User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jdforrester (WMF)!

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) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:VisualEditor-logo.svg

FYI that I changed the copyright tag on that file to {{Pd-text}} since it's not original enough to be copyright-able. Legoktm (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Attribution/license issue

Hi James,

Your slide deck here:

File:VisualEditor - 2014-02 Metrics deck.pdf

contains photos (the ones of cats) whose licenses require attribution (and also require that derivative works be licensed CC BY-SA). Can you update the metadata to credit the photographers? -Pete F (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The template for screenshots of Wikipedia content and the de minimis usage are insufficient? If so, no, but I have faith that you can. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My reading of de minimis (specifically, the 3rd paragraph of the section "an example") would say no -- clearly, there was a deliberate choice to include these photos, which according to my understanding clearly removes a "de minimis" claim from consideration.

I should have linked this before -- I did manage to track down the names of the photographers, here: File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 11.jpg -- hope that helps. (I should have kept the file name links, but I was working too fast and forgot to save them.) -Pete F (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: … I'm confused. You've already found the sources and have the competence and drive to make the licence information more exact, but… you want to waste your time asking other people to do the changes? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem adding that -- but I don't have the legal authority to change the license of your doc from CC BY to CC BY-SA. (I think you could avoid the need to do that by fully crediting, and indicating the license of, the images within the doc...which seems like a lot more work.) That's the main reason I wanted to reach out to you. -Pete F (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Very well, I've "fixed" the licence to be exhaustive. What an unbelievable waste of time. Also, COM:de minimis is hilariously wrong and written by people that think there are clear dividing lines that can be drawn. sigh. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

James, I can see how this took more time than necessary, as a direct result of my sloppy presentation. I should have been clearer, and I wish I had been. I'm sorry.

I did not realize COM:De minimis was inacurate -- all I know about it is that it's a formal policy of Commons. I'm not a lawyer, and I've always taken it at face value. If you're able to help improve it, I'm sure that would be a great service to the project.

Apart from the legal aspect though, let me explain why I think the time you and I put in was not wasted (even though it was less efficient than it should have been). To me, it isn't ultimately a matter of law, but a matter of respect. From my earliest days on Wikipedia, my colleagues in WikiProject Oregon would occasionally find that one another's photos were used in, for instance, a local newspaper. In most cases, the first reaction would be delight that we were having an impact, followed by the realization that the photo was either entirely uncaptioned, or inaccurately captioned something like "courtesy of Wikimedia Commons." This would typically lead to friendly banter along the lines of, "with all them lawyers and copyeditors, you'd think they could get it right" and expressions of sympathy toward somebody who had never thought their work might be published in a newspaper, and when it finally was, they didn't even get the tiny bit of acknowledgment they had requested via their choice of a CC license.

So in this case, I do think it's fairly unlikely that any of the photographers will ever notice that their work was included in a presentation produced by the Wikimedia Foundation. But if by some strange twist of fate they do find out, and if they have never really had their work published anywhere before, there is a big difference between (1) the rush of pride they might feel, that their work was somehow deemed worthy of inclusion by an organization like that, and part of efforts to (in this case) build and advocate new software features; and (2) the wave of disappointment they might feel, when (to simplify, as an end user might) the very organization that encouraged them to use a CC license to begin with couldn't be bothered to provide the attribution the license requested.

In short, I think it's worthwhile for WMF to make the effort to meet or even exceed the requirements of free licenses. It's of course worthwhile for a newspaper to do that too, but I think it's much more important for WMF to do it -- considering that establishing an environment of respect and honoring one another's work is (at least IMO) a strong contributing factor toward the "increase participation" objective of the Strategic Plan. -Pete F (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Happened to spot a current instance of this, where Wikipedians noted with approval that a publication (Portland Business Journal) is properly attributing photos: [1] -Pete F (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Metrics Meeting 2013-04-04 - VisualEditor.pdf

File:Metrics Meeting 2013-04-04 - VisualEditor.pdf 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!

206.29.182.193 01:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimania 2014 - VisualEditor — helping users edit more easily.pdf

File:Wikimania 2014 - VisualEditor — helping users edit more easily.pdf 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!

172.56.9.26 00:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf 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!

172.56.9.26 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your PDF uploaded by you

James, thanks for uploading these learning PDFs to Commons, but keep in mind the following:

As you as a WMF employee, I suppose than you know the Commons policy about fair use (that is not allowed in Commons). In order to avoid the above DRs and copyright issues, please consider to use only free media files in the WMF documentation. Regardless if these files are de minimis, these files included/embedded in the documentation may convert the whole PDF in non-free.

Also, please edit the PDFs uploaded in order to remove the non-free contents and and request the deletion of later versions using {{Speedy}}, or the media will be, unfortunatelly, deleted. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: Hey there. I believe you fail to understand how copyright works, and are mis-applying Commons policy. De minimis usage is fine on Commons – to pick a trivial example from Special:Random/File, File:Ford_Mustang_GT_1968_(8905848513).jpg contains multiple copyrighted works, such as the logos on the cars, shirts and other places. Additionally, altering a Wikipedia article for these purposes would be grossly inappropriate and disrespectful to the community. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I know very well the Commons policies. In only (assuming good faith) suggest to avoid to use non-free contents in the documentation for the WMF. The picture that you linked here have various elements considered de minimis, but is very different of a documentatin PDF that includes many example files to demonstrate the new features; i said please avoid using non-free content in the documentation (assuming good faith), not anything else.

Let the community and administrators to decide if the non-free files in the Documentation PDFs uploaded are or not de minimis. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia (with notes).pdf

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia (with notes).pdf 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!

2607:FB90:220D:4EEA:CDE0:ADEC:9933:570 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Visual editor icons

Hi James

I really like the visual editor icons, I'm going to use them for my UNESCO project pages, would it be easy to make numbers (at the moment I only need 1+2) with the same style? I have Photoshop if you can tell me the font and settings I can be self sufficient.

Cheers

John Cummings (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Hey, thank you. Unfortunately they're not made with a font, but hand-crafted from scratch to make them as small, readable and consistent as possible, so I don't have anything helpful like that to give you, sorry. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks, well I'll have a go and see what I can come up with. Cheers John Cummings (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor icons out of date

Hi,

I think and a few other icons are out of date. I think also the symbols menu (Ω) is missing. Since these are used in the user guide and tutorials for VE, it'd be useful to have the new .svg images for them, but I've no idea how to come by them. Cheers, Evolution and evolvability (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Hey; these were migrated a year ago or so to OOUI (here's a list of all of them; click "RTL" to get the RTL versions instead where different). The files are mastered in git and keeping them synchronised on here would be tedious; I've not really had time, sorry. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

James, I came here to ask for missing or updated VE icons and found this. So let me add: It would be really, really useful to have the recent/active VE icons on Commons. Actually it’s why I’m here: A user asked in German Commons:Forum where to find some of the symbols, because she wants to write an updated help with visualisations. This is not possible in the moment. At least they are neither in category VisualEditor icons nor in OOjs UI. — Speravir – 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I would upload all icons, but first there is a standardized naming required (I mean the naming is also outdated). I would suggest to take OOjs UI xxx.svg instead of "VisualEditor" or "Wikieditor" or "Echo" or "Notification". Would this be okay? Cheers, ↔ User: Perhelion 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Speravir and Perhelion: Sorry, yes, please feel free to upload them as "OOjs UI icon – foo" or something similar, and we can rename the VE ones if you want, too. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I've created Category:OOjs UI icons and moved all old equal icons in there and uploaded ca. 800 icons from "VisualEditor-wmf-1.28.0-wmf.23" (I removed 8 duplicates in the original, which where named with the suffix "constructive"!?) I also fixed the <style> in all files (easy with Npp, without programming knowledge) by only replace it with style type="text/css". ↔ User: Perhelion 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, I've created a gallery page (which was requested by volunteers who create help pages on Wikipedia). On work on this I've recognized some strange. Two larger icons (ltr → rtl) seems duplicates and not mirrored (as the correspondending "smaller" icons are), compare OOjs UI icons #largerText. Also all icon with name "constructive" included are duplicates (I've removed, which are maybe temps for future)!? -- User: Perhelion 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Thank you! You're right, the largerText icon's RTL version isn't – I've created https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/336234 to fix this. The "constructive" flag is deprecated, so you can ignore those (sorry for not mentioning it). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you too for fast reply. PS: I left a small comment on Gerrit (is the inverted/white version included in this?). :) -- User: Perhelion 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup! Those are all generated automatically. (Your comment on gerrit wasn't shown – did you publish it?) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh* I think not, I've saved now my comment/edit!? -- User: Perhelion 19:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to click "Reply…" and then "Post" to post your comment, sadly. Gerrit's interface is… poor. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

• File:MediaWiki edit page buttons accessibility change 2017, before.png
• File:MediaWiki edit page buttons accessibility change 2017, after.png

2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 15:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jdforrester (WMF). You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/MediaWiki edit page buttons accessibility change 2017. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 08:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Jdforrester. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Abusing WMF account to make it seem that you are acting on behalf of the WMF, while you are not. See here. You can use your regular account.. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

You have been unblocked. The discussion is still going on at COM:AN/U, and might come up with other conclusion, but for now there is no emergency in having a block and no consensus for it. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't mix up copyrightholder and author

File:Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical black (2012-2016).svg is a derivative of File:Wikimedia.png, by meta:User:Neolux, which was converted by User:DarkEvil to File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg

I assume good faith, but it is not my duty to correct wrong Author-information. I could make a deletion request, because there was a wrong author and a source, without OTRS-Permission.

If you have any question, don't hesitate to ask at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, or on my my talkpage.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: you do know you're talking to a fellow admin, right? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: No I didn't(assuming User:Jdforrester?). But generally I assume we should tread people identically independet to their postition (It's the knowledge that IMHO matters), also for Newbies AGF might be more important, since they might just don't know how to do it correctly. And I think beeing nice and supporting Newbies is more important, admins are integrated enought to be able defend themself (what newbies weren't).

For this file: I think Neolux is the author, not Wikimedia, also Nelux might gave all rights to Wikimedia.

It is more common on Wikiversum-Logos to name the Wikipedia User than "Wikimedia Foundation". (e.g. see: File:Wikimedia_movement_DE_EN.svg for different Wikiversum-Logos)

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm happy if someone can correct me): That's the reason why I asked at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Difference_between_Copyrightholder_and_author.

Alexis, as you might know, I value your opinion in many fields (maybe not everywhere) more than my own. What's your opinion?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Neolux designed it, but Neolux doesn't work for the WMF IIRC. As the logo is PD-ineligible, attribution is not legally required. On Commons however, we'd attribute the author if known and otherwise (like, when we're lazy) the copyright holder. It's fine (and common) to attribute File:McDonald's Golden Arches.svg to "McDonald's". But presumably Jdforrester does know, in which case Neolux should be attributed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I understand the difference. It appears that you believe that the file as represented is authored by Neolux, which is not correct; it was re-designed since the original design (the angles, spacing, colours, whitespace, and font were all adjusted). I'd advise you to reflect for a moment before edit-warring in future, and to whether your assumptions might be faulty. Please revert yourself. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): I will take a look at it after work (in ~12h). I suggest to take the text for author= from the current black-logo: File:Wikimedia_Foundation_logo_-_vertical.svg, would you agree on that? But as Alexis said it is IMHO a public domain image (also you uploaded it as CC-BY-SA 3.0), hence It does not matter, and you can change the Author to whatsoever you like, feel free to do so.

@Alexis Jazz: I know it is common on PD-images. But it was uploaded under CC-BY-SA and differently to other logos, we know here the main authors. Why not name all of them, or at least the IMHO most important one?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Yes, I think that'd be adequate (though the post-2016 logo was altered even more by the Foundation staff than the post-2012 one was, I believe). Thank you! Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Yes, if known we should always attribute the author(s). But it's understandable that people can't really be bothered to look up for every work by an organization or company who exactly made it. But if already known, we should attribute that person. Jdforrester, I see no obvious difference between m:File:Ncwikicol.png (14 September 2003) and foundation:Visual identity guidelines#toc-foundation besides the color. In countries where it is eligible for copyright (like the UK), the WMF version would certainly be considered to be a derivative work. I don't understand why foundation says it was designed in 2005. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

as you might have seen i changed the author to "Wikimedia Foundation", since it now contains a valid source everyone can follow the derivative-history  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Apex skin - example screenshot.png

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Apex skin - example screenshot.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

IN (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@IN: Done. Note that this really should have been aimed at the uploader to this wiki, Tacsipacsi; please fix your script. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)