User talk:MGA73/Archive 24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This Papal image

I made an edit to this image asking that no one moves it to WikiCommons. But I don't know if I did it right. All I know is it is modern copyrighted 3D art and cannot be moved to Commons since it was made for Pope Paul VI who served in office from 1963-1978. If I typed in the wrong code, please feel free to correct it on wikipedia. (PS: Sorry, I left this message on your wiki talkpage but I have now removed it from there.) Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not have a good template for cases like this so it is the best we can do at the moment. --MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OK thank you. Personally, I don't think it is is in the public domain in the US actually. That was the reason for my question here. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Have you seen this DR Quite suspicious, I'll say. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Alps@swizz.jpg

Please decide what to do with this image....whether it is review not necessary or some other template. Or fail. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done It is own work so I added {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}. --MGA73 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


File:Great-vulva-mother.jpg

Pay attention to copyright File:Great-vulva-mother.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Many countries have exemptions for the photography of copyrighted buildings and artwork located in public places in local copyright law, generically known as "freedom of panorama". However, the country you took this photograph in does not have similar laws (making it an unauthorized derivative work), or whose laws restrict usage in ways that are incompatible with our licensing policy (such as restrictions on commercial use).

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For a country-by-country breakdown of Freedom of Panorama laws, you may find Commons:Freedom of Panorama useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


English | português do Brasil | +/−

Missvain (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Images as late as March 1, 1989 could be PD because of the special rules that US has. Therefore someone removed the speedy. I started a DR because we do not have enough info to verify that it really was PD. --MGA73 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:AdrianClaybornAward.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:AdrianClaybornAward.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

12.233.148.58 15:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've withdrawn my request - sorry to take your time! --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Better safe than sorry :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for your response. Adamtheclown (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kan du

...ikke lige udrydde denne her jf. Knuds argumentation i speedy-skabelonen. Nillerdk (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ej hvor strengt... Men godt set af Knud. --MGA73 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:The R.O.C..jpg and File:Blaze Ya Dead Homie.jpg

Dear MGA,

They all appear to be derivatives but no one has acted for days. Most of the uploaders photos here appear to be derivatives actually. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sorry, it seems Admin Zelenko has now filed a mass DR here on this uploader's pictures. Maybe you can make a comment in the DR? Its not good if only I make a comment and no one else does. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes it is doubtfull that Flickr user holds the copyrights. --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making a comment in the official Deletion Request. Too many such derivative pictures slip through here sadly. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Crinifer piscator -at a zoo in Japan-8a.jpg

Can you pass this image? Its not from a web site I know of but the cc by sa license seems to match. But its cannot be from picasa. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • PS: The image is Not from flickr either. Can you help the uploader here? I don't know the template for this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your help. Maybe I'll pass a link of this discussion to Snowmanradio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Chinese officers tear down the British flag on the arrow.JPG

This time I have a new image for wikicommons. So you'd love to check all the presentations totally and search the author later. --俠刀行 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I changed the description a little. Hope it is better now. You really find a lot of good drawings :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Map of the Taku Forts.jpg

Hi again. I uploaded a new map. I recommand you help to write the introduction. I'm not sure the book writer has died for 70 ages or not.--俠刀行 (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Please feel free to make a comment to support or oppose this DR I started. Maybe I made a mistake here? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm... Not sure about this. We have similar things in Category:Fictional characters so I'm not sure what to do here. But you have some really good arguments. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File put over another file

Re: File:Hyde Park.JPG. There is a file over another, and I have not got the tools to fix it. I hope that you can repair it. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --MGA73 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

145+ Picasa images here

Could you ask your bot to ask flickr review to mark picasa images? Or can you ask Bryan to consider this suggestion? I just noticed there were so many picasa images in this category needing human review here. Just a suggestion. This problem does not seem to occur with panoramio today, I think.

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: When I first checked this category today, there were 173 unmarked images here. There's no way anyone (including me) can mark so many photos...and it seems that few trusted users or Admins check or know about this category sadly. Can you do something to assist the situation? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked for help here User_talk:Dcoetzee#Time_to_start_the_picasareview_bot. Lets hope the bot will run soon. --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I see there is a Picasa Review bot now working at last though it left some 80 images for human review. Its better than nothing, I guess. Thanks again for your help. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for one week due to your personal attacks against and harassment of Serge Woodzing on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this block as appropriate personally and will research it rather more. If you wish to please contact me by email. Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Could this block be a revenge for this suggestion Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_16#Topic_ban_on_.22Pieter_Kuiper.22_for_Adam_Cuerden.3F? --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try to remain calm - I think we can sort this out. Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I had forgotten about that. Look, your behaviour is divisive and problematic. You cannot harass people for making a complaint, particularly when other admins are saying that the complaint is valid.
I think the best thing would be for you to agree to recuse from Serge Woodzing and Kuiper-related issues, or at least to recognise that harassing users that disagree with you is inappropriate. If you did, I'd gladly unblock you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked for now, while what to do is discussed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's consider this an official warning:

You are an admin. Attacks and harassment of other users is unacceptable, and you clearly have a blindspot a mile wide where Pieter Kuiper is concerned, which causes you to attack any user complaining about him.

You are asked to refrain from discussions related to Pieter Kuiper and Serge Woodzing. While doing so will not result in an block, such situations tend to bring out your problematic behaviour, and you'd be wise to do so. Any sort of belittling or harassing behaviour in such discussions will result in a block of not less than one day, and not more than one week, which may increase as the number of blocks accumulate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the block SHOULD be gone, if it isn't, throw up a {{unblock}} and just say that you're meant to be unblocked. I've been on wikibreak a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. As for the warning to stay away from Pieter Kuiper and Serge Woodzing I do not accept it since I think there is no concensus for that. I believe I have not made nearly as many attacks on Serge Woodzing as you have on Pieter and as far as I know you have not been blocked or warned (?) for that. Anyway I do not plan to start a long discussion on this topic.

To Herbythyme I think I am calm but thank you for the reminder. As I said above I do not plan to start a long discussion on this topic. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note for the archive: This Commons:Administrators/Requests/Adam Cuerden desysop clearly shows that block was abuse of admin tools. Adam is no longer an admin. He deleted toe desysop request to make his departure look better. Time will show if it will be undeleted. Also note [1]. --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member

Hi. I newly joined the OTRS team and is planning to be active with OTRS permissions queue. Can you please add med to OTRS-member group in commons? --Sreejith K (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good news - we need all the help we can get :-) But I have some bad news. I can not change that. We need a crat to do that. --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Art originals

Re: File:CampophagaPoliopteraKeulemans.jpg, File:DigeneaKeulemans.jpg and many more where a modified image is place over original artwork. These modified uploaded images are sometimes noticeably cropped with the page of the original cut away (not just borders beyond the original page), which makes the bird art work appear bigger. Light levels have also been substantially adjusted. I have started a discussion with the uploader on his talk page User talk:Shyamal, and he has uploaded File:Horse Botfly Imago.png over the original image since. I think that uploading images over the original artwork is not in line with Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. I think that the guidelines for artwork are that the {{original}} template is used - as seen an File:Psitteuteles versicolor by Edward Lear (whole page).jpg and also with a link back to the original on the modified version. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that originals should be kept. --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It is very good when an uploader first uploads the original for documenting his work on the final image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: I made the user aware of this discussion at the time the discussion here was started. With be benefit of a consensus on the interpretation of the guidelines above, I started to show the original artwork again, but the user almost immediately reverted my edits to show the modified versions again. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I made a comment on the talk page as you will probably notice. I hope the user agrees now for future uploads. As for the excisting files you can reupload the original files if you need them and let the edited version keep the old file name. That is probably better than to "start a fight" with the uploader :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has been advanced by more people at User talk:Shyamal's talk page. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I second MGAs suggestion above that you upload the brown version for your own use. Shyamal (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The uses of the original document have become clear during the discussion. What is more important are the uses of the original version on commons for everyone. Snowmanradio (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I note this edit where the original copy of File:ChrysotisKeulemans.jpg was hidden by uploads of modified versions today. This appears to me to be contrary to two administrator's requests not to do this. Snowmanradio (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Does Admin DCoetzee check his messages here only on weekends? I made a suggestion here but he seems to be away. I thought that maybe the picasa bot could mark images every 1 or 2 days or if a quota of 25 images appear to be marked. But I guess he is away. Just a thought. With a bot around, I thought its better if the bot marks the images first. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how often he checked his talk page. It is not a problem to make the bot run every day if the bot runs on toolserver and you know how to do it. If he runs it manually then he need to be online and have time to do so. Lets see what he says. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: OK, lets see what he does then. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you want to send a message to Dcoetzee? According to this, he should have seen my December 7 message to him but the Picasa review bot has not marked any more images anymore. The picasa category is now 48 images. As I said, I don't know how he set its settings. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename discussion needs closing

Re Category:Extinct Birds (Rothschild book) - this is an old failed move suggestion. I would rather not close the discussion myself, because I took part in the discussion. I would be grateful if you (or any other editor) would close the discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I closed it as not done. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • These move suggestions have time expired and so are also move suggestions that failed.
  • Unchallenged moves:
  • Two move suggestions - one failed and one succeeded:

About a deleted files from flickr

Re: Several images that have been deleted by administrator User:Billinghurst. All these files listed below had an appropriate commons friendly licence at the time of upload and at the time of writing this note. Please give the deleting editor some advice preferably before he make more mistakes. I guess that he might be giving the "©" in the watermark significance more that the licence actually given on flickr. Please undelete these files. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See:
✓ Done Some were dupes with a bad name so I did not restore those. Next time it is better to ask deleting admin :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought that the message to the deleting administrator would be better from another administrator. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No if you think someone makes a mistake it is better to ask them and give them the chance to correct it or to tell you why it was not a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Licences different on flickr and commons

There are a number of un-reviewed contributions where the uploaded images have a different licence on commons to the licence on flickr. I have put a flickrreview template on all problem pages. Should these also be OTIS notified? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a note on the users talk page asking to confirm that the user control both the account here and on Flickr. If the user change the license on Flickr or make a note that confirm it is the same user then it should be ok. --MGA73 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives

Sorry about this, I missed that out by accident. Kind regards. Rehman 12:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It looks good now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Test 2.png

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

3 new photos

Hi, it's me. Here are the three files I've uploaded. Now you can go for work.--俠刀行 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Interior of the North Fort, print.jpg
File:Interior view of the North Fort of Taku on the Peiho River.jpg
File:Viewing the entrance of the North Fort on the Peiho River.jpg

You deleted something while I was typing message to you. We lack the cooperation. That's rediculous.

Oh, Shame! I created the link accidently. it's an error.--俠刀行 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I changed a few things on the new images and deleted the "Test 2.png" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dragon_pistol.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dragon_pistol.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sh** happens. :-) Maybe it is okay - but until someone has clearly found a permission we should not keep it (COM:PRP). Not with this flickr account known for flickrwashing. Maybe I find some time tomorrow. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admin MGA73,

Do you have any views on this DR I filed Michael? Pls be honest and feel free to make an edit for or against my position. Its not a big deal to me at all but when I see images like this from the flickr source account, I worry about a flickrwash. I think it needs quite clear OTRS permission as the uploader has 2 images here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes we need a OTRS in my opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond MGA73. If possible, please make a brief response on the OTRS permission in the official DR, too. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File move

I moved a file and found that only administrators can add to the delinker page. I would be grateful if you would add this "{{universal replace|Super-Sized - Kereru.jpg|Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae -Nga Manu Nature Reserve, New Zealand-8.jpg|reason=[[Commons:File renaming|File renamed]]}}" to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thank you. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Can you make a comment on this DR here. I don't know if what I typed was right or wrong. Its all very unclear....on company logos. The logo is not a simple logo but its not an overly complex logo either. So, I can't say if it passes the threshold of originality and is copyrightable or not. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your guidance and your comments. I have decided to vote to keep now based on your analysis. I suspect the issue of company logos will keep cropping up on Commons because many people think that since a company logo is copyrighted, it should not be allowed here either. But the amazon logo was not overly complex...I thought. May I wish you a Merry Christmas too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. And hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas too... And a Happy New Year... Time goes fast :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank You. And the same to you too. Its strange that I added an image for Robert D. McNeill and Jeri Ryan and linked their names under Voyager here but their names are not clickable on this Commons page. Don't know what the issue is since there is a cat for both of them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
That is because no one made a gallery yet. Robert Duncan McNeill is not the same as Category:Robert Duncan McNeill. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for telling me the exact problem. I will fix it now. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FlickrLickr

You critizised my deletions of some Flickr-files. Do you have an idea why there was no review-tag of FlickrLickr? --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you took it as critic. It was meant as a question. I think it was implemented before Flickrreview was "invented" so perhaps that is why. If you look at File:01 04 British WDC 8jul05.jpg for example you can see it both have a "Reviewer Andre Engels" (in the information box) and a normal review template (below). Others just have a "Reviewer (some name)". The reason some files have 2 reviews is mostly that I used my bot some time ago to try to find images from Flickr that did not have a review. In the beginning my bot could not skip files from FlickrLickr and since there is no problem in having 2 reviews I did not remove the extra review. --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not know that Flickr uploads by FlickrLickr where not signed with a Review in 2007, so I thought that there may be a fault in the upload process, so that I was not shure if the given license was correct. The pictures where of bad quality and not important for our project and the user very aggressive. So I deleted the pictures which had no review. Do you know since when the FlickrLickr-BOT puts in the Reviewfield? --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
No I don't. The bot is not active anymore by the way [2]. It has been replaced by User:Flickr upload bot. If the files was unused and low quality noone will miss them so do not worry :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)