User talk:Penegal

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vote note

Note that it is typical that some people voice their oppositions only during vote - it is possible that initial vote will fail, but due to details can be fixed and next vote will succeed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. That is also something I didn't have in mind: I thought that an initial rejection would mean "your proposal is doomed, live with it". Penegal (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
ops. Do you have a good idea where it could be mentioned to avoid that confusion for other people? (for recent examples, see this proposal with failed first vote, and this - extracted from vote that was cancelled as it was on way to failure) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC) are direct links to initial failed votes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, Proposal process#Rejected states that If the vote fails, do not despair. Many proposals were rejected, modified and succeeded. Sometimes proposal fail because some people noticed issues during vote. Penegal (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


Is there some reason to suspect that this image is freely licensed? I checked and I see no evidence of availability of that image on some free license Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: you are right to suspect that there may be a problem with the license of this image: back then, I only cared about finding a suitable illustration, and could only find this one. Though, this image is unused, so you may delete it or ask for its deletion. --Penegal (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it the same applying to ? (all unused on Wiki, actually used left for later for a separate handling) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: indeed; if they are unused on the OSM wiki, you may delete them silently. --Penegal (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Licensing - is it your image or found somewhere on the internet? 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: found on the Internet; I personally made a similar picture which I plan to upload, so this one may be deleted without consequence. --Penegal (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


Hello! And sorry for bothering you, but descriptions of files you uploaded need to be improved.

You have uploaded files which are licensed as requiring attribution. But right now attribution is not specified properly.

Please, ask for help if something is confusing or unclear in this message.

Please, fix that problem with this uploads - note that images with unclear licensing situation may be deleted.

Attribution may be missing completely or just be specified in nonstandard way, in either case it needs to be improved. Note that using CC-BY files without specifying attribution is a copyright violation, which is often unethical and unwanted. So clearly specifying required attribution is needed if license which makes attribution mandatory was used.

If it is applying to your own work which not based on work by others - then you can select own user name or some other preferred attribution or even change license to for example {{CC0-self}}

For your own work: ensure that it is clearly stated at file page that you created image/took the photo/etc

For works by others - please ensure that there is link to the original source which confirms license and that you used proper attribution, or that source is clearly stated in some other way.

Especially for old OSM-baded maps, made from data before license change on 12 September 2012 you should use "map data © OpenStreetMap contributors" as at least part of attribution

For old OSM Carto maps, which predate license change on 12 September 2012 you can use a special template {{OSM Carto screenshot||old_license}}

Should be good by now. --Penegal (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


Are you sole author here? It likely needs to be marked as OSM based, maybe also map style may be required to be credited: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Wow, are you really monitoring all my updates? ;-) These file were imported in some sort of batch, without taking great care of licensing; it should be OK now. --Penegal (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have seen this edits because I was monitoring bot edits that I was doing - but in this case it had side effect of reviewing your edits :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: to prevent attribution problems, it would be good, on the Special:Upload page, that the proposed licenses include their self variant, as it is likely the most frequent case. --Penegal (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems a good idea (I created -self variants relatively recently - it seems to be a good idea). Can you maybe post it on Talk:Wiki? That would be probably a good sign that someone except me thinks that it is a good idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: done; feel free to promote this proposal! --Penegal (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Credit - who should be credited here? Moi-même or Penegal? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: corrected; thanks for noticing! --Penegal (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)