User talk:Jdforrester

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 Misdeletion of Image:Flaming cocktails.jpg 2 Commons admin 3 Copyright tags 4 Info on pics 5 Latin language template 6 Roses 7 History/Art by cultural movement 8 Original version of pics 9 Description Templates 10 Hello 11 Licences 12 Meta adminship note 13 Template:Copyrighted free use 14 Sitewide logo 15 Travelcard Zone 1 16 Vandalism 17 Commons-l subscription 18 Re: Your block of me 19 Admin news 20 Bot 21 Where is the Willow? 22 Administrative notice 23 Inactivity 24 Administrative notice 25 London Underground geographic map svg full version 26 Please link images 27 Misdilition of Image:Ethiopean_Church,_Jerusalem_10.JPG

[edit] 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)

[edit] Commons admin

I've made you an admin here on Commons. Congratulations! villy 10:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

James F. (talk) 23:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright tags

please use Commons:Copyright tags, eg {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} instead of raw text 217.225.212.18 18:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Done.

James F. (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Well, yeah, that's what the templates are for.

James F. (talk) 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Hi James, thanks for your help. Good luck on your RfA! --Erin (talk) 27 June 2005 09:39 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template:Copyrighted free use

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Commons-l subscription

Hello Jdforrester,

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...)

[edit] Bot

I can't make a bot unless the bot exists. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Administrative notice

Deutsch

Dear Jdforrester. 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)

[edit] Inactivity

Hi Jdforrester. 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)

[edit] Administrative notice

Deutsch

Dear Jdforrester. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Please link images

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.

[edit] 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)