User talk:Claude Zygiel

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Claude Zygiel!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

votre carte montrant la Pologne de la conférence de Kreuznach

Bonjour

Je viens de prendre connaissance de la carte que vous avez créée montrant l'étendue du royaume de Pologne.

Vous avez résolu un problème sur lequel planchent tous les historiens de la période depuis les années 1950 : les frontières du royaume de Pologne restaurée de 1916-1918. En effet, tous ces savants sont tombés d'accord sur le fait que ces frontières ne sont pas précisément fixées ; vous semblez avoir fait le choix d'une large bande frontalière annexée au Reich, et semblez vous appuyer sur une partie de la carte proposée par Fritz Fischer en 1961 ; le problème, c'est que la carte de Fischer reprend son texte dans lequel cet historien explique que cette option n'est pas la seule, et qu'il propose également l'option d'une bande frontalière d'une 15aine de km de large. Diverses options sont étudiées durant tout le conflit, et ont chacune leurs partisans.

Plus sérieusement, depuis l'automne 1914, la question des frontières du Reich avec la Pologne font l'objet d'intenses débats entre responsables allemands et entre ces derniers et leurs homologues austro-hongrois. La question du tracé de la frontière entre la Prusse et la Pologne, d'une part, entre la Pologne et la Lituanie de l'autre, n'est toujours pas résolue lors de la dernière rencontre officielle germano-austro-hongroise du conflit au milieu du mois d'août 1918.

Les seules choses sûres dans ce domaine, ce sont 1/ la délimitation des frontières des zones d'occupation allemande et austro-hongroise en Pologne, 2/ les frontières de la région de Cholm, cédée à L'Ukraine en 1918.

Je vous présente mes excuses pour le cas où mon accroche vous aurait choquée.

Bien Cordialement 2017-CMI (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour ! je ne suis pas du tout choqué et en légendant cette carte "projet" de Kreuznach dans l'article en français, je n'avais nullement l'outrecuidance de trancher le débat. Mon erreur est de n'avoir pas utilisé cette même légende dans Commons, mais je viens de rectifier cette erreur, que je vous remercie de m'avoir signalé. Cela dit, la carte est améliorable, peut-être en floutant les limites indéfinies ? Toute suggestion est la bienvenue. Bonne soirée, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour Claude Zygiel, Le mystere des motification me fait répondre tardivement. CEtte carte pose le problème des frontières de la Pologne restaurée par les puissances centrales entre 1915 et 1918 : je suis désolé d'avoir à le dire aussi brutalement, mais aucune carte n'est satisfaisante à l'échelle proposée. Fischer (le moins imprécis sur la question, même 60 ans après) se contente de parler d'une bande frontalière plus ou moins large, tout en restant vague sur sa largeur : chaque acteur de la politique polonaise des puissances centrales (Reich et Autriche-Hongrie) a son idée sur la question, aucun consensus n'est trouvé et aucune décision prise, le seul consensus, c'est le contrôle politique économique et militaire du nouveau royaume. Mais comment matérialise-ton un truc pareil sur une carte? La seule carte qui peut être fiable, c'est la carte de la frontière entre les administrations allemande et austro-hongroise... Bonne journée. 2017-CMI (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour ! ça n'a rien de mystérieux, c'est un "challenge cartographique". Je tente une dernière solution en floutant les couleurs sans tracer de lignes, mais avant, une question : la Vistule autour de Plotsk et la Narew sont bien frontalières, ou bien c'est flou là aussi ? Merci ! --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour Claude Zygiel, La carte que tu souhaites montrer est bâtie sur du sable, car le Reich et la double monarchie sont en négociations constantes sur la question polonaise, les frontières étant un aspect de la discussion. les choix que tu vas opérer ne rendront en réalité compte que des options privilégiées par l'un des acteurs (OHL, cabinet prussien, Chancellerie impériale, Auswärtiges Amt, milieux économiques, ministères de la guerre, qu'il soit prussien ou impérial, Reichsbank , pour le Reich ; AOK, Ballplatz, cabinet autrichien, conseils de la couronne, club polonais (conservateurs polonais fidèles à la double monarchie), milieux économiques autrichiens et hongrois, cabinet hongrois pour la double monarchie... et j'en oublie sûrement), sans oublier que ces acteurs ont proposé différents tracés au fil du conflit : en 1916, c'est relativement simple, en 1918, c'est plus compliqué, la paix entre les puissances centrales et l'Ukraine rajoutant une incertitude sur le tracé de la frontière entre la Pologne et l'Ukraine. Bonne journée 2017-CMI (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Carte de l'Empire carolingien

Bonjour ! Sur [1], ne serait-ce pas opportun de transcrire l'allemand Lothringen par Lotharingie ? Cordialement, --Claude Zygiel 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour oui tout à fait d'accord, mais je n'arrive plus à modifier le fichier.--Io Herodotus (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh bien nous sommes deux ! Peut-être en passant par l'atelier graphique ? [2] Cordialement, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Laogai Map.jpg requires updating

Hi Claude Zygiel,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:Laogai Map.jpg is out of date. China claims Arunachal Pradesh. Could you update it? Thanks again. Ahmetlii (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Voilà qui est fait ! Merci, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Karte Suedosteuropa 03 01.png

File:Karte Suedosteuropa 03 01.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the cause of the dispute today. Correcting mistakes is better (in my opinion) than removing the document. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Fæ (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png

File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Fæ (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fæ. I'm not the author of this map (it is Beshogur). Only I improved some little details. If the map is wrong do what is necessary. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Uryankhay-Tuva AO.png

This image was created years ago, you June 20 2021 have changed the hydrography shapes and added a sort of grey something which you have described as some NASA originating imagery. You created a new image with new content and this image, I guess, has to be uploaded in a different file with licencing according NASA imagery licence and with adding NASA imagery source definition. In current time licencing is wrong as It is not correlated to NASA licence. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bogomolov ! Если мое добавление кажется вам проблематичным, пожалуйста, восстановите исходную версию, проблем нет. Но если вы считаете, что рельеф помогает определить местонахождение местности, и если вы знаете лучшую справочную информацию для НАСА, вы можете добавить их. Я доверяю тебе. Спасибо! --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Так это серое это рельеф? Нельзя, незаконно, использовать копию данных НАСА без соответствующего лицензирования и указания ресурса, откуда взята информация. Если у Вас возникло желание сделать свою карту, то Вы в первую очередь должны изучить то, каков будет её юридически статус. Если законы США позволяют такого рода публикацию, следует изучить лицензирование такого продукта. И только так. Вот много лет назад я сделал вот такую карту (на ту же территорию), где я использовал рельеф от НАСА File:Uvs Nuur drainage basin.jpg. Вы видите, как изображает я рельеф тогда, когда это на самом деле необходимо. И какая при этом стоит лицензия. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Galiz20.gif

File:Galiz20.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kiejstut9 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Modification of this day: according with some Commons habits, we must delete this work created 2008 by Pruxo, but according with scholar and carthographic uses, we can correct the mistakes. Today, as far as I am involved, corrected the mistakes, removing the eastern part of Austrian Silesia and Zamość, adding Kraków (since 1846) and edged Bukowina as a land united with Galicia since 1787 to 1849. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Grand Duché de Lituanie et royaume de Pologne (1619).png

Для создания своей карты Вы воспользовались крайне, скажем так, неточной картой-предшественницей. В 2012 году я сделал значительно более совершенную карту File:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1619) compared with today's borders (noname).png (в описании карты указаны ссылки на русскую, польскую, английскую и украинскую версии).

И, в том случае, когда контент карты претерпевает существенные изменения, нельзя перезаписывать карту-предшественницу. Следует загружать новый вариант в новый файл, но с соблюдением лицензии карты-предшественницы и с указанием ссылки на нее в описании новой карты. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Это правда, что ваша карта намного лучше. Тот, который я исправил, добавив казаков, - это не произведение искусства, но, как и все схемы, технические схемы и картографический планы и документы, слишком общий, чтобы быть защищенным (лицензия "PD-ineligible"). Это не так? --Claude Zygiel (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Вы ошибаетесь, картографические произведения сами по себе являются предметом интеллектуальной собственности. Однако информация (но не копия самого изображения), почерпнутая из картографического изображения является свободной.
• Поэтому, за редчайшими исключениями, картографические произведения охраняются копирайтами. В США, согласно федеральному законодательству, интеллектуальная собственность, которая создана на федеральные деньги и чье опубликование не наносит вреда государству, имеет открытую лицензию, которая, тем не менее, предполагает обязательное указание источника происхождения сведений (к примеру, снимки НАСА, топографические карты Геологической службы США или карты ЦРУ являются общественной собственность, но при условии указания того, что это произведение НАСА, Геологической службы или ЦРУ, полученные из легального источника).
• Теперь о перезаписи карты. Как Вы видите, я в свое время создал новую карту, которая иначе оформлена в эстетическом плане, все линии границ и береговых линий также иные в каждой детали, не так ли? Такого рода карту нельзя было загрузить поверх старой, так как отличия вообще во всем. Вами созданная карта, после перезаписи, сделала невозможной использование прежней карты (без казаков) в статьях. Не всем нужна карта "с казаками", как Вы понимаете. Поэтому я сказал, что такого рода карту, что создана Вами, следует оформлять в качестве отдельного файла с уточняющим наименованием и описанием. При этом, коль скоро Вы воспользовались чужой картой, Вам следовало в качестве источника карты в явном виде указать исходную карту. При этом лицензия Вами созданной карты не может быть "свободнее" лицензии исходной карты. В противном случае станет возможно, скажем, внесение ничтожного, малозаметного изменения в исходную карту, а затем объявление полученного результата как самостоятельно созданного документа с той лицензией, какую Вы сами захотите поставить. Такого рода манипуляции являются прямым нарушением авторского права. Даже при свободной лицензии следует указывать автора исходного произведения (как я уже приводил пример для НАСА, Геологической службы США и ЦРУ).
• И еще. Вам следовало бы указать авторитетный источник, согласно которому Вами были нанесены границы области казаков. То, что Вы сами придумали, использовать в статьях нельзя, это ОРИСС. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо за все эти объяснения. Поэтому я сделал то, что вы мне сказали: [3]. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Не совсем так. Исходная карта, которую Вы использовали, дает ошибочные границы Речи Посполитой и ее составляющей - Великого княжества Литовского - в районе современной российско-эстонской, российско-латвийской, белорусско-латвийской, белорусско-украинской, российско-украинской и польско-словацкой границы.
• Считается не лучшим вариантом вносить текстовую часть легенды карты непосредственно в поле карты, а не в ее описание. Почему? Потому что это препятствует локализации (использованию на другом языке) карты. Кроме того, файл в статье может быть дан в малом масштабе, при котором текст легенды перестает быть читаем. Текстовая часть легенды, внесенная в текст статьи в текстовом виде, всегда читаема и может быть легко переведена, к примеру, на чувашский или удмуртский языки, если карта используется в соответствующих википедиях.
• Вы так и не привели авторитетный источник, согласно которому Вы на своей карте отобразили казачьи земли. Одновременно замечу, что выбор 1619 года (года Деулинского мира, согласно которому к Речи Посполитой отошел Смоленск и та достигла самых широких своих пределов) выглядит несколько случайным - ведь казачьи войны еще впереди, а именно впоследствии они сформировали Гетманщину. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Безусловно. Но ты профессионал. Я только хотел добавить казачьи земли (еще не Гетманщину) на карту Dgreusarda. Вот что я вам предлагаю. 1) - Запросить удаление карты Dgreusard и той, которую я создал на ее основе. 2) - Позвольте мне сделать производную карту вашей карты [4], раскрасив казачьи земли по-другому (с номером 6 в легенде), или создайте эту карту самостоятельно, если хотите. Как вы думаете ? --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Подозреваю, что я в два, а то и в три раза старше Вас, а потому не стоит мне "тыкать". Мой отец учился еще в царской гимназии, его старший брат, мой дядя, служил поручиком в армии Деникина, а мой дед погиб в Первую мировую войну.
• Удалять файлы не так просто. Вы имеете право подать запрос на удаление Вами созданной карты как её автор. Для удаления чужой карты нужны весьма веские основания, важным критерием также является то, что предлагаемый к удалению файл не используется ни в одной статье.
• Мною сделанная карта находится под свободной лицензией, а потому никто не должен просить у меня никакого разрешения. Бывало я в Гоби-Алтайском аймаке на центральной площади его административного центра на биллборде, посвященном аймаку, обнаруживал мною сделанную карту аймака, которую авторы биллборда просто скачали из Википедии. Если посмотреть на карты Гугл [5] то границы аймаков в Монголии взяты с мною созданной карты, размещенной на Коммонз. Безо всякого разрешения с моей стороны, ибо такова свободная лицензия.
• И еще раз: где авторитетны источник, который показывает границы казацких земель на 1619 год? Где он? Без источника говорить не о чем, я уже 2 (два) раза ранее указывал на это. Из того, что я вижу, Вы смело включаете в казацкие земли владения магната Иеремии Вишневецкого на левобережье Днепра. На каком основании? Мне это совершенно непонятно. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Для «казачьих земель» используются источники Hans-Erich Stier (главный редактор) Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Westermann 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, страницы 102 и 113 (с упоминанием «Wilde Felder» der Saporoger Kosaken). Для карты, которую я сделал, вот новая версия, без владений Вишневецкого. Что касается административной карты Монголии, я думаю, вы можете быть очень счастливы увидеть, на какой «вы были полезны». Для наших предков мы должны были быть «врагами», потому что они воевали друг с другом, но с тех пор планета «Терра» сильно изменилась. Я предпочитаю дружбу .
Pour les "terres cosaques, les sources sont Hans-Erich Stier (dir.) Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Westermann 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, pp. 102 et 113 (avec la mention «Wilde Felder» der Saporoger Kosaken). Pour la carte que j'ai faite, voici la nouvelle version, sans les domaines de Vishnevetsky. Pour la carte administrative de la Mongolie, je pense que vous pouvez être très content de voir à quel point vous avez été utile. Pour nos ancêtres, nous devrions être "ennemis", car ils ont combattu les uns contre les autres. Mais la planète Terre a beaucoup tourné depuis. Je préfère l'amitié . --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

consider a new file

This is not the best use of everyone's time. Please read Commons:Overwriting existing files and if you think that a variation should exist, consider having it as another file, and use {{Other version}} linking. We are not limited to one version of anything. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.png

File:Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nanahuatl (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Manipulating historical maps

Your habit to alter historical documents is very concerning to me. You have been given notice by other users repeatedly not to do this, as recently as last September here, this January here and here, this April here..., and @GPinkerton: might have checked your account history for more cases that I remain unaware of.
...and yet you were doing it again here in the very last month, clandestinely editing the area of the "Armenians" into a 19th-century map - as a result, you're claiming that the original cartographer included that ethnic group in a map when he in fact didn't. Historical map scans from old atlasses are not "working documents" at all.
I'd say that it is important to consider in all maps not originally published here in Commons: to clearly communicate if, where and how the uploader changed the original message and meaning of the map. Most uploads with old maps don't need that, because it is clear that the map was uploaded exactly as it was scanned. Some cases crop or mark one location in a non-subtle way (red circles etc.), which is also okay. But sneaky changes that are done exactly in the same style of the original map are clearly a problem, like in the recent case of HistoricGeek, who wanted to give an unimportant fiefdom the same status that other territories had historically, and to cement the contrafactual edits with forged maps they uploaded. Again:Uploaders need to clearly say what they changed. And if you want to be taken seriously, the communnication of merely "I uploaded this map from 1715 and corrected a few errors" is insufficient. "In this map from 1715 I changed the specific borders of the state of Xyzistan according to the source "Book" by "John Doe" to include Exampletown which was part of Xyzistan according to page 123." is better. And the best way is to draw a fully new map of your own.
As of right now, I'd say that none of the historic maps you uploaded can be trusted to not have been manipulated in a myriad possible ways. Changing a more recent map of another uploader here on Commons is less of a problem in my opinion, and I have seen how you also improved the quality of several of those. Which is why I assume your good faith but still urge you to stop forging old maps. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Enyavar: and @GPinkerton: ! My habit of modifying historical documents containing errors (like this one here which makes it appear that Subcarpathian Ruthenia would have been attributed to Poland, when in reality it is to Czechoslovkia) comes from my former job as a teacher correcting exam papers or homeworks. Other users including @GPinkerton, have asked me to leave the errors where they are, and separately upload my modified versions explaining why, which I have done several times, sources of supporting fixes. However, I cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the erroneous versions disseminate their errors massively via Wikipedia. The fact that they are ancient maps or sources does not make them sacred and intangible in my eyes because Commons is not a museum of cartography, but a digital network for the dissemination of knowledge, rather than errors. And a historical reference work is not, for me, equal in informative value to a journalistic or school map. The 1899 map here shows «Persians» where there are Kurds (which can be understood because the Kurdish language is Iranian) but denies the existence of Armenians, which may please some Azeri or Turkish nationalist politicians, but is historically false. My intervention had the effect of showing, for a month, that the Armenians existed where I represented them (and where many other maps represent them). I don't know what the purpose of HistoricGeek is, but you can easily verify that my edits are not intended to falsify history but to represent verifiable realities that the modified map did not show in its original version. That is why I will follow Pinkerton's advice and yours, since I realize that what is obvious to me (Subcarpathian Ruthenia which has become Czechoslovak and not Polish in 1919, the existence of Armenians in the north-east of Turkey in 1899, the reality of the Holocaust, the linguistic kinship of the peoples of the former USSR, etc.) is not for other Wikipedians, who have doubts, and that what is a «correction» for me, could be a «manipulation» or a «falsification» for them, especially if I respect the graphic style of the original! All the best too!, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sneaky-edits on old maps to display things that the old maps didn't show, is maybe not illegal (and also not explicitly prohibited), but I do think that enough cartographers and especially historians frown at such a practice, and that it can't stand to scrutiny in a wiki. HistoryGeek served as my example of a bad-faith falsification of historical documents/maps; while in your case there is good-faith manipulation. Both is falsification/manipulation. I oppose the bad faith with deletion requests, and the good faith with discussion. If I was too harsh in my initial adress, I apologize.

I'd like to take a look at two more examples: here we have a map that shows a grandiouse realm of the United Monarchy around 1000 BC. Form today's standards, the map is BS, and no serious scholar (of history/archaeology) would include that in an article. But I'd argue that the map can still be used - for example - in Wikisource which IS a museum/library of old texts. The map can also serve a function in displaying the history of the debunked 19th/early 20th century theories on the matter it shows. Such a historical lens is also the one that justifies the continued usage of the map with the "falsely declared" subcarpathian region: As long as the subtitles and descriptions make clear that this is a draft published in the NYT back then, there is no statement made that this is showing the final results of the treaty. Commons serves as a repository for public-domain imagery, and I have learned the hard way that Commons doesn't necessarily care about correctness.

My second example is the one that I think we should ALL be concerned about: a modern false map of the Egyptian New Kingdom, widely in use in the (Egyptian-)Arab Wikipedia(s). It is plainly false in the exaggeration of the area ruled, and my attempts a year ago to have it replaced in these Wikis and have it deleted in Commons as we clearly have better maps, were met with fierce resistance from the uploader, and as a foreigner I have no say in the Arab wiki project. So here is the point where I totally agree with you on that matter: When false maps (new or old) are used in a Wikipedia, then they should get replaced with correct ones, we can't have our projects disseminate false information, period. Maps produced by other editors can just be modified and I wouldn't object as long as the modification is sourced and documented. Maps produced by old, authoritative sources, should not get modified at all, I stand with that opinion. If you really need a particular map in an article but it is old and inaccurate, I think it's worth the effort to redraw it entirely, and not pretend it's still the same old map. Anyway, we'll work all things out. All the best to you! --Enyavar (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I must also reiterate that changing historical images is absolutely unacceptable, though the excuses given above for outrageous behaviour like this do not give me confidence Claude will desist after being yet again admonished not to do so. This statement: "in my eyes because Commons is not a museum of cartography, but a digital network for the dissemination of knowledge, rather than errors" demonstrates that Claude does not understand the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the "digital network for the dissemination of knowledge, rather than errors"; Commons is no such thing. Commons is indeed "a museum of cartography", as well as much besides; it is an anthology or repository of images and other digital files used for broadly educational purposes across numerous websites, of which one is Wikipedia. Altering antique maps, however erroneous they may be, is also completely pointless. New maps are better than old ones, and there is absolutely no justification for manipulating and falsifying historical maps (there is no other way of characterizing these "corrections", if they were done in manuscript we would call them "forgeries") in order to make them fit expectations of what their authors ought to have included when one could quite easily make a new map based on a newer source. What Claude has been repeatedly told is not "advice" but non-negotiable policy of Commons, as well as basic common sense. Why digitally alter a photograph of a printed map from decades ago when one can make a cleaner, better-informed digital map quoting modern sources and use that instead? Claude must recognize that this "habit of modifying historical documents containing errors" must immediately and permanently cease, and all damage done hitherto must be reversed. One cannot justify the falsification of historical documents by claiming that the existing documents are historically inaccurate; it is as illogical and absurd as it is forbidden by Commons policies. It is also counter-productive, instead of "correcting" a historical map, one creates a new map with the appearance of an old map, which simply compounds the problem. It multiplies, rather than reduces, the number of fake maps hosted on Commons. One cannot use the existence of an old anachronism to create new anachronisms. @Claude Zygiel will you stop? GPinkerton (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GPinkerton: and @Enyavar: . Thanks for making your point clear. On a hand, I do not agree with the vehemence of your indignation, which is undoubtedly legitimate for the OLD maps created by publishers of documents on paper (yes, I understood that this is a museum, a library, OK) but NOT for recent digital-only documents created only on Commons by us wikipedia volunteers : if ALL maps were non-editable, why is there a "upload new version" feature? On the other hand, if I create a modified version of an old map specifying it ("inspired by" ) and explaining why ("on the original, the Armenians were missing" ), then isn't is a NEW map created by me? (as Andy Warhol has created new works using previous ones). Excuse me for insisting, but to qualify as "anachronism" and "falsification" the existence of the Armenians in 1899 in Eastern Turkey (whether imitating an old map or creating a different version) means the "truth" is that the Armenians don't exist in 1899, that the Jews are Indo-Europeans, that Subcarpathian Ruthenia became Polish in 1919, and that the Byzantine Empire no longer had any possessions in Asia Minor in 1097, and since such old maps are widely present in historical Wikipedia articles, without specifying that they contain errors, it means that yes, we are indeed in the "process of disseminating documents containing errors". As far as I am concerned, I will no longer allow myself to "correct" the old originals scanned (as in a public library or museum), but I will continue to create SEPARATE versions without historical errors, and also to correct the historical errors of digital-only maps created in Commons (also other contributors can correct my errors, thanks). And I will give the historical reference atlases and books that I use for corrections, because I don't invent them in my little head . Old documents deserve respect? OK. History and Geography ALSO. Finally, when a voluntary contributor has a scanner that is too sensitive to grey, which keeps the back of a recent front document (page of a book), I don't really understand, in my little head, how a stained version is more authentic than a thinning version... I need more explanations

Anyway, if you think all documents uploaded in commons should be intangible, ask the Wikipedia administrators to remove the "upload new version" feature, to leave only the "upload a new document" feature. Wishes, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You continue to conflate two (or more) quite separate issues. The existence of old maps with various shortcomings is not a problem. Unqualified usage of these maps on Wikipedia may be a problem, but it is not a problem that can be fixed on Commons, which is a separate website. Indeed, the problem of proliferation of erroneous or anachronistic maps is aggravated by your actions: creating overwriting the files with "corrected" maps that suit your understanding but which resemble the existing old maps simply multiplies the number of anachronistic maps. Altering Shepherd's map of the Byzantine Empire from the 1920s or before might fix the errors you perceive in the old map, but at the same time you create a fake-old map which revises history and introduces new anachronisms which falsely suggest, in this case, that Shepherd's map is different to what Shepherd actually published. Similarly, overwriting modern maps on Commons with your own creations and alterations in order to influence what information Wikipedia displays is contrary to policy for obvious reasons: changing what the existing map shows rather than substituting a new Commons file for the old one on Wikipedia(s) changes the Wikipedia editors' intentions and wrecks the Wikipedia pages' history. It becomes difficult to know who chose what map for what reason if the file no longer shows the map as it was when the editors chose it. You need to respect Wikimedia's digital history! (This is why the overwriting policies you have been flouting exist.)

The anachronisms you are introducing in your examples, which you bizarrely continue to seek to justify, are as follows: you falsely suggest that the German map from 1899 showed a separate group for Armenians. It did not, and you, without even any attempt to justify or even explain your actions, interpolated onto a map 120 years old a whole new area. You made no attempt to distinguish between what the cartographers of the 19th century depicted, and what you have decided quite unilaterally is the "truth". (This is without even addressing the impossible question of how and where to plot "Armenia" on a map of Ottoman vintage when Armenia as such had no official boundaries and no widely accepted unofficial definition and absolutely no reliable data on which to estimate the relative distribution of Armenians vs other groups, etc, etc.) You falsely suggest that the archival map of the USSR showed a distribution of Jews (it didn't). You falsely manipulate a map from 1919 in order to prove that a New York newspaper printed in that year a quite different map to the map it actually printed. I cannot believe that you believe in good faith that this kind of forgery is acceptable, or even helpful. Your speculative interpolation of Armenians into 19th-century German history is absolutely no different to the various outrages of historical revisionism perpetrated by (among others) Syrian, Azeri, Iranian or Arab nationalist users on Commons. This "correction" of the past is little different from the Soviet-style photographic arts by which ideologically unsuitable people could be erased from old pictures; the only difference is that here, you tend to be adding peoples, rather than subtracting non-persons. Will you be "fixing" up the mediaeval mappae mundi because it's "true" that the Americas, Antarctica, and Australia all exist, despite the ignorance of the mediaeval cartographers? Will you "rectify" the coordinates of Ptolemy next?

If you want to practise cartography, do so by all means. Accurate, well-sourced maps are in short supply. There is absolutely no need to create fakery by overwriting historical photographs. Similarly, there is no point in "correcting" anything without demonstrating by reference to an external source that such "corrections" are appropriate. For example, what precisely makes you think the Byzantine Empire's size in 1097 was different to what the antique map depicts? (In this instance you may be "right", but nowhere have you explained yourself, and its is well-known that the empire lost control of the entirety of Asia numerous times long before 1097, so a reference to a battle decades earlier in your edit summary is neither explication or justification for any of this.) Why precisely have you decided to locate Armenia as you have in your manipulation of the 1899 map? What gives you the authority to alter the historical record of what maps American newspapers published in 1919? Why, moreover, would it not simply be better to use a digital map of the same subject constructed on the basis of information from reliable sources (not including hand-drawn century-old erroneous American newspaper maps done by pencil)? Because there are no obvious answers to these questions, I again ask: will you undertake to stop this revisionism and make clear whenever you upload anything its source(s) and the extent to which the map is a synthesis of existing cartographic material with your own research/judgement/guesses? Do you understand that it is unacceptable to overwrite files created by Wikimedians – as you have been doing despite numerous cautions and which for you appear unrepentant – for any reason other than minor changes of style, accessibility, digital processing, etc.? GPinkerton (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Claude, maps and graphics are easy to manipulate and if someone later detects an error in your map, this will create lots of work and effort. Just for example, I have seen several people who take global statistical maps and "update" the data. Of a single country, let's say Nigeria. And suddenly Nigeria really stands out for being such a developed nation in a world map of 2008, because it's the only country of Africa where the map uses the data of 2022. Yes, you didn't do that. You manipulated maps in a different but still controversial way, which also causes people lots of headaches, and loss of time that we could have spent on real work in Commons.

And there is still the matter which you still haven't grasped, apparently: The original authors made documents and maps based on their understanding. The old map didn't leave the Armenians out in a malicious notion to have the world forget about them, but it left them out because the author apparently understood them as a subgroup of the many ethnical groups he summarized with "Persians". In a map focused on all the ethnographical details in Europe, nonetheless. But when YOU change the map and then appropriate it as your creation, and even state the original author and a link to the original, you can't go with half-measures and just eliminate the one error you found (like the Nigeria guy I mentioned above). Nope, all the due diligence is now YOUR responsability, and you better check for each ethnical splatter from Scotland to Siberia, from Morocco to Teheran, that in the decade of the original map, the situation was exactly like you map it, and when you label the Armenians, you better don't forget the Kurds. And you better document each and every little change as well, together with sources. It's a really hard task, I know. Especially because ethnical groups are hard to track on small-scaled maps. But if you botch the job, you have to face unkind words.

On the subject of the NYT map of Subcarpathia: You still haven't realized that this was reported as the "draft"? The map's claim is NOT "It became Polish in 1919", it is "according to our information, current negotiations are that it becomes Polish at some point in the future". Okay, but WAS it ever negotiated in that way? I find no mention. But even if not: the map-maker in New York had this level of knowledge right then. Or he just forgot to draw a line - but was it the one you drew (and removed)? Or was it a different one? We just can't know that. And have you ever seen the maps about the treaty of Sèvres? There are many, they have very different levels of detail and cover very different stages in the negotiations, and most importantly, they all didn't ever come true. Plus, it seems to me that many have been created with even more outrageous borders much later, to make nationalist Turkish blood boil. That does not disqualify all of them from Commons, we just need to be careful in selecting good material from Commons. We even keep historical wanks like Category:Old maps of Frisland (discovered that stuff this week). And I won't even begin to debate the 1970's Soviet maps on the ethnicity of Jews. Let me phrase it in another way: When you encounter original scans of the Code Napoléon or the US declaration of independence: WHY would you create and upload a gender-neutral forgery of those documents, just because all genders deserve respect? The originals respect the old documents, and your forgeries respect some other values? Why? Just don't do it. Please.

But after all these stern words, I want to finish with some praise. Making changes to improve the scan quality of an old picture (like the Chasqui image) is totally okay in my book, and I understand why you feel frustrated in that case. This is the reason why "upload new version" should be kept open even for old documents. GPinkerton was overeager in the revert of the Chasqui image, or should have given a better reason for reverting it. Maybe they weren't taking any more chances of possible forgery, and didn't look too closely at what you changed. Nobody is perfect and I eat lots of AGF for breakfast: Pinkerton might have the good faith to reconsider that revert. Note, that this is not saying that anything goes, it is a singular case where it's my opinion that you are justified in clearing up a bad scan. Another case where I found a good change, is File:Austrian Littoral in 1914.png, marking Bosnia in a special color instead of leaving it uncolored, which was a wrong statement there in a map about 1914. As that case was a recent, user-created map, it was a CC-license, not PD-old. Yes, you really may correct historical and geographical misconceptions - in CC-licensed maps, and with a lot of caution. :-) All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Enyavar: and @GPinkerton: . I have read your last posts carefully. First of all, thank you for these detailed and convincing precise explanations. Thanks to this, I understand at last the notion of "digital history" and also that the conservation of the "uncorrected" versions in the history of modified images, is not enough for this digital history and complicates the work of users. Then, concretely this means that apart from minor cosmetic changes like this File:Indo-European Migrations. Source David Anthony (2007), The Horse, The Wheel and Language.jpg, ...for the rest, I will have to create my own maps. All the best for you two also (en français nous avons un dicton : je comprends vite si on m'explique lentement - "I understand quickly if someone explains to me slowly") --Claude Zygiel (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Despite this comment, you appear to be blithely ignoring the regulations at Commons:Overwriting existing files, and you continue to make significant changes to files without the cosnent of the uploader. Why don't you juts make your own maps? Stop meddling with others'! GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup aussi, c'était une plaisir de correspondre avec vous - il y a des autres éditeurs qui ne veuillent pas écouter et comprendre. Mes meilleures salutations, --Enyavar (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar: as regards the File:Chasqui3.JPG image, both revert and Claude's edits seem pointless: despite the claim in the description that the image was made by "the tradicional 16th century Inca chronist Huaman Poma Ayala" (Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, cf. Category:Felipe Guamán Poma de Ayala) the image is in fact a really bad coloured derivative of the original (monochrome) drawings where the extraneous text is some kind of digital artefact. The original manuscript is wholly online, but largely not uploaded to Commons. The original page of the MS (El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno, cf.Category:Nueva corónica y buen gobierno) in question is available here and illustrates the perils of what Claude has been doing, as well as its futility. @Claude Zygiel: There is no reason to use the derivative when the original is available to be uploaded, but there is absolutely even less reason to try to remove writing that is coming through from the opposite side of the page! It's been like that for centuries! GPinkerton (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Badly colored" doesn't even start to describe what has been done there (by the uploader Peruvian19 or by the 'artist' responsible for this). Force-inserting the quipu is the worst part. But on the substance of Claude's edits: The reverse side's writing shining through the scan doesn't mean that it's part of the artwork. The artwork is only the lines on the obverse side, and that has been the case since the work has been printed. The light sensors of digital scans are magnifying original flaws by a lot. I have scanned books myself and can assure you: The letters from the reverse here are not nearly as visible to the naked eye, as they appear in digital scans. This is a sensor issue coming from the digitalization process itself, and while I'd value the original image on commons, a well-done restoration only having the lines of the artist serves as a better illustration. That would preferably be in Commons on two separate uploads that link to each other, of course. --Enyavar (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Idioma ucraniano.png

File:Idioma ucraniano.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

217.26.27.29 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Europe 1097-corrected.jpg

File:Europe 1097-corrected.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

A modified and announced as "derivative work" map is not the same thing as a "fake" when the derived version corrects the defects of the original, which does not only support the thesis of a disappearance over a thousand years of the speakers of the Eastern Romance languages, but also that of an almost total loss of Anatolia by the Byzantines immediately after Mantzikert and the total absence of Eastern Christianity between Rus and Byzantium. Pinkerton made me understand that my derivative maps should not replace the originals; OK, so I downloaded the modified versions separately, but it is still too much for the "Orbanian" nationalists who, furious at having lost their great country at Trianon, are taking their revenge by erasing the ancestors of their neighbors from the history. Note that the Romanian nationalists with their "Dacianism" are not more consistent. If you want Wikipedia to show only one hypothesis when there are several, go ahead and delete my derivative work. You will note that for my part, I do not accuse of "fake" Shepherd, nor the people who support the Hungarian hypothesis: I'm not Donald Trump --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S.: Shouldn't the length of this discussion [6] highlight the fact that this historical question will not be resolved by a simple deletion? --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)