User talk:MGA73

Welcome to Meta!

Hello MGA73!, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm from the Danish Wikipedia --> da:Brugerdiskussion:MGA73

I'm also on Commons --> commons:User talk:MGA73

Translator, We need you!

Dear MGA73,

You have helped us in previous years with translations and for that we are most grateful. Now we turn towards the 2011/12 fundraiser. It may seem forever away, but work has already begun getting everything ready to go. This year we want to have landing pages covering as many countries in as many languages as possible.

Right now, we want to figure out who is interested in translating for the fundraiser. This year we're hoping to have more of a solidified "core" group of translators that we can count on to have work done by a few key dates, but we'd also welcome help from people who are willing to just help out when they can.

If you would be interested please take a look at this little sign-up survey and fill it out http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=13638&newtest=Y&lang=en. With that we can start building a list of people and filling any gaps in the languages we serve.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon (User:Jseddon (WMF))

Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
Jseddon (WMF) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions declined

Yeah, the non-free images really should go, but it isn't covered by speedy deletion criteria here, and they are in use. This needs a discussion somewhere, not a speedy deletion. (Wither at Meta:Requests for deletion or elsewhere, rather than deleting 50 used images, with some pages built around said images, like Wikimania bids) Courcelles 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

CSD-G5 covers copyright violations and I also think those should really go. Courcelles and me agreed in the past that Meta's deletion policy was terribly outdated and sometimes unhelpful that it needed a rewrite. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not allow fair use and the WMF resolution says files MUST be deleted so I really do not see what needs to be discussed. But we could ask WFM if they think that meta should not follow the resolution. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked Jimbo. Lets see if that gives a result. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And I started a discussion on Meta:Requests_for_deletion#All_fair_use_files_and_templates. --MGA73 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there and I agree those files should go. The fact that Meta has allowed unfree content in the past without an EDP does not make it acceptable today; and allowing them de facto because "it's Meta" isn't appropiate either. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Info for myself: Discussion can be seen at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_114 and the result was that the proposed Meta:Fair use was shortly reviewed but it failed and was later closed completely down. --MGA73 (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Superprotect status

Dear MGA73, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.

• Request for comment: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights
• An open letter about its implementation: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer

Peteforsyth 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help

Hello MGA73, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done!

To add or change translations for all wikis, please use translatewiki.net, the MediaWiki localisation project.

Please register on translatewiki.net if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information now

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosurewikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergencywikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery - 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not start this discussion to get someone blocked.

yeah, but you see how any excuse is used to punish prolific contributors. if you have a problem with uploads, then you need to talk to the editor, and start a maintenance category. anything else feeds the toxic mismanagement. and you could start a case at ANU. Slowking4 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Why jump to meta for this? Anyway I did ask the uploader and the uploader said that he preferred to have as many files as possible. So that's why as asked if the community thought we should upload all files or pick out the best. I don't see why we need a maintenance category. We have enough of those already. --MGA73 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

we're here, because the pieman likes to indef block people with over 100,000 edits. (and failed with his global ban) i gave you an alternate method of communication that might avoid a block, but i see you seem wedded to the dysfunctional community lack of process. now this editor will do no more flickr2commons, hope that was the solution you wanted. Slowking4 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Your advice is no good now because I can't go back in time. And you can't blame me for trigger happy admins. So there is no reason for you "I hope you got what you wanted"-attitude. --MGA73 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

evade responsibility. for the action you started. all you want: unintended consequences are a bear aren't they? you should know that naive appeals to community action are excuses for blocks; that is not blame seeking, it is just the fact of the toxic community. you should save empty laments for the unblock request. Slowking4 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slowking4: And your comments do not contribute to the toxic community? Im tired of listning to your complaints. If you are so clever you should have talked to the uploader before it got this far. End of discussion from my end... --MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Marco Verch

We already have a template sort of like that, c:Template:Not public domain.

The issue with Marco Verch is not that he enforces his rights, the issue is that he does so in an unreasonable and predatory manner. Also, be aware of c:Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images/Archive 5#Marco Verch and his typewriter crap. Those automatically generated typewriter images are just bait. Zero effort, pollution of search results and surely in that ridiculous quantity they will see some re-use.. at which point Marco will milk you for an unhealthy amount of money if you misspelled his name or something. He's just a copyright troll. It's his business model. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 17:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Hi! I think we need another template for him and other like him. One that is a bit more "aggressive" and easy to spot. If we want we could even make a template that creates some html code that reusers can copy paste to their website. --MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the solution for Nightshooter (forced attribution) is better when files from copyright trolls are kept, but for larger numbers of files a bot would be required to edit the files. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As for image files in Japanese (local) Wikipedia

Hello, MGA73

I found your user's page at Japanese Wikipediaw:ja:利用者:MGA73, you are quite concerned with copyright status or license for a great number of local(Japanese) images which has already archived.

In Japan the article 206 of the Civil Code states that "the owner has the right to use, profit and dispose of his property freely within the limits of the law. This gives the owner of a painting the right to manage it, including its proceeds. This is a separate right from copyright.

With regard to copyright, the author is granted the right of exhibition (Article 25 of the Copyright Act), but the museum has already dealt with that right. Photography is indeed a reproduction, and this involves the right of reproduction. In detail, in that context, private use, which is a limitation of copyright, may be allowed. In reality, the respondent has been around museums in various parts of Europe, and there is a coexistence of those that allow photography and those that do not. Even when they do allow it, it is assumed that it is for what is called private use. Even in that case, professional photographers and commercial photographers need permission to take photos for environmental settings and other reasons.

In this sense above, you had better to check individual image files closely in order to avoid violations to related laws. --Green (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Green! Yes I care about images on Japanese Wikipedia and many other Wikipedias. I have moved many files from da, en, no, nn, fo, vi, hi, id, ms, lb and many other.

Before I move files to Commons I check if the file have a good source, author and license. I also check if it is a derivative work and if there are Freedom of panorama if it is a photo of a building or statue for example.

In some cases there are problems with the files so I have nominated thousands of files for deletion on different wikis. As for photos from museums then according to c:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#"House_rules" and c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#MUSEUM then there will be no problems with any policy of Wikimedia Commons based on any museum "house rule".

You are welcome to write to me in Japanese Wikipedia too in case other users from ja.wiki may find the discussion interesting. --MGA73 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Green: Thank you. There are places where photography is prohibited like in museums and galleries, but it is a breach of contract to take a photograph even if you enter the museum after recognizing that photography is prohibited. We should be careful for this. This case has a risk to arise disputes between photographers and owners.

Please see at https://www.jfpi.or.jp/files/user/pdf/data/Chizai_no9.pdf at https://www.jfpi.or.jp/ as some Japanese in deed worry over the matter. It seems to me such photos are disadvantageous to Wikipedia project. I think photographers should mention his permit from owners for taking pictures in Common's note page. --Green (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Green: If there is a permission it could be send to OTRS. It is easy to add to file pages too.

I do not know about Japanese Wikipedia but Commons have a long time ago decided only to care about copyright. So if someone take a photo of a new painting it is not okay because the painting is still copyrighted. But if someone take a photo of a 200 yr old painting it is okay because the painting is no longer copyrighted. If the gallery do not like that photos are taken then it is not a problem for Common. The gallery have to discuss that with the photographer. Commons do not care if the gallery says it is forbidden to take photos!

If the photographer worry about what the gallery or museum would say then photographer should not upload the photos to Wikipedia in the first place.

I do not speak Japanese but if you worry that some of the photos that are on ja.wikipedia are not okay then perhaps you can raise the question somewhere on Japanese Wikipedia? --MGA73 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

@MGA73: For Uluiwoi, Tirawuta, Lambadia and Ladongi I deliberately moved to East Kolaka Regency, because this sub-district is currently located in East Kolaka Regency, because East Kolaka is a regency that was recently formed in Indonesia. Attention please, don't get me wrong just yet--Paolus Hadi (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paolus Hadi: Hi! Thank you for your message. If things are wrong on Wikipedia the correct way to fix it is to edit the article and correct the information and if the name of the article is wrong the correct way to fix it is to move the article to the new name. That will leave the edit history intact. On Malay Wikipedia articles was moved to a new location and deleted and a copy-pasted copy of the text (with changed?) was added on the old name. That will remove the edit history and that is not good. --MGA73 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@MGA73: Thank you for the information--Paolus Hadi (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Need to add license on files

Hello , Hope all is well, I am administrator at pnb wiki. We have a problem of license with files at we uploaded.

First I have no access to commons, Second how can attach a license , I am not aware , third all the maps I made myself in Punjabi language.

Please help me to attach a license on files containing maps .

--Abbas dhothar (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply on pnb:ورتن گل بات:Abbas dhothar#Management_of_files. --MGA73 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Local uploads policy

Hello MGA73. You may want to look at Local uploads policy proposed policy page, with regards to your concern as posted at Steward requests. The talk page seems stale now, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:JWilz12345!

I have now read it and I think we need a policy. The big question is ofcourse what the policy should be :-)

I have been wondering what can be decided globally and what can only be decided locally. For example restricting local uploads, global sysops and global bans are things that have been discussed globally.

But could we discuss restrictions of upload of GFDL only? And if Wikinews should upgrade license from 2.5 to 4.0? And if we should send someone to delete files on xx.wiki? --MGA73 (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@MGA73 from my assessment of you and your fellow peers' proposal (or suggestion), it may have good intent but may specifically run counter to most Wikipedias. Right now, I have opened a new discussion at w:en:Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, over possible "clash" between w:en:WP:NOTFILESTORAGE and w:en:WP:Freedom of panorama (perhaps you are aware of a local consensus in 2012 that states enwiki can accept freely-licensed images of recent buildings from 100+ no-FoP countries using U.S. law only as the basis).

I may suggest asking some other user/s regarding your concerns or questions, as I am heavily involved in the debate of one aspect of local uploading. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I see your point User:JWilz12345. There are 2 conflicting "rules" here. It would have bugged me a lot in early 2012 before I took a wiki break (seems I missed a lot of interessting discussions during my wiki break). But now I try to let some things pass even if I do not agree with them. As I see it the files can legally be kept but they do (perhaps) violate the non-legal rule about Wikipedia not being a file host. To me it seems like there is a very little chance you will gather enough users to get consensus to delete files because of the no host rule. I think that if files are unused and low quality they should be deleted. But if they are unused but good quality I would not spend time trying to get them deleted. I tried something similar on German Wikipedia and I was basicly told "forget it". So now I focus on files with legal problems and low quality. But I still have a hard time ignoring files with a keep local template even if it is a discussiin I will probably never win. --MGA73 (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User:JWilz12345 I have now made a comment at Talk:Local_uploads_policy#Re_start_2024?. Once again thank you for the tip. As you can see I decided to test the waters first to see if there is any chance for a policy. If not perhaps a task force could offer help instead. --MGA73 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free files outside main namespace

Hello MGA73, thank you so much for your efforts regarding non-free files.

I visited Quarry yesterday seeking to make similar queries to the ones you did (for arwiki), and your recent queries were a great help to me.

We currently have over 3,500 files used outside the main namespace, they're all listed here. Our EDP does not allow for non-free images to be used outside the article namespace, however, since some adjustments to the image policy are expected to be made on arwiki, some users have expressed concerns regarding non-free images on the templates which are used in main namespace, do the current Wikimedia policies/resolutions say anything regarding that?

Thanks once again. – Anwon (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Anwon! Hi! Happy that the visit to Quarry helped you. Yes I usually make a set of queries like on an:Usuario:MGA73/Status to find files with different problems.

About policies the main is wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy and it says "Such EDPs must be minimal.". It does not specify what that means. The main EDP is the one used on English Wikipedia and it (en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy) explain minimal use in #3 and #9.

If arwiki would like to use non-free files in templates you should be able to provide a good rationale why the file is important to the template. I think for example if you have many articles about a video game the logo of the game could perhaps be used in a template so that it is included in all the articles about the game (like on articles about the characters for example). But if there is an article about football/soccer then I think it will be harder to argue why a navigation template has to include the logos of all the clubs. --MGA73 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC regarding Obligation to migrate licenses

Hello MGA73, thanks for your help pointing to problems with handling files on de-wb. I'm sadly not on the same page with you regarding license migration, so I opened a RfC. For that. Thanks again, best regards HirnSpuk (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)