User talk:Tbayer (WMF)

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Tbayer (WMF)!

-- 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wael Ghonim at Qasr al-Nil Bridge.jpg[edit]

Hallo Tbayer (WMF), @ File:Wael Ghonim at Qasr al-Nil Bridge.jpg: please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AWael+Ghonim+at+Qasr+al-Nil+Bridge.jpgCommons:Deletion_requests/File:Wael_Ghonim_at_Qasr_al-Nil_Bridge.png. Do you have any new information which justifies a recreation of this content? (Normally it should get a undeletion discussion instead). In which way is this a WMF action? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Saibo, thanks for the link. I agree - while the Flickr page still displays licensing information that would make the image eligible for Commons, the additional evidence presented in the deletion discussion casts some doubt on this. (It would have been helpful if the closing admin had linked or at least mentioned this deletion discussion when deleting the file as a result of it; from the given reason "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" it was not clear at all that the file had been deleted because of copyright issues. Also, because the deletion discussion was about the PNG version without linking to the JPG version, it was not visible in the links to the file description page.) I have marked the file for speedy deletion myself now.
As for your second question, I assume you haven't yet read the statement on my user page. Does it answer the question? (I uploaded this photo on behalf of a WMF contractor who found it on Flickr, unaware of the deletion discussion.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks, have deleted it.
You see it when you click on the red file link in the log which I linked in my first cmt. But, yes, it is not easy to see. I have put a note on the file page at flickr (which can be deleted by the flickr uploader of course).
Yes I have read "any edit to Wikimedia projects by me is an act of a regular member of the community" before posting here. But this sentence doesn't make much sense to me. If you act as a community member why don't you use your "community" account? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that "not a legal or official action of a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation" had already answered your question "In which way is this a WMF action?", particularly in case you had somehow been wondering if this was an office action.
The sentence is mandatory legal boilerplate, i.e. not written by myself, but let me explain my personal interpretation of it: Anybody who has an account here is a community member in some sense, but "regular" means that the special role of the Foundation as the site owner is not being invoked in their edits, and the user's participation in collaborative decision processes is meant to happen on the same level as any other user's.
As for your question why I use two acccounts, it is to (roughly) separate contributions I do as part of my paid work for WMF from those I do as a volunteer. (Of course I am not getting paid to categorize images or weeding out copyvios on Commons, it's just something I enjoy doing in my spare time.) I think it is good for transparency, and it also has advantages in case someone is assigned e.g. admin rights on the grounds that they need them for their WMF work, but the community would not necessarily accept these for that person's volunteer work, where he or she will not be constrained by their employee role and therefore the perceived potential for mistakes may be greater. Hope this clarifies things a bit!
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Tbayer (WMF), if you edit using this account it is simply confusing if your edits are your job (WMF) or spare time - as you did already say: keeping it separate is more clear and leads to less confusion (especially for average users - but even for me). And, personally, I would prefer not to have such a "bad" marker/tag on my name. ;-) You might know that WMF is not regarded (by all users' POV) as something which brings us good stuff/news. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Your first sentence remains unclear to me, even when rereading it after a few weeks: Are you in favor of the separation of accounts as I described it, or would you prefer me (and WMF employees in general) to make both their paid and volunteer edits under the same account?
Obviously I have a somewhat different opinion about the WMF, or I would not have taken this job. And while I respect your strong desire to preserve images of a sexual nature on this site, it should be noted that the "stuff" WMF brings you is first and foremost this site itself.
I appreciate your concern that I (or my edits/uploads on this wiki) might become the victim of anti-WMF bias, but I can assure you that this fear has not become reality so far. (Of course I do not assume that the scrutiny you applied to this image, or uploads by User:JayWalsh and User:Jimbo Wales around the same time, was motivated by anything else than a desire to ensure that all files on Commons are properly licensed.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Pardon, what is that ?! "your strong desire to preserve images of a sexual nature on this site" Was this our topic here?
@ my first sentence: I would prefer a separation of job and volunteer accounts.
Yes, WMF runs the site and does other activities. We do not need to discuss that in more detail here. Wrong place.
I do not understand what you mean by your sentence in brackets. Could you please explain? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
"Was this our topic here?" - yes, I had assumed that this was the main reason for your opinion of WMF as you chose to express it above (where you described it as "such a 'bad' marker/tag on my name"). I had based this assumption on, for example, the contents of your user page around that time, where a list of deletion cases of such images and related discussions was illustrated with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-30858-001, Berlin, Bücherverbrennung.jpg. "We do not need to discuss that in more detail here" - I agree! I'm just left wondering why you brought up this topic (your negative opinion of WMF - which you are of course entitled to) on my user talk page in the first place. The sentence in brackets meant that I fully trust your actions on Commons to be guided solely by the project's best interests.
"I would prefer a separation of job and volunteer accounts" - glad that you agree with the way I am trying to handle my accounts here, that's encouraging to hear! Thanks for clarifying that.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Tbayer (WMF)!

Tip: Add categories to your 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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Hi, Thank you for your kind offer of sending WMF Annual report. I sent my physical address to your wiki e-mail. Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Got your mail - thanks, and you're very welcome! Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your photo in the WMF annual report[edit]

Hi! Yes of course, I've seen my photo in your report. I will be glad to get printed copy of this report :-) I've just sent my postal address on your e-mail. LeinaD dyskusja 14:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Your copy has been sent out (like those of every image contributor who has responded up to this point) - please notify me if it hasn't arrived by the end of this month. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WMF Annual report 2011 printed version[edit]

Wiki Wine bottle.svg Thank you :)
Here is some wine for you :) I got the printed version. Much appreciated! Best regards...
WMF Annual report 2011 printed version 1470567.JPG
Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cheers ;) You're welcome, and thanks for the photo! Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Multilingual ranking analysis: Napoleon and Michael Jackson as Wikipedia's "global heroes"[edit]

Hi! I`m very interested in your researches with heroes. Do you have results for "local heroes" in Ukrainian wikipedia (uk)? --A1 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YouTube webm[edit]

I noticed File:WMF Monthly Metrics Meeting November 7, 2013.ogv in ogv and I see:

$ youtube-dl -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgXT3aA5CyE
[youtube] Setting language
[youtube] YgXT3aA5CyE: Downloading video webpage
[youtube] YgXT3aA5CyE: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] YgXT3aA5CyE: Extracting video information
Available formats:
22      :       mp4     [720x1280]
43      :       webm    [360x640]
18      :       mp4     [360x640]
5       :       flv     [240x400]
36      :       3gp     [240x320]
17      :       3gp     [144x176]
136     :       mp4     [720p] (DASH Video)
135     :       mp4     [480p] (DASH Video)
134     :       mp4     [360p] (DASH Video)
133     :       mp4     [240p] (DASH Video)
160     :       mp4     [192p] (DASH Video)
141     :       m4a     [256k] (DASH Audio)
140     :       m4a     [128k] (DASH Audio)
139     :       m4a     [48k] (DASH Audio)

Too bad; does YouTube ever create webm derivatives at full resolution too? Do you know why they don't use their own preferred format webm for the videos they create themselves? --Nemo 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Good questions - I have copied this over to Commons talk:YouTube files and replied there. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

video of WMF Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-04-03[edit]

Hi, could you please upload the youtube video of meta:Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-04-03? Do you know or did you ever try out http://tools.wmflabs.org/videoconvert/ by user:Prolineserver (Convert video to Webm on Wikimedia Labs, login using Wikimedia Commons Oauth)? I'm curious, it looks very interesting and reminds me of https://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload , which i use a lot (until toolserver gets killed this year). WMF videos are way too long for firefogg. Best, --Atlasowa (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Atlasowa, the video is now up at File:WMF_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting_April_3,_2014.ogv. (It was a bit more complicated this time because the meeting ran longer than usual, so with the conversion settings I normally use in ffmpeg2theora, the resulting file was 1.2GB, too large for the upload limit. So I reduced the quality setting and felt compelled to check that this did not introduce too many artifacts. The quality is not great anyway this time - see e.g the apparent interlacing effects and the funny squiggle in the YouTube version. I don't know if this was a problem with the camera or with Hangouts.)
Thanks for pointing out Prolineserver's tool - that's indeed very interesting, although the limitation to 500MB makes it unusable for the metrics meeting videos, which are frequently larger than that. Also, it seems one would still need to download and upload the original file.
I too have been using Bryan's Flickr upload tool for several years, but to be honest it's bit outdated now that a) OAuth is available and b) Flickr uploading has been integrated directly into UploadWizard. Maybe that is the reason that it hasn't been ported to Tool Labs yet? I don't know. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh, the youtube video has not even a CC licence? --Atlasowa (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The video is now released, in form of the Commons version, under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'll ping Chip to see whether he can update the YouTube page too. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tbayer, thanks a lot!
Regarding Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr: "The Upload Wizard can upload flies directly from Flickr. This featured was deployed on Wikimedia Commons in December 2012, accessible to administrators and image-reviewers only for the testing phase." So, i can't use this. To become an "Image-reviewer", i would need to request this right and be approved. I'm not a newbie and i was given "autopatrol" rights last year. I can and do use bryan/flickr/upload (until toolserver gets killed this year), but apparently not the new Upload Wizard feature. There are only 203 Commons reviewers total, but currently 3,484 autopatrollers. If there is some wisdom in this, i don't get it.
Regarding OAuth, i haven't used it yet, i still need to read up on this. I'm worried about privacy implications. I don't want to enable ID-tracking across multiple platforms like flickr (yahoo), youtube (google) and Wikipedia (thanks to SUL even my reading of different wikimedia projects is now tracked and public information, and don't get me started on WMF's new so-called "privacy policy"). I read that OAuth development is firmly in the hands of corporate interests and that's not reassuring. --Atlasowa (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Atlasowa, I was aware that the feature is still restricted to admins and reviewers - I'm not able to used it yet under my volunteer account, either. My point was that the technical problems had basically been solved; of course some in the Commons community may still have concerns about enabling Flickr transfers for all users. Anyway, I was just speculating on the reasons why Bryan's tool hasn't been ported to Labs yet, but there may be another one: Magnus' flickr2commons is both available on Labs and support OAuth. I just tried it for the first time and it works great. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
PS, Atlasowa: I'm quite certain that enabling OAuth authentication for this tool does not enable you being tracked on third-party platforms. And by the way, from what I can see, the move to Labs has significant advantages in terms of privacy and other legal aspects, simply because users' personal data is stored in less places (countries) and accessible by less people than before. This increased exposure had been a concern about the Toolserver for many years (I recall it was one for myself and other volunteer checkusers on dewiki when thinking about privacy issues way back in the previous decade...).
Interesting link about OAuth - I don't know enough further technical details of the OAuth specification to have an opinion on how relevant this is to the use of OAuth on Wikimedia sites; perhaps mw:Extension_talk:OAuth is a good place to ask about that. I do seem to recall that OAuth 2 (which that blog post refers to) has not been fully implemented for MediaWiki at this point.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:WMF Monthly Metrics Meeting January 9, 2014 - IEG.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:WMF Monthly Metrics Meeting January 9, 2014 - IEG.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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pete F (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, this is now addressed -- Heather Walls attached the needed attribution, nomination withdrawn. -Pete F (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)