User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 30
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Decorative images
Hi, Magog. You're an admin and you're knowledgeable about image copyright issues, so I'm hoping you can help answer a question.
I've been told in the past that purely decorative images, even free-use, should not be used in articles, since each image is supposed to have a specific purpose for being used.
Another editor has suggested to me this may no longer be the case, and in fact I've found this guideline that seems to say decorative images may be allowed: "An image that is purely decorative (provides no information and serves only an aesthetic purpose) requires no alternative text." Could you clarify? Thanks!--Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of copyright, you may indeed use free use images in a purely decorative manner. You're probably getting confused with Wikipedia:NFCC#8, which says that fair use images must serve an educational purpose beyond decoration (paraphrasing). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! 'Preciate your taking the time to help! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP
This guy threatens to report me to ANI if I do something "disruptive" and suggests that I unnecessarily must find a law mentor. --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Good time to review your behaviour and editing then, isn't it? ES&L 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand you. Have I done wrong, despite the good I did? --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I actually think GregJackP is right on this one ... you're pushing the envelope ES&L 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Magog, must I respond to idioms that I do not understand and am not familiar with? George Ho (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I think you probably should take him quite literally in this instance: it may be time to drop a note at WP:LAW and ask if anyone is willing to provide mentorship. As for User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I think he i just agreeing with GregJackP. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Asking Begoon to be a mentor again
I realize that Masem's arguments about copyright may accomplish nothing and seem pointless. (No offense, Masem.) Look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 23 about one file; SVG vs. PNG leads to having no consensus on favoring one format over another: SVG or PNG. Since there is no consensus agreeing that SVG infringes copyright, maybe I should owe Begoon an apology for my stint at WT:IUP by taking WP:IUP too literally and failing to understand the principle of the policy. Also, I want him again as the mentor, but he seems reluctant to contact me or let me do so. And he seems reluctant to be one again. --George Ho (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would be glad to answer any questions you have about copyright. As for the other issues, what's your question specifically? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Is SVG inferior to high-quality physical or digital copies of illustrated logos and other images that are displayed properly by the SVG? Does SVG infringe copyright of unfree images that were released on superior (like TV or film stock), similar (SVG), or inferior format (like PNG)? George Ho (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question: SVG is lossless quality, but that doesn't mean it infringes any more on the copyright than PNG. The reason we downsize images in PNG format is because at a high resolution, they hold more copyrightable information than is necessary to identify the subject. However, an SVG file is usually just a description of lines and code that doesn't infringe on the original copyright holder's work anymore than a low quality PNG. For a simple example, think of an artificial logo of a cat: a PNG is able to capture every single nook and cranny of creativity within the cat from the original drawing. However, an SVG would only capture that much information and creativity if someone used a script to literally copy every single mark into the SVG code; instead, usually the uploader will manually copy pieces of information, but not all of the information. Also, an SVG is technically possible to downsize an SVG, but that doesn't remove the information: it just makes it smaller when displayed on the screen (a user can get around this by just zooming in). As such, policy states it is acceptable to use an SVG which isn't downsized (or, at least I thought it did, but I can't find it at the moment). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have the permissions and unfairly blocked by you
I have been constantly been telling others, that I the source of the images that I uploaded has given others to use them as long as they are attributed, non-commercial, and share alike. That is what I have done and you have unfairly blocked me. Look at this page and see for yourself. City of Edmonton Photo Gallery Please respond back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- First off, you didn't bother telling anybody anything, at least on Commons. I had no way of knowing that you posted to your own talk page a comment about this on English Wikipedia. Second off, it doesn't matter; as we've told you time and time and time again, non-commercial restrictions means that Wikimedia does not accept the files. Ignoring these comments isn't going to do you any favors. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Knock, Knock!
|
Knock, Knock! |
| It's too quiet here, so it's just me knocking on your door to wish you Happy Holidays! :) We hope (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just after some information on how to go about resolving the failed commons move of File:Jessica_signature.jpg. The licence is free in both the US and the source country (South Korea) and there are numerous other signatures already on Commons from South Korea under this licence in Commons:Category:Signatures of people from South Korea. What steps do I need to take to resolve this? Thanks Cube00 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a lot already on Commons, but that doesn't mean they're actually free; Commons is insanely understaffed and has a lot of copyright violations. A good place to start to rectify the licensing might be asking the Commons community if it knows if signatures are considered copyrightable in South Korea. You could ask at commons:COM:VPC. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
About move to commons and svg
Hi, I just saw your edit File:Joinery-simplehalved.gif and 3 others: "nowcommons declined; we keep both images when an svg is made from the original" Im a bit confused about this, may I ask, what are the guidelines regarding moving to commons? I thought that after my "Now Commons" tag, the next step would have been a "Already moved to Commons|Joinery-SimpleHalved.svg|reason=we keep the original for license" or similar tag. Do you mean that the original even if not used anymore (apart from license), should still be moved to commons?. BR Crati (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, correct; we do this for attribution reasons. In fact, WP:CSD#F8 specifically states that files must be of the same format (e.g., SVG, GIF) in order to be eligible for speedy deletion. In the case that the original isn't useful for attribution or other reasons, then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Fakearticle MFD
I have commented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pravin Kumar Sonu and mentioned the nomination at WT:CSD here Thincat (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that only a reduced image was moved to Commons (and the file is currently attributed to DASHBot). Could you use your oldver.php or something to get all old versions to Commons? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just a brief question Sir or Madam,
How long does it take Wikipedia to address and keep or delete a possibly unfree image. I filed these 3 requests on December 25 (above) and no one has made a decision. But no one has made a decision for earlier requests filed on December 23, or 21 either. On Wikicommmons, where I am more active Deletion requests are usually dealt with within 7 days. Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The minimum timeframe is one week. However, the discussions can go much longer because there is a small number of administrators willing to work the deletion queues. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me this. I did not know that only a few Admins processed the possibly unfree file queues. Hence the longer time frame. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm sure you could put in a request at WP:AN if it ever irks you too much. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Map of Wegman's locations
Magog:
Appreciate your entry on Wegman's markets! Could you please update the map that accompanies it?
The last update appears to be 8 August 2010. Thanks!
140.90.73.186 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. As soon as I get back from travelling. You can check the map for a new upload. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Topic ban on Engleham?
Look at Talk:Aaron Schock; he is favoring addition of poorly verified allegations regarding sexual orientations. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. That's a tough one. I can think of two options: 1) You could file a request at new User RFC. This is the best solution, but honestly it takes a lot of time and patience, and 2) once this user becomes unblocked, if the problem behavior persists (which it almost certainly will), file a note at ANI. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
He's blocked for two weeks, yet he can make comments at his own talk page until his talk page priviliges will be temporarily strapped. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would suggest you don't worry about what people say or do on their own talk page until they say or do it. They will rightly see it as you invading their privacy. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Have a look there? I'm letting you know because you are the same who deleted the User:Axel455 page for troll/an attack page. The same texts of the user page is copied and pasted on the talk page. Can you remove that? AnupMehra ✈ 09:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have done an incomplete split here: one of the file revisions is on Commons as File:Hulluniunion.JPG. Could you look into it? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done - thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Magog,
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir you said that the user page you wanted deleted was soapboxing. I don't speak Arabic (at least I think it's Arabic), but since you say the user is soapboxing, you must know what it says. Could you please provide a translation of the page for the benefit of Misc for Deletion? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Edward Kelly (dancer) and other dancers from American Bandstand
I want to tag it as BLP PROD, but I realize that some reliable sources may exist. Actually, this person is notable for only one show, American Bandstand. There are other dancers from that show, whose notabilities limit to only that show, like Bunny Gibson. I'm thinking about filing them as AFD, but I can't yet. I'll try searching for them, but I predict no luck on finding other notable appearances. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will again have to defer to the wisdom of someone else on this one, George. I can't help you; I'm sorry; it's not that I'm being lazy in my response; it's that I'm genuinely not familiar enough with BLPs, BLP PRODs, and notability. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions at ANRFC
Hi Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you are experienced FfD closer. Would you consider helping with the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NFCR discussion needing closure (permanent link) regarding Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Patent images and text: Support for position?
Magog,
I see you've deleted File:US patent 5136502.JPG based on the presumption that “There are parts of the image which are {{PD-ineligible}} - namely everything other than the abstract and the drawing. “ Do you have reference for this position? According to the USPTO, the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.--Nowa (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is only for post-1989 images. The reason they didn't initially have copyright was because they were published without a copyright notice and formalities. Now they do not need such a notice. The website referenced omits this in error. In fact, if you look through US copyright law, you will not see any exceptions for patents. If I am incorrect, please point me to the specific law which states that patents are exempt from copyright. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to go too far down the road of original research or synthesis, but let's start with 17 USC 105, Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government...--Nowa (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- A patent is not a United States government work. It is the work of a private entity. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
US patents are publications of the United States Government (35 USC 10). The original authors surrender their copyrights to their original creations UNLESS, they include the following notice in the patent (37 CFR 1.71(e)):
- A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
Even with this notice, the original authors must still allow “...facsimile reproduction of the patent document or disclosure....” Here is a reliable secondary source supporting this position. “...in the absence of a copyright notice, anyone is free to copy and disseminate the drawings of an issued patent for any purpose” Jester, Michael, “Patents and Trademarks Plain & Simple", Career Press 2004, p 65
I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia administrators are very sensitive to copyright issues. In this area, however, it's important to take a closer look.--Nowa (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- For this requirement to be true, there would have to be a specific legal carve-out for patents. It is possible that it exists, and that it has somehow escaped the notice of the Wikimedia community, but this doesn't seem likely to me. The Berne Convention eliminated any requirements that an author mark his or her work with a copyright notice in order for it to garner copyright. In fact, this requirement itself, even for only a subset of works, might run contrary to US treaty obligations. For such a requirement to remain intact for only a subsection of works would require a specific legislative provision.
- It appears that the patent office is basing its assessment off the old requirement; my guess is that it has been "common knowledge" at the office for so long that it is considered fact among people familiar with the process. This "knowledge" never got updated to the new rule, or was misunderstood by people at the agency to apply to new images. Corroborating my conjecture is in the fact that the text mentions the now defunct requirement that a copyright notice be attached to a patent (per above).
- It may sound incredible for me to claim that a major US government office would misstate copyright information in its public material, but I have seen it happen before at least twice (link 1 - and there are other examples with the SI if you're curious, link 2).
- If you would like another opinion, I suggest opening a thread at the Commons copyright village pump. They are quite knowledgeable, and there may even be a copyright lawyer or two floating around. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the discussions. Very enlightening. Is it safe to say that your primary concern is that there might be a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation if a post 1989 patent image were posted?--Nowa (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see this essay for an explanation that we don't follow that sort of reasoning. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, please see here: commons:Do US patents have copyright protection?. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- That link should be Commons:COM:VPC#Do US patents have copyright protection? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Precautionary Principle: I wholeheartedly agree. Village pump: Thanks for posting. I will contribute.--Nowa (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw that you declined my speedy tag.
I would welcome your comments at the AfD.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Rollback request
Please rollback the changes made by User:Frank Gosebruch on 8th/9th February, he tried to revoke his freely licensed images and has removed them from many articles in en wiki. --Denniss (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Will do. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Old version filemover
I made a couple of attempts to use Old Version Filemover which failed...I haven't been too active for a while so I'm sorry if I missed any updates. Kelly hi! 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like there's a permissions problem of some sort... the tool isn't properly saving the file in the temp directory. I'll have a look. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Update: I need to speak with a sys admin. Keep trying; I'll have it fixed soon enough. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Another update: it's fixed. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! Kelly hi! 08:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
British English (Received Pronunciation)
I'm grateful to you for taking an interest in this material - I was feeling rather discouraged about it. I have sent a facsimile copy of Prof. Keating's letter to OTRS. There is also in the WP article on Received Pronunciation a scanned copy of part of a page from the article in question, giving detailed phonetic transcriptions of the material, and I hope this will be found acceptable. RoachPeter (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Looks good enough to me. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- What about the JIPA scan that accompanies the recording? Prof. Keating’s letter covers this too, doesn’t it? LiliCharlie (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Oops. Yes it does. Marking it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Close on File:Rogier van der Weyden - The Altar of Our Lady (Miraflores Altar) - Google Art Project (reduced).jpg at NFCR
I think your closing on this missed the issue. To be clear, there are three potential copyrights at play:
- The 2D painting, which is clearly now the in the PD.
- The 3D frame, which probably is in the PD, but may not be.
- The photograph of the two combined which is not PD and copyrighted. This is the issue at heart.
I agree that even considering the frame of the 3D as possibly copyrighted, it is likely de minimus compared to the painting. That's in line with established practice.
The issue is the photograph. A photograph of a pure 2D painting will not be a new copyright (slavish reproduction), but the addition of the 3D elements, even if those elements are in the PD, creates a new copyright due to lighting and angle the photographer choose that come off the frame. Even if the frame was PD, the person that took that photograph has a copyright claim on it. (Note that the version that subtracts out the frame is free, as the elements that made the photo non-free are removed)
So the question becomes - can someone else take a photograph of the same work, frames and painting, and offer that as a freely-licensed photo. The answer appears to be "yes", simply requiring someone to go over there to do that. As such, the image fails NFCC#1, that a free replacement can be made. A question that was not answered is if photograph was limited, and if that was the case, then yes, a free image could not be made and the non-free photograph can be fine. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, keep in mind that the WMF's position is an interpretation based on a US copyright ruling; it is not gospel. So the 3D rule they've come up with is a good rule of thumb, not necessarily the law itself. I see your point, but I think this photograph is primarily of the painting, so there is a good chance a court would agree with us. Might we consider asking the WMF council? I know they hate giving advice on specific cases, but this one seems like it fails on a technicality (much like the original PD-art work did). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, might we consider cropping out as much of the frame as possible? If necessarily, we could even replace the rest of the frame in the photograph with, uh, something else (a fake frame to keep it from looking too fake?) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the frame-less versions are already in place at Miraflores Altarpiece and are considered free images even though they were taking from the high-resolution Google photograph; as you said, cropping out the frame removes the copyrighted element (the lighting on the frame) - so if we have to delete the framed version we still have the core pictures without an issue. Also, consider that the museum they are at is smack in the middle of Berlin, and that the Altarpiece as a whole appears to be readily photographable based on the flickr hits I get (unfortunately none with the proper license). This is why I think the safe option is to remove the google-based photo under NFCC#1 since it shouldn't be too much trouble to get someone in German to go there and get the image, and then freely license that. Even if it were the case at that point that the frame was considered copyright, I would agree it would then be de minimus to the painting, and that would still be a free photo. (yes, copyright law is a pain in the youknowwhere). If you want to see if you can get an opinion from the WMF on this, that's fair, but I think there's the obvious solution that we can make ourselves fully in the clear simply by having a freely taken photo of that work. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you present a compelling case. Worse, as you say, the individual parts without the frame are now in the article, so it appears this photograph is trying to show the frame. I think I'm ready to undo my decision; is there a simple way to do that, or do I just delete it and change the text at NFCR? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As you are the closer, I think you should be able to redo the close in a manner you think is right. I would of course link to this discussion here so it is clear what the logic was. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Gander Mountain map
Hi. Your Gander Mountain map is outdated as the chain has expanded their reach in Georgia and Alabama. Thanks. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Updated Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
File was moved from en to Commons, now deleted at Commons for having no source. Please check the local version for source and undelete at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Images of Tiwa Savage and Iyanya forwarded to OTRS
Greetings Magog the Ogre, I was shocked to see the missing permission note on my talk page. I contacted TCD Photography and requested two images of Tiwa Savage, one for her BLP article, and the other, for her discography article. Can you please check OTRS when you read this message. Also, I just forwarded another permission I got from TCD for two images of Iyanya. I haven't uploaded the images onto Wikipedia, but have forwarded the email to OTRS. Can you please look into this as well and tell me if you see the emails I forwarded. If you can verify that you see the emails I sent, it will enable me to upload them onto Wikipedia. I am just trying to find ways to speed things up. The OTRS process takes so long. I know that's because of the amount of pictures you guys have to filter through. Thanks for taking the time to read this. versace1608 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, yes, there is a huge backlog for all files related issues (see the end of my opening rant here for a nasty example). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings once again. I uploaded File:Iyanya vs desire concert performance-9764-2.jpg and File:Iyanya studio image.jpg onto Commons. Since you already verified that you saw the permission email I sent yesterday, can you please update the OTRS pending tags placed on these files? Thanks. versace1608 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The file is on Commons as File:Former Engine Shed at St. Helens Central (GCR) Station & Goods Yard.jpg.
The uploader uploaded the images to both Wikipedia and Commons, possibly unaware of this. I see that both files were uploaded using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and I've noticed that users of that wizard quite often accidentally upload the same file multiple times, which results in lots of files being tagged as F1 and/or F8. This is possibly caused by a bug in the upload wizard which may need to be fixed.
Not noticing that the file was on Commons, User:Sfan00 IMG tagged the file with {{Copy to Commons}} a bit later. The original uploader removed the Copy to Commons template, and Sfan00 IMG then added {{Keep local}}, presumably thinking that the uploader didn't want the file on Commons. The uploader later removed the Keep local template, and after that blanked the file information page.
My impression is that the uploader does not know what Commons is and/or doesn't know what the maintenance tags mean and possibly doesn't have any opinion on whether the file should be on Commons. I would also assume that User:Sfan00 IMG isn't opposing to have the file on Commons as he first tagged the file with {{Copy to Commons}}. Do you think that the file is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F8, or should Sfan00 IMG's {{Keep local}} tag and/or the original uploader's template blanking be taken as a request to keep a local copy of the file? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely eligible for F8. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Your thoughts
Hi, I was wondering what your thoughts on this was? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
File was improperly moved to Commons, please have a look at the local (deleted) version for author information and verify the Commons version is the fullres version uploaded to en. This image was most likely uploaded by User:Finlay McWalter on Agust 11, 2004. Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I took it. The original upload text read:
A juggler with Devil sticks demonstrates his art to some bemused onlookers. Photo taken by Finlay McWalter on The Mound in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 7th August 2004 at 2.30pm, on the plaza between the National Gallery of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Academy Building near the Playfair Steps.
- -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Help transferring a file
Hello, Magog the Ogre. Could you please transfer this file to the Commons? - File:FBIRobertWilliamFisher.jpgHoops gza (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done - although I'm not sure the given license is correct. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Am I correct in thinking that the file on Wikipedia can now be deleted?Hoops gza (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Normally I would say yes, but I don't think the FBI is actually the author. Thus it might get deleted on Commons, and we should keep the version on English Wikipedia as fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know.Hoops gza (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Auto-deletion tagging can be disruptive
Please, check the file's history before tagging it for deletion. [1]: this file has already been considered and declined for CSD7. Restoring the template is not a good practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But I did nominate it for review (which I'm quite entitled to do), because IMO it quite clearly fails NFCC, even if an admin did turn down the request. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe free media
see here. Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Mose T Art
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Mosetart.JPG The file was uploaded in 2007. I don't recall the attribution, however I don't upload images unless they're clearly attributed as open/CC, so whoever the 'author' is who I 'clearly am not' is welcome to assert whatever they please. LoverOfArt (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @LoverOfArt: The problem is you uploaded the image under a GFDL/CC license, which requires attribution, and then stated you are the author. That should not be possible because the author passed away. So you can understand my confusion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Image Question (Freedom of panorama)
Hello! Awhile ago I had been to Electric Lady Studios and taken a picture of a mural on the wall painted by Lance Jost. It was eventually deleted, correctly, since Jost owns the copyright. I was just back there tonight and took a different picture, and was wondering if it could be uploaded to the Commons as my own work. The image is very, very similar to this one on their website, of the curtain with the ELS logo.[2] If the logo is the only real copyrightable part of the image: is it different from the image we have of the front of the studio, where the logo is visible? Lots of people were taking pictures and video, and certainly no one who worked there said anything about it. What do you think? Doc talk 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Doc9871: The logo looks to me like it's {{PD-textlogo}}; it is only text, right? And I don't believe that furniture arrangement is considered copyrightable in the US, no matter how artsy it is. So I think you're OK.
- If you want a more sure opinion, you might try VPC. I'm not a lawyer, so uploader beware.
Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll be bold then! Yes, the furniture arrangement is quite different in my image (and the purple color of the logo on the curtain is much more visible). Thanks for your advice, as always! Cheers :) Doc talk 03:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
File:ElectricLadyStudioA.jpg. I tried to upload it to Commons on my iPhone but it wanted to "squish" it for some reason. I'll transfer it when I can get on a real computer. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Doc9871: I uploaded it for you. You might want to categorize it now though. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks! Doc talk 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Gaming the system on maps
Hi Magog, i've been editing at wikicommons noticing an incident, where a user was blocked for POV pushing [3]. Apparently the user was very active on Israel-related maps, attempting also to show Israel "as if" it is involved in the Syrian civil war (see [4]), despite editor consensus against such idea at Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Israel.
Apparently, another similar incident occurred recently at template:Location map Israel, as Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of File:Israel location map.svg. Further, upon resulting edit-warring, an administrator protected that template, but perhaps mistakenly, without restoring the stable version prior to Sepsis II edits. Interestingly, there has already been a comprehensive discussion at Module_talk:Location_map/data/Syria, with an accepted solution regarding Syrian and Israeli map issues, but some editors apparently fail to acknowledge it. An administrator raised the issue at ANI, but there was not attention. There is a discussion going on to return to previous status quo before alleged system gaming by Sepsis II, but the undiscussed change shouldn't have happened in the first place. I shall also inform other administrators and editors involved in that incident and post it at ANI.GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Greyshark09: - I fear I may have already stepped over the edge of impartiality by blocking Supreme Delicious on Commons while reverting at the same time. I am not really happy with the way I handled that (although I did have my reasons, and they have everything to do with the way that Commons is a less frequented project and more poorly handles such things). Nonetheless, I don't feel comfortable acting as a neutral administrator in this issue for the time being. I recommend pinging one of the regular admins at WP:AN3 (User:EdJohnston comes to mind). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
External images
Noah Cyrus has a link from a [External Link] template that directs to an image on IMDb, I removed it because I feel like that just goes against policy. And if if's not then why doesnt every bio article that doesnt have an image have an external link, linking a user to an outside image? I was reverted due to Template:External media/doc#When to use even after I claimed WP:ELNEVER but was told it doesnt apply. What is procedure/rule for this? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Lady Lotus: - ELNEVER was primarily crafted to avoid pointing to copyrighted
imagescontent where we know there is a copyright violation - e.g., Youtube videos uploaded by a third party. However, IMDB frequently has copyright holders upload the images. In this case, the caption specifically credits wireimage.com, so it's possible that IMDB has an agreement with them. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:Ed veg
Hi Magog the Ogre. You have previously blocked this editor for disruptive editing and they are at it again ([5] [6] [7]). They don't respond on their talk page so discussion is not an option. Can you please help? HelenOnline 08:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, I blocked him for removing the keep local tags. Marking something as replaceable fair use is a legitimate action where one has concern about such a thing. Removing the keep local tag on the last diff is problematic. And marking something for deletion and refusing to discuss is also problematic. If either of these behaviors continue, could you please bring up the issue at WP:ANI, and send me a note so I am aware of it? I hate to block someone again who is acting in good faith, but who just has communication problems. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Files question
Hi, I've been transferring files to commons, and the automatic "add ncd" to the original files leaves the "move to commons" template there: just wondering if anyone cares or whether I should make it a point to remove the "move to commons" template.
Second question: how do I request undeletion of a whole pile of images that were deleted, but are actually correctly licensed (from what I can see without OTRS) as uploader is the creator of the file. Files in question are listed in my sandbox. I tried the "undelete" page, but it seems to be geared toward articles, not files. Thanks for your help. Deadstar (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Deadstar: it doesn't matter very much about removing Move to Commons; I wouldn't worry about it unless someone complains. And WP:REFUND is for any namespaces. You might want to let them know how you're aware of the ticket, as I don't see you have the OTRS flag. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Old Version Mover
I went to use your Old Version Move tool and it says that your account has expired. When you get a free moment could you renew your account? Or is there a better way that I've forgotten? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I forgot its at Tool Labs now. The links on all of the Now Commons category pages are all wrong. Sorry, TLSuda (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- By all means update them. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project_(reduced).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Station.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Station_%26_Goods_Yard.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Natalia_Poklonskaya_conference_screenshot_crop.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[2]](http://electricladystudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ELS_-1281.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Syrian_civil_war.png#Attempt_to_present_Israel_as_.22involved.22_in_the_war){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_South_Africa.png&diff=609135266&oldid=608698608){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:COA_of_Calgary.svg&diff=prev&oldid=609153134){kind=link}
FYI
39.41.195.73 is Lagoo sab. Same old accusations, same old IP. Obvious is obvious. Please do the needful. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- And also the IP who filed the new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox images
Magog, is there a policy or guideline or anything about infobox images needing to be headshots? It makes sense but I can't find anything that suggests as much. There is a discussion at Kanye West's talk page about what makes for a better image and as long as I've been editing, I've always heard that it doesn't matter how recent the image is as long as the person hasn't dramatically changed, just that it's the best headshot. Thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt it, although it's possible the policy exists and just haven't come across it. But I don't see any reason why we should kludge ourselves with a policy where common sense can guide us best (see Instruction creep). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you :) And yes, not everything has to be directed towards policy but you know how editors are. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As a totally independent administrator, who to my knowledge I have had no communications with before, would you be so kind as to have a look at Special:Contributions/Michael N Cooper and decide if you think my actions (see his userpage and user talkpage) were too heavy-handed or not. Thank you.--Launchballer 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes they were, he (or she) is contually mucking around and removing matter from my user page. A 48-hour block should hit the message home to him/her. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Him, thank you. The content I am removing, and have only stopped removing because I am at three reverts, is stuff that should appear on User talk:Michael N Cooper and not on User:Michael N Cooper, as I believe I make clear in my edit summaries.--Launchballer 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Arby's logo.png
Do you think File:Arby's logo.png is eligible to be moved to commons? Wanted to cross check with you before I put {{MoveToCommons}} or {{Do not move}} --Sreejith K (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably alright. You might ask at c:COM:VPC. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I should nominate this article for deletion. It's been two years, and I don't see any much of important significance. Commentaries and campaign reactions really fill in, making the page big and unnecessary. Also, there have been not much impact. I really hope that corporate-owned media does not overhype this 'topic' to make it 'notable'. --George Ho (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @George Ho: it probably fits within WP:NOTE. I would not nominate it for deletion. While, yes, almost anything in the US presidential campaigns is overhyped and overplayed by the media, that is not for us to judge. The fact is that it was notable by the impartial standard of looking at media coverage. I think this, but feel free to get a second opinion from someone else who is more familiar with the article space deletions (I am not overly familiar). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
What if WP:NOT or any other policy overrides this? --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- @George Ho: it shouldn't. The guidelines are meant as a way to interpret WP:NOT, which is not always easy. The policy is not clear cut in all situations. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 07:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This guy (Pwayne17) claims to be the same person whose biography I created. What can I do? I don't have good sources to verify. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've opened a thread at WP:BLPN. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
HelenCmm
|
Trophy.png |
| take out my block!! Please!! HelenChimonidi (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
2 CMR Distinguishing Patch
Thank you for rectifying my error. I have put the Now Commons template back on, with the name parameter filled in correctly this time. File:2 CMR Distinguishing Patch.jpg. User:GKFXtalk 14:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. It happens all the time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
May I nominate this template for deletion? Only one talk page transcludes it. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- If don't see a problem with nominating it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you check if User:OgreBot should upload the high-resolution copy of this file to Commons? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Ilovaisk
You can not fix the not accuracy on this map East Ukraine conflict Because the city of Ilovaisk still under control the insurgents. Ukrainian army now only preparing to retaken the city of Ilovaisk.UNIAN Hanibal911 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your well-editing on map. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- You can correct the map because the editor ZomBear to update map without any foundation. Because an official source said that the battle for Krasny Luch still continued.sourcesource Also dont have not any evidence from reliable sources that the village and the village Sophiyevskiye or village Ivanivka in currently under full control of the army. Let retain of the correct version of this map that would map showed the real situation and not fantasy someone from editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the correct version of the map.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- You can correct the map because the editor ZomBear to update map without any foundation. Because an official source said that the battle for Krasny Luch still continued.sourcesource Also dont have not any evidence from reliable sources that the village and the village Sophiyevskiye or village Ivanivka in currently under full control of the army. Let retain of the correct version of this map that would map showed the real situation and not fantasy someone from editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your well-editing on map. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Krasny Luch
Fix mistake on map because city of Krasny Luch still under control pro-Russain rebels.UNIAN Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like all or almost all of Zombear's additions were reverted for these reasons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We need do some updates on the map
I found some data which can showed us real situation on the map:
1)Insurgents captured the city Zimogorye in Luhansk. Also according data from local residents convoy of vehicles rebels drive in the direction of the city Rodakovo.Focus UAInfromator UADialog UA
2)Also, rebels control of these village Kodema Manuilivka and Petrivske in the city Miusynsk rebels were able to take the center of the city under their control, and continue to fight against the forces of ATO on the southern outskirts. Also they try captured the hill Savur-Mogila.National Anti-Corruption Portal Hanibal911 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lugansk airport is still blocked by the rebels.TSN Hanibal911 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)