Jump to content

User talk:MGA73

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:MGA73bot2)
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, 63, 64

Parlamentul Republicii Moldova

[edit]

Hey, MGA73. I hope you are doing okay. Gikü recently suggested that Category:Files from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream fulfills the same function as Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream. Would you agree? And, if so, would it be okay to merge both categories? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alavense! Yes they are the same and a merge is a good idea. --MGA73 (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MGA73! It's now been done. Have a nice day. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from Forestry Images

[edit]

Dear Michael,

Images from Forestry Images were always CC by 3.0 Generic in the past. But sometime in or after 2023, they changed the license to CC BY NC 3.0 Generic. Right now, all I do is post this statement here:

  • If you check the links for all 3 images reviewed Above, they are all CC BY NC 3.0 today.

The issue is some people may not know the situation with Forestry Images before 2023 and perhaps fail them in the license review category. Is there a template that your bot can apply to these 1590 images about the situation...for images uploaded by 2023? I mention several reviewers above...not just me. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secondly, this image was uploaded in 2009 and the license was also CC BY 3.0 Generic but since no one reviewed it, it could face deletion at any time:
  • File:Ancylis discigerana damage1.jpg

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! Perhaps it would be easier to change {{Forestryimages}} and add the information about the change of license? --MGA73 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two Points: The "Official" Category for forestry images lists only 1590 images but when I type in 'forestryimages.org' , the CORRECT NUMBER on Commons is actually 2793 images. Maybe your tag can be applied to all these images by your bot? Secondly, while checking these images, I found this photo here: File:Popillia japonica (57).jpg which I reviewed in September 2023 on a cc by 3.0 us license. Today, in April 2025 this image's license is CC BY NC 3.0. As far as I know, all the forestryimages.org I saw were originally cc by 3.0 us. So perhaps you can modify your tag to say that images uploaded before September 2023 on {{Forestryimages}} are acceptable to Commons on a cc by 3.0 license. This is my suggestion....and only your bot can be aplied to 2793 images. Just think about the problem here and solve it as best as you think is correct. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm if not all files use the template then it will ofcourse not be enough to fix the template. I checked a random file and File:Forestryimages cassava.jpg is in the search but I could not find the source related to forestryimages.org. Worst case we can make a temporary template "forestryimages-review" saying that "There are indications that this file is from forestryimages.org. Please help check that and if possible change the template to {{Forestryimages}}. Notice that if the files is from there then it was licensed CC BY 3.0 if uploaded before 2023." --MGA73 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I checked and per https://web.archive.org/web/20240430061854/https://www.forestryimages.org/about/imageusage.cfm (2024) for example it seems that they had some licensed with NC and some licensed without NC. Same in https://web.archive.org/web/20200813012343/https://www.forestryimages.org/about/imageusage.cfm (2020). So sadly it seems that we can't conclude that ALL files were okay. --MGA73 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same is noted at the template "Note that not all images from Forestry Images are released under a free license suitable for Commons; many works are non-commercial licensed." (allready in 2009). --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page from 2017 there were 98,656 free images and 155,057 images non-free images. So the files should have been reviewed to verify the status. If only someone had thought about it at that time. The problem is that when not all files were free then we can't be sure that all the files that were uploaded were free. We can assume if uploader is generally a good uploader. But what if uploader only uploaded 3 files and made a total of 5 edits? I will start a post at Village Pump and ask if someone have a good idea how to fix this. If the file is reviewed I think we are safe. But if not its a bit of a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that could be one of the solutions. We put the unreviewed files in a category and find out who uploaded the files and then we add one tag to the trusted users and another to the users we are not sure about. --MGA73 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Rasbak has probably uploaded thousands of images to Commons and knows image licenses. Today, I did my best to review and find/categorise images from insectimages.org and I filed a DR here. The uploader has only 3 images on Commons. When I checked the insectimages.org website, I found all their images on the species he/she uploaded were Non-Commercial at the website search I am very tired and must rest. But I agree, the record of the uploader is the most important thing. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its a shame not all files get reviewd. --MGA73 (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I tried to search for files with the text insectimages.org that did not have {{Insectimages}} or {{Licensereview}}. It was only a few. If you have any ideas what to search for let me know. I could add {{Licensereview}} to all the files if that is any help. --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can suggest that om VP to see if other users agree? --MGA73 (talk)
The links at Template:Forestryimages seems to be a good help when checking files. I just checked a random photo File:Bursaphelenchus xylophilus on Pinus sp..jpg and it was on insectimages too so I just changed the template and reviewed it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leoboudv! It seems that we can review most of the files if we change to {{Insectimages}} and add {{Licence Review}} (its a special variant that the script should catch but it will add files to Category:Insectimages.org needing review). The result will look like File:5393347-PPT-CLV-CC30.jpg when reviewed. What do you think of that? I think that when it is possible to review a file then it is better than to assume uploader did not make any mistakes.
If we have a bot make correct the license template so we are sure it is the right one then it will perhaps take 10 seconds to review a file. So it should take 2 hours to review them all. It will take longer if there are any files that are uploaded in a smaller resolution/size. But if that is the solution we chose then we should be sure that the result is how we like it.
It looks a bit strange that there is a source template inside the review template. We could have my bot fix that after the files are reviewed. Also the file links to both Insectimages and Forestimages. I think that is okay because the file was located both places. The review template mention the one we used for review (Insectimages). --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Yes...you can do that if your bot can discover the images are CC BY 3.0 US at insectimages, it would be great if your bot could pass/review the hundred and hundreds of images too. I am a bit busy and the license review category has too many images to review. If your bot can pass the free iamges, it would be great User:MGA73. Another solution would be trust uploaders such as User:Rasbak and User:Ruigeroeland---I remember the second person since he uploaded the lower resolution image but the license is always CC BY 3.0. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it is not enough to check the license. We also have to check if its the same image. Not sure if that was checked. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to change the templates later with VisualFileChange.
I could try to go back and download and compare all the images programmatically, it might take a while.  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:999real Many of the files are cropped or edited so I do not think it will work to match hash value for example. It is pretty fast to review manually. Also I noticed an example where the number was incorrect so the link was to a different file and another example where the link was okay but someone had uploaded a different file on top. I foundFile:Carex disperma 5559529.jpg and I do not think it is on your list. It seems there are 2 files with the same ID. I wonder if that is the reason why some files are missing. But once the other files are reviewed its probably easyer to check the rest one by one to see what is going on. --MGA73 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv I have revewed 120+ so far and it is rather easy. Its just check and click review. Then my bot can fix the template after review. --MGA73 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops File:Dolichovespula arenaria with queen and queen of the parasite D. arctica.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Dear Michael,

Thanks for creating Category:Insectimages.org needing review I have reviewed some images and uploaded higher resolution images for others since i registered into Bugwood. However, the insect images needing review number could be as high as 100+ more images as it missed many images uploaded by Rasbak such as File:Reynoutria sachalinensis leaf (13).jpg and File:Reynoutria japonica plant (70).jpg and File:Reynoutria japonica plant (92).jpg For the second 'Reynoutria' species, he uploaded as many as 92 or 93 images and they are still in this category and have not been reviewed: Category:Images from Forestry Images I only managed to review his 100+ Rosa images in 2018 and then became exhausted. Rasbak's uploads should just be passed automatically in my view...when I check the few with Insectimages, they are licensed as CC BY 3.0 US Who knows how many more images he has that have still not been reviewed in Forestry Images? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Phyllotreta cruciferae (05).jpg and a few more other 'Phyllotreta' images by Rasbak was also missed tagging by the bot and they are all in the Forestry images category. If possible, ask if your bot can check and see if Rasbak's uploaded Forestry Images image files were reviewed or not. He has many other images still in the Forestry images category and I found another unreviewed batch of 10-12 images....but I am tired. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a number of images are missing. My plan is that when the files that have been tagged are reviewed then I will run my bot again to find the missing images. Plan is to take the easy first to reduce the number of files a lot. We can perhaps compare the resolution on Commons with the resolution on Insectimages later to find those where only a small version have been uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: OK Michael. I understand. Your plan is good. I will now concentrate on your insect images need review category. But Rasbak is the main uploader to check. Here is another image which was missed: File:Puccinia sorghi (10).jpg And he had many more with the name 'Puccinia '. I swear he uses a bot to upload images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will find the images soon. And you do not need to add the link manually. My bot will change like Special:Diff/1027756051. --MGA73 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the first "follow up" run and it marked a few hundred of the files. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once this is over you could have a look at User:EatchaBot/Files-requiring-license-review-gallery-uploaded-by/Rasbak :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the link to forestryimages.org should be removed a bot can do that. I just thought a link to both sites did no harm as long as the link in the license review template shows the one that we used to verify the license. --MGA73 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all connected to the 'Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Archive' who must have changed the license of their photos on both forest images and insect images to NC. I only passed 3-4 of them here:
  • File:Dichomeris marginella 1178017.jpg
  • File:Zale obliqua.jpg
  • File:Macaria granitata 1178044.jpg....and gave my reason over here but please feel free to revert my pass and launch a mass DR if you wish. There are many more images by 'Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Archive' and they are quality images and I am sure former Admin Rocket000 and User:Ruigeroeland knew the license at upload in 2010. I keep passing all their other images. Sadly both users are today long gone from Commons. This is the reason why I never use unreviewed images on Commons...because people change licenses daily. Best and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have skipped files that is not on insectimages or is licensed non-free on insectimages. My plan was first to mark all those that we expect to be free. That should make it much faster to review the images when we can just check its the same image and then click review. Once all are reviewed I will mark the rest and then we have to decide if they can be kept (for example if PD-USGov) or if they should be deleted. I will check later if there are any of the free files that are not yet marked. --MGA73 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license on the last image is NC and I skipped all NC for now. I will now mark the remaining free files. Wonder how many are left :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now marked all files in Category:Images from Insect Images. There are both free and non-free files. Once we have checked those (or most of them) I will mark the rest of the files in Category:Bugwood Network image sources. After that we can see if there are any files that are not in any of those categories. --MGA73 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but when I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20130522101412/http://www.insectimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5429115 it looked like NC. After work I will mark the remaining forest files for review. --MGA73 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All files should be marked with a review template now. I did not change the category name :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work reviewing files Leoboudv! Have you looked at the list of file resolution to see if there are any where a bigger version should be uploaded? And if yes is the list helpful? --MGA73 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I uploaded the maximum resolution for most images. A few are low resolution images because they are very old 2000's images with no possibility of deriving a higher resolution after I checked at bugwood. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leoboudv Great! So we do not need User:MGA73/Sandbox anymore? (I just noticed that some rows are "broken") --MGA73 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. I uploaded two more maximum size insectimages after messaging you but most of the images have now been upsized. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old Forestryimages

[edit]

Dear Michael,

I think your bot is missing old 2009 or 2010 images by user User:Ruigeroeland like these here. I don't know how many more images are missed...but it must be many more. I cannot keep track of them all. When he first starts on this website he gives a link to the set where the image is located....and sometimes I type in the image source number on insect images from the photo. On insect images, they are cc by 3.0-us but he has more missed images. Only your bot can find them.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Ruigeroeland's earliest missing forestryimages are located within this set of 500 Image uploads around 2010. They are all over here...maybe 100 or 150 images that have to be changed to USDA-PD or Insect Images from Forestry Images which is now not free. Even the precise source given by the uploader is not correct as it links to a set of images. I doubt anyone such as User:MPF can help as they are busy Admins too. Of course, the photos are all low resolution since Ruigeroeland did not sign into Bugwood until later on. It’s a nightmare! Best. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Okay the problem is that they are not in a category related to Forestryimages so I will try to search for the text “Forestryimages” and hope it will catch all files. Should be able to do that this evening. --MGA73 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Ruigeroeland did upload maybe 40-60 forestryimages before April 2011 but I reviewed all those other photos. Now, I am exhausted and will rest. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Methanol.png

[edit]
File:Methanol.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MGA73&oldid=1029917877"