User talk:Peteforsyth: Difference between revisions

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Since you didn't get one of these...! giggy _(:O) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also reach me at my Wikipedia talk page or by email.

Hi. Per your Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers request (now archived), I've added you to the reviewers list. Feel free to ask me if you need help. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, I think that would be fine. I don't have much experience with these, but there shouldn't be a major issue if the image is OK. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hi. Regarding the subject image, would you please change the top right bubble to read "Talk" rather than "User talk" or redirect where it is pointing? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite nice. I added it to the wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Resources. Could you make similar ones for the watchlist? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Piotrus! I originally made the image to illustrate this blog post, which might also be helpful: http://wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/from-newbie-to-advanced-wikiholic-some-terms-and-tips/

I would love to do similar ones for other pages, but it may take a while -- if you'd like, I believe I still have the OpenOffice source file, if I can find it I could send it to you. I'll let you know if I do get around to making any new ones, as well. -Pete F (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I've left you and Sarah some comments at User_talk:Peteforsyth/PotD. --JN466 11:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, Jayen -- very helpful! I'll incorporate the wikis you noted, but please feel free to edit the main page yourself, as well! -Pete F (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is the website http://www.copyright.gov/. James Madison Memorial Building, 4th floor, look forward to seeing you. Slowking4 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your comment on the WLM US page about the name change. This is just the way it goes - it's the way the Europeans have done it for two years now and for branding purposes they prefer we continue in the tradition. A few of us actually hashed it out in previous email conversations. I wanted to see it changed from "Monuments," to something else, but, it was decided that we'd keep it WLM. I hope this doesn't deter you to having fun with some activities on the West coast when the time comes :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intending to delete File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg and your comment at the DR said to give you notice. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, Here's the link to my West Bank photos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Almonroth

I still need to process and upload a bunch more, but that's a start.

best, Matthew (wmf) (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Dear Pete: Many thanks for the video about using HotCat. You saved me from doing a lot of typing to enter categories on my first Wiki article! Have a great weekend, Judith59 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at User_talk:Smallman12q#Copyright_question. Thanks for noticing it!Smallman12q (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at your RfA, I think you could easily spend a few months making good comments on DRs and then come back and succeed. Lest you think that is makework, please understand that it is definitely not. We delete around 1,500 files every day and comments from known users on DRs make it much faster to go through the log and deal with them rapidly.

Although we all voted against your election, you had support for a future election from a number of very active Commons editors -- Herby, Trijnstel, INeverCry, MorningSunshine, PierreSelim, and me, as well as a number of others I don't know as well. (Note that I say "voted against" even for the neutrals -- since the requirement is for 75% of all votes, a neutral is effectively a vote against.) I suspect that when the time comes you could get one of us to nominate you.

On the other hand, I think you might want to look hard at where you really want to put your time. Among the competent and collegial editors here, the most effective voices are those who contribute regularly. You appear to be spread between quite a number of projects. You might find it better to concentrate on one. I was a regular contributor to WP:EN, with more than 100 new articles (most of them short), but I cut back to almost nothing there when I became an Admin here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thanks for the thoughtful words and the advice. I will of course continue to comment in deletion discussions when I have the time, I have noticed that there is too little commentary and consideration there, which is why I've stayed somewhat active there (it's not like I particularly enjoy it, but it seems important to do). I am pretty sure I will never be the kind of highly active admin you seem intent on attracting, but if pitching in on a smaller scale with the admin buttons, in addition to commenting etc., is desirable, I would love to help some day. I will try to check back with you in the future about RfA. Anyway, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts more fully. -Pete F (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, good question [1]. i responded, but i doubt it resolves it. at the mercy of a commons admin <shrug> when we do our LOC editathon, i'll try to get those folks uploading the Highsmith archive, few thousand more like that. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked the idea about the recognition for workshop / course completion. I am curious though, SOO? Burba? --Another Believer (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOO = School of Open. Perhaps this will help explain...happy to tell you more, but perhaps it is somewhat self explanatory? (The course is expected to run from mid-March through the end of April.) Glad you noticed :) -Pete F (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've mentioned a prior comment by you, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pete. Thanks for improving the photo NancyRyles&TomMarsh.jpg. It looks much better now. I don't have Photoshop, only iPhoto, and it is not as versatile (although even iPhoto probably could have improved it over my last version, if I'd been willing to spend more time on it). Maybe you can make the same changes to the cropped version, File:Nancy Ryles 1979.jpg, which someone created for use in the Oregon Women of Achievement list-article. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. I've closed this DR as kept, as you are one making a strong case for the deletion I wanted to let you know. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The user uploaded two duplicate pics "Mostra" and "Mostra 1". The error cited in your  Keep is because Mostra was taken off and all links are now directed for this pic. In any case, even my vote is for  Keep for this file as its in use. The DR also ended in  Keep. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I meant Richard as in Richard Farmbrough‎, I think that may change the meaning of your reply, so I thought I should let you know, so you could adjust it. Sorry for the trouble. Penyulap ☏ 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I wasn't confused, I just failed to specify that I was addressing Gabriel, not you. Fixed now. -Pete F (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. argh, I wish I could swear off that particular drama just as you have, but I would so dearly like to see some kind of meaningful anti-bullying policy come from the momentum Jimbo has put in place for his own benefit alone. I put a note at the VP but haven't put a link on the DR or anywhere. Penyulap ☏ 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's a worthy goal to have some clearly stated and useful standards, but I doubt this process is going to lead to an outcome like that. We'll have to take a stab at that another day :) -Pete F (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Long time ago I moved File:Celilo article traffic 12-09.png and File:Celilo article traffic 12-07.png from outreach.wikimedia to Commons, and believed then it had enough copyright information to be moved to Commons. But now I see it was tagged with a {{No license}}. Since you was the original uploader, can you please describe how the article traffic charts were created? Thanks. Arseny1992 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful contributions to the page at File:Streisand Estate.jpg, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask the photographer of the photo for formal permission to host the picture on wikimedia commons. How can the photographer provide this permission? -(ersake) (talk)

	Happy Holidays!
	G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This makes [Jimmy Wales] not merely a 'semi-public' figure, but one of the very most public figures in existence."

I've been working for the Foundation for almost 4 years and my mother still has no idea who Jimmy Wales is. She does, however, know who Julian Assange is. Go figure! Hope you had a good Christmas. We should get some more beers in Oakland some time! Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The foto was taken during a pubblic event: the inhauguration of the public library of Bagno a Ripoli (FI) Italy. Luigi Crocetti was there as the ufficial reppresentative of the Regione Toscana. --Giaccai (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are works under Crown Copyright permitted on @WikiCommons? If not, why not?https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#crown_copyright …

PeteForsyth @WikiCommons here's policy page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Crown_copyright …

Yeah, saw it. But, it seems weird -- seems to suggest that until CC has expired, the work is not permitted. But why not?

because, unlike US where govt work is public domain, govt retained copyright; however, now using {{OGL}}.

But the page linked seems to indicate all CC is freely reusable, not merely {{OGL}}. Can we discuss on wiki?

ok, twitter on wiki. my intrepretation is that the crown retained copyright (wikimedia frowny) but informally allowed most uses (smiley) it's unclear what the is legal impact of a web policy page (wikimedia wikilawyers frowny) where they release with "right" license then good , but need to migrate heritage material. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted that initially in response to @WereSpielChequers' question here. Your tweets helped me understand better -- I think the reply I posted there gets to the heart of the matter. (Was just trying to get it back to wiki so that he would see the discussion! Thanks for indulging.) -Pete F (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. going to his question, i think that the law did not change, but a cultural change, the archivists have been busy, now that europeanana and OKF (and WMUK) have been active. don't know if it will have an impact on deletion discussions retroactively, should make a good partner for future glam activity with OGL license going forward. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that you said the usually state senators are not under a US Gov. domain, which I agree. When it comes to uploading portraits, I am not sure which one to use for these 'official portraits', which is why I just put it under the US domain. I usually just do logos. Would you have any suggestions? I would like to keep the picture on here… Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for cleaning up my mess. that seems an idiosyncratic category, "photos by". i'm crawling thru LOC OWI images so theres a bunch. drop me a note if i miss any and i'll fix eventually. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool project, these are some great photos! The "photographs by…" convention is nice because it can be added to Category:Photographs by photographer as well, and because it allows the occasional portrait of the photographer himself to be found more easily (the one you'll now easily find in Category:Alfred T. Palmer was buried among hundreds of others before). Let me know if you'd like help working on others from the LOC! -Pete F (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they have a major digitization effort with contractors, trying to get with them for a mass upload, (with some of our WMDC friends) but in the meantime using commonist. i've been trying to add creator template, but now need category rethink. i've been following DC Past and NYC Past tumblr feeds and uploading, but these color OWI have distracted me. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm going to "gift" you a template for quickly categorizing the counties. :-) Stay tuned. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I think this is kind of a problem because we already have Category:Aerial photographs of Oregon. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I love finding the really old photos of the area and tucking them safely into their little folders. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Morgan (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, @Steve Morgan: . I'll look into it a little and see if I can find a definite indication that it was published before 1923. -Pete F (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, looking into this more closely, I believe when I uploaded it, I interpreted the source page as indicating that the photo was published in the 1904 Spokesman Review article that was transcribed. But on closer inspection, that isn't directly asserted, and may not be true. This might need to be deleted; but I do still suspect that it was either published before 1923, or that its copyright has not been sufficiently asserted or protected. So it's probably in the public domain, but I can't prove it, at least not without more research than I'm prepared to do right now. -Pete F (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe that you are right that it probably was published before 1923, and/or that its copyright probably was not sufficiently asserted or protected, I also feel if you cannot provide any real evidence to support those beliefs, the photo shouldn't be on Commons. I can't in good conscience endorse leaving it here. At least it's not the only photo Commons has of this long-gone building, although one of the other five exterior views of it is among a large number of uploads made by another user back in February, taken from the Portland city archives, which probably mostly need to be deleted for the same reason (one half of a discussion on that is on my talk page; I haven't had time to deal more with that, but hope to do so eventually). Steve Morgan (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Thanks again, @Steve Morgan: for catching this. -Pete F (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, don't you think that the pictures shown on the slides in images like file:Wikimedia_December_Metrics_Meeting_-_Photo_07.jpg this one could be considered de minimis? It seems a bit harsh to speedy them. At least to me this is not a clear cut case. Cheers --Dschwen (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dschwen: , it looks like the file you linked has since been deleted, and I don't remember precisely what it depicted. Perhaps @Fastily: (the admin who completed the deletion) can shed some light. But I'm pretty sure it depicted a WMF staff person, and a slide he or she was presenting. If a de minimis claim on the contents of the slide is your reason for preserving it, I agree, that's probably fine; somebody can simply crop the photo to remove the copyrighted content, and re-upload the photo of the WMF staff person. (Similar cases are described on the page on de minimis.) I think your user rights give you the ability to access the file; if you'd like to email it to me (my first name at wikistrategies.net) I would be happy to crop it and re-upload as an example. -Pete F (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, speedy deletion of such images is problematic, especially given WMF's clearly understood policy of releasing all employee created work under CC-BY-SA. Where attribution has not been properly provided for every element of a picture with multiple parts or a photographer has been misidentified, that is a minor oversight that can easily be corrected without deleting the image. Pete: I appreciate your focus on improving the metadata for these files, but in future, I would recommend simply contacting the uploader to request addition of missing metadata, rather than immediately tagging the files for deletion, especially in a case where all concerned parties are available and the policies of the organization involved, as noted, are very clear. Moreover, it is indeed the case that de minimis can be reasonably argued in some of the concerned cases.--Eloquence (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eloquence: / Erik, I see that a colleague, Jeevan Jose, has suggested your recent email to the Wikimedia-L email list may be related to this comment. I'd like to put some thought into my response; I will get back to you shortly. In the meantime though, please see my response above to Dschwen regarding the de minimis aspect. -Pete F (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eloquence: , as you can see below, many things have been addressed, so let me speak specifically to the parts of your comment that are unique.

• If there is a clear WMF policy to that effect, it's (very happy!) news to me. I personally certainly know that that WMF has a general disposition toward using CC BY-SA, but have never seen the kind of formal policy that rises to the standards set forth in COM:LICENSING#License information. (As a couple examples: our mutual colleague @Eekim: recently published a policy that would clearly meet that standard; and the Hewlett Foundation has a policy that comes tantalizingly close, but since it refers ambiguously to "much" of their content, as opposed to "all" of it, falls short of being helpful for the purposes of Commons.) Is there a board resolution, or staff directive, that I have missed? If so, I'm sorry -- please point the way.
• In that policy, does it state that a blanket attribition to the WMF itself (as opposed to the name of the specific content creator) is sufficient? If so, that would definitely make these issues easier to handle.

-Pete F (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Every WMF employee/contractor today operates under an employment agreement that contains provisions for joint copyright ownership of contributions, and gives WMF discretion as to which open source / free content licensing regime to use for distribution under its control. My reading of the agreement is that it would already give WMF full discretion to distribute such content with whatever form of attribution the organization deems appropriate, including to WMF itself. I'm not aware of a public blanket statement that clarifies these policies for easy reference -- if such a thing doesn't already exist, it might make sense to create it on wikimediafoundation.org, for easy reference. I've pinged a couple folks internally so we can get some more clarity on this.--Eloquence (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I would suggest the following procedure in these cases: do not tag as copyvio, because that does not give the uploader a "fair warning" because any admin can and should delete such fines immediately instead tag with {{No source since}} (or no license, whatever you think fits best). These templates grant the uploader a grace period to fix (or contest) the problems with this image. If you agree, I would restore the speedied images and re-tag them accordingly, and we (and Fabrice) can take it from there. --Dschwen (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dschwen: Whenever an uploader (knowingly or unknowingly) creates a file that violates the terms of a copyright license, that act creates a dilemma: should we (as content curators) give "fair warning" to the uploader, or should we be diligent in defending the terms of the content creator's license? (In addition, the interests of potential reusers should be considered.) It's a delicate balance, and it's not always possible or practical to treat every party with painstaking respect and kindness. I participate in many decisions around file deletion (and I recently saw an estimate that about 1500 files are nominated for deletion every day). In every one of these instances, I try to apply my best judgment in balancing conflicting interests. So, when you say "such files" -- exactly what kind of files do you mean? Files that contain copyright violations? Files that contain copyright violations, that Wikimedia staff have uploaded? Or some other category? If you could be more specific, it would help me to understand better where you are coming from. (Again, it would help if I knew exactly which file this was, but I don't -- I'm not an admin, so now that it's been deleted, I can't see the photo or even the reason I supplied for deletion.)

I'd also be interested to hear more about why you see me as the key decision-maker in this case. I am not an elected administrator, but @Fastily: is. But, you assert that the administrator should delete the file immediately. How is it that my judgment, as some random guy on the Internet who made an account, is worthy of critique, but the person elected for his judgment in these kinds of cases is expected to behave like an automaton, and is immune to criticism? This is really perplexing to me. Either the copyright violation needs to be dealt with right away, or we should be lenient. In either case, I would expect that your expectations of me (the nominator) and the closing admin would be in alignment. -Pete F (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is the responsibility of the closing admin to check the reasoning by the op is valid. Dschwen, nothing prevent you from restoring the file and applying a DR, in case of a doubt. Jee 16:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image in question. I'm on the fence here, and wouldn't feel strongly either way if the community decides to keep or delete the file. Since this is obviously a controversial matter, I recommend restoring the file for DR -FASTILY 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I have tried to be very careful here not to assign blame or create the impression that you are put on trial here. It seems that I failed. Sorry! I observed that you tagged some files in a certain way and made a suggestion to use a different tagging. There is no question that given the amount of copyright violations that are uploaded to commons we cannot just be "lenient" or even spent a large amount of time deliberating individual files.

When I say such files there are a few points I like to take under consideration.

• Is this file ripped straight from web (source=google, album covers etc.) -> speedy
• Else: is it uploaded by a drive by uploader (red user page link, only a handful of contributions) -> probably speedy
• Is the uploader a serial offender (no productive contributions, just copyvios) -> consider block
• Is the uploader a regular contributor (check contribution history for activity) -> Is there a chance this user is responsive -> don't speedy, but use the no source/license/permission template family

Does this clarify things a bit more? --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dschwen: First, thanks for clarifying about assigning blame; I probably overreacted above, and will try to put that behind me. This is a worthwhile discussion, and I am much happier to focus on the substantive issues.

Now that @Fastily: has shown me exactly what file this is (thanks!), I can answer more definitively on this specific one: Yes, if there is value in the non-derivative components of the image, I see absolutely no problem with restoring a version with the "de minimis" imagery cropped out, and rev-deleting the full version. Because the faces in the photo are so dark and blurry, I suppose I leapt too quickly to the conclusion that it didn't have value if the screen was cropped out. I'm happy to concede that was my error, since there are clearly multiple people who see value in the photo.

Your more general principles are pretty much how I approach these situations, I have no quarrel with them. In this case, in hindsight, a better approach would have been to crop and upload the file myself, and then propose a rev-deletion (or, if the photos are freely licensed, a that the uploader determine the needed attributions and include them in the metadata). I could have put that on the file's talk page with a notification to the uploader.

Most of the similar files I tagged yesterday, sadly, would fall closer to your third bullet point: serial copyvio uploads, in spite of many efforts by multiple users to engage and inform, mixed in with productive contributions. I don't think my talk page is the right venue to dig into that issue, though.

One other note: Until now, I haven't been highly tuned into the distinction between "speedy" processes and less speedy ones. It seems there are (at least) three levels: (1) processes that invite immediate deletion; (2) processes that invite discussion, with deletion after 7 days a strong possibility; and (3) processes that notify without any particular suggestion that the file will be deleted at any time or under any conditions. Is that about right? Whatever the answer, I think there is a software improvement we could easily implement, that would help people in my position make the best choice. I get at these templates through the sidebar links that say:

• Nominate for deletion
• Report copyright violation
• No source
• No permission
• No license

Some of these take multiple actions on my behalf with a single click, while others request input from me without giving much of a clue about what the result will be. It's sort of like playing Russian Roulette. I'm sure the interface of these tools could be improved in a way that helps those of us tagging files make more informed decisions. (There's actually been a really worthwhile discussion about this kind of thing taking place on Ellin Beltz's user talk page.) -Pete F (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Fastily and Dschwen: I have re-uploaded a cropped version of the photo, which eliminates the presumably copyrighted-but-unattributed elements of the page, according to my understanding of how we deal with de minimis issues. However, since I'm not an admin, I can't restore the metadata -- could one of you do that please? -Pete F (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fastily: for the link. Now I assume the issue was those copyrighted materials on the display without proper attribution. I don't want to go to the arguments on "de minimis"; but it always a good practice to provide attribution if that information is available and possible. See File talk:Multimedia vision 2016.webm #Copyright issue for example.

Another related discussion I noticed is this. I thin Tgr (WMF)'s argument is acceptable. I too see no need of an endorsement if both people are representing same company/organisation. Agree with Pete that attribution must be correct. Jee 03:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And see this too. So "possible copyvio because Uploader claimed "own work" but is depicted in the photo" is no more a valid reason. Fabrice Florin (WMF) can claim copyright if he himself set the camera, planned the composition and just asked Tgr (WMF) to make a click. :) Jee 05:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete,

Please go ahead with the Rfc. No detailed introduction is necessary. Enough to say what Media Viewer is and how it is implemented across the wikis. ~~ Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't ever set one up on Commons, it's years since I set one up on Wikipedia, and I am very backlogged with other tasks so, sorry, I'm not the one to help out here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]