User talk: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

File:FullMetalBroga.JPG is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Nutshinou ^Talk! 13:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nutshinou: MGA73 is an Admin here and on Danish Wikipedia, and has over 236,000 global contributions. How dare you accuse him of being a non-contributor? I requested undeletion at COM:UDR#File:FullMetalBroga.JPG.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. The file was originally uploaded by Aizatstoner27 and I moved it to Commons in 2011. That is why I got this notice. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: This is a personal file uploaded for promotional purposes by Aizatstoner27, who is a non-notable non-contributor with zero mainspace edits: this photo of him is unrelated to MGA73. It shouldn't have been undeleted. Thanks. Nutshinou ^Talk! 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason to keep could be that it is the only photo in Category:Broga Hill that shows the stairs close-up. --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know any of that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, friend. It's great to meet you again in this confirmed license series. Can you check the license for my recent photos here?

1. File:KỲ DUYÊN.jpg
2. Category:Anh Tuấn
3. Category:2pillz
4. Category:Lee Hye-ri in 2024
5. Category:Kingdom Yuen

That's all today. Hope you enjoy it and see you in the next episodes. Bye. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mickey Đại Phát! The files of Anh Tuấn was allready done and I reviewed the rest. --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friend. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Wikibooks-nav-zurueck.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Wikibooks-nav-zurueck.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Montpellier hotel-région.JPG

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

I was able to register to use a free version of Adobe Photoshop and increase the clarity and sharpness of the original source image. Unfortunately, since the original image is so out of focus, the result is a noticeable but still slight improvement...but I would not wish to use it in this king's wikipedia article. I had my first original derivative image deleted as its quality was much worse than this new derivative image. The British Museum rarely places this object on museum exhibitions and often the exhibition places contrasting light sources over it....making it difficult to take a clear in focus image. Such is life---as the French say. Unfortunately if an image is too out of focus, all the AI and Adobe Photoshop software may not remedy the situation. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv! It's a shame the original was so bad. The edit is an improvement but it is still a bit unfocused. If only museums made it easier to take photos :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

Could you please kindly review this image? The flickr account owner agreed to license this image freely but I used the free version of Adobe Photoshop and increase the clarity and sharpness of the original image. So the flickr review bot does not match and pass the image since it is a robot. This image is good enough for Amenemhat IV's article and much better than the original on flickr. However, I don't use unapproved images. Thank You Fabian, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Leoboudv! It is now reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Thank You for your help Michael. Enjoy the rest of your Monday! Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

This 1990 image was uploaded to Commons since June 2024 but no one wants to review it. I don't know if it is ineligible for copyright or safe to review. Perhaps, you have more experience as Admin in deciding here. If it is not safe, feel free to file a Deletion Request. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondly, maybe this DR here can be closed as delete as I managed to upload another Haddock replacement dish in the UK below:
• File:Haddock & chips dish in London.jpg Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoboudv! I passed the first file. I think it looks simple. The second file is uploaded by a trusted user on en.wiki so I send a message to the user on Flickr asking about the file. --MGA73 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Thanks for reviewing the first image. As for the second image under DR, the trusted user said over here to me that he did not mind if the image was deleted but if he affirms the license was free at upload...then you can pass the image under DR and close the DR as keep. I am not an Admin and cannot make trusted users. Secondly, I always type {{Flickrreview}} for all my image uploads and only one was deleted when I was early to the Commons project since I did not know it was a derivative image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ohio-Akron-Performing Arts Hall.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TokyoSta GinNoSuzu.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fada morgana graphnn.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Doctorem (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

The wbayer flickr account OR wbayercom flickr photostream has 15,000 images and maybe half are licensed freely. It is a PRO flickr account. I have checked through the images and they appear to be own work and the account owner writes in French though they are German (Heidi and Werner Bayer from their Geneva, Switzerland website. I noticed these 2 images below on the bad author's list

• File:Lowveld National Botanical Garden 1.jpg
• File:Lowveld National Botanical Garden 2.jpg

• Also their 2023 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur (capital of Malaysia) photos and Singapore photos appear OK.

All I know is that this flickr account was added to this list due to flickrwashing by Hipposcrashed . But unlike other flickrwashing users, this user was never banned although he has a record of copyright violations on his talkpage...and I don't know from which account his copy vios came from. In my opinion. wbayercom is a legitimate account. But what do you think and where can I file an appeal if I choose to do so to remove it from the bad author's list? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also wonder why it is on the list. Perhaps raise the question at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images? It seems it was added to bad list 10 years ago per Special:diff/130184821. But I only see a few deleted uploads from that user. --MGA73 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank You. I have posted a message on the board. If you wish to look at it and/or add some information about this flickr account, please feel free to do so. The flickr account owners must be wealthy to be able to visit Malaysia and Singapore. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]