User talk:Jdforrester/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Misdeletion of Image:Flaming cocktails.jpg
Hello,
can you please give me a link, where stand's that the picture is public-domain or has no copyright-problems? thanx.--DaB. 17:28, 12 Dez 2004 (UTC)
- From the author's "profile" page, the licence-comment says:
- "you can take my images for any work, you don't have to ask for permission"
- ... which I think is pretty clearly copyrighted-free-use, effectively cc-by (though not actually, of course).
- James F. (talk) 17:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Commons admin
I've made you an admin here on Commons. Congratulations! villy 10:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Copyright tags
please use Commons:Copyright tags, eg {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} instead of raw text 217.225.212.18 18:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Info on pics
I have been re-arranging the whole Category:Castles and added a few subcategories, amongst which Category:Castles of the United Kingdom. Browsing through your photos I have noticed that you do not actually put your name on the description, but just say "by me" or "Photo retouched by myself". Although this might be evident to you, people who use the photos may not know who "me" is, if they are not familiar with the system (you downloaded the pic etc.). I have changed all the "me's" I came accross by your nick on the photos across which I came, but thank you for precising the info on the future. Cheers, notafish }<';> 12:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Latin language template
I asked w:en:User:Adam Bishop about the translation, and it turns out "forget" takes the genitive, so it's actually "totius linguae Latinae meae oblitus sum". — Dan | Talk 02:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Roses
elements cross-posted
Wow. Nice roses. Thanks! James F. (talk) 12:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! Not the hardest work in the world - walk down the row, see something photogenic, contort to get it in view, in focus, etc, get home and throw the many losers away. I also "cheated" by studying the composition of the pics in our rose encyclopedia.... Stan Shebs 12:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind (:-)), but I've nominated a couple that stood out for Featured Picture status. See Commons:Featured pictures candidates.
- James F. (talk) 12:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm uploading alphabetically, will be a total of 95 or so, dunno if the best are at beginning or end. Stan Shebs 13:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History/Art by cultural movement
Hi, I think Category:History by cultural movement is suboptimal/wrong, because then painters/architects/... will be sub-subcategories of History. Category:Art by cultural movement should it be... What do you think? (I re-categorized a lot of composers yesterday - today I'll work on some painters) --Avatar 13:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Original version of pics
Hi James. You modified Image:Ross Fountain in Edinburgh.jpg before you uploaded it. Do you think you could upload the original version (and then revert)? That way if someone wants to retouch it differently, they're able to. Thanks, Dbenbenn 12:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Description Templates
Hi James. I saw that you have created a template User:Jdforrester/Template for adding information to your pictures regarding camera settings. Another user found an interesting way nesting these information with his own template within the Template:Information. Look at Template:AtilleI. Maybe we should create a generic subtemplate for photographs that embedds it itself within Template:Information as Template:AtilleI? Greetings, Arnomane 00:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- I moved the former Template:AtilleI to User:Tillea/Template:AtilleI because it has to be regarded as private - it contains a hard coded link to my homepage. I think this issue is void anyway, but I wanted to remove the link to the to be removed Tamplate from your discussion page. Andreas Tille (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. :-)
- James F. (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Template:PhotoInfo; User:Jdforrester/Template is just a short-cut for me that includes my name in the photographer field.
- As for using it in conjunction with Template:Information... well, personally I think that it is not very useful. The description should be given as the first thing in the description text anyway, so the template isn't very useful. The permission is clearly given using the licence templates, so the permission field isn't very useful, either. The source and author are implied by the upload, and the date is given in my technical information template. Lastly, the "other versions" line is very rarely used indeed, especially on properly-uploaded photos.
- James F. (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hm well you might want to look at Template talk:Information where I discussed these points with others and justified, why these variables aren't that unnecessary as in the special case of "own images" (your point is only valid with respect to images created by the uploader). Regarding mixing it with template:Information you can embedd these information at top of description variable. Arnomane 14:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for the welcome. Concerning FPC: "{{Support}}" and "{{Oppose}}" currently render as "Support" and "Oppose", while Commons:Featured pictures candidates explicitly asks for "+" and "-". While slightly irritating from an aesthetic perspective, the latter symbols do more to encourage (or at least avoid discouraging) multilingualism, so I will continue to use them unless the community reaches a concensus supporting a different option. -Didactohedron 23:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, I see Yann changed the page here without noting it. Fixed. Thanks.
- James F. (talk) 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should have a better system than words or symbols LoopZilla 11:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Licences
elements cross-posted
Hi James, I was wondering if you could help me out with questions regarding whether an FPC can have a cc-by-nc-sa licence. The image I've nominated has both that and the GDFL, which covers commercial use. I vaguely remember talking to you about it on IRC. Anyway, if you could possibly clear that up for me as I'm getting some questions about it on Wikipedia FPC. Thanks, --Erin (talk) 19:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Anything with at least one licence that is either GFDL, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA is fine. Dual-licensing (or triple- or quadruple- or...) doesn't affect this.
- HTH.
- James F. (talk) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Hi - I don't understand your changes to the template. Have a look at Template:PD-self, the current wording should take care of the EU issues. Also, releasing your work into the public domain is not illegal in the EU, though such a (dis-)claim meight be void. Anyway, if you see further legal problems, they should be adressed in Template:PD-self, not Template:Copyrighted free use.
I'm going to revert your cahnge for now. Answer on my talk page if you like, or try to catch me on IRC. Regards -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'll put it quite simply (well, OK, this is copyright, so... ;-), and of course this is merely as I understand it):
- Releasing all claim to a work is legally impossible in many jurisdictions, including the EU.
- This is often (but not always, and not necessarily only) because it is (deliberately) impossible to surrender the right of attribution.
- In such circumstances, failing to attribute people as the author is illegal (and often a criminal act rather than merely tortious).
- Even though (or, perhaps, because) the law is crafted so that people cannot surrender their moral rights, asking people to agree to surrender said rights is sometimes in such places illegal in and of itself.
- Therefore asking people to release under PD-self makes no sense over free-use in moral-rights countries - the former is legally impossible and the suggested alternative is, well, absolutely the same as free-use. Saying "please use 'PD-self'" which is not PD is veyr confusing - a European applying PD-self to get free-use to an upload of theirs would have their work (illegally, due to the Berne Convention) used like PD by an American. This would not be a good idea.
- The current (as of when you wrote your message) wording of PD-self was not sufficient to "take care of the EU issues". It suggested the legal possibility of releasing material "for any purpose, without any conditions" at all, whereas the whole point is that were one able to do just that it would be PD.
- I hope that that was, erm, clear. :-)
- Also, please do not use the sysop rollback feature on non-vandalism. It is generally considered rude.
- James F. (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for your answer. I'll try to answer your points separately. Please note that I'm an admin at the German Wikipedia, and have some experience with copyright discussions there - alsthough i'm by no means an expert, and the matter is indeed pretty complicated. Ok, here goes:
- In the EU and most common law contries, there is no copyright, but an "author's right" (inherit, non-transferable moral right) and an '""right of use" (transferable).
- I have never heard of being unable to disclaim the right of attribution. In fact, there are many every-day publications, advertizements, in germany that do not name the author. Also, anyonymous publication, ghostwriting, etc would become impossible if that was true. Where did you get that fraom?
- Thus, attributing is required per default, but if the author clearly states that it is not nmeccessary, attribution is not needed. As the author still holds the moral right to the work, this may imply some insecurity for people using the work, however - the author could step up claiming libel&selnder or some such. This is hard to prepare for if you don't know who the author is.
- "not legally possible" is quite different from "illegal". Asking someone to violate a law is illegal - asking someone to do something that is not legally possible may be an offense if you to it fraudulently, to gain an advantage - but other than that, I don't see a problem.
- Please have a look at the PD-Tag on the german wikipedia, which is widely used: de:Vorlage:Bild-PD. It is likely that sayiong "I release it into the public domain" would be interpretet as a statement of intent by a German court, even though the term "public domain" is not correct when german law is applied. Sililarly, a claim to "copyright" is generally accepted in germany (even the parliament's webpage uses that term), even though "copyright" does not exist in that form here.
- I'll try to find dome more details info in the (endless) copyright-discussions on the de:wp - if I find something out, i'll get back to you. I'll also be on IRC later today (we talked there before, didn't we?).
- Oh, and sorry for the rollback, I was hoping it would be ok after I wrote on your talk page. I'd really like to be able to enter a reason for rollback - that would be convenient... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for your answer. I'll try to answer your points separately. Please note that I'm an admin at the German Wikipedia, and have some experience with copyright discussions there - alsthough i'm by no means an expert, and the matter is indeed pretty complicated. Ok, here goes:
- I have so far found a discussion page on the english wikipedia regarding this issue, and a short thread on the german Wikipedia. I can see no evidence that it would be impossible to give up the right of attribution - in fact, this is very commonly done in "traditional" media. I'm therefore going to adjust you changes to Template:PD-self. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Sitewide logo
Hi James. Could you please change the sitewide logo from http://commons.wikimedia.org/images/wiki-commons.png to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Wiki-commons.png, so that non-developers can edit that image? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I asked Brion, and he's now done it.
- James F. (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Travelcard Zone 1
Thanks for your very neat geographical Travelcard Zone 1 map. There are a couple of nits that it would be great to correct if you could: see the talk page. Thanks! [1] 82.70.194.38 09:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Help:piped links has be vandelized by a Muslim soliciter. I tried a revert, and I don't know what piped links means so I can't write the page myself.Whicky1978 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Commons-l subscription
Hello Jdforrester/Archive 1,
as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.
If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Your block of me
Well, you obviously could not follow the policy your self; If you would like to show me where i implied Ed was a vandal? if you read the edit summary i said "reverted vandalism" -- Not "reverted vandalism by edward g2s", Now that would be an implication.
I reverted the vandalism as i was following the deletion policy (he was not -- you must of forgot it your self, please read it) He removed the tags and did not take it to normal deletion, thus it is vandalism (at least how i define it anyway)
Either way i have accepted your apoligy, and i have no hostility towards you as you were only defending a friend, you did however act wrongly. This chat log below should sum up everything that needs to be.
[15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:45] <Mafeu|Away> I was blocked for editing vandalism :) [15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:47] <Mafeu|Away> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:L%27Hotel_de_Ville%2C_Paris_2012.jpg&action=history <-- had to be revrted as ed didnt read instructions, also i never called him a vandal; i said i reverted vandalism. no implication there ;-) [15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:48] <Mafeu|Away> I've blocked you for a day for calling Ed a vandal - twice. Please learn some decorum and civility. [15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:48] <Mafeu|Away> James F. (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:48] <Mafeu|Away> and if James would like to show my incivility? [15:08] <Mafeu|Away> [13:48] <Mafeu|Away> Ed is bias when it comes to fair use, lol. [15:13] <ILovePlankton> not much of a reason to block someone... [15:13] <ILovePlankton> bit stupid actually. [15:14] <ILovePlankton> if he was vandalising then he is a vandal, it very simple. [15:14] <ILovePlankton> *it is very simple
Either way my edits were in good faith, and I followed procedure. MatthewFenton 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quite. Wikitroll again and I will make the block permanent.
- James F. (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you do block a user merely for disagreeing with you, I will block you as a rogue admin and take the issue to the community for arbitration. — Erin (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MatthewFenton. ed g2s • talk 04:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Admin news
Hello,
If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)
Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!
cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)
Bot
I can't make a bot unless the bot exists. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Willow?
reply cross-posted
Where is this willow? I would like to put it on my blog. --Millosh 05:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's in w:en:St. James's Park in London (the public park grounds of w:en:Buckingham Palace).
- Sorry for the "slight" delay in answering. :-)
- James F. (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notice
Dear Jdforrester/Archive 1. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.
Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).
If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.
Thank you,
abf /talk to me/ 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity
Hi Jdforrester/Archive 1.
Thanks for signing at this page. Please note that your sysop-rights will be removed the next time we run an inactivity-section without any new notice, if you do not do 5 admin-actions till then.
Thank you for your long and helpfull work on Commons! abf /talk to me/ 12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
I am sad to tell you, but in accordeance to Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2008 you lost your adminship. If you want to have it back please request for it at COM:RfA.
Regards, abf /talk to me/ 11:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed this morning. It would generally be more polite to put the notice on people's talk pages before, rather than after, having them de-sysoped.
- James F. (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're an admin again. I've corrected this error. Please try to do more work so there's no question again, and feel free to add yourself to the relevant pages. Bastique demandez 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you.
- James F. (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notice
Dear Jdforrester/Archive 1. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.
Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).
If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.
Thank you — Mike.lifeguard 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
London Underground geographic map svg full version
Hey, did you ever get a chance to look for the svg version of the map? It would be really useful to have it because it can be edited directly in vector graphics programmes. I'd be happy to do some editing of it as I have some older geographic maps produced by LPTB that depict the lines very accurately and include closed sections and abandoned plans. I have them scanned in, but a .png image is a pain to edit.
Do let me know, and many thanks! OutrageousBenedict 91.104.3.225 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Misdilition of Image:Ethiopean_Church,_Jerusalem_10.JPG
According to Israeli Law, derviative work can be created of all images of art (any usefull art) permenantly dispalyed in a public place. Pieter Kuiper is biased against Israeli Images and is attacking as many images as he can. Can the image be undeleted? Deror avi (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine
Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Automated template messages
Hi there. Sorry for the 2 template messages that were automatically placed on your talk page (I had activated "User messages" in my Preferences). I've deactivated it now so that no further template messages will be automatically placed on user talk pages. Amsaim (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Admin inactivity
Hello Jdforrester, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
|
File:Mazher_Mahmood2.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. |
Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
De-adminship warning
Dear Jdforrester/Archive 1. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.
Thank you abf «Cabale!» 15:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- James F. (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Cross-posted to User talk:Jdforrester and User talk:ARTEST4ECHO
Can you explain why you keep this image. I'm honestly asking, not complaining. The problem I see is that when I go to the image, it won’t appear to me. All I get is the red "bad" "X" in the upper left corner, so I don't understand how it can be keep in order to be converted to .svg, when the image doesn’t work at all. I would think that since image is "Corrupted", so it should qualifies for Speedy deletion, let along "Deletion Request". Is it my browser? Dose the image work for you?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The PDF works fine for me - might be your system? I'm not able to convert PDF to SVG myself on my machine right now, but I'm aware that it's not too difficult. Once it's converted we can speedy the PDF of course. :-)
- James F. (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
bin Laden DRs
You may as well close the other two.--Chaser (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Ah, thanks, found the files but forgot the deletion requests.
- James F. (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Since these images are kept, does this mean that the actual video can now be uploaded without problem?Chrishmt0423 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
Your recent COM:RFR protege, User:MacMed, attempts deletion of Arc de Triomphe, Champs-Elysses and Champs-de-Mars ! Good choice! These sleeper accounts, they never cease to amaze us! NVO (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are confused about how user rights work. MacMed has no additional ability to nominate items for deletion compared to before I gave him file-renaming rights. You might want to review the mediawiki.org explanation of what +patroller means.
- I would also point out that you've grossly violated both the policies of assuming good faith and being polite. But hey, that would just be being difficult. :-)
- James F. (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Babel box
Hi Jdforrester, as you are an admin, would you mind to add the admin-bit to your babel-box? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. I don't agree with boxes to label users as one thing or another, except where they improve the community of the wiki. Languages, yes; everything else, no.
- James F. (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
File:General_Sir_Peter_Wall_-_official_MOD_portrait.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. |
—innotata 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; responded there. Given that we discussed this on-wiki a few months ago it'd have been rather more appropriate to message me directly first, rather than just blindly nominate for deletion.
- James F. (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]][[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 16:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:WiktionaryFr-JDF movable type idea sketch.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Wikimedia-button2.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Susan Ershler.jpg was uncategorized on 14 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deletions
I note your comment that you need to do five deletions a month to retain your admin rights here. File:Cathy Barry.tiff seems a good candidate. And given Shylocksboys record here and on en:, File:Bb 2011.jpg is probably also a copyvio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Keep calm.jpg is another candidate for deletion. See en:Awks as forks. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You can fulfil your quota in one session with Special:Contributions/CIBBAG - six images only used in en:CONCEPT. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zapped. Thanks. James F. (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Meta adminship note
This is a note to say that I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:Jdforrester.
James F. (talk) 26 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| A barnstar for you James for all your hard work and dedication in helping me get the Commons OTRS queue complete! Huzzah! :) SarahStierch (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
- Of course. Thank you, for the real hard work!
- James F. (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
OGL issue
Take a gander at File:Filming_Colin_and_Helena.jpg. Doc_glasgow was complaining earlier. I figure that you are most likely to know about possible OGL issues and licensing issues with UK government copyright. It's taken from Lancashire County Council's Flickr stream. And if we can't keep it under CC or OGL or whatnot, you can probably delete or nominate for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. On AGF grounds, I guess it's probably OK, but... it makes me feel a bit concerned to just claim that Flick-relicensed. :-) OGL doesn't apply unless Lancashire adopt it (they're not governed centrally on this).
- James F. (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:OGL
You said it with a smile, but perhaps you really should create a Commons:OGL page (and link to it in {{OGL}})? The question of who has the authority to license (or refuse to license) things under the OGL seems like something that is likely to keep coming up, even after the Olympics. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- meta:OGL exists, FYI. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to help and give input, but I worry that it's probably best for the main author not to be me. Tom? :-) James F. (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:Hilary Benn.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. |
One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:UK Government logos 2012 - DFID.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. |
Cloudbound (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:UK Government logos 2012 - UK AID.jpeg 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. |
Cloudbound (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion in this discussion would be very much appreciated. Thanks Slytherining Around32 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Education Minister's Images
I heard that you know alot about the Open Government Licence and I found this Freedom of Information request to the Department of Education asking for the images of Ministers under the OGL and that it was successful, allowing the images of Nick Gibb, Sarah Teather and Lord Hill to be released here:[2]. Also asked for and released were the images of the newer Ministers: Matthew Hancock, Elizabeth Truss, David Laws and Edward Timpson, which have also been released and D of E said the images could be taken from here [3] under the OGL.
I was wondering as you are an administrator who knows alot about the OGL, would you consider or mind uploading them since their wikipedia pages currently do not have any images.
I also found OGL images here for the Foreign Office [4], Department for Transport [5], HM Treasury [6] and DEFRA [7]. Many of the politicians who are part of these departments do not have any images and I think it is strange that no one has uploaded these images even though they have been granted under the OGL!! 86.1.26.36 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:UK Government logos 2012 - DFID.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. |
Cloudbound (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Eurgh, this again. James F. (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Picture of the Year voting round 1 open
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:
- Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
- This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
- Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.
To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year
Your assistance please
In this edit you added information about an OTRS ticket to an image taken by the Red Cross at Guantanamo. They took pictures of many captives, to give to the captives' families. Several dozen or more of those Red Cross photos have been published, after being released by the captives' families.
When those images were uploaded here, or on en.wiki, their copyright status was challenged. One of the questions in those earlier discussions was whether the copyright was held by the Red Cross, or whether the Red Cross signed over the IP rights to the families.
If the IP rights were retained by the Red Cross, and the OTRS is from the Red Cross, I'd like to know whether it applied to all of those several dozen images.
Do you think yu can say, without breaching anyone's privacy, whether it was a Red Cross representative who signed that OTRS release?
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Patrolling
I noticed you did some patrolling recently -- do you know if anyone else is regularly doing so? Did you use RTRC, or some other tool? JesseW (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was using RTRC and giving Timo some feedback as I went. :-) Sadly I don't think many people are doing it, no. :-( I didn't encounter much that needed reverting, but there was definitely a bit of it. James F. (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I'm glad at least one other person is doing so, at least. JesseW (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!
- ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, français, magyar, italiano, македонски, 日本語, русский, svenska
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.
This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement
Picture of the Year 2013 Results
- In other languages: Deutsch, español, français, 日本語, Nederlands, русский, svenska, Türkçe, українська
Dear Jdforrester,
The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).
- In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
- In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)
We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:
- 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
- In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
- In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.
Click here to view the top images »
We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.
Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee
You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
ArchiveBot
Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! James F. (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
possible featured image?
I thought you might be interested in commenting/voting on this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Moonrise_over_Nationalpark_M%C3%BCritz.jpg best Ckyba (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I have no particular view on that image. James F. (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2014 (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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion that might interest you
Stemoc has recommended that you be made aware of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Stemoc. DrKiernan (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- @DrKiernan: Thank you. James F. (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Help with attribution
Hello,
I have a problem and have chosen you at random from a list of administrators. If you are not familiar with the matter, could you please point me to a person that can help me with this?
I uploaded this picture using the wizard. The author is Zvjezdana Cikota, a friend of mine, and she asked me to put upload it to commons for her (she doesn't have an account). Now I see that the page, in practice, says **I** am Zvjezdana Cikota, which is not true. So, is there a way I can change attribution on this image? I'm still quite new at this so if you could guide me through the process, I'd be more than grateful :-)
--JohnnyBallot (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
|
|
Commons:Deletion requests/Files from User:Seemoramee 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 project page, 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. |
Tunisianball777 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A heads-up
You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Wire Issue08v7.pdf. I am letting everyone who weighed in there know that it has been nominated for deletion, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
De-adminship warning
Dear Jdforrester, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2017 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.
Thank you, odder (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you have another look at this DR? You have not explained why this image would by PD in the source country (France), which is necessary in order to keep this file. We do not accept files that are not free in the source country, so if we don't know whether this would be PD in France, then we cannot keep it. Jcb (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.
Cheers,
--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Per IRC discussion last night...
The relevant e-mail where it was claimed OGL and Creative Commons were not compatible is in OTRS Ticket#2017052210014402, mentioning this so that you have more detail, if needed I can dig out the entire e-mail exchange from my archive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The various e-mails in regard to BRB items ( I.e the Double arrows logo are in Ticket#2017052210016428 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a definitive and clear position on this, as I will be posting a Batch Upload request shortly.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- A concern was raised at s:Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#Chapter_8_of_Traffic_Signs_Manual., about OGL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 compatibility. As you were closely involved with OGL issues for a time, your comments would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi JdForrester. Could you clarify your close to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Partido Andalucista.svg? You kept the file because there was "no valid reason for deletion". The uploader tried to address the "lack of permission" issue by changing the license from "cc-by-sa-3.0" to "PD shape", but the uploader never did provide any explanation as to how this logo falls below the TOO for Spain. A I pointed out in the DR, "PD-shape" and "PD-textlogo" mean the file is too simple for copyright protection not only the US, but also in the country of origin (which in this case is Spain). While there are plenty of examples to suggest that this may be PD in the US, the US's TOO is comparitively low and so being PD in the US doesn't always mean PD in country of origin. If Spain's TOO is anything like the UK's, this logo would not be considered PD in Spain.
Anyway, there's no way to determine anything about Spain's TOO just from the DR; if, however, you have knowledge of it and wish to add it to the discussion, then maybe you can add that !vote/comment to the discussion itself instead of closing it. Political party logos are not automatically PD just because they are political party logos, so I think some clarification as to how this falls below Spain's TOO needs to be provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Original file re-licensed by the creator/uploader to PD-shape based on an existing basic logo which would almost certainly be considered below TOO in the comparable countries of France and Germany. Happy to be corrected if you can link to examples of legal decisions from Spanish courts, which would be more helpful than speculating in either direction. :-) James F. (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine and thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. Sorry I didn't give more context at the time. James F. (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine and thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)