User talk:Alexis Jazz

If you are planning on sending me threats, please, check your spelling first. At least put in the effort, okay?

Some YouTube channels with Creative Commons content that Commons isn't using much from:

• The Scottish Parliament from ScottishParl
• World Poker Tour from TheWPT (note: not every video is CC)

Why don't you take some screenshots, import whole videos by downloading them with https://en.savefrom.net/ and import using video2commons, etc? Don't forget to tag your uploads with {{Licensereview}}! If you need help, just ask me! (or the folks at the helpdesk or village pump)

Old MediaWiki Upload Wizard

Hello Alexis Jazz,

I wanted to ask you this last year but forgot. As you're quite technical, is it possible to re-create the old MediaWiki Upload Wizard from before December 2023 and let users upload using that one?

I'm not sure if you've seen the new MediaWiki Upload Wizard, but the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) sees it as their holy mission to prevent admin backlogs from forming so they want to make basic uploads as tedious as possible by constantly having to click that the file you're uploading is not a selfie 🤳🏻 or a logo and a lot of extra steps were introduced. My guess is that among the unintended consequences of this is that we'll get less new contributors.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) also explained that as of now they're not looking to improve the experience for uploaders and only for admins dealing with backlogs (which seems to be the only thing they care about, almost all new tools and proposals coming from them is how to maximally exclude people and introduce new ban hammers). At least when they introduced the MediaWiki Upload Wizard they allowed people to still use the old upload form, but now you can only use the new "improved" version.

So, is it possible to somehow retrieve the old MediaWiki Upload Wizard and turn it into a forked tool and call it something like "Special:MediaWiki Upload Wizard (pre-December 2023)" or something? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trung, good question. I haven't uploaded anything recently.
You could retrieve an old version of UploadWizard, here. See also mw:Extension:UploadWizard. But it's an extension (as opposed to a gadget), so just forking it on-wiki is anywhere from pretty difficult to impossible. And you couldn't maintain it, so it would break sooner or later.
Realistically, you could make a gadget that improves the current UploadWizard somehow. Or create your own UploadWizard gadget from scratch. Or use an alternative, like the Commons app or Commons:Upload tools.
While I haven't used the current version of the UploadWizard (I haven't uploaded much recently), what you're talking about doesn't sound too bad. I wrote Commons:Upload Wizard proposals a long time ago, it sounds like they implemented some of that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just cannot stress enough how little the new "improvements" resemble your proposals. In fact, the only actual implementations that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) added that I would consider to be improvements are for artificial intelligence-made files. For more context on these changes please see "Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements". The only goal is "to reduce admin backlog", that is all the changes are deliberately made to be a pain in the ass of uploaders in the hopes that admins will have less work to do. Even the admins can see the unintended consequences that WMF staff cannot.

In short, they basically just added a bunch of extra steps to the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, while this isn't a bad thing per se but the way they've implemented it is just outright horrible. I've noticed a trend where the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) takes what ARH's ("Advanced Rights Holders') say serious and just ignore whatever anyone else has to say. For example, I brought up the same issues as the admin above did but I was ignored. Interestingly enough, I independently came up with a similar system for the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, but this was immediately dismissed.

My main issue with the changes aren't just the fact that they added completely unnecessary clicks, but that the wording of those options outright contradict policy. If it's your own work you can select:

• 3. Please select the option that best describes the purpose of this work.
  • ✅ This work provides knowledge, instructions, or information to others.
  • ❎ This work is for my personal use e.g. photos of myself, my family or friends, or I am required to upload it for my job.

A small number of personal files are allowed per "COM:SELFIE" 🤳🏻, but the wording claims that no selfies ever are allowed. You're also not to upload anything related to your job, this means that WMF staff cannot upload anything either, or do they now have to lie every time they upload? Now imagine you're an employee at a GLAM institution and you see this message, you were tasked with digitising important works online and your museum chose the Wikimedia Commons, you see this message and ask your supervisor, (s)he then says "guess they've changed their policy, best not to upload here".

When you upload a work that isn't yours you get:

• 4. Please confirm the following statement before proceeding.
  • ✅ I confirm that this work does not include material restricted by copyright, such as logos, posters, album covers, etc.

Note that you already added the license and had multiple steps confirming the free nature of the file(s) concerned, now you get an extra mandatory step which can confuse people into thinking that all logos, posters, album covers, etc. are still restricted by copyright ©️, it doesn't leave room for the concept of a "{{PD-textlogo}}". The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is very clear that their only goal is to reduce bad uploads, but I think that spammers won't care and that genuine good faith contributors will be scared away.

I'm going to draft and propose a new Tutorial Upload Wizard and I'll incorporate some of your proposals into it as well. None of the extra steps introduced actually offer any helpful guide or anything to uploaders, they're just designed to scare potential spammers off.

Another important difference is that before "I found it on the internet" or "I am not sure" simply nominated the upload for review and automated deletion, now it just straight up tells you that you cannot under any circumstances upload the file. They just added more filters, there's barely any more explanation, and the filters they added often have texts that contradict actual rules and policies. I would rather see the creation of a tutorial programme that can teach people how copyright ©️ works rather than the shortsighted "improvements" that were recently added.

Bad uploads are often a knowledge issue, most people upload in good faith and simply don't understand how laws work, by explaining it to them step-by-step in an easy to understand method we could level the learning curve. I think that if we keep going on this path of increasing the learning curve by outright peddling disinformation that we'll just end up with less people and less new contributors may mean less admin backlog but I don't think that a shrinking community is a price worth paying. My proposed tutorial will be so easy that it will teach the intricacies of copyright ©️, Freedom of Panorama (FoP), de minimis, the threshold of originality (TOO), to literally anyone. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trung, I just uploaded some files. Didn't have any problem with this, maybe it's worse on mobile? The COM:SELFIE thing doesn't seem to prevent uploading (at least I could still press next) so only the warning wording needs adjustment, which can probably be adjusted locally. And it doesn't say you can't upload work-related files, only if your job requires uploading files you have a problem. Given COM:PAID that isn't always an issue either. The question needs to be read the right way: uploading the logo of the notable company that you work for or a photo you took of the HQ provides knowledge/information to others. It's difficult to distinguish this from a click farm that uploads spam. I didn't see question 4. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

People who work for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or any Wikimedia affiliate organisation technically have jobs that require them to upload stuff for their work. Of course, "COM:PAID" would be better to link than the vague text, but these are just extra boxes to tick whenever you upload. If you only upload once in a while it's not annoying, but if you upload hundreds of files these boxes are quite annoying. The question listed as "4." (Four) appears only when you click the "This file is not my own work" box, this seems like a way of sneaking in "Commons:Watermarks" despite community consensus against it. Though it specifically mentions logos, my main issue is that you have to tick this box after you've already established that a file is free to use. It's just an extra click designed to make people question their uploads after they've already filled in all the relevant information.
My main issue is that novice users get the wrong impression of what is and isn't allowed to be uploaded here, kind of how the "Wikimedia Commons app" claims that you can only upload files that are your own work (at least when I last used it several years ago), it explicitly claimed that anything that wasn't your own work wasn't allowed, kind of implying that the Mona Lisa wouldn't be allowed here because it's not your "Own work".
Instead of actually trying to educate novice users on what is and isn't allowed the only "solutions" people ever seem to come up with is tonnes of warning ⚠️ templates and broad discouragements. Writing actual simple to understand guides on how FoP, de minimis, the TOO, Etc. works would be way better than these "solutions". -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, not fixed

Excuse me for writing to you here, but I don't get any notifications at the English-language Wikipedia so you can ping me here. Anyhow, the Factotum title display issue was fixed earlier but has since returned. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd ping by Factotum

Factotum seems to have made this odd ping, by guess is that it didn't register the fact that the person I was replying to used a template in their signature. Not sure if this even is "a problem", but I'm reporting it anyhow. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trung, there's a problem, but I'm unsure about the solution. Antoine.01's templating of the userlink is probably not valid, and they are listed on https://signatures.toolforge.org/reports/commons.wikimedia.org for "sig-too-long-post-subst". Their actual signature is {{subst:User talk:Antoine.01/s}} but they are not substituting. No userlink in wikitext means tools (like Factotum) couldn't reliably locate their comment in wikitext.
In this case that wasn't an issue as Factotum failed to recognize the userlink in HTML because it's wrapped in another element (a <span> in this case), picking the userlink it did recognize instead. I'd have to add something for that in FTT.getLegacyUserForTimestamp. Maybe later. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Kraven the Hunter (film).jpg

File:Kraven the Hunter (film).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!

Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You made me laugh...

I just read User:Alexis Jazz/Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Guess which part made me laugh?

In 1999, or maybe a year or so before or after, I read a description of her that called Ms Spears "the world's sl*ttiest virgin". I am sure you wish her well, as I do. Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In 1999 The CBC had a reporter/comedian assigned to the Y2K beat. He reported on an interview Ms Spears did, online, on a service called myspace Myspace allowed myspace subscribers to post questions to Ms Spears. This online interview was described as precedent setting, the first of its kind. Myspace moderators selected some of those questions for her to answer, online.

One young questioner asked her what her plans were for News Year's Eve. A clearly unhappy Ms Spears told fans she didn't have ANY plans for news year's eve, because her mom believed elevators were going to suddenly plummet to the grounds, and airliners were going to drop from the sky. So she was forcing Britney to stay home.

So, concluded the CBC's reporter, that is one more thing Y2k ruined. It ruined the hottest date of the Millenium. Geo Swan (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Geo Swan, of course I do. I still have two of her albums. Listening to Born to Make You Happy right now, kind of a guilty pleasure I suppose. That essay was actually written in 2018, right before the stories about abuse and conservatorship surfaced in 2019. The public perception of Britney was quite different at the time and the joke should be read in the zeitgeist of 2018. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes, read differemtly now. That is why I assured you I knew you wished her well.

Look at the English title of the most famous book of w:Pierre Vallières. Wow. That title didn't age well. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to allow GFDL again!

Hello!

Naa do not worry... :-)

Right now I'm checking ALL wikis to locate GFDL-templates. I gave up on doing it automatically. But at some point I hope all templates with GFDL is linked via Wikidata and then it could perhaps be done in some fancy way.

Sadly there are many wikis and many files. You can see m:User:MGA73/GFDL files but it is not complete. I got lazy and gave up updating it with all templates and categories while I was working. So for now I mostly just link via Wikidata. But once that is complete I could compare my list with wikidata and add the missing categories.

ChatGPT got the idea I could just move ALL files to Commons beause it would make it easier to find all files licensed GFDL. I might do that and we can talk again in 87 years from now. Lol...

Anyway if you have any ideas let me know. And if you spot any wikis you like on the list you could go nuts on the GFDL-files and either move them to Commons or nominate them for deletion. :-D --MGA73 (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I found something that seems to work so now I'm working on creating usable lists.

For now I made a list of all wikis and if they suggest GFDL during upload. You can see m:User:MGA73/GFDL files/Licenses. --MGA73 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump supporter mocks protesters (32912615810) (cropped).jpg

File:Donald Trump supporter mocks protesters (32912615810) (cropped).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!

Joshua Ameth Chávez Kant (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Black Man Being Sad GIF Animation Loop.gif

File:Black Man Being Sad GIF Animation Loop.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!

186.175.71.199 13:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg

Hello, I started COM:VPC#File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg which lead to the DR above. I noticed you took part in the previous DR on the logo so just wanted to give you an FYI. Jonteemil (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)