User talk:Ceyockey

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why Brasil to Brazil switching? It is wrong.

I see you have changed Brasil to Brazil in portuguese pages. I do not understand what your motive for this is. In Portuguese, the official name of Brazil IS Brasil with s. That would be the same as changing Norge to Norway in Norwegian pages, Deutchland to Germany in German pages, and so. If compability with categories is the motive, than maybe something can be worked out in portuguese specific templates used. --Skippern 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

responding on Skippern's talk page under same section title --Ceyockey 14:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency you refere to in the portuguese pages is probably that many/some of these pages was created in english and translated to portuguese when adding the pt-br template. In this case, all usages of Brazil should be assumed wrong and changed to Brasil. --Skippern 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (copy of response from my talk page)
(Ceyockey responded @ User talk:Skippern#Why Brasil to Brazil switching? It is wrong. ... see sig/timestamp "--Ceyockey 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)"
(Ceyockey followup at same location ... see sig/timestamp "--Ceyockey 01:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)"


A question for you. --Kslotte 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi, just want to give you a big "Thank you!" for categorization of the Software articles. We thought about automaticly adding it with our bot but currently we had no time to do so. Thanks :) --!i! 11:28, 1 October 2010 (BST)


Hello, the Category:Bourgogne already exists and I think you should have used it rather than create Category:Burgundy. Could you fix it (by transforming it in a REDIRECT) ? Thanks ! Damouns 08:55, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Re:About uppermost category

I remember - I had been searching for an upper category for Category:OpenStreetMap humour and not finding any I thought Category:OpenStreetMap sounds good for an uppermost category ;-) Now where you push my nose on Category:Categories I'll stick to that one - though that one sounds a bit -er- odd to my ears... --katpatuka 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

move done. --katpatuka 15:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Chile earthquake of March 2010 epicentres.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.


Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)