 (49531477081).jpg & File:Uncas Skipper, Hesperia uncas, female, Hart's Draw Road, 6900', Abajo Mountains, Utah. 28 June 2019, Robb Hannawacker 5 (49531468741).jpg

This is the hard one:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I actually thought I fixed the files by Gary. I worked on the files in Category:Photographs by Gary Lee Todd. But it seems there are some not in this category. --MGA73 (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Probably people did not know about the Category:Photographs by Gary Lee Todd. Your bot already passed more than 2500+ images from Todd's account. I knew he had many quality images trapped in the 90,000 image PDM category. Unfortunately, I have to work on Sunday and Monday as I am an independent contractor in the private sector. But don't forget about *Robb Hannawacker: Flickr id: 39422575@N02 who also has some images in the 90,000 category. Goodnight from Metro Vancouver, Canada where it is 2:18 AM. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I think both Category:Files from MTur Destinos Flickr stream and Category:Photographs by Robb Hannawacker are now fixed (in perhaps 30 minutes when bot finishes). --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Three suggestions: Perhaps 1. your bot could pass images from PMO Barbados Flickr id#: 141562286@N04 with about 1471 images which should be all PD-Mark

Sometimes people give the right license and the image is not passed and sometimes they give the wrong CC BY SA license and the image is also not passed. But the flickr license seems to be PD-Mark:

2. your bot could pass images from Ajuntament de les Franqueses del Vallès Flickr Id#: 122076518@N08 with 447 images on Commons if the license was still PDM.

3. your bot could pass images from Bernard Sporagg, NZ Flickr id#: 88123769@N02 who sometimes has the habit of deleting some of his images like the first one...if license is PDM. He has several images in the large 90,000 category.

Sleep well. I will be away. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Going the right way with Category:Flickr images needing human review (a few categories are now empty or gone). There is also Category:Flickr videos needing human review but there are fewer files there :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help. I have to work a lot this Monday in the real world but thanks again for dealing with the Bernard Spragg problem whose images are PD but then deletes his fungi photos sometimes. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

4 accounts

This Flickr account may be interesting for your bot to give a try. Today this person licenses her images as ARR but in the past and in her older images, the flickr license seems to be PDM still.

This second Flickr account also licenses its images as PDM and it has many in the now 80,000 image category:

I passed one image from this account below and did not get any message saying the account was blacklisted.

Thirdly, this flickr account also licenses its images as PDM and has about 600+ images in the 80,000 image category:

Finally, this account in the past licensed their images as PDM (today its ARR) but the images on Commons are still PDM

928 images on Commons if one types in arcticwarrior & flickr

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will have a look later :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Artic Warrior seems to be a mix of old and new photos. Many of the photos are uploaded with the license {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. I noticed that some photos on Flickr are not US Military photos (example https://www.flickr.com/photos/avgeekjoe/51424345857) so if we pass the photos we should hope they got the license right :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also this other flickr account owner below licensed all her images as PDM until October 7, 2023. Since that date, it has been ARR.
  • Maggie jones There are 1500 images and I have passed maybe 20 or 30 of her images already. It is better to have your bot pass her images, I think, if they were tagged as pd-mark by the flickrbot. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The bot have reviewed and verified that all the files in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review were available on Flickr as PDM. The only thing left for humans to do is 1) to decide if the license tag should be changed to {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} or let the existing license stay unchanged adn 2) if it is likely that the file really is PD or if the flickr user just uploaded the work of someone else. So far we have only fixed files where we think it is likely that the copyright is correct. Have you ever noticed files where you think the license tag is incorrect? --MGA73 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Adding to Category:Files from Arctic Warrior Flickr stream now. Starting with those that have the {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Then we can see what is left. --MGA73 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Bot was busy with something else. I found a messy code that made it hard for bot to work on the files. So I did some cleanup: Special:Diff/863962152. --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I wonder if we should just pass everyone. The bot checked them so guess its a waste of time that humans also look at them :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this is a reasonable idea so long as the source flickr account has no copyright violations. I have to sign off now But passing everything gives everything a new slate.

The exceptions may be images from a flickr account with PDM images where I filed this DR and these 3 images are also from this account but I forgot to file a DR. I had filed a separate DR that was not connected to PDM and it grew to more images that were tagged by other users.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73/Archive_55&oldid=872496233"