User talk:MGA73

Welcome
Mike moral  ♪♫  17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WN:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot
Hello. Sorry for the delay on this. Bot status added. Please proceed with the tasks suggested in the request. If in doubt, please use best judgement. Cheers. [24Cr][talk] 22:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Unused files
Hi. Could you stop tagging these for a moment while we settle this? You seem to have gotten someone else cheesed off, with this. Heavy Water (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your notice. I have allready tagged all unused files that does not have a free license. So no more tagging is planned :-) MGA73 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Audio file uploads
Could you, in a few words, explain the audio uploads. Were they not on Commons? Cheers, SVTCobra 11:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:SVTCobra. No, the files in Category:Wikinews audio are here on Wikinews. I just fixed the information template to remove the file from Category:Files with no machine-readable author etc. MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, great! Thanks! SVTCobra 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi User:SVTCobra. You are welcome to move the files to Commons. Most of them are there allready in c:Category:Spoken Wikinews - English. I think I made FileImporter do the transfer correct (or alt least fairly good). MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Images nominated for Speedy
Hi MGA. The sports images in speedy are, if I am not mistaken, all related to Paralympic events. They were uploaded under a license which is compatible with the main license of Wikinews. These are original photos taken by a Wikinews reporter. This now-vanished user, as far as I know, obtained funding from the WMF to travel to these events. You may consider them "unused" but I do not. There are too many of them to put them all directly in the articles, but the categories in which they sit could be considered companion pieces to the articles and the overall coverage of the events. Why the vanished user did not upload to Commons under a fully free license, is a question we may never know the answer to. I am of the opinion, Wikinews can continue to host them. The Geneva explosion photos are another matter. I am attempting to contact the uploader to see if they will agree to a change in license so that they can be transferred to Commons. I want to give them a few weeks to respond. Cheers, SVTCobra 17:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi SVTCobra! The files were uploaded as "non-commercial". That is not compatible with cc-by-2.5.
 * So it can only be kept if it meets the requirement of fair us.
 * I think it would be a good idea to put a notice on Water cooler to get more users involved in how to handle non-free images.
 * If you can get the uploader to change the license it would solve all problems. But as far as I know there are more than one user that uploaded as non-commercial. --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get the change of license for the one set of photos; but the sports photos, the vanished user is not reachable. If I recall, they left amid a bunch of drama in 2019 that got all the way to the Foundation level, but don't quote me on that. I don't mind a project of completing non-free use rationale for each of them. But they would remain unused, unless we can consider the categories as an accompaniment to the subject. SVTCobra 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that you had already elicited a response from Amgine at this talk page until I saw your water cooler post. I was on break at the time. SVTCobra 22:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am writing here because I don't want to confuse the Water Cooler discussion with this aside. And I am trying to think "outside the box" here, do you think the files/images which I have been referring to as the "sports images" can have their license changed without the original uploader's consent? This user, who I can't name as they are vanished, was operating on behalf of WMF with funding and a clear mandate from the foundation to produce content for the broader wiki community. They were an agent for (akin to an employee) of the foundation. Surely, whatever agreement was made stipulated that they upload under free licenses. I have no idea of who to contact for whether such an option is even possible. A person sent by the WMF should not be allowed to choose the license, imho. It's frustrating that I can't refer to the user in question, but alas. Cheers,
 * SVTCobra 00:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just looked at File:Sochi 2014 Sledge Hockey USA Russia DSC6510.jpg and read the "Permisson" part. Now, it seem the was putting restrictions on this. Is there a center to this onion? I just keep peeling layers. As a side note, the WMF vanished user did have minions, as in users that would upload their work on their behalf. Jeg hader alt om dette. Det har intet at gøre om hvorfor jeg begyndte med Wikinews. Desværre er jeg næsten den eneste administrator, så jeg føler et vist ansvar. Sikke noget lort! Cheers, SVTCobra 02:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again SVTCobra! Yes the discussions are a bit spread out and that does not make it easier.
 * I do not think that we can keep files unless they are used in an article and can't be replaced. Categories do not count as legal use.
 * I noticed that one user vanished (but user name is still mentioned in the file page). So it will probably not be possible to get a permission from the user. I do not think we can just change the license without asking.
 * If the restrictions are because of IPC I think it could be a good argument to allow a few extra photos in each article.
 * Ja ophavsret kan være træls, og normalt blander jeg mig ikke i fair use, ud over at jeg foreslår at slette ubrugte filer og fortæller et passende sted, at man ikke bare kan smide billeder op af levende personer. Men Wikinews er lidt anderledes. --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vanished user name is scattered all over many projects to this day, but I believe RTV prevents us from using the name, even in casual conversations such as this. Anyway, they left a mess behind, especially on Wikipedia. They were operating for the WMF with funded projects, which makes it even more frustrating how sloppy the work was. SVTCobra 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is possible to do a great work without expert understanding copyright. But it would have been great if someone had raised the question about NC and ND long time ago. --MGA73 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it wasn't just the copyright that was the issue with aforementioned vanished user. They created a special kind of mess on Wikipedia. Have you heard of the Fram incident? SVTCobra 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:SVTCobra no, I have not. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a special kind of mess. The WMF circumvented all forms of procedure and normal dispute resolution and banned an administrator. This administrator, Fram, had taken an interest in the subpar articles created by the vanished user, and there were hundreds of them. It is my conjecture, that the vanished user used their WMF connections to get Fram banned. The community was outraged. Dozens of other admins resigned in protest. Eventually, WMF relented and let ArbCom handle the situation. You can read a summary here or if you want to do a deep dive there is this. It even got news coverage, such as this article by Slate. I do not know, and I don't think it's ever been officially acknowledged, but I speculate it was about vanished user, at least in part. SVTCobra 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:SVTCobra Wow... Lets hope there is no of such cases. We all want to make Wiki better :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)