MGA73

Archives 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, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:EPracticeRegistrationURL.png

Yours sincerely, Omphalographer (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed license

Hi, friend. Can you confirmed the license of my uploaded photos for Category:Hứa Kim Tuyền, Category:Elly Tran and Category:Lê Phương? Thank you so much. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the files except File:Elly Tran.png. I could not see the video. --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, friend. There's an archive version here. You can review it now. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, can you confirmed the license for Category:Suboi, Category:JustaTee, File:Trấn Thành 191226.png, File:TRƯỜNG GIANG.png, Category:Rhyder, Category:H'Hen Niê, Category:Đinh Ngọc Diệp, just all. I'll give you other categories next time as soon as I uploaded new photos in the future. Thank you so much. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I got them. Don't forget to add {{YouTubeReview}} (without a space or the script does not work) and if you can also add time of crop (like 2:48) it will be a help. --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks for your "fact check". I'd call you next time for license checking in the future, as soon I upload new photos. Bye. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed license, 2

It's nice to meet you again. Can you confirmed the license of my uploaded photos for these:

1. Category:Wowy
2. Category:Bùi Công Nam
3. Category:Soobin Hoàng Sơn
4. Category:BB Trần
5. Category:Namcito
6. Category:Bảo Nhân
7. Category:Uyển Ân
8. File:H'HEN NIÊ (cropped).png
9. File:PHAN THỊ MƠ.jpg
10. Category:Jarinporn Joonkiat
11. Category:Lâm Bảo Ngọc
12. Category:Myra Tran
13. File:DƯƠNG HOÀNG YẾN.png
14. Category:Thùy Anh
15. Category:Ki Eun-se
16. Category:Han Jin
17. Category:Pháo
18. Category:Tlinh
19. Category:Tóc Tiên

That's all. Thank you so much and see you in the "confirmed license" series next time. Bye. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mickey Đại Phát: Hi! I'm working on the files now. I do not think we need to add a review if it's a crop of a file that have been reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, why do you think that? Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the original file is reviewed so it has been confirmed there that the license is okay. Anyone who would like to know if license is okay can just check the original. I think we use same logic for Flickr files because the bot can't review files if they are changed. So it would require human review every time a file is cropped etc. It is ofcourse not forbidden to review a crop.

It has taken a long time to review because there was a few errors in the script (or errors in the file pages). For example the script did not work if there was no {{YouTubeReview}}. It also did not work if there was a space so it was {{YouTube Review}}. And it failed if the template {{From YouTube}} was written as {{From Youtube}} (lower case). Fixing that should make future reviews easier :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mickey Đại Phát: I think I got them all now except a few in Category:Pháo because video is not available in my country. --MGA73 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What video? Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The one for File:PHÁO - YOUR FACE SOUNDS FAMILIAR VIETNAM 2020 P1.jpg etc. --MGA73 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Video is archived. Don't worry, friend. You can see it. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not. I tried :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What? Even in Wayback Machine you can't find? Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If so, the video you've mentioned have CC, too. 100% confirmed. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That won't help me when I can't see the video. --MGA73 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. Anyway, thank you so much for your reviewing, and see you in the reviewed license series next time. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

CFDL

Copy from my own talk page::::Now I have a question:

Even now, CFDL is the first license offered in the menu.

Therefore I believed that it were the most approved one and have used it for all own photos and drawings.

Since when is it disapproved?--Ulamm (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:PlacaDeOroAmenemhatIV (46200012411).jpg

Dear Michael,

I answered your question on my talkpage. I had asked on the GraphicsLab here if they could sharpen this image but no one wants to touch it. If you know someone who has the professional Adobe Photoshop software, perhaps they can download this image, sharpen the image and reupload it on the same file. If not, its quite OK. Unfortunately, the British Museum does not allow Commercial use of this rare image in their collection. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats a shame! The best place should be the lab. I hope with AI getting more used we will have more users that can fix it. --MGA73 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I checked a few AI software programs but they all only work on a subscription basis. I don't see the need to pay for using just one photo. This image is one of the few images that bears king Amenemhat IV by name since he ruled Egypt for only 9 years and 3 months during the powerful 12th dynasty of Egypt. This is the only other photo on flickr of this object and it is even more out of focus. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Right now I also see no reason to pay for this tool. --MGA73 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: I used the free trial version of Canva (which is supposed to be one of the 10 best alternatives to Adobe Photoshop) and uploaded this sharpened image below. I don't know if it is an improvement. Any idea? The image size fell from 412 KB (the original photo) to 180 KB (this new image) and I don't know if this is good or bad.
• File:Amenemhat IV plaque.jpg

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is better! But still a bit blurred. I think it will be hard to improve without paying a lot of money or spending many hours on it. --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Flickr uploader categories such as Category:Files from 55001154@N03 Flickr stream

Dear Michael,

I am working on reviewing putative public domain images marked for PD Review, including Flickr PD-Mark files. Could you help me understand the role of categories such as Category:Files from 55001154@N03 Flickr stream? It seems to be for all uploads from this Flickr stream, but it is also a subcategory of the maintenance cat Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - not ok. Should an image there pass human review, should it then be moved out of that category? Felix QW (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Felix QW! It sounds great that you are working on reviewing files!

At some point User:Leoboudv wrote to me about a few flickr files and that resulted in an idea here to reduce the number of files for review. There is a looooong discussion. You do not have to read it all :-)

Anyway the short story is that if a file is uploaded with {{PDMark-owner}} then the bot will put in a category for human review. If the template is changed to {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} then the bot will pass it. It tok a long time so somewhere in the process of fixing files I asked my bot to sort the files in categories like the one you found to make the process faster. Then it was easy to scan the files in the category and decide if it was likely to be own work by the flickr user or not. If Leoboudv or I decided that it was most likely own work we changed the template and asked the bot for a new review. If we were not sure we put the files and categories in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review - pending bot review - not ok for later.

If you have checked the files you can either remove the files from the Flickr stream category or if you have checked all files you can remove the Flickr stream category from the "not okay" category. --MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation! Having read the conversation you linked above, I am still a little confused. The category now has in the hundreds of images, rather than upwards of 90,000. Surely, humans will not have reviewed 90,000 files in the meantime? On the other hand, how should a bot know whether photos are the own work of the uploader (which the uploader has not even claimed by using the mark) or whether the photos are PD due to the variety of reasons we actually have tags for? Or were all these from a handful of FLickr streams that are known only to upload own work and were therefore whitelisted (which I think is a great idea!)? For instance, posters like File:Amor sobre ruedas (1954).jpg are clearly not the author's own work. Shouldn't they get "status=public_domain_mark" rather than "status=passed" until a license reviewer gets to them? My apologies for the many questions! Felix QW (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Felix QW! No, the bot can't know if it is own work or not. It can just check if the file are on Flickr and the license is the same on Commons and on Flickr just like when someone upload a file and license it cc-by-2.0 for example. So to fix the files licensed PDM humans (like Leoboudv, you and me) have to decide if we think it is own work or not. If we think it is own work we can add {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}. The file you mention is not own work. It could be PD for some other reason (no notice?). --MGA73 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see. So the idea is that the human decision is made by actively choosing the license {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}. If I understand this correctly, the main difference to the traditional review process is then that this can be done by anyone, including the uploader, rather than by particular PD or license reviewers. I suppose the many other uploads that are not from Flickr are not particularly marked for review either, so such incorrectly marked Flickr-PDM-Author files will just come up during regular patrolling in the same way. Felix QW (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes you could say that anyone can then review the files. The problem is if Flickr user upload a file that is not really PD. Then it could take a long time before someone notice that it is not actually PD. --MGA73 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)