User talk:Sj

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message here.

Archive: to 2008 to 2016

Additionally[edit]

I have answered you on my talk page but the page you created here is certainly not a standard Commons page. Here they really do consist of a gallery & very minimal information. Maybe you would care to check similar pages here & revise it? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I've minimized it and left sections for each work; which is the only reason not to just use a category page. +sj + 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

MIT OCW Videos[edit]

Hi SJ. Firstly, thanks for the work you have done on lobbying for more open licencing for MIT OCW videos. I'm working on an http://wikieducator.org/Openphysics project that could be improved through the use of MIT videos. The Walter Lewin ones in particular would be helpful. I note that 18 videos are already in the commons under a CC-BY-SA licence, but there are quite a few more on the MIT site. Are there plans to convert and upload the remaining videos? If Prof. Lewin is willing, I'd be happy to undertake some of the transcoding work. Also, do you know if there are any plans to make Chemistry or Biology videos available under a CC-BY-SA licence so projects like Wikieducator can use them? --Mosborne01 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mosborne, thanks for your kind words. I am actively looking for people like yourself to start requesting specific clips. MIT wants to start out gradually, with only clips of videos and not entire videos relicensed and uploaded, and focusing on clips that would be used in at least one article. Aside from that caveat, the Lewin videos are all fair game for requests - we can get the raw video to work on transcoding (you can do it yourself, but should also ping Peter Kaufman who will be glad to hear of your work). Then we'll have to ask again for a bulk approval for relicensing. The good professor is most excited about this work.
I have tentative bio and chem leads, but the next professors who seem likely to get involved are in Math and CS. Could you make a list of specific clips you'd like to include, with a link to an article that might include it? Something of the form
 8.117 - E&M on Manifolds (Fall 2012)
   L12 (Electromagnetic Lie algebras)
    2:13-4:10  Magnetic monopole kernels
    5:54-6:40  Commutativity of charge 
    9:55-18:30 Electric field operators

   L14 (Variational potentials)

Thanks! --SJ+ 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


  • The images listed at Category:MIT OCW lectures will be deleted in a week if permission has not been sent in to the OTRS team. They've already been OTRS pending since February 19, so I removed the tag and placed a pending deletion tag on them instead. – Adrignola talk 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Permission granted. And two more professors coming on board... they will send separate permissions. --SJ+ 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploading/World Digital Library[edit]

is still open and listed at Commons:Batch uploading. Could you complete the task? Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And now? -- Rillke(q?) 09:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DPLA[edit]

Now that DPLA is up, are you going to be involved in uploading it to commons?Smallman12q (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We should talk about how to automate this. The materials are all hosted somewhere other than dpla; it is serving as an aggregator and platform for publishing related tools and APIs. An API to "upload your collection to Commons" would make this easy for the dpla members and contributors to use; and easy for the Service Hubs to implement. --SJ+ 07:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
We need to map the data from DPLA's format to what the Wiki uses. The wiki uses templates, so we need a catch-all template and the rest would be {{information field}}s. Files basically need date/author/source/description/location...not much else to it.Smallman12q (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
There is further discussion at User_talk:Michael_Barera#DPLA_launch.Smallman12q (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Commons:Digital Public Library of America. Thank you for joining the project. Sadly, Smallman12q has retired and the project is on hiatus until .... ? Cheers, Bdcousineau (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VOA[edit]

Hi. You may be interested to know that I've filed a BRFA at Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 9 for the VOA pronunciation upload. Feedback is welcome.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good news. --SJ+ 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


Deletion reviews (spinoff from Village Pump discussion)[edit]

Hi SJ, I'm following up on some specifics from the VP discussion. Here's the list of deletion reviews (DR) I provided, and your comments on each, for context:

  • Karen Stollznow - the subject was asking for deletion. A clear case for a DR, appropriate of you to repost it and focus on the relevant problem.
  • Sauna (455500368).jpg - this didn't have to be rushed into a DR timeframe; you could have contacted the photographer and waited for feedback.
  • Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg - confirming consent was important. but by contacting the photographer and then ignoring his request, you may have simply insulted him.
  • Michael Paraire.tif - this was in use; the DR (instead of discussion on fr:wp) was not appropriate imo and offended the uploader, who only noticed it after (apparently) the deletion removed it from the subject's article
  • Lo'renzo Hill-White.jpg - the image was in use; a DR (instead of discussion with the uploader) was not appropriate imo.

On Stollznow, I'm glad we agree. I'd point to this example as a good indication of the importance of making some progress on this issue; specifically, the difficulty of attaining consensus (going through 3 DRs before getting deleted) on something that seems to you and me like a slam-dunk case. I think it is essential, as we try to move forward, that we consider some ordinary, non-triggering examples along with the extreme cases (revenge porn, defamation, etc.) that are more commonly brought up.

On the bondage photo, I'd urge you to take a closer look. I believe I did act in accordance with the photographer's wishes, after an initial misunderstanding; I am confident that the IP editor was the photographer. If you still think there's a problem, please let me know, and I will try to correct it if I can.

Ah! You are right, glad to be corrected. --SJ+

In general (covering all 5 examples and many more), I agree with you that reaching out to the uploader before filing a DR is a worthwhile thing to do. But I don't think it's a necessary step. I tend to ask first in cases where I believe everything is in order, but inadequately documented. (An example of where I did that is for File:Cascajal-text.jpg.) In these cases, though, I had no reason to believe one way or the other whether adequate consent had been sought out or given. I believe that filing a DR is a reasonable way to proceed in that instance; it's consistent with how a great many deletions on Commons are handled (which I recently saw another editor estimate at about 3-4k/month, which seems about right to me.) I have no objection whatsoever if another Wikimedian chooses to reach out in the process of a DR, and when I make a DR I am personally committed to making the effort to follow up as best I can if new information is brought forward.

If the woman in the sauna did not consent to having her photograph broadly published, I believe it would be a disservice to her, for me to delay the deletion of the file. It would also be a disservice to any good faith reusers, who might infer from its presence on Commons that all consent issues are likely in order.

For the final two, I do not think it makes a great difference whether the file is in use on a Wikimedia project. Again, I think this is in line with very common practice here, at least toward copyright holders' rights. My read of the current consensus is that SCOPE is assumed when a file is in use; but that rights violations override scope. It seems to me that personality rights are comparable to copyright; if an individual's rights are being violated by a file's publication, it seems important to correct the situation, whether those rights are copyrights or personality rights.

Current practice for (c) is fairly aggressive, and would seem much less hostile if there were a state of quarantine for files that are under evaluation and not fit for use in atricles but not insta-deleted. This strong (c) regime works now because we have built up years of increasingly strict policies, and tools like the upload wizard and dozens of (c)-related templates, along with an understanding by people at every level of the system that affirming the appropriate license is a requirement. we need to get there for consent before it will be mete to delete first (even if it is more convenient thanks to having a wizard for one process and not the other!). --SJ+ 07:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Apart from my perspective on the principles, let's take a quick look at the practical differences between the "DR first" and the "ask first" approaches. The "ask first" approach is great in some cases, but it does take substantially more time, and presents many more opportunities for misunderstandings:

DR first[edit]

  1. Click "nominate for deletion"
  2. Enter a rationale (a wizard then takes care of all notifications and logistics -- great stuff!!)
  3. Watch DR & my talk page; as needed, help uploaders meet the conditions needed to keep the file & offer readers/reusers assurance that consent that has been secured.

Asking the uploader first[edit]

  1. Using "email this user" or the uploader's talk page, compose a message about the file
    1. If the uploader does not reply, file a DR
    2. If the uploader replies with an inadequate explanation, talk back-and-forth until there is clarity
    3. If the uploader did not get adequate consent, file a DR
    4. If the uploader did get adequate consent, make sure it is properly documented; e.g., if the conversation has happened in email, explain to them how to send a message to OTRS, or how to add the consent template to the file
    5. If the uploader has a story about consent that isn't definitive, make a judgment call
Alas. When you put it this way I understand why people overuse DR for so many non-deletion issues. How hard is it to update the wizards so that they support a wider variety of tasks and interactions? --SJ+

Finally, since you mentioned backlogs, I want to point out: I have never approached this, personally, with the goal of clearing a backlog in mind. I do think that backlog-clearing is a good thing to consider, but to me that seems like a consideration we should take on after we have established a strong understanding and consensus of how to handle individual cases. I like your approach, but I'm not sure we have the necessary foundation for taking steps like that yet.

So, these are my views on the subject. I'm happy to continue to discuss if you like, I'm always interested in your perspective on things like this; but at the same time, I do think we have a lot of points of agreement, and am more interested in focusing on those and seeing if we can make some significant progress in the discussion at the VP and elsewhere on generating consensus and updating tools. -Pete F (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of the bulk DR, assuming good faith, was along the lines of tackling a backlog. That is why I mentioned it; not for any personal assumption about you. I second your idea of making progress on consensus and tool updates. --SJ+ 07:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Notifications about possible deletions[edit]

RP88 (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire volume was released under that license. It's been a while, I have to find the source. --SJ+ 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Responded on the DR. --SJ+
I've done this. Probably better to ask at COM:UNDEL. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Noted, and thank you. --SJ+ 03:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)