Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2023/November

Template:CopyrightByWikimedia + protected files
Now that Bots/Requests/MGA73bot is approved I'm working on the task to change printedition to Image info. Doing that I noticed that CopyrightByWikimedia is All rights reserved. But according to c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia WMF released all logos as CC-BY-SA-3.0. So I suggest to update the template. --MGA73 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that some files are protected. So I can't fix those. See User:MGA73/Protected for a list. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now changed CopyrightByWikimedia based on the text on English Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavy Water you reverted. Perhaps you can tell why? If WMF released their logos as CC then why should it not apply on Wikinews? --MGA73 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted because you'd apparently copied the template from en.wp, and its license is CC-BY-SA 4.0 and ours is CC-BY 2.5. I did then implement the update, but I didn't sight it. I think this is important enough it should get a second pair of eyes. Heavy Water (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavy Water thank you. But the template is for the logo only and not the text. I tried to clarify that on PrinteditionLicense that is responsible for almost all the usage of CopyrightByWikimedia. --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand how it isn't clear enough from PrinteditionLicense that CopyrightByWikimedia only applies to the logo(s). Heavy Water (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with the template is the lack of the cc-license :-) WMF is the copyright holder and they licensed the logo cc. The text is fine. --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see what you're saying. But the copyrighted text that I'm talking about is the text on the template itself, not the text of Wikinews articles. Heavy Water (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So the problem is that I forgot to add a link to the template on enwiki when I copied the info to keep attribution intact? --MGA73 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think attribution would work since the Wikipedia template is licensed differently (more restrictively) from the Wikinews template. Heavy Water (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you think the problem with the edit was. But the logo including this file File:Wiki.png was licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0 by WMF (see File:Wikinews-logo.svg). So we should either add cc-by-sa-3.0 to CopyrightByWikimedia or add cc-by-sa-3.0 separately to the 1,954 files in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly. You did see the update I proposed after reverting you, right? I am not objecting to updating the template to reflect the WMF changing these licenses. I only objected to the way you did that update, which apparently involved copying Wikipedia's template; that can't be done because the licenses for Wikinews and Wikipedia are incompatible. Heavy Water (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is what I think is confusing. The logo is the copyright of WMF. So WMF decide what the license the logo should be. I do not understand how Wikinews can decide to have a different license for the logo.
 * I know the text on Wikinews is another license but I do not think it is any different from Wikinews using a photo licensed with another license. But anyway I also suggested to update the license on Wikinews at Water_cooler/policy. Perhaps that would make it easier. --MGA73 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, my problem was with how the text you added to CopyrightByWikimedia &mdash; "™ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This file is (or includes)..." &mdash; was licensed, not how the logos were licensed. Heavy Water (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do you have any idea how to write the text so that is correct? --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I proposed such an edit here. Heavy Water (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But what about cc-by-sa-3.0 can we add that again? --MGA73 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed that intentionally. I suggest we, like Commons, use CopyrightByWikimedia as a trademark template (a rename to reflect its new purpose would be in order), accompanied by the applicable copyright status template &mdash; that seems to me to be the easiest way to account for some files, like File:Wikimedia-logo.svg, being PD and others being CC BY-SA-3.0. Heavy Water (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me! I guess that we can fix most of the files by adding cc-by-sa-3.0 to PrinteditionLicense. --MGA73 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavy Water reading my comment above I see that it is not clear but I was trying to ask you if you agree that we add cc-by-sa-3.0 to PrinteditionLicense below the CopyrightByWikimedia? --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd meant to respond on Saturday, then forgot. Sorry. Yeah, that sounds good to me, I'll add it. Heavy Water (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Now the question about CopyrightByWikimedia is solved :-) There is still the question about protected files. Either the files on User:MGA73/Protected should be unprotected or an admin have to check and fix the files. --MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

IP
please rvt IP on Poland story, ty. OhhLord (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems to be ✅. In the future, please make it explicit what you are talking about, preferably with a link. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion request
Hi - would someone with admin rights please delete the thread by a WMF-banned user here? Thanks - Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)