User talk:MGA73/Archive 30

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.

lol,Swedish

Hello, Teach me Swedish.--俠刀行 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gumby&Pokey.jpg

Should this image be passed or not in your humble opinion? It has been uploaded and I tagged it for either review or deletion days ago. But it seems everyone is unsure if the figures are copyrighted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if this image is from the US government. Do you? If not High Contrast would know.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ray stu.gif

I had moved this image here in 2009 from en.wiki where it was claimed to be in the public domain under the conditions of the PD-India license and was up since 2006. However, the source page does not give publishing information. I think I added the Not-PD-US-URAA template for that reason shortly afterwards. The creation date, which is put at around 1940/41 by the source page, makes it an obvious candidate, but I agree we can't prove without more information that this can be kept. I suspect you want to start a DR? Then you should include the other photographs from Category:Satyajit Ray, because their publishing is not sourced well enough either and we should use the same strict standard for every medium. Hekerui (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ice hockey in russia

I have no idea where you got this information [1], but this is not ice hockey in russia, nor china. If you're just randomly firing categories at things, I'd suggest not.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot checks where the image is used and where the article is categorized. The file is used in en:Nikkō Ice Bucks which is categorized in en:Category:Asia League Ice Hockey teams and that category is categorized in en:Category:Ice hockey teams by league + en:Category:Ice hockey in South Korea + en:Category:Ice hockey in China + en:Category:Ice hockey in Japan + en:Category:Ice hockey in Russia. The bot have no chance of knowing that the categorization in en-wiki is "bad". --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
That seems like an extremely poor way to do things. Going back two levels creates a disconnect and doesn't necessarily mean that the image belongs to those categories especially in these kinds of images that belong to international subjects. I'd say stick to the article that it's on and use the categories there if you really need to, but the existing categories should cover it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Many articles does not have "Commonscat-template" so if bot is changed then it can suggest categories for much less images and will leave more categories uncategorized. Often such errors are found much faster than uncategorized images are fixed. As long as this template is on the file page users will know they should not trust the categories blindly. --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New OTRS policy?

Dear Michael,

Is this true? I thought that flickrmail for OTRS was acceptable in the past. And I was always trustworthy to flickr account owners and to OTRS volunteers especially MBisanz whom I worked a lot with before 2011. While I rarely contact people on flickr today (I was mostly active in 2008 to 2010), I think that most flickr account owners will not reply by E-mail to a stranger...whom they don't know. Has there been a change of policy at OTRS? I don't know why but some people simply refuse to change a flickr license but they are willing to give an OTRS message but only via flickrmail. If I ask them to E-mail me a permission message for a certain picture, I doubt that many would do this since they know they would reveal their own E-mail address too. You may do so if I contacted you through your flickr account and asked you to directly E-mail me but the thing is....you know me as opposed to someone who contacts you out of the blue.

Sadly, I think this policy will make it harder for users to OTRS images on Commons although I understand the intent--to prevent fraud. Perhaps you can give a brief reply? That is all I ask. It must be a very new OTRS policy; as for me, I always waited for a flickr owner's permission (via flickrmail) in the past before I even uploaded an image because it was my credibility that is at stake. This will be a problem for other Common's members. I am always honest to everyone and no one has accused me of anything because I ask for permission beforehand under a certain copyright free license and if people say No! than I drop the matter, thank them for their time and move on. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea and I just asked when and where etc. --MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds disappointing. I won't get any future images OTRS'ed through this way if this is right. Only the past images where the copyright owner was notified on a picture's web link is safe or before 2011. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe it stopped back in 2009-2010, not sure when. I sent multiple permissions of Flickrmails, and they were turned down as it is not reliable to determine if it came from the Flickr author. You now need to request that the author change the license themselves (which seems like it puts more of the burden on them), or have them e-mail you from another e-mail address and attach the image they want to release along with the statement indicating permission. I was told this from multiple OTRS volunteers who at one point started turning down all of my OTRS permissions as they were Flickrmails. There's probably a guide here somewhere that indicates the license changes are the only acceptable process for Flickr images around here somewhere. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thanks for the clarification. As I noted, in cases where the copyright owner was notified and the uploader is deemed trustworthy, the permissions that were secured with flickrmails will likely be acceptable. I believe I certainly fall in this category. In 98-99% of my images from flickr, I simply got the license changed by the copyright owner but there were 2 cases (I believe) where I had to use flickrmail permissions (without a change to a free license) and once the image was OTRS'ed, I sent a personal flickrmail to the copyright owner showing 1. where the image was located on Commons and 2. where it was used on Wikipedia and thanking him/her. Usually I got both a license change and an OTRS permission message to save old images uploaded before flickr review was active. But for future images, flickrmail permissions are not acceptable now. OK then. I think it will be tougher to OTRS images for the Commons project but such is life. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Identiti_Paskal.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Identiti_Paskal.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)‎ | +/−

NoCitNeed (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2 images

Do you know how to review these 2 'PD files for review' photos below? They certainly are likely in the public domain.

One was taken under the old British Mandate laws in Israel (before 2008) with a 50 year lifetime only--no reference to the author's death--and the other is an old 19th century postcard. But apparently the first image is not Public domain in the US according to one edit. So, I don't know the rules for the lighthouse photo. But it is interesting to know if it can or cannot be passed...or if it should even be on Commons? Feel free to pass it or file a DR here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First problem is that you have to be sure that it IS really PD (and I'm not). If you are you can add the template (see File:George Crook - Brady-Handy.jpg for example]]). --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kumar-birla.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Kumar-birla.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

AzaToth 22:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right... I deleted the file and nominated the original on en-wiki for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Eglise de Verchin.jpg

Can you mark this image please? I made too many edits to this image to feel comfortable marking it as it had the wrong panoramio link, etc. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: There is some discussion on the image's talkpage about the license. I think it can be passed....but it should not be me in this case since the uploader originally gave the wrong panoramio link. Then I was suspicious that it was not own work and removed it--and then put it back. Its better if an Admin reviews this important photo, in my opinion now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The license on Panoramio was free enough so I reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP immediately that completely misleading categorisations respectively transfers !!

(just) on November 7, 2011, i re-categorized about 200-300 completely misleading categorisations (a 'typical' example) of your transfers (dd. Nov. 6/7) from Wikipedia's to Wikimedia commons, as reported more then a year ago before, again and again :-(((( And, please, no repeated references to the categories proposed by another xxxx bot, Roland 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank you that you do a lot of work to fix categories. I'm really happy that you do. Some find one or two files and then complaint. 200-300 files before you came here is really impressive. So thank you very much!
I'm sorry that the bot messes up in some cases. I would ofcourse hope that the categories was always correct but sadly that is not the case. I have 2 alternatives: 1) Let the bot try to find the best categories or 2) Remove all categories and let add an {{Uncategorized}} instead. If I choose the first option some files will have perfect categories, some will have a to general category but still not directly wrong, some will have a wrong category and some will have no category at all. If I choose the second option then all files will have no category. Do you think option 2 is better? Or do you have other suggestions?
Info: The files I'm moving at the moment is a "help hi-wiki clean up their files"-project. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
help hi-wiki is a good idea. That project has a lot of copyvios, they have a lot of untagged (possibly fair use) files and they make use of fair use tags on e.g. press photos of people far beyond the scope of foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #3. Thanks for doing this work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah more than 1.000 files are deleted so far :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your answer respectively information - guessed that Hindi- and Kannada-Wikipedia related media have been mass-transferred, honestly getting frustrated ...
What about option 3 ?!
Some people don't prefer to have files 'uncategorized' - personally i would prefer that option ... but:
Files of "India" related wiki's you may, instead, categorise as p.e. Category:Unidentified locations in India, and from time to time, i'll try (maybe some other 'enthusiasts'??) to categorise those media as accurate as possible ...
Regards, Roland 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
All the India related files are uploaded for now so no more files should be uploaded at the moment. It would be nice if there were other users than just you and me that would help. Your idea of Category:Unidentified locations in India is not bad at all. But it will not be today. I'm to tired now and will most likely just make it worse... --MGA73 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as you did "option 3" on Nov. 9, 2011, please categorize ONLY Category:Unidentified locations in India, and not as p.e. that wikipedia {mass} transfer, thanks, Roland 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I found another user that has uploaded a lot of files from India. The reason I added more than one category was that I knew it was a temple but not where in India. I thought doing it this way there was 2 chances that someone found and fixed the category. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So when you do like this the file is no longer categorized as a temple. I asume you put a temple category back on later? Another way was to remove Category:Unidentified locations in India and leave the temple category if you do not like it that there is 2 categories on the file. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please read 'my' "option 3", i'll categorize all those India-related wikipedia {mass} transfers later as accurate as possible - don't really have so much time for fixing your bot's, hmm, "amok-transfers" :-( Thanks for "respecting" my oppinion, Roland 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I did read it. And I do not think there is any harm in files having the temple category on it. But it is really nice that you take care of the files :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For the very last time, please, p.e. that "amok-categorization" :-(((( >>>>> Category:Unidentified locations in India <<<<< Roland 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I did that here and still you complaint in the edit summary!?! And how many images with "bad" categories was it this time? 1, 2, 5, 100? --MGA73 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot or Commons Sense malfunction?

Please check what happened here, Category:Pages with broken file links should not be added by Common sense your bot. --Denniss (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The file is used in es:El Grand Prix del verano and that is in es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Páginas con enlaces rotos a archivos and that means Category:Pages with broken file links if you translate. Category should probably be blacklisted. --MGA73 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Flickrreview

The flickrreview bot is suddenly marking only 1 image per hour. If this keeps up, it might be time to E-mail Bryan about this issue. But maybe one can wait for 1 more day to see if the bot corrects itself. If not there must be a bot malfunction somewhere. Just to let you know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The flickrbot is still marking only 1 image per hour and the flickr review category backlog is now more than 100 images. The bot has not marked them. Can you please consider E-mailing Bryan? There must be a malfunctioning bot somewhere. Yesterday, when I sent my first message, the backlog was only 31 images. Bryan doesn't seem to have been active on wikicommons for some time...which is a big problem and he doesn't know me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked him on IRC and the bot is slow because of database server maintenance. Should help when that is done. --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. Hopefully, the situation is as you explained it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

from Raafat

Hi! PD-Egypt is not valid for new photos like ملف:4قصرالسكاكينى.jpg. You need to add a source. That could for example be “Own work” if you took the photo or a link to a website. If you are the photographer you can add “PD-self” instead. If you are not the photographer then you should link to a page that confirms the license you have added. Thank you. --MGA73 (مناقشه) 21:02، 12 نوفمبر 2011 (يو تى سى>?????

Reply:

I don't know how to do it! can you help and do it for me please? (Raafat (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

Of cource I will. I left a reply on your talk page on arz. If you prefer we can also talk here - it is easier for me because the text is not "swapped" :-)
Source:Own work.
{{PD-self}}
Is easier to copy from here :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OPAL.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:OPAL.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)‎ | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

150 images in flickr review cat

I hope Bryan will respond. There were 150+ images in the Flickr review category but it has fallen sharply because I alerted Denniss and he marked many photos. I had to mark several images and fail 2 of them by 1 uploader but I saw another of them from the same flickr account freely licensed as cc by generic just 3 hours before and passed it. Gave a long explanation on the image talkpage. This delay is getting bad and the flickr bot is still marking 1 image per hour for almost 2 days long now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: According to GeoSwan Here, the flickr upload bot is also not working. The whole flickr bot has crashed. Do you know anyone else--maybe Dcoetzee--who is familiar with the flickr review bot if Bryan is away? This has to be fixed. I don't know who else can mark the images apart from Denniss...or you? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked Bryan on IRC yesterday but problem was still not solved. I'll ask for news later tonight. --MGA73 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Its still marking 1 photo per hour. Hopefully Bryan is in contact with you on the flickrbot problem. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope Bryan is responding to your messages. As I type this, the backlog is 180+ photos. Its quite high. You can mark some photos if you want but the real solution is to get the flickr bot working again. Such is life. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Reviewing manually should be last option. Bryan is not online at the moment but I'm keeping an eye out :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look here ?

Could you have a look in Special:Contributions/Bococo: Cats and framing/borders/watermark might be a problem. Best. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I left a note to the uploader. We should fix copyright issue before we spend time on categories. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Flickr review working?

Did Bryan respond to you? Perhaps the flickr review bot is now working but I can't be sure until tomorrow as its 12:45 AM here now in Vancouver. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was good news :-) Only 20 left when I checked. --MGA73 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The flickr review bot still refuses to empty the flickr review category of all its images and I have to flickr pass or fail some of these images. So, I wonder if you can mark these 3 images below. (I marked many others). I suspect the bot will still have not marked them when you receive my message. The third image is a question mark...is it OK or not? I hope you can mark these 3 photos. Thank You in advance,
  • File:Bali musicians.jpg
  • File:Brent Musberger.jpg
  • File:Hizbollah4.tif

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - I took a few extra. I also passed a few old ones yesterday. --MGA73 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for marking the 3 images. I noticed you closed a DR on 'Korean drumming.' There is another DR here and here. I took a different approach to the DRs because the flickr copyright owner demands some requirements that are not possible for Commons to fulfill. I don't know if I am right. Best Regards and Goodnight from Canada as its 2:09 AM here, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Maybe you can contact Bryan and tell him that the flickrbot is still marking images very irregularly. Sometimes it marks 2-3 images and other times, it marks no images at its hourly intervals. It just marked one image only now at 10:15 when there are still 18 images sitting in the flickr review category...for hours. Maybe Bryan can find out the problem. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I notice the bot seems to be performing a bit better today but it still leaves images in the flickr review category today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:State_positions_Iraq_war.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:State_positions_Iraq_war.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 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)‎ | +/−

Antemister (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Loriot---w.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Loriot---w.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)‎ | +/−

Miss-Sophie (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The image

Logan marked the image you mentioned on my talkpage already. But the real problem is that another bot is uploading free images from Al Jazeera and the flickr review backlog is more than 1,200 photos sadly. I try to mark the non-Al Jazerera images. No wonder the flickr review bot can't cope. But Bryan should be told. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The files Multichill uploaded are ok. We just prefer that it is only one bot that reviews files. Normally it would not be a problem. We need to find a solution... We are talking about it on IRC. We are also trying to find a bot solution for the 2.696 files in Category:Indafotó review needed‎. --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I had mentioned to Admin Dcoetzee about creating a bot to review the Indafoto images 2 different times on his talkpage but each time he does not respond to my message. He created the picasareview bot, I believe. Yes, something has to be done but I don't know who can create a bot to review the Indafoto images, too. As for the Multichill fotos from Al Jazeera, they are freely licensed but their numbers are so large that they simply clog up the entire flickr review category. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Isothiocyanatobenzoylecgonine_methyl_ester.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Isothiocyanatobenzoylecgonine_methyl_ester.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 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)‎ | +/−

Leyo 20:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

4 images

Could you mark these 4 images below. I marked other similar images of this ship by this uploader below.

Its better if 2 people mark the images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your help. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Talked to Bryan and the bot should clean up now... Lets hope :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It has reviewed almost 200 now. Implementing a blacklist killed the bot. But that error should be fixed now. So now the bot checks if file is from a bad account and puts the files in Category:Flickr images from blacklisted accounts reviewed by FlickreviewR if they are. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: You are right. I checked the list of images needing flickr review here right now it and the number is exactly zero! Unbelievably. There is 87 flickr images to be reviewed by humans. I agree that there is a need to tag images from flickrwashing accounts. There are so many such accounts on flickr. The other less 'big' problem are uploaders who claim images as their own as this case by this uploader that I tagged as a speedy delete candidate yesterday. Its a pity the uploader was not warned to stop his behaviour but such is life and Turelio must be very busy anyway. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Indafoto category

Has anyone--maybe Multichill or you--considered creating a bot to review Indafoto images? This category will never fall below 1,000 images without a bot. That was what I told Dcoetzee...but he didn't reply. Unfortunately, not addressing the problem only means the backlog grew from 1,400+ images to more than 2,500+ images now. Just curious. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I talked to Betacommand about this some days ago and he has been working on it... Next time I see him I'll ask him about the status. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It is good that someone is working on a bot for these Indafoto images. The backlog here is even more severe than the ones that existed at flickr previously which was 1,800-1,900 maximum images, I believe. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, MGA73. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

--Bill william comptonTalk 20:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)