User talk:Sj

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

My Board platform  ·  Questions  ·  Suggestions  ·  Experience  ·  On the Projects  ·  Support future elections

At Wikimania 2007 in Taipei. Care of user:Joi.
Babel user information
en
de-2
es-2
fr-1
he-1
Users by language

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

Archive: to 2008

Opt-out discussion[edit]

Hello Sj, I am trying to develop a larger consensus around the opt-out issue. Consistent with that, I have started a new section on the talk page and plan to advertise it widely. Your previous comments are linked from that page, but I am mentioning it here in case you want to address the issue directly in the new thread. Apologies, for the duplication of effort, but I think restarting this is more likely to gain participation rather than trying to draw new voices into an thread that had already grown stale. Dragons flight (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the update. Sorry I missed this last week, I'll take a look at the new thread. +sj + 03:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the discussion was helpful, and the # of opt outs hasn't been tremendous. We still have to address what to do with future GFDL uploads. +sj + 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


File:Ravana Sita Painting.tiff[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ravana Sita Painting.tiff 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Durga (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was settled quickly; thank you for the notice. +sj + 02:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Please help replace this outdated license[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --SJ+

Re: broken svg?[edit]

No, the black dot is not intended. If you look at the .svg itself[1] (i.e. using Firefox or Chrome) instead of the MediaWiki generated .png you can see the intented drawing.

I know how to solve the problem but simply I have not done it yet. — Chlewey (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

The only image that consensus actually seems to dictate is superfluous and should be deleted, interestingly

Thanks, I hope in time that almost all of the deleted files can be restored once these Jimbo-youth stop their crazy jihad -- I voted "Delete" on a couple of my own uploads where there did seem to be possible Flickrwashing or dubious copyright issues - but other than that I also consider them a wonderful example of the kind of nudity that is appropriate on WMF, as opposed to "I grabbed my webcam and dropped my pants, here are my genitals" images. I do hope for widespread voting on the Deletion Requests, especially those that seem to be close to tied on opinions, though honestly other than the 4-5 "Jimbo-youth on a personal crusade" who show up on every vote to back each other up in shouting for deletion based on a proposed policy they wrote themselves which has been repeatedly rejected, and the statements of Jimbo which have proven largely his downfall and are all but retracted...I've yet to see anyone offer a honest and decent reason for voting delete on 95% of the votes.

The harassment is honestly amusing, though also aggravating, I've simultaneously got the same Jimbo-youth clambouring to delete 600 images I've uploaded over the past two years (and a couple of speedy-delete admins who didn't even bother with votes), as well as demanding my user page be deleted, and starting Administrator's Noticeboard complaints saying I'm making pornography available to all the innocent children of the world. *sigh* Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 06:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Max Rebo Band's RTV[edit]

Hi Sj. I'd like to hear your opinion about MRB's request to "vanish his account" and remove his user name from the logs of all the images he has uploaded.

You may recall your praise of his contributions that you gave on his now deleted user page.

"MRB, thanks for all of your work on Commons. I regret that you're being harrassed a bit this week, but I for one found your gallery of uploads to be an excellent example of a variety of photos curated for their illustrative or artistic value. It has been helpful to me in organizing my own thoughts about the current sexual content discussion. –SJ+ 05:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)"   TIA 173.193.219.190 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I believe in the importance of the Right to Vanish from shared public space, though I don't have a strong opinion on how that's implemented in terms of account renaming. The meatballwiki page discusses many of the reasons this is a useful right; some of them apply here to working on controversial subjects.
Regarding my note to MRB -- my 'praise' was for the effort put into his work, something that those who like it and those who wish it deleted may be able to agree on. He was a frequent contributor here, generally civil to others, supportive of the project's mission, and stuck to his understanding of Commons guidelines and scope. He did not merit assumptions of bad faith. It elevates the tone of tense debate to thank people for their efforts, especially when they are being attacked and some of their work deleted.
MRB focused on controversial subjects: female erotica and BDSM. His gallery was an effective litmus test for identifying differences in opinion about Commons scope, particularly during the discussions about an updated sexual content policy. It covered a broad spectrum, from famous works of art (widely considered in-scope) to possibly Flickr-washed images of living people (controversial), to images that were later deleted (widely considered out-of-scope). Many people considered at least a few of his images in scope, and at least a few out of scope -- and all drew the line in a different place. Some found it hard to believe that MRB thought there was value in each image, while others considered that obvious.
As the community considers the scope of Commons, we should not be shy to offer that sort of overview of any of its subject areas. Our controversial content discussions in particular would benefit from similar galleries of each class of controvesy (and an equivalent overview of text snippets, if such a thing existed):   Violence and death, Illness and deformity, Religious satire and heresy, Political satire and BLP issues and personality rights, Fair use and trademark use, Notability and educational value, Bias and POV pushing.   All of these are hard to discuss in the abstract without a set of examples we can use to build a shared vocabulary. --SJ+ 06:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

BotMultichillT 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
All categorized as of 06:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) --SJ+


REVOLTA DO AUTOR DESTES TRABALHOS QUE FORAM ARBITRARIAMENTE JOGADOS NO LIXO[edit]

Aqui fica registrado o descaso de pessoas que se baseiam os donos da Wiki e tomam decisões arbitrárias e levam ao lixo o trabalho daqueles que só tem uma intenção, contribuir para o crescimento da Wiki. Pessoas como está me fizeram abandonar o projeto após varias e varias contribuições com textos e imagens e digo, que assim como eu, a cada dia a Wiki perde colaboradores por serem vitimas de pessoas sem percepção e dialogo, que pensão serem os todos poderosos. Fico triste, registro aqui a minha insatisfação, pois perdi boa parte de meu tempo neste projeto para que venha uns e do nada acabem com todo ele. Vocês levaram a Wiki a falência por não terem respeito com os outros, cuidem de suas miseráveis vidas e não atrapalhe aqueles que ainda contribuem para o projeto Wiki, porque eu depois desde descaso não o faço mais. Deiwyd (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Deiwyd seems to have been the victim of some miscommunication and misunderstanding about photo copyrights and both author and uploader intent, thanks to both an en-pt language barrier and a mismatch of editing frequency. He edits too infrequently to catch up with demands for response that close in a week, and has had a hard time figuring out how and where to respond to the initial request that he clarify source attribution for his uploads. I asked Waldir from pt:wp to help mediate; Deiwyd seems to still edit pt:wp, so hopefully this can be resolved in the new year. --SJ+ 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Images missing permission[edit]

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)

Poty Voting[edit]

Hello SJ! I would like to let you know on behalf of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee that you are only allowed to vote once in the final round of the competition. Please remove all votes except the one vote you wish to place. Should you not remove all of the votes, they will be nulled in the vote counting. Please leave a message here when you are done! Thanks! Joe Gazz84 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just realized this :-) I'm removing the extra votes. It is so hard to choose just one! --SJ+ 19:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Thank you for complying with our policy. I am not singling you out, there are multiple users who I need to "go after". Have a nice weekend! Joe Gazz84 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I blogged about the contest as well - a lovely way to spend time enjoying Commons. We should find a way to make the contest and its results more visible. --SJ+ 19:42, 29 May 2011 (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)

Mauro David[edit]

Done. Actually, if this picture was uploaded on it.wp I would have deleted it per our rule of "consider it a copyvio in the image was already published elsewhere and/or without proof that the uploader holds the right for it": if I got a reply, I'd process it through OTRS to get a ticket for that pic. And, I'd bet that the upload was done only for promo reasons, and they have actually no idea of what a CC license is: licenses' awareness is still very, very low in my country. Bye! --Elitre (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request notification[edit]

Hi, you participated in a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on your re election[edit]

Hey Sj. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Aphaia[edit]

Hi! Sorry it took so long for me to get to your comments - I replied at User talk:Aphaia WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would start Commons:Village_pump#Naming_order_of_Japanese_people WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For supporting the cause!! Missvain (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Consent[edit]

Hi SJ,

Kaldari and 99of9 created and wrote the documentation for Template:Consent as a way to affirm the consent of identifiable people.

See the link for the documentation.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent/doc

Hopefully by getting affirmation by the uploader early on, we will resolve any issues while the user is still active.

Also, there is a discussion on AN about the WMF Board May 2011 resolution.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#COM:PEOPLE_and_the_WMF_resolution

I replied there with my interpretation of the situation. Thought that you might have something to add or correct since you have advocated for model consent for uploads as a part of the solution for managing our files. [2], and [3]. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sw-Wiki / JWLetter[edit]

Hi Sj hopefully you still have some access to the people running the place. On sw we have an ugly version of JW's call for donations. Somebody made it a 4-liner which just to wide for the average laptog screen like mine - other wikis I looked at have it as a 3-liner. And secondly the text is lousy Swahili. Should read: "Usome tafadhali: Barua kutoka Jimmy Wales, mwanzilishaji wa wikipedia!". The text tself is not this years appeal but probably last Year's, which I annot check. No idea who provided the bad headline or put it on site - but if you know anyone who can correct the Swahili and make it a 3-liner, I appreciate. (kipala) 86.97.34.32 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Hello[edit]

Prezado Sj,

Primeiramente gostaria de me desculpar por somente hoje, depois de um ano, estar respondendo a sua mensagem, isso é pelo fato que raramente acesso a Wiki desde de que as imagens minhas foram todas deletadas, em outras palavras, perdi a motivação da Wiki desde os fatos. Mas tenho sim interesse, se possível de reaver as imagens e atentar as possíveis falhas que levaram fotos por mim tiradas ou pertencentes ao acervo da minha família serem excluídas. Reitero meus agradecimentos pela atenção. Deiwyd (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-on-iphone-horiz.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wikipedia-on-iphone-horiz.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trycatch (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kyubey[edit]

I hope you don't mind. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ どこに見てもオッパイばかり 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Hey Kyubey blog is funny! and a page explaining your sig is a good idea. But could you actually explain it for those who don't get the meme? If that page is meant to be a collection of commentary on your sig, I don't mind. If it's just something to link to with 'どこに見てもオッパイばかり', that seems like a personal attack (which I don't think werdna deserves :), and I suppose I would mind. --SJ+ 14:08, 21 March 2012 (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)

File:Wikipedia-on-iphone-horiz.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wikipedia-on-iphone-horiz.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trycatch (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2012 (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)

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)

Hello[edit]

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)

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)

Message from Russavia[edit]

Hi Sj, just popping past to say g'day. russavia (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC) G'day.

Logo image test[edit]

Commons-logo-en.svg Commons-logo-en.png Wiki-commons.png

Why is our corner logo so degraded? And why is it wasting 15% of its space? (using 115px rather than the full 135px)

The svg (to the left) is the crispest, and has fixed two small image errors (on the first inward-facing arrow from the top, and on the outer curve there). It should replace the current corner image.

But even the second image -- a png with the original errors -- is significantly crisper than the logo we're actually displaying (the last image). It would be instructive to know what the difference is... --SJ+ 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Compare Wikipedia:

Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png Wiki.PNG

Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-svg-203.png Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-svg-135.png