User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Delete photos of Lady Gaga.

Hi Magog the Ogre, I no speak English, my ask is : ¿because delete mys photos about Gaga?, all are of mi job... Bye. GagaPokerFace (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@GagaPokerFace: es claro que no creaste esos imágenes. Los encontré en Google antes de borrarlos. Especialmente la cubierta del álbum. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre, las imagenes tambien las e subido a Google antes de subirlas a Commons, y dos de ellas son mi creacion. Pero si, admito que la caratula del disco la saque de internet. Adios. GagaPokerFace (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@GagaPokerFace: Bueno. ¿Dónde las publicaste en el web antes de subirlas a Commons? Yo odiaría si estuvieras mintiéndome. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ich Pilot‎

Hello can you chick here Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ich Pilot‎, thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Red Eclipse screenshot (Elara 1.4.1).png"

Hello, I saw that you deleted that picture because it was "violating copyrights", but I would like to re-upload it using the correct license (CC-BY-SA), as it was simply an omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acerspyro (talk • contribs) 14:51, May 17, 2014‎ (UTC)

@Acerspyro: I've restored it. Can you please note the game authors? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Melanie haydée 2014-05-18 13-50.jpg

Hi. You nominated the photo for speedy deletion. I have deleted such photos in the past and some other administrators complained. Everybody is allowed to have some personal files in userpage. These files have typically bad quality. So I will not speedy delete recently uploaded personal files despite quality, but create a regular request. This gives the user a week to use it on userpage or similar place. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The only person I see complaining is you? Please take a look at my deletion log and see the images by literally dozens of users per day which I delete, and realize what an unnecessary clusterfuck DR would be if I nominated them all. I'm sorry, we don't need to reward every idiot who wants to upload a picture of himself to Commons.
I will absolutely make an exception if I think something might be useful or if a user plans to edit constructively. But I speedy delete such images exclusively when the user has no other project contributions except to their user pages and/or deleted vanity pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Taivo: pinging in case you missed my original text. Also, sorry if I sounded brusque; I assure you it was accidental and possibly related to the fact I was tired. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for clearing up those DR's; I had meant to speedy them ! LGA talkedits 04:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a little late for coffee. >Looks around furtively, takes a sip anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

About "Smite generic logo.jpg"

That file has all the permissons it could possibly need. The company itself contacted and sent a mail with their permisson to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Months ago. I'me the one who made that image with elements owned by Hi-Rez Studios. This is starting to infuriate me.

In case the problem now is because other websites are hosting it: Beyond Wikia and Gamepedia, all other websites are using the file without my nor Hi-Rez's permisson. Hi-Rez gave it's ok to be on both of those domains and here (The file was first added to this website back in January, a month/two months before I needed them on these other two sites.).--Malvodion (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malvodion: Hello! I'm sorry for the frustration. I just looked into the OTRS history, and I see an email from Hi-Rez studios. We responded to the email asking for a clarification, but we didn't hear back. Would you like me to follow up on this with an email? I realize the process is frustrating but we're almost complete. We do it this way is for a grander purpose: to make sure that Wikimedia projects are truly as free as we claim they are (i.e., anybody can reuse the content in the exact way as the license states they can). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly well, but it's been almost half a year and the only response I got was a tag accusing me of reuploading the file. No one is going to be exactly happy with that. I have no idea why their final reply didn't got to you, but please do contact them again to end this once and for all. In case you need to know/contact exactly who spoke to me, their name is Gabriel Mughelli (gmughelli@hirezstudios.com)--Malvodion (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Any news on this matter? The file just got deleted again, and the person who did this said there is "No ticket data found", though I pressume this is because they only looked on recently sent messages and not things from half a year ago.--Malvodion (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I sent him an email, and he never responded. Either he is procrastinating (unlikely), he is ignoring us because he doesn't want to provide the license (likely), or it is getting spam filtered (also likely). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I Highly doubt they don't want to give us licence since the company gave us the OK though mails, and from two individuals from the company. I don't see any reasons why they'd suddenly have a change of heart, specially since they are always in favor of people using their materials in any non-profitable sort of way.

I'll try to email them again and see if they have anything to say. If this doesn't work I guess I'll just give up on this, this is already too much time wasted for just a 530x300 jpg picture.--Malvodion (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malvodion: - if you hear a response, you can forward it to OTRS; make sure to mention ticket #2014022010011741 as reference. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I just got a reply from them, they say they are reviewing Wikipedia's permission guidelines, and will be in touch with the next steps for permissions. They said they wanted to get a direct contact with someone from support to expedite the process. His name is Brian "Lionheart" Grayson and their mail is bgrayson@hirezstudios.com .--Malvodion (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malvodion: email sent. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Malvodion: they responded and clearly stated that they were not comfortable with providing a free license (for reference, if you want to discuss this with another OTRS member, it was ticket:2014022010011741). I recommend uploading this file as fair use on those projects that allow it (see m:Non-free content). If you need help uploading the file on English Wikipedia, I am somewhat an expert at this, so I can help.
Also, just a recommendation: don't get too discouraged. For legal and profit reasons, companies will often say no, but at a surprising rate, they do say yes a lot of the time. Just in case a similar situation comes up again. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Copying files from WTS Wikivoyage

Hi. I have not been working on Wikivoyage for some time but today I wanted to copy File:Lalashan accommodation,Fuyam Tourist Home.JPG to Commons. But Commonshelper could not do it and your oldver could also not move it. So I uploaded it manually and wanted to use oldver to create the upload history but that did also not work. Do you have a tool that can do the trick? Or could you change oldver so It can also be used to copy files to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MGA73: it does work, but you have to manually create the file page on Commons before using the bot to upload there. You can use toollabs:magog/fileinfo.php to create the upload page. It will only fill in the upload history; it won't do licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

You know, I'm really not that surprised at your accusation of supposed ad hominem hypocrisy, but I am surprised at your accusation I never ever address the nominating reasons when I participate in DRs. That's in direct conflict with almost every DR I've participated in, and especially quite a few where I have very aggressively and successfully addressed the issues surrounding a file both in favour and opposition to it's deletion. If you're going to make a claim like that, you really should make sure it's true. Fry1989 eh? 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I will come up with a list soon. I assure you that it will be quite long. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

About File:NOA MOON enforet © Simon Vanrie.jpg

Resolved

Hello, about this photo uploaded last week : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NOA_MOON_enforet_%C2%A9_Simon_Vanrie.jpg

Simon Vanrie (the owner and author) has sent the email to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org Please tell me if it's ok ;-) I think so because the warning is not there anymore, but as it's my very first upload I'm not sure.

Thanks for the follow up !

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheops42 (talk • contribs) 09:50, May 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

[EDIT] OK we got the confirmation email. [/EDIT] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheops42 (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

Problem with Template:PD-Art

Hi Magog, I just noticed that you changed Template:PD-Art last January, a few months after I changed it. Unfortunately, you changed it in such a way that it doesn't make any sense. It currently reads:

The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.

Because you removed the language referring to the United States, the wording "in other jurisdictions" now has no referrent. Additionally, I think the current language gives the false impression that these works are known to be in the public domain throughout the world, which is not the case. I don't know how to deal with this, but it certainly needs to be revisited, as it's very confusing and misleading at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dcoetzee: so we add the phrase "in the United States"? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult solution. And the reason I removed the last statement is because you were making the demonstrably untrue statement that such works are absolutely in the PD in the United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your offer to help explain decisions

I've been engaged in a discussion with Fastily on his talk page with regards to "Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg". To summarise my take on the discussion, 1. The image is traced (copied) from a website depicting ©2014 Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada, 2. The Canadian Armed Forces manual dealing with flags and their use states under para. 43 that all current CAF flags are held under copyright (excerpt at deletion discussion). The legal explanation for how PD50 does not always apply were included at a page Fastily deleted ( copyhere). I don't want to unduly impinge upon your time, but I was wondering, since you've said that Fastily is your friend and that 'you almost always side with him', if you'd be able to explain to me what I'm missing here, namely why a reverse onus appears to have been applied in this case (proving a work is copyrighted vice proving it is PD), and why in this case official claims to copyright are not 'good enough' to cause some sort of doubt. Also, to be clear I have no problem with the Admin in question, I simply don't understand the decision. Thank you very much for any time you're willing to offer. trackratte (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from forum shopping. This isn't doing anything to help your case. -FASTILY 21:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Any user "who feels like Fastily didn't give a proper response is free to ask me on my talk page for clarification on anything...As I almost always agree with Fastily, this should rarely present a problem"-Magog the Ogre
This isn't forum shopping, if it were, I wouldn't be making this request here, to someone who has already stated that they nearly always agree with you. I think you misunderstand the point of this exercise. It isn't to get a different answer, it's to have the answer explained. I've asked you point blank twice now, to which you've never responded. You've also asked me to 'stop bothering you' and to 'stop wasting your time'. A number of things are unclear to me, for example, why you appear to apply a reverse onus, why you closed a discussion by saying 'no arguments or sources presented' when I provided 3 arguments and roughly 30 sources, why you disregard evidence of copyright, why you assume PD when zero evidence of PD was presented, why you keep accusing me of presenting an essay (more a simple collection of sourced quotes actually) as official policy, etc. Fully realising you don't feel you have enough time to 'waste' on me, I thought I'd take up Magog's offer if it still stands.
Also, you accuse me of 'revenge seeking', and 'not helping my case'. This is not the way I see things. "Commons is a collaborative project, and not a battleground where there are victors & losers. When one person loses, we all do". trackratte (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, Trackratte. You and Fry were doing an absolutely fantastic job of talking right past each other, and that's about all I can ascertain, despite having stared at it for a good ten minutes. Can you please give me the TL;DR version outlining:
  • Your argument
  • Fry's argument
  • Why your argument is valid, and Fry's is not.
Also, please don't say "I don't agree with the decision, therefore we have to delete." Obstinance on the part of one party is not reason enough to invoke the precautionary principle. Rather, we invoke the precautionary principle when the law is clear that there is doubt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning underlying PD as I understand it:

1. This image is a user made rendition-->not a copy or a derivative work.
2. Flag is too old-->PD 50.
3. The Berne Convention bans perpetual copyright.

The reasoning underlying copyright as I understand it:

1. The page source states "Image of the crest traced from [1]" --> ie image was copied from a website with a "©2014 Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada" disclaimer (no indication image is PD in source).
2. Para 43 of the Canadian Armed Forces manual governing military flags and their use (A-AD-200-000/AG-000) states "Current CF flags are protected under copyright" (full paragraph quoted at outset of deletion discussion). This is a current CF flag.
3. Just because it's user made, doesn't mean it's PD. See here for sources I quoted explaining derivative works.
4. PD 50 does not always apply for Crown Copyright, particularly those involving prerogative (ie depicting the Crown). See here for primary and secondary sources.
5. Discussions on perpetual copyright not entirely relevant (point is if this image is presently under copyright). Plus, see section 7 of the Convention ("the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed")

My understanding of Commons policy is that proof of copyright is generally not even required, however explicit proof of PD is, especially where an element of doubt is introduced. Also, to reiterate, my intent here is not to necessarily have a decision changed, but primarily to explain why a reverse onus appears to have been used. Thanks for all of your time. trackratte (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My response to each of your points above:
1. This is a problem if the site drew the image with sufficient originality on its own. That is, it might be a problem under the representation section of COM:COA. I wish you had focused more on this point in the discussion (I am not pointing fingers, only making a statement). I invite User:Fastily to comment if he thinks there is sufficient cause to reopen the DR on this basis.
2. I believe the CAF manual does not create copyright law, but only reports on it. In order to know the PD status of a work, we should look at the law it is referring to. We can refer to their statements, but only as the opinion of an expert, not as their own authority. When they state "current CF flags", I presume they are talking about flags that were created recently, unless they state otherwise.
3. This is a rehash of #1.
4. You may have a good point here, but you've provided a general statement. It doesn't quote the law in its original so that we can make a determination of when such a condition might apply, nor does give any examples of where it has occurred previously. Please provide these so that we can make a proper determination.
5. This is part of the same issues as #4.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time. I approached this whole process from the perspective that an image must be proven PD, and not the other way around.

So, the references to copyright lasting beyond the normal 50 years (Section 12 of the Copyright Law being the quote of actual law in its original) was simply to say that PD50 does not always apply (which was the only evidence offered to show PD), and that this by itself is not enough to counteract copyright claims. And you're absolutely right, the CAF manual does not create copyright law, I was using it simply to show that the copyright owner claims copyright, and simply outlined reliable, expert, secondary sources to show how this claim is legal.

That all being said, if images are assumed to be PD unless absolutely proven to be copyrighted, and copyright claims by the owner and copyright disclaimers on the source website are not enough, then I suppose it was a moot exercise to begin with ha. trackratte (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to show where prerogative copyright applies. The point of the precautionary principle is to avoid having people upload works where the status is unclear, not to go back and delete images uploaded in good faith with good reason to believe they are public domain, and for which we still have good reason to state that there is no reasonable doubt that they are in the public domain.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. By the standard of doubt you're raising, Commons couldn't host images from 1909-1922 because of the 9th circuit court decision. But we don't work that way. We believe something is PD when the law states it is so, and if there is an exception to the clearly established rule, yes, it is your responsibility to find it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In my mind, when the source is not PD, and the copyright owner explicitly claims copyright, and such a copyright is supported by Section 12 of the Copyright Act (direct reading and legal expert interpretation and case-law), then that is a cause of significant doubt.

Your reference to reasonable doubt and the processes employed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lifchus ("burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused"), would only apply to legal proceeding where there is a prosecution and a defence, which I'm to understand runs counter to COM:DR ("the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept"). My only point was that the only sourced argument for 'keep' was PD50, to which I showed does not always apply. Ie if the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep the file, then PD50 is not proof by itself.

In any event, that wasn't my primary question, since it grossly affects how I see everything here, it's simply this: Is a file assumed PD and need to be proven copyright, or is a file assumed copyrighted until proven PD? Is the burden of proof with those who wish to keep the file, or is it with those who present evidence showing copyright?

As I'm sure you can appreciate, the answer to those two questions drastically changes the entire scope of copyright discussions and DR requests. I apologise if I'm out of the loop so to speak on what rules users are generally operating under. I only have the Official Guidelines and Policies to read to 'get up to speed' on here. COM:DR, "consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy" being one of these official policies that I've been operating under. COM:DW ("It doesn't matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, drawing nor sculpting") being another one that I was operating under in good-faith, which Fry has alerted me runs counter to consensus and what has been applied here in the past.

Once again, my thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed here. trackratte (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for adding even more stuff for you to read, but you asked me about where crown prerogative copyright would apply. So, under the Copyright Act, any time a work is created by or under the direction of the Government of Canada, Crown Copyright automatically applies. Prerogative comes into play when the Crown is granted as part of those arms:

  • "Only a few prerogative powers are exercised personally by the Queen or her representatives...in Canada these powers include: ... grants of coats of arms, flags and heraldry (the Canadian Heraldic Authority) [and] use of the Crown in symbols and of the title “Royal” for organizations"[2].
  • "A grant of Arms is an honour from the Crown and an exercise of the Royal Prerogative", and "The use of the two Royal Crowns was approved personally by The Queen".[3]
  • "Coats of arms thus developed as grants of honour received from a sovereign exercising his or her personal prerogative". [4]
  • And "prerogative right...is not subject to the usual statutory copyright term. The royal prerogative is referenced at the start of section 12 of the Copyright Act - the section is 'without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown'".[5]

So anytime a grant of Arms is created for a state organisation that depicts the physical Crown itself, the personal prerogative of the Sovereign is used to make that legally happen. I'm not saying that section 12 is always or automatically invoked, I'm saying that PD50 does not constitute proof of PD in the rare and limited case of State Arms depicting the physical Crown. trackratte (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Trackratte: just because someone claims copyright does not make the claim valid. We have plenty of Commons precedence for this - I've seen us ignore copyright claims by The Smithsonian Institute (PD-USGov), the District of Columbia (also PD-USGov), and anything PD-art. Do you have good reason to believe that the Crown is specifically claiming a prerogative in this instance? Because I don't see that - instead, I see what is an incorrect copyright statement.
As for the links you provided (thank you!), those are not necessarily copyright prerogatives; they refer to any royal prerogative. The prerogative in this case appears suspiciously like a non-copyright restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! And seriously, if you're annoyed with the conversation just let me know and I'll stop hassling you. I just enjoy the discussion. Also, I cleaned up those links and added some more reliable ones here.

Royal prerogative is a general grouping of powers within the Canadian legal system, and do not change simply based on the specific legal realm in which they are applied. For example, one of the above quotes from a law journal speaks about prerogative and its specific application to copyright law, even going so far as to point out the exact legal instrument which explicitly legislates copyright prerogative (Section 12 of the Copyright Act) and quoting it. Whether the Crown applies this prerogative is simply based on whether or not they would even post a takedown notice to Commons, however, as the sources illustrate, such a notice would be completely legal. Akin to COM:PCP where if we were to only accept that copyright applies to this case if and only when the organisation legally applies it, and not before.

The core argument being on whether PD50 is proof of PD in this case. Which in standard copyright cases it is, it is even proof enough in 99.9% of all Crown Copyright cases, which is why I think there is so much resistance here, since it is the norm which is nearly univerally applied in Canada and is completely unheard of in most circles. However, any works depicting the Crown cannot legally be created without prerogative (ie personal approval of the head of state), to which Crown copyright is automatically created on publication by a Crown agency.

And as we can see from Canadian legislation, "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment", where the Copyright Act itself outlines in Section 12 how prerogative works are "not subject to the usual statutory copyright term".

So my main concern is simply what proof do those wishing to keep the file have that this file is PD (COM:EVID)? trackratte (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not tired of your posting on my page. But to be honest, I am becoming a bit wary of the fact that you keep posting the same argument over and over while ignoring all statements to the contrary. I've already told you what COM:EVID means and why it doesn't apply. I'm not going to repeat it again just because you can't seem to acknowledge the statement. Technically, anything is possible, but that doesn't mean we never upload any work, ever, because there is some remote possibility that there is a valid copyright claim over the work.
As for the prerogative, it appears that the crown has the right to overrule any copyright law if it chooses. However, unless it explicitly chooses, the item has fallen into the public domain. Unless I see a specific text showing the queen has claimed perpetual copyright prerogative to override the legislation, I will be forced to trust the legislation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

From a Copyright Board of Canada decision by Justice Vancise, et al, "[55] Therefore, as a matter of statutory interpretation, when reading section 12 in the context of the Act, the terms “without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown” must be read to mean those rights and prerogatives as they relate to Crown copyright. We therefore find that section 12 relates exclusively to matters of copyright and cannot be read to infer any intent on behalf of Parliament to maintain Crown immunity." --> This landmark decision was made in 2012 that the Crown does not have the "right to overrule any copyright law it chooses", but only with regards to certain types of Crown copyright.

From In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law published by Irwin Law: "section 12 provides for Crown copyright and preserves the pre-statutory Crown prerogative" (p.552), and "That said, section 12 begins by preserving historical copyright privileges, which pre-exist the copyright legislation. Section 12 is introduced with the important caveat that it is “[w]ithout prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown.” This residue preserves the traditional royal prerogative to print certain works" (p.553). --> Prerogative cannot "override the legislation", the prerogative is 'preserved' and is part of the legislation itself. Saying prerogative is being used to override the legislation is akin to saying that it is overriding itself. So, in this case I fail to see how being 'forced to trust the legislation' means the ignorance of the former aspects of the section in preference for the latter.

If you require 'a specific text showing the crown claims copyright', which may be perfectly fair, why then do you not require a specific text showing this specific image to be PD? Maybe because PD50 is thought of as automatic, and the prerogative as not. However, prerogative copyright is automatically used in the creation/publication of an image depicting the Crown. If it were not, the subsequent image would be illegal.

Please do not construe this as an argument, but as a dialectic discussion towards a 'truth'. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see the the Crown oftentimes claims copyright under the aegis of existing legislation. How do we know what it claims copyright over? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Canadian copyright law, the Crown automatically claims copyright on any work created by, or under the direction of, the Crown (ie state). Crown copyright in unpublished works is perpetual, but lasts for only 50 years after the year of official publication.

Crown prerogative copyright however, is notoriously fuzzy (which is why there has been a substantial movement in Canada over the past several decades by copyright experts and stakeholders to get rid of it entirely). For example, from the Irwin Law reference above, "... section 12 of the Copyright Act should be amended. The provision should be re-drafted to elucidate its scope and application...The royal prerogative makes it difficult for users to ascertain what types of materials are covered in this perpetual printing right" (p.555).

However, just because 'there is no exhaustive list of the categories of works that are covered under the royal prerogative' (Rex v. Bellman, 1938, 3 DLR 548), that does not mean that we do not have any list at all, as in fact we do. For example, "[o]ne of the royal prerogatives of the Crown is the ability to grant such arms to institutions and individuals" (Canada's Constitutional Monarchy, Nathan Tildridge, 2011, p.169), and the "royal prerogative of granting coats of arms, badges, and flags" (The Crown and Canadian Federalism, M. Jackson, 2013, p. 37). And where "a right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection" (Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, David Smith, 2013, p. 77).

So, whenever a work is created 'by or under the direction of the crown', this work is automatically protected by Crown copyright, and when such a creation is a legal product of the prerogative, then 'a right to this work by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection'.

Long story short, "How do we know what it claims [prerogative] copyright over?". We don't. An exhaustive list simply does not exist. However, we do know, conclusively, that state arms are part of this list. Whether such a legal right would ever be exercised in the form of a take down notice is a completely different story, which would be a valid discussion for an outside agency to have if they wished to weigh the risks, however such a discussion is beyond the scope of Commons due to official policy. - trackratte (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I also found this:

The common law has determined the contents of the Crown prerogative. It is now possible to propose a current non-exhaustive contents list: a. Foreign affairs, b. War and peace, c. Treaty-making, d. Other acts of state in matters of foreign affairs, and e. Defence and the armed forces. Other powers and privileges considered Crown prerogatives include those respecting passports, power of mercy, diplomatic appointments, public inquires, hiring and dismissal of public servants, administration and disposal of public lands, copyright, armorial bearings, and honours and titles. (Crown Law, Paul Lordon, 1991, pp. 75-105 as referenced in A-LG-007-SLA/AF-002, 2008, p.7)

trackratte (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, I think that the precautionary principle wasn't made for situations like this. It was made in order to force uploaders to provide a rationale showing something is free so that Wikimedia wouldn't be full of "maybe it's free, maybe it's not" works. It wasn't made for times when the lawmakers couldn't get their act together and pass a law in a way that even copyright lawyers could understand.
In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, I say we host the darned things if they are legally questionable, just like we did with URAA images until the Supreme Court clarified the law and said we couldn't. The only exception should be a time when the law is unambiguous that Crown Prerogative applies to a work.
If that means we have to create a new template like {{Canada Crown Prerogative}} which states that "hey, we're not 100% sure about the copyright status of this, use at your own risk," then so be it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems sensible enough, although to be clear, the ambiguity within expert circles is due to the lack of an 'exhaustive list', and not with whether or not coats of arms and copyright fall under the prerogative, as they clearly do. Although there is a movement amongst stakeholders that they shouldn't be.
In any event, I think that your proposal is a suitable solution in the interim, since I think we have a responsibility to provide as much info as possible "as a public service" to the end user regarding possible problems with reuse, somewhat akin to why we would apply trademark templates as well.
Also, to bring it back to the original reason why I started this whole process in the first place, I finally received an email from IntellectualProperty-Proprieteintellectuelle@forces.gc.ca regarding the Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg stating:

Firstly, Zscout370 is not the author of the RMC Flag and therefore has no authority to release it to any organization. That individual may be under the mistaken belief that because they have translated the flag into an alternate form (e.g. a vector image) that it is their original work and they are free to distribute it. This is incorrect. A digital version of the flag is an unoriginal derivative work which cannot be used without the permission of the owner of the underlying work - in this case DND.

Although they do conflate Commons with Wikipedia and go on about Trademark as well. I sent the email to OTRS, which I apologies in advance if I wasn't correct to do so. The point being that the Department seems to believe that they could enforce their copyright on a military badge (from the Arms) even though it's over 50 years old. Although they do go on to say that "As previously stated, the department does not generally take issue with public, non-commercial use such as the posting on Wikipedia for information purposes", and don't seem to understand why anyone would have issue with the file on Wikipedia (as I mentioned the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons seems lost on them). trackratte (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
In line with your suggestion, I threw something together at my sandbox. I obviously have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to templating, but maybe something like this is what you had in mind? trackratte (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair.

Even though the users edits are a high COI, the image File:NE corner 2014-05-30 10-17.jpg was a much higher resolution than the Herald image; I think it may genuinely be the user's own work. B137 (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on the user's talk page, the user can prove his or her identity (i.e., the designer) and the rights to the image through OTRS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

excluding subcatories at the OgreBot

Hello Magog, Did you consider to add the option to your bot to exclude subcategories? I am not exactly aware if it is possible already, but as far I know it is not. The reason why I am posting you this is that at the following page there is a category connected to a subcategory, that doesn't fit into the topic of the page by the User Pingelig: Pingelig/Recent Uploads/Canton of Thurgau

The pages are supposed to collect all the images of the Canton of Thurgau, a region in Switzerland. But there is a company called Stadler Rail which is very important internationally. Now, since there are many pictures added to the category of Stadler Rail which are not taken in the Canton of Thurgau, it would be nice, if this category could be removed from the Bot. --Sevku (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Nordlicht8/Equestriansports: opt-out Category:Racing silks

Hi, can you please opt-out the category Category:Racing silks for User:Nordlicht8/Equestriansports? Thank you! --Nordlicht8 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-in}} bug report

Hi, Magog... what an amazing series of templates! Fantastic work... just a quick bug report - I've tried finding the source of the error myself, but have been unable to so far. For works of cinema that are not PD in Europe, something seems to be going wrong with the interaction of {{PD-in/layout}} and {{PD-in/Europe}}, where {{PD-in/Europe}} ends up getting an additional "style="background:#66ff66"|Public domain", so maybe something is wrong with the order of the switch statement... or I could be totally wrong. Anyway, you can see the behavoir on, for example, File:Bride_gip.jpg and navigating to Europe. As an aside, I removed what looked like a wayward asterisk, but of course that's tangential. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That was an old project I undertook when I had more free time on my hands. It was going along quite well until I realized that, at the time, Mediawiki simply could not handle that depth of templating. It was taking like 30 seconds to render. Unfortunately, I abandoned it.
Small aside: To be frank, I now also find it difficult to care as much when we already tolerate copyright violations on Commons, to the extent that sourcing and permission requirements are all but ignored, and even our own administrators explicitly flout the law and Commons policy. I realize this is not a good excuse, as end-users absolutely care, but it is how I feel.
However, I would be happy to assist you if you wanted to take it up. Now that we have Lua scripting, it should again be feasible. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Magog! I will consider it, but just need to learn Lua... I'll ping you to take you up on the offer to assist if and when I get around to it. I understand your frustrations, too... but I hope that they are manageable in light of the huge collaborative effort that, despite disagreements and despite mistakes, and perhaps in fits and starts, is taking place here, and making the world just a little better. We have too many disheartened contributors, both here and on enWiki and each time I see something like this (just the most recent example in my mind), it is deeply saddening. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Permission

I had already sent e-mail with permission to OTRS about imageFile:Espírito Eugênia-Aspásia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luidje (talk • contribs) 21:35, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

In that case, could you please mark the image with the corerct OTRS ticket, or, if you don't have one yet, with {{OTRS pending}}? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luidje (talk • contribs) 21:40, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

I mark with {{OTRS pending}}, becouse I don't have ticket yet. Sincerely,

Luidje (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartzs

I have opened this SPI over on enwp you may like to keep an eye on it as the same editors have been uploading copyvios here. Thanks LGA talkedits 00:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now confirmed; do I need to start a SPI here as well ? LGA talkedits 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: I've contacted DRoD privately to have him forward me the information. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@LGA: I've blocked Stuartzs. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, should the same apply to the sock accounts :
KobieTale (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
Stko123 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
BBibble (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
DasGib (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
Viz44 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
MistyEye (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
Statdata (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )
as well ? LGA talkedits 05:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

message at AniteSpike

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at ArchiveBot's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--AniteSpike (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pozdrav Ameru!!!

These three pictures "image within an image" (File:Images of London.JPG, File:City of Zagreb.JPG, File:Images of Rijeka.JPG) are exclusively my pictures including File:Subtitle Workshop.JPG

Thanks!!!--BrunoMed (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

HI Magog. Since you're around, can you take care of thisreal quick for me? INeverCry 04:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks old friend. Hope things are going good for you. INeverCry 04:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OgreBot 2 and uncategorized

Currently tags files with uncat as of January 1, 1970. Please fix. --Denniss (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. There must be something wrong with the local system time on the executing host. Please investigate. Thx. I'm correcting that since some days with visual file exchange. --JuTa 07:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@JuTa, Denniss: I would have fixed this yesterday if I'd seen it (I didn't). Anyway, I'm fairly sure it's fixed now; let me know if you see this or any other problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. Now it should be working (failed git command). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Glupi Amerikanac

I installed Subtitle Workshop, than I pressed Ctrl+PrtScn after that I taped the picture on Paint and I edited it.

Instalirao sam Subtitle Workshop, potom sam pritisnuo tipku Ctrl+PrtScn nakon toga sam zaljepio sliku na Paint i uredio sam je (podesio veličinu i slično).

Neither on Croatian Wikipedia, or even on the English Wikipedia, administrators, neither ordinary users don't write sources, neither you.

Niti na Hrvatskoj Wikipediji (Wikipedija, Slobodna enciklopedija), pa čak niti na Engleskoj Wikipediji (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia) administratori a kamo li obični suradnici ne pišu izvore pa čak ni Vi.

Here are examples:

And many others...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.45.207.54 (talk) 08:18, June 12, 2014‎ (UTC)

I marked the first for deletion. The second appears to be self-created; if it wasn't, I'll nominate it for deletion too. The third, fourth, and sixth images have fallen out of copyright due to age, and the fifth is ineligible for copyright because it falls below the threshold of originality. If you are willing to work within the law and our rules concerning copyright, I will unblock your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, thanks for pointing out your previous account. Now I know you're sockpuppetting. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots

I TOOK THOSE SCREENSHOTS, NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, THAT WAS MY FACEBOOK THAT YOU FOUND THOSE PICTURES ON! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ready Steady Yeti: HELLO, YOU UPLOADED THREE IMAGES, THREE OF WHICH WERE SCREENSHOTS (AND YOU DON'T OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO THOSE), THE OTHER OF WHICH WAS ALL OVER THE INTERNET[6], YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHOR, YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE STUFF UP! Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

SORRY I got so mad, but I was really mad. Well the Teletubbies one was off the internet, but I took those screenshots and that TV show is like super old, so I think I deserve to be able to upload the screenshots. No one will complain about it, I promise. This show has been pretty much forgotten (unfortunately). Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ready Steady Yeti: It does not matter. You cannot upload works here that you don't own unless they've fallen out of copyright, and works have to be way older to fall out of copyright. Please see Commons:Fair use; you can upload them to English Wikipedia, in some circumstances. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well then how CAN I upload the screenshots? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ready Steady Yeti: You cannot upload them to Commons at all. I'm sorry. But I may be able to help you upload them to individual projects, if you're willing to take a few minutes while we talk about it. First, which page or pages are you hoping to upload include them on? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My own Wiktionary talk page. That's all. For decoration. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's decorational, you can't go with fair use. But we already have a few Teletubbies images here: Category:Teletubbies. You can use any of those (assuming they're not eventually deleted, which is possible). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh well those I already knew about so never mind! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Dear Magog,

I would greatly appreciate your letting me know which copyright tag is the best for the last living photo of Charles de Foucauld (1858-1916).

The photo is included in this card (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8453641c) ({{PD-GallicaScan}}), and I also have a full-length portrait from the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/98507334/). Since the author died in 1916, I feel that this tag may be appropriate: {{PD-old-auto-1923 |deathyear=1916}}

Please, let me know if this is OK. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation. --Gabriel Sozzi (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would mark it {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1916}}. Honestly I don't know why someone created the GallicaScan template, as it's redundant. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I always learn from you. Regards, --Gabriel Sozzi (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Big Bug

Greetings Magog: I've been working through images without source and this morning noticed a huge increase in number of sourceless images. Apparently the addition of PD-Canada templates to who-knows-how-many-files has created "no source" in many of them. The problem starts around 18:00 on 22 June 2014 as you can see in the uploads of the OgreBot at about 18:00 hundreds of images were changed by bot action, and most/many/an awful lot of them, arrived in Images missing source when they used to have a perfect template. Now someone/s have to go through manually and fix each one back to the way they were before the bot ran, unless there is some other way you know of to fix this bot-created mess? Example file File:Alexander_Martin.jpg, now in Category:Images without source, please notice the hundreds of old heads that suddenly appeared! Please let me know? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: No. "Transferred form English Wikipedia" is not a source unless the copyright holder uploaded it to English Wikipedia. In the case of PD-Canada, the copyright holder did not upload it there first. So the bot has correctly removed the wrong source, date, and author from the files.
In fact, enough people have asked about this that I think I will add it to the FAQ. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

An FAQ would be helpful, otherwise we have no idea what is going on. The images I linked you do have sources, but they're in the description part of the template. Does this mean manual edits of the many dozens of images? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be the best option. The bot is smart enough that it will move the description to the source, but only if the description consists of only a URL. Anything more, and it doesn't make the edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I realize this is a hassle, but it's far preferable to telling our end users that a Wikipedia uploader is the author just because they've uploaded the image. Most people are able to figure it out, but many aren't. (I cannot find the link to the original noticeboard discussion we had about it). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unjustly deleted image

I have uploaded an image that comes from my website http://ruotenellastoria.blogspot.it/. This image has been deleted (gaz_69_ddr) for copyright reasons. Today I added to my website the sentence "Le immagini e i testi contenuti in questo sito sono distribuiti con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale", releasing everything with creative commons license. Can I upload the image again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajejebrazorf22 (talk • contribs) 16:37, June 26, 2014‎ (UTC)

@Ajejebrazorf22: Thanks for the update. I've undeleted your image, as you stated on your site that it was available under cc-by. Also, your site has two links to cc-by-4.0, while it says cc-by-3.0 and the image says 3.0. I'm not sure if you wanted to fix that or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre:Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the problem about cc 3.0/4.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajejebrazorf22 (talk • contribs) 17:05, June 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

Gadget-UserMessages

Magog, I just wanted to let you know I partially reverted your edit here in order that the conversation would accurately reflect which comment I was replying to. Please feel free to reinsert the outdent marker if my edit has, in turn, misrepresented your intentions. —RP88 (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Standorte der freien Musikschule Saar.jpg

Hi Maqog! I bought the basic file (which shows Germans federal state "Saarland") officially from "www.fotolia.de". Thus, I have the licence to use the image on websites, as you can read here: http://de.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses#standardsizes.

Kind regards from Germany! Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom-k-1973 (talk • contribs) 07:57, June 28, 2014‎ (UTC)

About File:General store interior Alabama Original W Evans .jpg and File:General store interior Alabama Walker Evans.jpg

✓ Done : thanks for your help. --JLPC (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I use this image of the Libyan PM?

Hi Magog,

I found this image of the Libyan PM on the Libyan gov's official facebook page:

Libyan Government Facebook Image of Libyan PM Can I use it, and if so, under what license. Thanks, Scottperry (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Only if you get email permission from them. The Libyan government's works do not fall into the public domain until 30 years after creation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magog for your quick reply. While email permission sounds possible, it doesn't sound easy. Any suggestions about a good way to more easily get a pic of the guy that would comply with Wikipedia copyright requirements? If not, I guess I'll try my hand with the email route. Sincerely, Scottperry (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: This one looks free: [7]. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but the current PM is named al-Thani, and is a skinny dark fellow with either horrible teeth, or a scowl! I'd scowl too if I had his teeth!!Scottperry (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

LucaElliot2

LucaElliot2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading copyrighted web files again by the looks of it.--JacktheHarry (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ ⧼blocked⧽ Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

OgreBot and Summer of Monuments

Hello. I notice your bot is sorting some uploads from Wikipedia Summer of Monuments (WSM) as not having a recognized copyright template. This is likely because they are using {{WSM no known restrictions}}, a sort of niche template used on mass uploads coordinated by WSM's project manager. He is screening candidates to make sure archival uploads are of acceptable copyright status, and the three photos uploaded from UNC are unambiguously in the public domain I am told, but if you have any questions feel free to ask him. Just keeping you updated. Harej (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I am updating the templates and categories on a daily basis to avoid this. Feel free to remove the images from the category if they're bothering you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG

Whay did you delete File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG and where is the debate ??--Ezzex (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As it states literally right in the block log, the debate is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG. And as it states right on that page, the reason I deleted the file is because the uploader took it from Al-Jazeera. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheLimean

Hello, I am an blocked user that was suspected to be a sockpuppet of Geórafo23. I have been talking with the user Hedwig in Washington and he recommended me to ping you to check if i am that sockpuppet of that user. I still blocked until now, so i need your help. Regards. The Limean--00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:MoiraMoira made the initial block; would she have something to add? I don't see anything immediately wrong, but she may know something I don't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Image removal

In this edit you added a no permission tag, despite the existence of an OTRS ticket tag.

Am I missing something, or was this just a mistake?--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I was probably running off a cached version of the English Wikipedia NowCommons helper, and failed to notice the new tag. Or I just missed it. My bad. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a shortish lag between the two, which fits. Thanks for restoring, I will restore to the article and notify the uploader. --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

East Ukraine conflict map

Hi Magog the Ogre. Please, forgive my poor english. I think this is the first time I talk with you, so, nice to meet you. I recently uploaded a map of the 2014 insurgency in Donbass with latin characters. I will update this map every day and if you have time or interest, let me invite you to fix or update it. Cheers. --Turkmenistan (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That must have been verify difficult, Turkmenistan. How did you do that? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I used this map to guide me. It took me a few hours to create the new map with latin characters. :) I hope this map can be useful, I'll update it and fix it every day and if you or other users can help to keep it updated it will be awesome. Cheers. (And again, forgive my poor english hahaha) --Turkmenistan (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant how you copied the exact image borders and national borders from the main map, even though the map is in PNG not SVG. And that site is incredibly useful, by the way: I've often found news there several hours before it slowly trickles into the western press. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Turkmenistan (ping just in case you hadn't seen the response). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand you. I downloaded the original file with cyrilic characters and replaced them with latin characters and also added some new towns and checkpoints. Then I uploaded in PNG as the original file (it's also a PNG image). --Turkmenistan (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very difficult to remove text from an image which already has it. That's all. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not so hard if you use Paint. I painted over the texts in cyrillic and then I wrote the names of the cities in latin characters. --Turkmenistan (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be much easier, if you could use SVG Translate. See you again. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, except the original map is, sadly, in PNG format. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
To be sure, if Turkmenistan has the technical wherewithal to tinker around with individuals pixels in a PNG image to this extent, he probably could figure out how to edit an SVG with Inkscape or in a text editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_11&oldid=131289134"