User talk:Magog the Ogre

Magog the Ogre is taking it easy these days, and might not respond immediately. For general questions, please leave a note at the help desk. For any administrative issues, please leave a note at the administrator noticeboard. If it involves one of my tools, I will handle it when I return.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Bot removal of cross-wiki transfer information

Please take a look at this change by Ogrebot 2 using the 'mass cleanup tool'. Deletion of source information is damaging and is leading to administrators marking files for deletion, such as this public domain image, without making any effort to check the sources. FYI @Mike Peel, Leyo. If this has already been fixed, it would be great if either you would invest the time to housekeep old damaged files, or raise the problem on bots/work requests. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The information removed by the bot was either incorrect or redundant. The insignia was likely created around 1917. Hence, HiB2Bornot2B is not the creator. I amended the information in the file description page. --Leyo 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is handled in FAQ on the bot's userpage. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Thanks. I read there that the rationale for deleting cross-wiki upload information is that "information about the original upload isn't relevant: so the bot has removed it". I find that bizarre and unhelpful. At the current time we have administrators being heavily criticised for notifying the wrong person about problems with a lack of sources, and attempts to delete public domain material which could be avoided if the original cross-wiki information was visible.

Can you revisit this please, and consider how the cross-wiki data should stay visible on the page? It is not reasonable to expect someone templating images as lacking sources to review file histories. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: I've made my decision. The bot was approved by community process. The vast majority of people have been OK with this bot for years now. A small minority seems to have trouble understanding what the terms "source" and "author" actually mean. "Transferred from en.wikipedia" is not a source unless it was taken by the uploader, and the original uploader is not the author. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Such irrelevant source and author information often leads to incorrect credits by media etc.

What about adding {{unknown|author}} or similar to PD images such as incategory:PD_US_Government incategory:Media_lacking_author_information? --Leyo 07:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be more helpful, though I believe it would be helpful to keep the name of the original uploader visible. When they are still active on the projects, at least this gives someone obvious to check if they remember where they got the image from and encourage them to add the source for their own uploads. I'm aware this is somewhere in the history, though not in the file history, it's just unlikely that housekeeping tasks are going to do this, whether manually or automatically. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We have the original upload log for that purpose. --Leyo 19:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I could have phrased my response more optimally (sorry). What Leyo said is correct: we are providing wrong information which is confusing users. And the upload log provides any information about who originally uploaded it, provided no one removed it (which people almost never do, especially if it has information that hasn't been moved into the current infobox). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:Copyright status: File:Tan Ya

thank you to call attention to me. i hadn't have done wiki commons for a few yrs, almostly i forgot the wiki rules. when i restart the work now, i will learn to do. of course, i have the help from Wikipedians such as you, I will do better. thx. Cncs (talk) 10:52 Sept. 09 2016 (utc)

@Cncs wikipedia: the license you provided is not correct. The source clearly states the item is copyrighted. Unless you have non-public information, that is a copyright violation. Please read Commons:许可协议. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Maps of conflicts

• Northern section of Stalingrad battle.png
• 272 Regiment battles area.jpg
• 271 regemento servolokoj.png
• 270 regemento servolokoj.jpg.png --P.Fisxo (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@P.Fisxo: what? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Google translate helps me. I saw your interest in maps of conflicts. --P.Fisxo (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@P.Fisxo: I'm sorry, I can't create maps. But they have a really good workshop on German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Kartenwünsche. I recommend you ask there. I'm sure someone will know Russian. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok. --P.Fisxo (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Milano Pablo's back

Here's a couple new ones for whenever you have time to run a quick check:

• Milanopablogj46
• Milanopablo7

These two might be it, but you never know. On the bright side, I haven't seen Jermboy27 in quite a while... INeverCry 08:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: two sleepers found: Pablojaviermilano91, Pmilano2016. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Logo copyvios

Hello Magog,

Apparently some of my recent uploads were deemed to be copyright violations, and I've now got a 'last warning'. I'm somewhat surprised, because I regarded all of them to be too simple to be "original/creative" and thus PD. I followed the rules outlined in Commons:Licensing#Simple design, namely: 'Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo, on the grounds that such an image is not sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection.[1] Such images should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} or one of the list of more specific tags for this kind of works (e.g. {{PD-textlogo}} for simple logos).' I did all that. It was never my intention to violate any copyright; I know that too complex media require an OTRS request, which I've carried out for many files in the past. I've contacted people who represent the organisations of these logos, they've granted me permission, but if you want that certified, I'll try to OTRS all of them. This may take some more time though (quite often people don't understand why or how OTRS works, and I just upload the logo if I think it's probably PD). Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: please take a look at what constitutes a simple logo and/or typeface at Commons:Threshold of originality. You will notice the standard differs quite a lot between country; you will also notice that the Netherlands has a low threshold.

Most of the logos you uploaded would be considered copyrightable in almost every country, save perhaps Germany, which has the highest threshold. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply

These files regarding the appropriate license mode  Done--Solider 16IQ (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

License for file

Dear @Magog the Ogre. This is regarding my recent upload File:सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणं‌(व्याकरणम्)-भागः-३.pdf. This is work is more than 70 years old and I believe I need to use PD-old-70 licensing tag. However, I was not sure where and how to include this tag. Your guidance in this regard will be helpful. Thanks and Regards, --Shivaram ac (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Shivaram ac: we don't know the author died 70 years ago for sure though, right? {{PD-old-70}} implies the author died 70 years ago, which we're not sure about. So the work isn't public domain in some countries which treat anonymous works differently. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

MPJ sock

Here's one from today: Milanopablogj5. INeverCry 00:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

UCinternational

Hey Magog, this user seems to not understand the Commons policy regarding categories for pages. I've tried to discuss it with the user a bit on their talk page, but I think that an admin should step in and explain. Could you please help out? - Bossanoven (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: please take the request to COM:ANU. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Many Karelias.png

Ingria should not be included in the Karelian regions. It has never been regarded as belonging to Karelia. This map [1] is correct but with German text. See also Estonian Wikipedia on "Karjala" [2]. If you wish to discuss the issue, you'll find my user page under English Wiktionary. With best regards, --Hekaheka (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: I have no idea why you're talking about this with me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's because OgreBot seems to have uploaded the file into Wikimedia Commons [3]. As I'm unfamiliar with Commons, I assumed that you are the author. On the second look, it seems that the author is JNiemenmaa, but he has been inactive since 2009. I would edit the pic myself, but I'm lacking both the skills and tools. I guess I'll bring the issue to the Tea Room of Finnish Wikipedia to see if anyone there picks up the task. Another issue is that once the map has been edited, the erroneous version should be removed from Commons. What's the procedure for that? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: my bot only copied the images from Wikipedia. If you want help with an image, I recommend Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop or any of its Wikipedia equivalents. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)