File talk:Anonymus Londinensis V 23-45.jpg

File was transferred using CommonsHelper from en wikipedia. Ogrebot removed the licence info in this edit which has now been reverted. Gts-tg (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OgreBot didn't remove any licensing information whatsoever. OgreBot removed a suggestion by you that the original uploader and the upload date to Wikipedia would have something to do with the creation of the picture. This is obviously not the case if the picture is from 1893, as you also suggested. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2 if this is your interpretation of what happened I am sorry to see it, but I think it's pretty transparent what happened. As I describe above, file was transferred using CommonsHelper from en wikipedia, I didn't suggest anything, all of the info was transferred from the en wiki page by the CommonsHelper bot. Ogrebot removed the licence and date info in this edit. If the licence information is incorrect it's one thing, and it's another thing to remove the declared licence info alltogether. As for the 2011 date, it clearly states what the original upload date is (again created by CommonsHelper), not creation date. Gts-tg (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now again a suggestion that the date 2011-05-24 is the date when the text was written, but at the same time you are using a copyright tag which says that the date of first publication was at some point between 1923 and 1989. A work which was published for the first time between 1923 and 1989 can't have been created before 2011! And there is now again a statement suggesting that the user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia created the document, although you are also stating that the document was created about two thousand years ago. How can someone who was alive 2000 years ago personally upload a file to Wikipedia? Everyone who was alive 2000 years ago is obviously dead since a long time ago!

No one has removed any licensing information whatsoever. The only stuff which has been removed is irrelevant information which was inserted by Commons Helper. When you transfer a file from Wikipedia to Commons, you need to verify all statements and fix any errors. For example, why are you using a copyright tag which states that the document was first published between 1923 and 1989? A document which was created during the 1st century AD would typically be created a long time before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I am sort of lost, for one more time I am saying that 2011 is the *upload* date not creation date, I don't know how much clearer to make this. For the 3rd time, the part where licencing info was removed is here. PD-1996 (yes this is the tag you are removing) says it was first published outside US, first published before 1978, and that it was in the public domain in its home country on 1996, all in line with the age of the document, and all created by CommonsHelper as this info was in en wiki. Also please stop removing the licence info yourself as well on the premise that you suspect is not correct. If you must please call someone to moderate. Gts-tg (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No licensing information was removed in the diff you provided. I have not removed any licensing information either. The only stuff which was removed in that diff is irrelevant information about activity on Wikipedia which has nothing to do with any licensing information.

You are repeatedly inserting the year of first upload in the creation date field. Thus, you are repeatedly stating that the work was created in 2011.

The tag says that it was first published before 1978, but also that the first publication was after 1922, which seems dubious for a work which you also claim to be two thousand years old. You are also stating that the copyright already had expired in the source country as of 1996, meaning that the author died before 1926, and since you are repeatedly inserting the name of the original uploader in the author field, you are effectively stating that the user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia in 2011 died before 1926. How can a person who died before 1926 have uploaded a file to Wikipedia in 2011?

It is irrelevant if something was on Wikipedia. If wrong information is on Wikipedia, then you need to correct that information when you move files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok now we are getting somewhere as you are commenting on the specifics of the diff. The date (2011) clearly states that it is the original upload date. However, if the use of the date field in Commons is only meant to be used for having the creation date, then the 2011 date can be moved to the description of the file or discarded alltogether if not important. What is important with regards to licence however and was removed and is being removed, is the PD-1996 tag which satisfies the licence requirements. Correct? Gts-tg (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No one has removed any PD-1996 tag. However, the PD-1996 tag is not to be used for works published before 1922, and besides it always needs to be used together with a copyright tag for the work's source country. That copyright tag is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it even possible to say that noone has removed the PD-1996? Look at the history, removed once by OgreBot and twice by you! Can you point me to a Commons policy that supports that PD-1996 is not to be used for works before 1922? If so, is there another tag that can be used instead? Also apart from the tag, the description mentions Supplementum Aristotelicum III.1 (1893) as the source, don't you think that this is an important piece of information to maintain instead of removing? Gts-tg (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any revision from which the PD-1996 tag is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The one good thing about the whole of the above dialogue that makes little sense to me, is that I had a look and found the picture at https://archive.org/stream/1893supplementum03akaduoft#page/n143/mode/2up . Now which licence tag would you be happy with? Gts-tg (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the text really is from the first century, then PD-old-100-1923 sounds like a better choice. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)