User talk:Mashin

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changelog page information removal by you

Mashin, please stop unilaterally removing information from Changelog that has been added by others in good faith. The wiki is not your personal playground where you can select information you personally deem relevant and remove information you would like readers to not learn about. If your intention with the Changelog page was a personal log of changes curated by you then you should move the page to your personal namespace. A general Changelog page on the wiki will be open to editing by everyone and it is not up to you to decide what information belongs there and what does not.

I expect you to restore the information you removed yourself so others don't have to do that again.

--Imagico (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I could say the same. Since I created the page it was modified by adding info box and all the re-phrasings and additions. All of it is there as I think those are good information, but I made just one edit to streamline the content and it was reverted without any discussion. I don't think that is a good approach to start like that and then complain about your edits are changed as well.
To explain, I created the changelog as a simple look up for what was recently changed in the world of OSM tagging and get quick access to other places where you can find tags description. I am not saying that describing the process of proposal and how to create a tag is not important. I am saying that in the context of that page is not relevant. The page is not about creating new tags. Imagine you are building a project based on OSM data and want to look what is new about tags so you can update your code, you don't want to read pages about how to make a perfect proposal, you don't really care about inside processes in that moment.
But I absolutely support an idea of creating a page where all those things would be summarized because right now all the guides and rules are split into tens of pages and there is no single place that links them all. --Mashin (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I won't get into a discussion on the content of the page here. You repeatedly removed information added by others to the page without discussion even after you have been told not to do so by several people. Stop doing that! If you can't or don't want to do that you are not welcome on the OSM wiki. --Imagico (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Just look at the edit history. I was trying to streamline the page and it was you who came and reverted my change without even trying to discuss it. So please stop doing that and discuss what you want. This wiki is also not yours to decide what others can edit or not or tell then if they are welcome . --Mashin (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2021 (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 creator of image File:WestCOG buildings.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" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

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 have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).

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|Mashin}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} 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.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)