Please help me edit Leo's wikipedia page

136 views
Skip to first unread message

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 4:33:11 AM1/11/23
to leo-editor
Can someone please update the link to Leo's official web site on Leo's Wikipedia page?

I have been blocked from doing anything. I would like to change leoeditor.com to leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/

I've just sent the following to info...@wikimedia.org:

QQQ
Ahem. I've been blocked from editing this page:

Worse, I'm blocked from editing the talk page that supposedly would allow me to attempt to remove the block.

I have recently started using Proton VPN. I don't know why that should be a problem.

In short, I'm completely blocked from editing any page in Wikipedia. Imo, there is something wrong at your end.
QQQ

Edward

Jacob Peck

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 8:23:48 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
Changed.  Good luck negotiating with the WikiMedia folks, they have a fairly hardline stance on things.

Jake

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/9918bc7e-ede3-4005-93d2-357d32acc8a9n%40googlegroups.com.

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 10:04:42 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:23 AM Jacob Peck <gates...@gmail.com> wrote:
Changed.

Great. Thanks!
 
Good luck negotiating with the WikiMedia folks, they have a fairly hardline stance on things.

I received this response:

QQQ
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Open_proxies> explains why using a VPN is a problem. As an established editor you can request an exemption. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IPBE>

Your email signature reveals that you have a conflict of interest with respect to the article and should not be editing it directly.
QQQ

Well, this is a bizarre new policy.

Jacob, would you be willing to make these changes?

- Stable Release: refer readers to Leo's home page rather than mentioning a version number.
  This will eliminate one to-do item when publishing a new release.
  And it means I won't ever have to edit Leo's wikipedia page.

- Add a link to leoJS: https://github.com/boltex/leojs

Thanks!

Edward

Thomas Passin

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 10:26:09 AM1/11/23
to leo-editor
" Well, this is a bizarre new policy."  I don't think it's that new.  Wikipedia has been trying hard to prevent misrepresentation by interested parties who want to make themselves look good, or others to look bad. So you often can't fix errors about yourself even if you know for sure they are wrong.  We'll be lucky if they accept the changes without a published authority somewhere.

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 10:30:44 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:26 AM Thomas Passin <tbp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
" Well, this is a bizarre new policy."  I don't think it's that new.  Wikipedia has been trying hard to prevent misrepresentation by interested parties who want to make themselves look good, or others to look bad. So you often can't fix errors about yourself even if you know for sure they are wrong.  We'll be lucky if they accept the changes without a published authority somewhere.

Jacob managed to update the link to Leo's website. Let's hope he can make a few other tweaks.

Edward

Jacob Peck

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 10:56:17 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
I've added the LeoJS link, but because it's not mentioned in the article, I don't foresee it staying long.

I cannot remove the version tag, it's a requirement of the software infoblock.  Unfortunately WikiMedia are unlikely to budge on this.

I don't have any real interest in being a Wikipedia editor, so I would prefer if someone else would pick up this mantle moving forward.  I don't mind making quick edits, but the content of the article is not something I wish to maintan long term.

Thanks,
Jake

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+...@googlegroups.com.

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 11:14:38 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:56 AM Jacob Peck <gates...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've added the LeoJS link, but because it's not mentioned in the article, I don't foresee it staying long.

Thanks for this work. I figured out how to edit the page:

- Disable vpn.
- Delete all browser history.

The link to leoInteg has been stable despite not being mentioned in the text. I'm hoping the same will be true of the leoJS link.

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 11:17:10 AM1/11/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:56 AM Jacob Peck <gates...@gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot remove the version tag, it's a requirement of the software infoblock. 

I seem to have done it. Please take a look.

Edward

Félix

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 2:50:34 PM1/15/23
to leo-editor
Thanks to Jake for the LeoJS addition to the Leo Editor wikipedia entry, and whomever also added link to LeoInteg! 

Much appreciated!

Félix

jkn

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 6:08:32 PM1/15/23
to leo-editor
FWIW, it has always seemed slightly shady to me that the Leo 'splashscreen.xxx" graphic,
both on Leo's startup itself and now on the Wikipedia page, has some sort of watermark on it.
I always thought it was a light grey '(c)' mark, but having looked harder
I now think it is a coarse spiral.

Does no-one else see this? I remember the discussion about a logo some years ago,
but I can't remember where Edward found this. It seems to me that this mark was intended
to prevent use elsewhere; I think the copyright of that image, and the license to copy
and distribute it, should be checked.

J^n

Jacob Peck

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 6:38:57 PM1/15/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
The watermark has been discussed a few times over the last 11ish years that I've been kicking around here -- there was resistance to purchasing a license to actually use the image, and then the discussions seem to have died.  It's bugged me for the better part of a decade.

Jake

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+...@googlegroups.com.

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 7:12:17 PM1/15/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 5:08 PM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:

FWIW, it has always seemed slightly shady to me that the Leo 'splashscreen.xxx" graphic,
both on Leo's startup itself and now on the Wikipedia page, has some sort of watermark on it.

I never noticed this before, but I do see it.
I always thought it was a light grey '(c)' mark, but having looked harder
I now think it is a coarse spiral.

I agree. It doesn't seem to be any kind of copyright symbol.

It seems to me that this mark was intended
to prevent use elsewhere; I think the copyright of that image, and the license to copy
and distribute it, should be checked.

I don't remember where I got this image. I don't think it was copyrighted, and I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Let me know if you discover if it definitely is copyrighted :-)

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 7:24:45 PM1/15/23
to leo-editor
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-6 Edward K. Ream wrote:

I looked up this image here.

This appears to be the original source. I do remember greying the red eyes.

I am not aware of any copyright notice.

Edward

Jacob Peck

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 7:25:10 PM1/15/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
They've changed their watermark in the interim -- the new watermark has the spiral still, but smaller.  It also appears the original had red eyes, which were probably edited out in the current Leo splash screen.

IIRC this image used to cost money -- I don't know what the 'Free Download' entitles one to legally, but this image is clearly under some sort of license that it's probably wise to look into in some way :)

Jake


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+...@googlegroups.com.

Jacob Peck

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 7:27:43 PM1/15/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
Searching this group for 'Dreamstime' brings up conversations in 2013 and 2014 about this logo.  "Royalty free" doesn't indicate free use -- it indicates that the image is able to be used without royalties, once a proper license has been purchased.  I imagine that would entail a Dreamstime subscription, or a one-time purchase.

Jake

Thomas Passin

unread,
Jan 15, 2023, 10:46:36 PM1/15/23
to leo-editor
Dreamstime has a page on license terms, and it has this section  that seems as if it might apply -

"Limited Royalty Free Licenses (RF-LL) for using Media downloaded within the Free section of the website

Dreamstime offers a free section, fully searchable and constantly updated. Its use may be available to all registered users or to a specific niche of members, depending on the agency`s strategy. The Media downloaded from the free section may be used under the terms mentioned for the regular Royalty Free license, with additional restrictions: the maximum amount of physical copies in any form is limited to 10,000 copies and the license granted is valid for 6 (six) months after the initial download for unsubscribed members or 6 (six) months after your Dreamstime download subscription ends. If you exceed the 10,000 print amount and you already purchased credits or a commercial subscription you may re-download the Media under the regular RF license."

In the section on the "Regular Royality Free license:

"For Web use, you must not use the Media at a width exceeding 1080 pixels unless it is included in your site`s design."

The actual image is labeled "ROYALTY-FREE STOCK PHOTO"  It does include a watermark.  However, the terms of use page also says:

"The Royalty-Free license is granted ONLY for the non-watermarked Media you buy using the Download button; all the other versions (small watermarked and non-watermarked thumbnails which are visible on the public site) are entirely copyrighted."

The image in question is a small watermarked version, I can't figure out how that fits in.

jkn

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 3:46:56 AM1/16/23
to leo-editor
Yes, I see that the new version has multiple small spirals instead of one large one.

ISTM that the whole point of such watermarks is to prevent 'out of rights' use. (Edward) sorry to be a pain, but I think that on the one hand putting out more publicity for Leo, eg. via the Wikipedia page, and on the other suggesting that such possible violation of copyright is 'not worth worrying about', is ... misguided.

J^n

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 4:33:50 AM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:46 AM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:

I think that on the one hand putting out more publicity for Leo, eg. via the Wikipedia page, and on the other suggesting that such possible violation of copyright is 'not worth worrying about', is ... misguided.

Alright. I've just delegated you to investigate. The only acceptable solution is low-cost, unlimited, permanent, rights to the image.

Edward

jkn

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 5:08:32 AM1/16/23
to leo-editor
I should have seen that coming! OK, fair enough. I will try to clarify, perhaps based on what Thomas found.
How wedded are you to that particular lionine image? I expect we went through all of this when that was first found...

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 9:08:31 AM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:08 AM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:
I should have seen that coming! OK, fair enough. I will try to clarify, perhaps based on what Thomas found.
How wedded are you to that particular lionine image? I expect we went through all of this when that was first found...

I want to keep the image. I'll pay a royalty of around $10 provided it gets the job done.

Alternatively, it should be easy to edit out the watermark. I remember turning the red eyes gray.

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 10:11:26 AM1/16/23
to leo-editor
A mixed strategy will be best. Yes, let's do clear up licensing issues, but I want to use an edited version of the Lion. In particular, parts of the background have the "Leo yellow" color.

I've just spent about 40 minutes cleaning up SplashScreen.ico using this online icon editor. I'll be converting this icon to other formats and changing Leo's website (and the Wikipedia page) fairly soon.

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 10:14:49 AM1/16/23
to leo-editor
On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:11:26 AM UTC-6 Edward K. Ream wrote:

I've just spent about 40 minutes cleaning up SplashScreen.ico using this online icon editor.

 Attached is the latest version. It's much better without the watermark :-)
SplashScreen-no-water-mark.ico

jkn

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 3:08:27 PM1/16/23
to leo-editor
Yeah, I wondered about this approach. If only you could remove copyright that way...

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 3:32:53 PM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:08 PM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:
Yeah, I wondered about this approach. If only you could remove copyright that way...

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out what it would cost to get a permanent license.

Edward

jkn

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 5:08:28 PM1/16/23
to leo-editor
A couple of things gleaned from the dreamstime license page: https://www.dreamstime.com/about-stock-image-licenses

1) The "content level" for the leonine image is level 5. For this level a 'Royalty-Free License' costs < 4$, with a
'web usage' license of < $10. The question, it seems to me, is 'what does this license/s allow me to do?

- The Royalty-Free license seems to be for a single person only. There are clear restrictions intended to stop
you incorporating it into other derivative works; you can use it personally, including websites etc, but you can't
(for instance) sell posters or musg with the image, nor sell it on, or put it in a colouring book etc.

- The Web-usage license seems to be more about using it in web templates that you might sell on.

- There are other licences but none of them seem very applicable to Leo's exact use; 'distribution' as part
of a free software package.

I can enquire about this specific use if you like, without mentioning the specific image we are talking about.

BTW if it turns out it's a matter of $10 i am happy to pay for it as a thanks for Leo ;-)

also FWIW: The leonine image seems a whisker off-vertical to me: looking at the Lion's face it is turned a
few degrees anti-(counter-)clockwise. Is this deliberate, I wonder?

Regards, Jon N

jkn

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 5:22:59 PM1/16/23
to leo-editor
"""
Thank you for contacting us. Please reply to this email string and provide the ID number of the image in question, as well as a detailed description of exactly how the image is used within the app.
"""
Do you want me to carry on ... ?

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 6:55:49 PM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:08 PM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:
A couple of things gleaned from the dreamstime license page: https://www.dreamstime.com/about-stock-image-licenses

Many thanks for your research. Yes, please do carry on.

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 6:58:05 PM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:08 PM jkn wrote:

BTW if it turns out it's a matter of $10 i am happy to pay for it as a thanks for Leo ;-)

Thanks!

also FWIW: The leonine image seems a whisker off-vertical to me: looking at the Lion's face it is turned a
few degrees anti-(counter-)clockwise. Is this deliberate, I wonder?

I never noticed this before, but I do see the rotation now. I'm sure I didn't rotate the image.

Edward

Thomas Passin

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 7:23:07 PM1/16/23
to leo-editor
If you had, it would have been pixelated to hell and gone. 

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 16, 2023, 9:44:45 PM1/16/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 6:23 PM Thomas Passin <tbp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you had [rotated the image], it would have been pixelated to hell and gone. 

:-)

Edward

jkn

unread,
Jan 17, 2023, 4:00:52 AM1/17/23
to leo-editor
You can get a vector version (Adobe Illustrator, it looks like)

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 17, 2023, 4:58:15 AM1/17/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:00 AM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:
You can get a vector version (Adobe Illustrator, it looks like)

Thanks for this. I'd rather keep the diffs as small as possible.

Edward

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 18, 2023, 7:20:48 AM1/18/23
to leo-editor
On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-6 jkn wrote:
"""
Thank you for contacting us. Please reply to this email string and provide the ID number of the image in question, as well as a detailed description of exactly how the image is used within the app.
"""
Do you want me to carry on ... ?

What have you done so far?

In a reply I did say to carry on, but I want to buy the image myself. See this discussion.

Edward

Thomas Passin

unread,
Jan 18, 2023, 11:40:58 AM1/18/23
to leo-editor
I'd be willing to contribute some funds if need be.

BTW, the Wikipedia entry now reads in part:

" The GUI uses the Qt toolkit; the syntax-aware editor is based on Scintilla."

In what way is the editor now based on Scintilla?

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 18, 2023, 1:30:28 PM1/18/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:41 AM Thomas Passin <tbp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be willing to contribute some funds if need be.

Thanks! I sure hope that isn't necessary :-)

BTW, the Wikipedia entry now reads in part:

" The GUI uses the Qt toolkit; the syntax-aware editor is based on Scintilla."

In what way is the editor now based on Scintilla?

There is an option to use Scintilla. The sentence you quote is a bit misleading because Scintilla is not the default.

Edward

jkn

unread,
Jan 18, 2023, 5:37:55 PM1/18/23
to leo-editor
Hi Edward

I sent you a direct email yesterday, to the 'send a postcard' email address listed on Leo's website. Did it not get through?
I see events have moved on somewhat - apologies, I've been away for most of the day...

Regards, J^n

Edward K. Ream

unread,
Jan 19, 2023, 8:31:19 AM1/19/23
to leo-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:37 PM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:

I sent you a direct email yesterday, to the 'send a postcard' email address listed on Leo's website. Did it not get through?

I'm not sure. I received an email from you two days ago.
I see events have moved on somewhat - apologies, I've been away for most of the day...

No apology needed :-)