User talk:MGA73

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55

File:DEF CON 1부.png[edit]

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 ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

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

New {{Flickrreview}} request by a bot[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

PDM images uploaded years ago[edit]

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)[reply]

Can your bot pass certain images from one Flickr account[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Ooops allready exist as Category:Files from khteWisconsin Flickr stream. --MGA73 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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 ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

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

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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 ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


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

An idea[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

2 accounts[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

4 accounts[edit]

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)[reply]

I will have a look later :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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.

New discussion[edit]

So, yes. Your bot should pass all the PDM tagged flickr images except 3 images from this flickrwashing account unless you know of anymore flickrwashing accounts. I have to go to bed know but most PDM images are basically own work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those are derivative works. Bot can't tell if something is a derivative work. It can only tell if the license on Flickr is good or not. And if some users are bad the bot can put them on the naughty list. The question is if there are any bad Flickr users in the category. If you have time it would be great if you could hunt for bad photos before the bot passes them. --MGA73 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its like I said, when you go in this Category you can easily figure out which images are 'own work' and which are not safe to review. Most are safe to review except this obvious case....which was the uploader's only image here.

Good night. I have Have Good Friday mass today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: I made a little test. If the file is licensed {{PDMark-owner}} the bot will not pass it Special:Diff/864127010 but if I change to {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} the bot will pass Special:Diff/864127231.
If I do it like that the bot will check if the flickr user is black listed. --MGA73 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: I have been testing a bit more. The files go to Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review and if they are passed they are removed again. So the first files in the category are some that could not be passed by Flickreview bot. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: Yes they might need a human review. If you review some make sure you start from the top. The bot is still working on the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: Yes my bot will remove the temporary template. If the file have the usual {{Flickrreview}} then the Flickr review bot have not checked it yet. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: The bot allready reviewed them earlier so all we need to do is fix like this: Special:Diff/864203359. We just need to check if it is likely the Flickr user is/was the copyright holder of if it is a derivative work or for some other reason should not be passed. If there are many from one account the bot can fix. --MGA73 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I have not listed it in the category because it is a sub category of Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. Also there is no reason to have more reviewers look at the files right now while the bot is still working on them. --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: I will go to bed too. My bot will not remove the temporary review template while I sleep. But Flickrreview bot should finish all the files it can. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: My bot have now asked for a flickr review for all files tagged with PD-licenses. My guess is that it will catch most of the old photos. I hope that there will only be a few files left in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review that does not look like own work after that. The Flickr review bot will need a few hours to work on he files (it is currently working on files starting with the letter P). --MGA73 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: That is a good idea. My Catholic church mass was 3 hours long and I will be signing off soon as its 2:35 AM here now in Mero Vancouver, Canada. I filed a DR on these 3 photos: ****image
  • image
  • image

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: You're the best :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: All done now. Good thing is that there are not that many files left in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review now that the Flickr review bot reviewed all the files it could. Sadly I can't think of a way to make the bot skip those that are possibly bad. --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your efforts, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for Elusive Muse it is interesting; they claim their photos are PD and they are not on a blacklist as I passed one of their photos with no problems.

Regarding Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review some of the photos were marked as PDM at upload, so I typed in a pass but the images are still here since your bot will have to remove the extra review tag. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: Yes all the photos were marked PDM at the upload. The Flickr review bot confirmed that. The only thing left to do is to try to spot copyvios.
I will have a look at the accounts you mentioned above later. --MGA73 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: I could easily just pass all the photos. But I think we should try to see if we can spot most of the bad files before we do that. There is no need to rush because the Flickr review bot allready confirmed the license. So its not like the other reviews where speed is important to avoid loss of files because they were not reviewed before the file was deleted or license was changed. --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off[edit]

Dear Michael, I'm signing off and have Easter mass on Sunday. If you are interested, here are 2 'own work accounts.

  • Rob Mitchell He licensed his older 2015 and maybe 2016 photos as PDM.
  • Flickr id#: 46958463@N06

This account has a few images under PDM, like these 2 below and several more:

Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: This flickr account below also has legitimate PDM images.
  • Ministerio de la Produccion Flickr id#: ministeriodelaproduccion has 743 images Most images are not passed or people type in the wrong cc0 license.
  • Also this flickr account below:

Tyler Brenot Flickr id#: 152474924@N02 at 72 images Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also do

Both are PDM licensed.

There are also ALL PDM licensed images from

There are many PDM images from

There are still some PDM images from

There are some PDM images from Bonnie Moreland BUT here Flickr id# is actually: icetsarina as you can see here at 186 images Some images she licensed as cc0 and were passed and others are PD-Mark and did not pass like those below...and more.


Finally, there are PDM images from

I think its harder to get find single flickr accounts with large amounts of legitimate images now. But at least you brought down the large PDM category from 95,000 images and that may be good enough. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four accounts[edit]

Dear MGA73,

Here are three flickr accounts with some PDM images whose flickr id number does not match the flickr profile page.

They have a bit more images with a PDM license

There are some PDM images from Bonnie Moreland BUT her Flickr id# was once actually: icetsarina as you can see here at 186 images Some images she licensed as cc0 and were passed and others are PD-Mark and did not pass like those below...and more.


  • Here is a Regular PDM image account with the same flickr id name. The images are definitely own work.
  • David Steadman Flickr id#: davidgsteadman at 141 images

I ordered new reviews for one or two images from David Steadman...like the one below but there are many more images that have the wrong license tag.


Hi Leoboudv! I'm thinking if it was a good idea to add "Category:Files from <user id-number> Flickr stream" to all the files in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. That would mean there would be a lot of red categories that could be found via Special:WantedCategories or by clicking a random file and see what category it is in.
It should be easy to see if all the files in the category looks like own work or not. If yes they can all be passed and if not they can all be failed.
It should be easy for the bot to pass all files in a category because it will only have to work on those specific files and not all the 20k files.
If there are only 1 file or 2 in the category it may be easier just to pass the file(s) manually. The category should either be removed or the <user id-number> should probably be changed to the name and the category should be created.
What do you think? (I will work on the links above before I decise).--MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to mark the files in Category:Files from tormentor4555 Flickr stream. I doubt the old photos are own work but it is possibly PD for other reasons. But now they are in a single category they are easier to spot if someone think they are not PD. --MGA73 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out my bot skipped some files because some were licensed "PDM" instead of the usual "PDMark-owner" etc. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I agree that many images Category:Files from tormentor4555 Flickr stream are not own work. I tried to review one and got a bad authors mesage. But at least, it is easier to spot a few clear copy vios. As for your bot skipping some images because they were licensed as PDM, it would explain why some flickr account images were missed by your MGAbot.
  • Here are 9 Reliable flickr accounts with all PDM images:







Examples:

All their images are PDM licensed. Apart from this File:Iredell County Historical Society (51312982327).jpg newspaper image from 1971, the photos are almost certainly PD or are simple printed text that do not meet the threshold of copyright.


  • Lark Ascending Flickr id#: vwilliams at 309 images has virtually all PDM images on Commons. Today Lark's images are ARR but only since June 10, 2023 from my check of his flickr photostream. Before that date, it was all licensed as PDM...and he did not change the license of his images from PDM before June 10, 2023.


Example: File:PMO IMG 3622 (40547323203).jpg & File:PMO IMG 4927 (47460557772).jpg

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Leoboudv! All marked. Or so I hope :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A comment[edit]

Thank You Michael,

I think from now on that most of the images in the now smaller PDM category is still own work but it will not be easy to find many images from just one flickr account. Images from these 2 flickr accounts are most likely copy vios below. The first flickr account has only 11 images from the 1950s or 1960s.

As an aside, I did find one legitimate own work flickr account below with a bit more images:

@Leoboudv: Yeah it will most likely be smaller accounts now. My but is not adding a user category (like Category:Files from 121653663@N05 Flickr stream) to all the files. Once all files are tagged it will be very easy to see how many files there are from the same user. --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a second legitimate own work flickr account below with some images:

I had reviewed these 2 of her images below:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a third legitimate own work flickr account below with some images:


I just did the first test run. All files from Category:Files from 49017692@N05 Flickr stream was passed and category changed to Category:Files from Eric Corriel Flickr stream. It seeems to work well (and fast compared to old way).

I will start working on the other categories when I have some time.

Perhaps you could scan for bad files and tag those? --MGA73 (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leoboudv yes it seems to go rather well now. Nice catch with the categories that allready existed under another name. There will probably be some where I will miss that and create duplicate categories. But its easy to fix with a category redirect.--MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Dear Michael,

Thanks for marking the remaining Barry Marsh images.

Regarding Category:Files from 149271704@N02 Flickr stream this flickr account appear to be own work with camera metadata from three Samsung, Apple and Sony cameras by Ted Potters Since it is your country, you can decide if 2D graffito art is allowed in the second image below:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Fourthly, these 90 images in Category:Files from 192387570@N06 Flickr stream are own work by Anthony Shaw I passed so many images by this person who today licenses his images as ARR. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Finally, these 42 images from Category:Files from 196143283@N07 Flickr stream most likely own work from Uniao Brasil Rondonia Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoboudv! Ted Potters is Dutch not Danish :-) I think most of it is okay (FOP). --MGA73 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Oops! My mistake. I always thought you were Dutch until I carefully reread your wikicommons page. Well...as they say you learn a new thing every day! Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He he Leoboudv! Yeah sometimes you gets a surprise. I learned using a bot by a Dutch user. Multichill :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOUR Comments:





Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: It is nice that Special:WantedCategories is now updated. The most wanted category is Category:Files from 83211576@N03 Flickr stream with 632 files.
I will mark the categories you checked but I'm busy today so do not know how many I will do today. --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I'm about to sign off soon...but just do it at your own pace. The category was originally 95,000+ images and you reduced it to just over 10,000+ images. If you reduce it to 500-1,000 images, it may be good enough. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: Still work to be done. But now below 8k. --MGA73 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bilderbogen in Neuruppin.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bilderbogen in Neuruppin.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A.Savin 14:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bilderbogen in Neuruppin.jpg[edit]

File:Bilderbogen in Neuruppin.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 ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

MGA73 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 accounts[edit]

These images in Category:Files from 36232856@N03 Flickr stream are Public Domain since they come from a US Embassy titled US Embassy Brasilia Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Secondly, images in Category:Files from 189067902@N03 Flickr stream appear to be own work from Shane Morigeau Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thirdly, images in Category:Files from 47873224@N06 Flickr stream are PD since they come from US Embassy The Hague


Fourthly, images in Category:Files from 88133570@N00 Flickr stream are most likely own work since they were all taken by a Nikon D5100 camera by Marc Wathieu who today licenses his images as ARR.


Finally, images in Category:Files from 42541928@N03 Flickr stream are clearly own work from Sebrae-SP a Brazillian government department. Sebrae " is an autonomous Brazilian social service, an integral part of System S that aims to assist the development of micro and small businesses, stimulating entrepreneurship in the country" according to Google translate. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Column[edit]

Leoboudv it is not good that new files show up in the category. Uploader should get a notice. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



The 19 images in Category:Files from 127297238@N06 Flickr stream is most likely own work by San Leandro Privacy with its large number of Photo Albums



  • The 31 images in Category:Files from 123738801@N03 Flickr stream are almost certainly own work since they come from Ministerio de Cultura y Patrimonio del Ecuador whose flickr profile translates as "The Ministry of Culture and Heritage of Ecuador exercises the leadership of the National Culture System to strengthen National identity and Interculturality; protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions; encourage free artistic creation and the production, dissemination, distribution and enjoyment of cultural goods and services; and safeguarding social memory and cultural heritage, guaranteeing the full exercise of cultural rights based on the decolonization of knowledge and power; and a new relationship between human beings and nature, contributing to the materialization of Good Living."


Finally, the 11 images in Category:Files from 42687493@N06 Flickr stream are PD since they come from the US Department of the Interior Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



16 accounts[edit]

These PDM accounts are own work images.


I ordered a review on 1 of the images and the flickrbot passed the image: File:Oficina de Música IMG 20220526 161611 (53568428068).jpg


  • The 20+ images in Category:Files from 147565992@N07 Flickr stream credit a photographer named Joel Vargas in the camera metadata but belongs in the official flickr photostream of someone named Gabriel Souza with 73,000+ images. According to Portugese wikipedia, Gabriel Souza, as Google translate says "is a Brazilian veterinarian and politician, affiliated with the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB). He currently serves as vice-governor of Rio Grande do Sul" state of Brazil. So, he is a major politician.















The uploader, A1Cafel is also very trustworthy and there can be no question of any copy vio. Maybe this will reduce this PDM Category a bit lower. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: All categories passed. Except the last one (Category:Files from 141455566@N02 Flickr stream). There are only 2 files in that and you nominated one for deletion. What about the other? Do you think that is okay or did you just not notice that file?

Also im thinking of putting all the red categories in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review. Then they are easy to find. And they can be added to Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - ok if they look okay or Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - not ok if they are likely problematic. It should be easy to change category with HotCat once they are checked. (I did not create the 2 mentioned categories yet) --MGA73 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created some categories. I hope it will make it easier to check. --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: : I will nominate the second image for deletion as a copyvio. Right now, my real work is very slow so I have a bit of time for Commons projects. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) The second LTTE image I tagged as a copyvio was deleted. It was initially deleted and then recreated with the same title sadly.[reply]

  •  Comment: Observations on some PDM images that are likely own work.


This image even says 'public domain': File:MO Auditors - 34 Claire McCaskill (1999-2007) (53189869375).jpg








So, I ordered a new review on one of the 21 images here: File:Isla Minima.jpg and the flickr review bot passed it. They are likely own work.


  • These 16 images from Russia in Category:Files from 25554263@N04 Flickr stream are most likely own work. The uploader is quite OK and while the flickr source Andrey Korchagin has some 'model photos' on his profile--which were licensed correctly as ARR, his photostream flickr account shows normal Russian buildings. Unless there are sculptures which Commons cannot keep, this flickr account is likely own work

I did order a new review on a correct PDM license on File:Znamemsky Orthodox Church, Dubrovitsy, Moscow region (3020249348).jpg in this category and the flickrbot passed the image.










I ordered a new review of one of his images here: File:Lisbon (52910073581).jpg and the flickrbot passed it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]









  • The images in Category:Files from 196214338@N03 Flickr stream can be divided into high and low resolution images. The high resolution images were all taken by a Canon EOS 7D Camera and the low resolution images have no camera metadata--perhaps they were scanned. But all images show scenes in Brazil. So, the images are quite consistent overall from the account of Imagens de Rondônia in the state of Rondônia, Brazil.


I had ordered a review for one of these images in March 2024 here: File:Kasper Asgreen (2022).jpg and the flickrbot passed the image.









The question marks are:

Four of the images say the author is "Bridget Nelson" and I don't know if she scanned an image by J. Dobbs. Dobbs today licenses his images as ARR. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed some of the categories (from top to Максим Барбухин). Will take some more tomorrow. --MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: I passed those that were okay. But I parked the tricky ones in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - not ok. --MGA73 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five acounts[edit]



  • The 15 images are fine to review in Category:Files from 185802208@N07 Flickr stream since the source flickr account WORT NEWS says "We have no staff photographer, but our news staff updates photographs here. Photos are free for use, with attribution" Today their images are ARR but not in the past.


Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! --MGA73 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • These images in Category:Files from 61981636@N06 Flickr stream are certainly own work by Mauro Rubem who (google translate says from his flickr profile) is a "Former State Deputy, dental surgeon, public health specialist and trade unionist. He is a member of the Workers' Party and president of the Central Única dos Trabalhadores de Goiás. He was a councilor in Goiânia, Brazil and elected state deputy three times." All his images were taken by a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi camera and some images like the one below are watermarked with his own name:
  • File:Marcha das Vadias - 52º CONUNE (5952265443).jpg




  • These images in Category:Files from 192105714@N06 Flickr stream come from a now deleted flickr account named shashin micro 43 in Japan but this appears to be certainly legitimate work. Internet Wayback did archive this account so it existed. There are 2 cameras used, both Panasonic models and most were taken by a Panasonic DMC-G7 camera. It is most likely own work from the consistency of the photos. At least they are high resolution images.


  • The many images in Category:Files from 186544682@N04 Flickr stream are clearly own work by Justin J. Kiecker who says "I'm a writer in german language (still working on to improve my skills in English). Beside that I'm activist and amateur photographer. I like to share my pictures of events and protests on this account." His images are full of protests.




  • The images in Category:Files from 61591234@N05 Flickr stream were taken with either a HTC PC36100 or a Canon EX-Z750 camera by Dave Hass57 This person stopped uploading pictures to flickr after April 2018 but the photos are still licensed freely. The images are consistently of cars and are likely own work.



Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. If you click this link you can see who uploaded the files. It might be worth passing all uploads by the trusted users as you suggested earlier. --MGA73 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Here is another set of Category:Files from 158350039@N03 Flickr stream that is likely own work by K Bahr In the cosmic photos, he says he took them from his backyard. In his flickr profile, he implies that he suffered a stroke I think and cannot move far anymore. As for your suggestions about the uploader, this is a tricky question. Some uploaders such as Sentinel user have been banned or blocked for sockpuppetry or abusive comments but the images they uploaded are actually legitimate. Life is complicated. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]






The 50 images in Category:Files from 186395973@N06 Flickr stream are OK to review from the Architecture of Dublin I ordered a new review on File:Drumcondra House (2023).jpg and the flickrbot passed the image here: File:Drumcondra House (2023).jpg




PS: Most of the other images come from flickr accounts with 2, 3, 5 or 7 images. If you have time, please feel free to pass those which are clearly own work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re Yeah no more big accounts. I think when the categories in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review are fixed we should scan the category for copyvios and then ask the Flickrreview bot to do new reviews. Then the bot will either review or if the flickr user is bad it will mark them. --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Thanks for the link. There are now 4868 images in the category needing review...as long as Ooligan does not upload any new PDM images as cc0.







  • The images in Category:Files from 95929490@N06 Flickr stream are all PD today. They depict paintings by Perugino (16th century), Renoir who died in 1919, Umberton Boccioni who died in 1916, etc from the flickr account of Art Gallery ErgsArt - by ErgSap. The Sweat of the Brow doctrine or reproduction of works now in the public domain do not carry copyright (unless the work is totally original which is not the case here) in the USA, UK or EU. So, the images can all be passed by your bot.





Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



New paragraph[edit]

Hello Leoboudv! I just had my bot put the new uploads in categories by flickr user. Once the categories in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review are checked I suggest that you scan for possibly bad files. If you find some you can either nominate them for deletion or put the categories in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - not ok. If in doubt just park them in the "not okay"-category for later check. Once you think the most likely copyvios are nominated for deletion or parked in the "not ok"-category I can ask the Flickrreview bot to do a new review of all the files and have it skip the files in the "not ok"-category. --MGA73 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the files in Category:Files from 50256734@N05 Flickr stream. I nominated some for deletion and passed a few other photos (see Category:Files from Mike Lidgley Flickr stream). --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked a few photos from Category:Files from 93850985@N02 Flickr stream and besides the files you noticed by "Bridget Nelson" I also noticed that some files like File:Bishops Herzog and Bena - Holy Trinity Syracuse.jpg says "Raymond's Photography". --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]






















Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73&oldid=868402746"