This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

A full description of the photo you had deleted can be read here, including every bit of trivia about it, as you insisted. If it adds what you said you wanted on the talk page, please request that it be restored. Thank you. -- Light show ( talk) 01:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not delete the file. It was deleted by an administrator who also likely felt that the arguments you made for keeping the file were not sufficient enough; otherwise, he would've declined the speedy or suggested it be discussed at WP:FFD. So, you should discuss this with him and see if he will undelete it. If you can add more content about the specific image per se instead of just discussing the general situation it depicts, then there would be much stronger case for non-free use. Perhaps you can work out something in your user sandbox or on the file's talk page along with an appropriate non-free use rationale for the deleting administrator to review.-- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

どうもありがとうございます! after a series of events in my life you just made me realise how kind and good the world is despite its problems Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

can you please help me? your category or the physical laws of wikicode are breaking down!

• first it was like that: see Error1 thumb|1 normal it works
• second it was like that: see Error2 thumb|2 what the..? (broken ghost (cannot edit this away) copy added
• second it was like that: see Error3 thumb|3 now its broken Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 02:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

until we figure this out am going to use my fake category (until we figure this out that is) Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

can you please restore this after it is fixed Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 02:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

i am not japanese Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 03:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories for articles cannot be enabled in user sandboxes per WP:USERNOCAT or in drafts per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. The first time I edited the sanbox, I hid the categories from view, but you seem to want to see actually them. So, I unhid them and linked to the category pages instead. If you want to use the image you made, then you can do that. However, clicking on the image itself will take you to File:Barbie category.png, but clicking on the links like Category:People convicted of murder by France will actually take you to the relevant categories page. You can re-enable the categories once your "draft" has been upgraded to article status. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)>>

what do you mean i "dont want to" use your category (again i said:can you please restore this after it is fixed), and why did you not look at the technically error it created? (you removed the printscr from this talkpage) Ukrainetz1 ( talk) 02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

First, please do not re-display those files again here. The links to the file's pages are sufficient for discussion purposes. Next, you simply cannot use categories for articles in drafts or on user pages. What you saw is not an error, but are links to the category pages, so that you can see them at the bottom of the article. When whatever you're working on is moved to the article namespace, the categories can be re-enabled. The editor who approves your draft and moves it to the article namespace will most likely do this for you, but in case they don't you can do it yourself. All you have to do is change [[:Category:Category name]] to [[Category:Category name]]. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. The copyright status of File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 2. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not removed that dubious image! This is not illegal! AaronWikia ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with illegal or legal, but everything to do with WP:NFCCP. You need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for that particular use per WP:NFCC#10c. Non-free image use can be tricky. If you have questions, you should ask for help at WP:MCQ. --- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@ AaronWikia:. You need to provide a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use of a non-free file. Trying to combine multiple uses into a single non-free use rationale like you did here is not allowed per WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean a combine multiple uses into a single non-free use rationale image is not allowed? Man, screw it! I'm about to delete this non-free dubious image! AaronWikia ( talk) 15:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Australia women's national soccer team logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I become a participant in WikiProject:Japan? Dinah Kirkland ( talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dinah Kirkland. You can pretty much join/leave any and as many WikiProjects you want whenever you want. Some WikiProjects may have a list of members somewhere on their main page and you can just add your name to the list, but there's really no formal application process. If you want to ask specific questions about WikiProject Japan or perhaps how you can help contribute, then you can do so at WT:JAPAN. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay Arigato that's really helpful. Dinah Kirkland ( talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this individual probably fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:ARTIST. I read through the article and have added the maintenance templates of Unreferenced & BLP-References to the box at the top. I do not have time to fully edit it or possibly assess it today but will come back to it later this week and see if any improvements are possible. Shearonink ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonink taking a look at the article. I just did a brief Google search, but didn't find much about her. I thought about tagging the article with WP:BLPPROD or starting an AFD, but wanted to see if there were others who might want to take a crack at it first. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No problems, I'll leave the image out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldenV8 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Hallo. Well, a bit of last happenings between me and wiki: I started an article about Narcotics Anonymous (in Latvian) in sandbox. I was trying to upload image with common NA terms in graphic but translated reasonably in Latvian. I couldn't. I sent message to CambrigeWeatherBay about it and pointed, that I'm Latvian & get response. I came back from my night duty's and opened sandbox. I noticed that few images are gone. Opened chronology stuff: You did it. I could press the button and take responsibility about Non-free content to be back on page, but the case is about the philosophy of NA and all the members in it. Those missing symbols (logos) are in use actually all over the world and are recognizable.. Somebody may use them to attract attention or gain respect, but that is not my responsibility. Probably I get the point why You leaved that one specific symbol at my sandbox. Nice to meet You. Matishka Matishka ( talk) 05:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Matishka. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as " non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrctions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. Non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) on usepages or their subpages as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files which is why I removed those two files from your user sandbox. The other file ( File:Narcotics Anonymous symbol.svg) is licensed as a public domain image which is why I didn't remove it. If you have any more questions about this, you can ask me here or ask others for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. It seems some people are putting logos back into national team pages eg Iran, India pages, ignoring the previous discussions. Do you think we should discuss this issue again? I remember we were going to do a straw poll, but we never did it. Hashim-afc ( talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to start another discussion or start a poll you can. You can try an build on what came before and see if you establish a consensus. Perhaps this time around, you'll be more successful than previous attempts.

As for the the people recently re-adding those logos, they either are not aware of the previous FFD discussions or they are aware and simply just don't care. If it's a case of the former, you can let them know about the FFD discussion if you like and make a suggestion as to what they can do if they disagree with the FFD close. They'll either take your advice or ignore it and just keep trying to add the logos to the articles; if they choose to do that, they're choosing disruption over discussion and eventually they will find out the hard way that not being here does not work out to well on Wikipedia. In all of the cases where logos were readded, those doing the re-adding did not try to show compliance by also adding the required non-free use rationales, which again could be either a case of not knowing or not caring about WP:NFCCP. Some of these editors, however, have even been previously advised about adding logos without rationales before either by user talk page posts or by edit sums, but they still continue to do so. These type of editors are always going to be around regardless and I don't think existing policies, guidelines or consensuses necessarily need to be revisted for them. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you edited an image out of one of my userboxes because it was a non-free image. I forgot to check the license on it, and my error was completely unintentional. I would have gladly fixed it myself, had you left a message on my talk page per WP:USERTALKBLOG. I am an active user and most of my edits are in the Wikipedia mainspace- therefore, it was unnecessary for you to take action on your own. Aspening ( talk) 01:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No offense intended Aspening, but WP:UP#OWN and the second paragraph of "On other user pages" in USERTALKBLOG means that others may edit your userpage accordingly if they find obvious violations of Wikipedia policies like WP:NFCC#9 violations. Moreover, WP:UP#Non-free files clearly states that "Non-free files found on user or user talk pages will be removed without warning...". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello there Marchjuly!

On June 15th you removed non-free image content from an article I updated on Tim O'Brien

I think if you look again, you'll see that the non-free images I used are the work of the artist Tim O'Brien and would help the reader understand the article more clearly, with visual references to works of art by this important artist. The cover art for the The_Hunger_Games_(novel) and the Mockingjay title are both clearly credited as being created by the artist.

I would appreciate your consideration of this and feel that readers would benefit from seeing these images in the context of the article.

It's my understanding that usage would fall under Contextual significance of the Non-free content criteria

What d0 you think?

I try my best to be a good citizen for the important works in illustration.

Many thanks.

Rezimmerman ( talk) 00:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rezimmerman. Each use of a non-free file on Wikipedia is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria (more specifically a part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. The two files I removed, File:The Hunger Games.jpg and File:Mockingjay.JPG, do not have rationales for Tim O'Brien (illustrator); so, I removed them per WP:NFCCE. It is the reponsibility of the editor wanting to use a non-free image in a particular article to provide the required rationale. If you feel that their non-free use in the article is justified, then please provide the required rationale for each before re-adding them to the article. Be advised, however, that you need to make it quite clear in the rationale on how the remaining non-free content criteria are met. Moreover, a rationale does not automatically mean than non-free use is considered compliant; it just reduces a file's chance of being removed for NFCC#10c reasons or nominated for speedy deletion per WP:F6. A rationale may be challenged by any editor and further discussion is sometimes necessary at WP:FFD.

In general, non-free book covers, album covers, magazine covers, etc. can be tricky to justify because of WP:NFC#cite_note-3. For example, a book cover is generally considered acceptable non-free use when it is used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles about the book itself as in Mockingjay and The Hunger Games, but a much stronger justification for non-free use is required for other articles. This stronger non-free justification has to do with WP:NFCC#8, and is most easily met when there is actual sourced critical commentary about the specific cover art in the article. The contextual connection between article content and non-free image in such cases has to be quite strong so that removing the non-free image would be seen as detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content.

FWIW, the reason I didn't add the non-free rationales myself for the O'Brien article is because I didn't find enough sourced discussion of these two particular covers in Tim O'Brien (illustrator)#Book covers in the section; the books are mentioned by name and and there are cited sources showing that O'Brien created the logos, but there is no real discussion of the book cover imagery, etc. which justifies NFCC#8 in my opinion. So, the Wikilinks provided for each book seemed more than sufficient to me per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. In addition, O'Brien seems to have illustrated quite a number of other covers for magazines and even some postage stamps as well, but no images seem to be needed to for the reader to understand that article content even though its quite similar to what is written about the books. This makes the non-free use of the covers seem (at least to me) to be more decorative than contextual, and that perhaps the files were added to the article because they could be found already on Wikipedia without giving too much consideration as to how Wikipedia's non-free use content policy might pertain to each particular use. This is my opinion and others may feel differently. You can also ask about this at WT:NFCC, WP:MCQ, or even start a discussion at FFD if you like, but you will should provide the rationales so that others have something to evaluate. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your clear and informative response, Marchjuly!

Rezimmerman ( talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, you can go on and on justifying your (repeated) deletion(s) by pointing to every nit-picking rule you can muster up (and I now see that you are causing similar disturbance to other contributing editors) but that still doesn't make it necessary or right (in my case anyway), especially as the content of Ballpoint Pen Art had been through HEAVY peer review at the time of its creation AND prior to appearing as a DYK on the main page (in the exact state it was in before you suddenly started singling out the Odutola file from out of nowhere). That file's inclusion in the article was very simply to add variety of examples to an article of an art genre with many different applications. Nobody even complained, much less shout 'infringement', not even the artist, who I happen to know is aware that her work is being used in BPA. That should really be clear and easy to understand without having to cite any rule or necessitate 'rationale'. Successful DYK peer review alone validates the article's content as it existed until you came along, and I'll point out that provisions within those very same rules you cite can just as easily be used to argue against you. I will prepare the rationale the next time I have the spare time and reinsert the image, if you have further problems with it then please get some serious consensus before just pushing delete. Penwatchdog ( talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not delete the file; I removed it from the article because its non-free use does ont comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you feel that its use in the article is justified, then provide the non-free use rationale explaining why as required by WP:NFCC#10c; it is your responsibility to do so, not mine. Ballpoint pen artwork appeared on the main page as DYK on July 21, 2012. It looks like this was the version that was seen that day. This is the version of the article dated August 7, 2012. Neither version shows the file we are discussing; in fact, it looks like the file was not added to the article until almost a year later on June 4, 2013 with this edit so I'm not sure why you're trying to claim it was "approved" as part of the discussion listed at Template:Did you know nominations/Ballpoint pen artwork . In addtion, as I pointed on your user talk page, the fact that nobody complained before does not mean that the non-free use of the file complies with relevant policy, and that WP:NFCC#8 typically requires a fairly high degree of contextual significance for this type of non-free content usage. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember thinking that you were a very helpful editor, but I am sad to see that you have become an image enforcer. You have recently removed several wonderful and unique images from some of the articles on my watchlist. IMO, the worst rule in Wikipedia is NFCC#8, and NFCC#1 is also overapplied. Yes, you are following the rules, but it is like towing cars from an empty parking lot. These are not part of the Copyright law. When I ask people what they see as problems with Wikipedia, they often say "Why doesn't it have pictures?". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion has more to do with NFCC#1 than NFCC#8. Moreover, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrcitive that US copyright law by design as explained in WP:NFC#Background. If you feel it's too strict, then you can start a discussion about it at WT:NFCC. As for you're being sad, well that's something out of my control.

When people ask you why "Wikipedia does not have pictures", you can say that it does have pictures, but that it takes copyright matters quite seriously so there are certain policies which uploaded images must satisfy. You can also add that an important goal of Wikipedia is that it wants all people to be able to freely reuse the content/images they see in its articles in any manner they wish. So, while non-free images are allowed in some contexts, such usage is restricted to try to keep it as minimal as possible in much the same way that Wikipedia does not really allowed people to upload complete versions of copyrighted books or musical albums. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your self-revert. I am a lawyer who has some experience with US copyright law (especially fair use claims), so your very basic argument above is not illuminating. To be more precise, my opinion is that a substantial amount of the image enforcement on Wikipedia has nothing to do with copyright; instead it is, in many cases, caused by misunderstandings of copyright law that are built into WP:NFC#Background. In any case, it is very clear that the reason that Wikipedia is under-illustrated is partly because talented Wikipedians, like you, are unfortunately tricked by foolish WP rules into allocating their editing time to deleting fair use images that are well within the legal right of websites to display them under US copyright law. The image that you restored is not the only excellent (and clearly fair use) image that you recently deleted, though I did not keep a record of the others. I am confident that arguing against the overenforcement of image deletion policies at at WT:NFCC is a waste of my time, so I will not do it. Only a tiny minority of Wikipedians are lawyers, and so it is not likely that nuanced legal arguments will succeed against long-entrenched rules that the bulk of readers of that talk page have learned to love. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted because I didn't notice that the file had been previously be discussed at WP:FFD. Often the adminstrator who closes an FFD discussion adds {{ Oldffdfull}} to the file's talk page to let others know about the discussion, but perhaps the admin just forgot in this case. Personally, I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz concerns about the file's non-free use were not spurious and I agree with his assessment; however, I would not intentionally ignore an admin's close and would instead follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instead. The file still was lacking a non-free use rationale for the Peters' article, which you subsequently added. Any further issues with the file's non-free use can be discussed again at FFD.

If you disagree some parts of Wikipedia's non-free use content policy, then the best place to suggest changes to it would be either at WT:NFCC or possibly at WP:VP/P. More editors are likely watching those pages than are watching my user talk, so they are better place to try and establish a concensus for any changes you'd like to see made. If you feel that doing so would be a waste of your time, then please don't bring that discussion here because there's nothing I can do on my own to change that policy.

I am not an administrator, so I don't have to ability to delete any files, articles, or anything else from Wikipedia. I may nominate a file for discussion or deletion, or even remove a file from an article if I believe its use does not comply with relevant policy, but that is done in good faith. If you feel an image has been inappropraitely deleted, then you should discuss your concerns with the administrator who deleted it. If you feel an image has been inappropriately nominated for deletion or removed from an article, then you should follow the instructions in the template on the file's page or discuss your concerns with the editor who removed the file. If you feel my behavior is a problem or that my edits are disruptive or do not comply with relevant policies and guidelines, then you can try discussing them with me or start of discussion at the appropriate administrator's noticeboard per WP:RAA. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I must assume that you actually read what I wrote. Which brings me back to my original thought. It makes me very sad to see a good editor *choose* to devote time to enforcing the worst rules on WP, even after I have explained to you why they are bad rules and hurt the WP project. I thought that explaining it to one thoughtful person might be effective. If even *you* are not persuaded, you can see that it would be a complete waste of time to bring the argument to a discussion board. I won't take up any more of your time. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree they are bad rules and I don't agree that they hurt the project despite your attempted "explanation" to the contrary. If you feel they are, then please discuss them on the policy's talk page and try to establish a new consensus. If your "legal arguments" are correct, then you should have little trouble convincing others as well. If you're not able to convince others, then perhaps the fault is with your arguments. Anyway, as I posted above, I cannot help you being sad or that you just don't like the current policy. If you wish to discuss either of those things, please do so somewhere else. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

	Admin
	Japan is considered as one of friendlyest Country for bicycling and I have there a friend Yohey(name) Matishka ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. You deleted a file I uploaded for the article Toby Price. Rather than a link to a page of gibberish, can you tell me simply how to make it freely-licensed so it will not be deleted again? Also, I noticed there was only 2 days between the notice given and deletion of the file. What sort of nerd checks Wikipedia every 2 days or less? How about a week or two notice before deleting someone's work? Thanks. -- GSmyth ( talk) 23:14, 20 June 2017

I am not an adminstrator, so I cannot delete files. I tagged the file as replaceable fair use per WP:F7 because you had originally uploaded it as non-free content and non-free images of living persons are almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#1. I am not, however,even the editor who nominated the file for speedy deletion this last time; it was nominated by Train2104 as you can see from the notifications Train2104 left on your user talk page. All I did was add a ffdc template to the article where the image was being used. File's that are deleted are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view. I don't suggest uploading the file again because is not necessary and will likely lead to the same result if you just do what you did before. It's better to discuss things witht he deleting admin if you feel that a mistake has been made. The administrator who deleted the file is Fastily, and you can post a message at User talk:Fastily asking for clarification.

If you took the photo yourself, you are the copyright holder of the image unless for some reason you transfered the copyright to someone else. The problem with the photo appears to be that it has been published prior to it being uploaded to Wikipedia. In such cases, verification that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder is often required (as explained in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?). What you are going to need to do is to send in a clear and explicit declaration of consent to OTRS stating that you understand and agree to release the photo under a free license. You can choose from any of the licenses shown here, but you should understand that basically you are agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and use the photo for any purpose, including commercial. You also cannot revoke or cancel a free license at a later date if you change your mind.

Once you send in your email, you should recieve an automatied reply containing a OTRS ticket number. This number is sort of like a reference number and you can use it if you have any questions about your email or the file. It may take a bit of time, but your email will eventually be reviewed by an OTRS volunteer to check the licensing. If there are no problems, the file will be undeeleted and a {{ OTRS permission}} template will be added to its page. If there are problems, an OTRS volunteer will likely contact you via email or by posting on your user talk page explaining the issue and what (if anything) can be done. If you send your email but don't hear anything for quite some time, you can use your OTRS ticket number to ask for help at WP:OTRSN. If you have any further questions, you can ask them here or you can ask for help at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to make some corrections. -- 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)]

@ Marchjuly: The file was reuploaded today (after this message was posted) and I tagged it. –  Train2104 ( t •  c) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you have deleted some images from a sub-page of my userpage. The fact is I was in the process of editing a public article in my private user page and once I was happy with it, I planned on uploading it to the main wikipedia page I was editing, which is licensed to use the images in question. So it was just temporary!

If there's another way for me to accomplish this please let me know, I would like to learn.

Kvwiki1234 ( talk) 07:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC) kvwiki1234, June 22, 2017

You can't use non-free content on your user page or on any of your user subpages. You were previously advised of this with respect to another non-free image at User talk:Kvwiki1234#Non-free image use. If you want, you may add links to the files using the colon trick, but you cannot display the files in your user namespace. There are no exceptions for this type of usage, so please do not re-add the images again.

If you're working on a draft for a new article or on an improvement to an existing article, you can add the images after the draft has been approved as an article or after you add your improvement to the existing article. However, since files you want to use are non-free content, you must make sure that the way you want to use them satisfies all 10 criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. You should be advised, however, the non-free images used to illustrate individual entries of list articles are almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have one question. Why is it that an image is legal on one wikipedia page (profile picture of a famous person for example) but the same image cannot be used in a list article where that person appears? I am referencing the same image stored on wikimedia. Please advise.

Kvwiki1234 ( talk) 20:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC) kvwiki1234 June 22, 2017

There are bascially two types of images you find on Wikipedia: "free images" and "non-free images". A "free" image is an image which has been released under a free license by its copyright holder or is considered to be in the public domain for one reason or another. A "non-free" image is one that has been uploaded as non-free content. All images used on Wikipedia are required to be used in accordance with Wikipedia:Image use policy, but non-free images are also required to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Each time a non-free image is used on Wikipedia, it is required to satisfy all ten of the non-free content criteria listed here. These criteria deal with different things, but failing even one of the ten criteria means that the file should not be used in that particular way per Wikipedia policy. Moreover, just because an image is being used in a certain article, does not automatically mean that the same file can be used in another article. There were a couple of problems with the way you were using those images in that particular article. I will try to explain them below.

The first is probably the easiest to understand and it has to do with WP:NFCC#10c. Each use of a non-free file on Wikipedia is required to be provided with a seperate and specific non-free use rationale which explains how the particular use of the file meets all ten of the non-free content criteria. Non-free images which do not have any non-free use rationale at all can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6; non-free images which are being used multiple times but do not have have a non-free rationale for each use, may be removed from the article(s) for which they are missing rationales. The images you added fall under the later; they had a rationale for the biography articles where they were being used, but not for the HOF article you had also added them to. It is the reponsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free image in a certain way to provide the required rationales per WP:NFCCE; so, if you really believe the non-free use of these images in the HOF article is justified, then please provide the required rationales before re-adding the iamges to the article. FWIW, there are other problems with this types of usage as explained in WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, and even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI which is pretty much why it is never considered OK on Wikipedia and which is why I didn't add the rationales myself.

Non-free images of deceased individuals are generally considered acceptable per item 10 of WP:NFCI when the image is being used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the individual in question; however, using such images in other articles tends to be much harder to justify. Wikipedia encourages us to minimize non-free content use as much as possible (NFCC#3). This does not mean that a particular non-free image may only be used one time, but rather we should try and limit such usage to only those cases where it significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not using the image would be detrimental to that understand. A list article is basically list of items with maybe a sentence or two about each item. A list article typically does not go into the same amount of detail about each of its entries as can be found in individual stand-alone articles about each entry. There is not nearly as many cited sources or as much contextual content about the single entry, so the context required by NFCC#8 is almost always lacking. A non-free image in the list article may look nice with all of the other free/public domain images, but it is really not something that is essential to the reader's understanding of the article to such a degree that removing it would be detrimental to that understanding. Moreover, list articles almost always contain links to the stand-alone articles of its individual entries (item 6 of NFC#UUI) where readers can go to find more information about the particular entry, and also see any non-free images being used to identify these entries.

You can ask about this type of usage at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ if you want and see what others have to say. You can also, as mentioned above, add the required non-free rationales for each file's use in the HOF article to their respective pages and then re-add them to the article if you really believe that you can justify this type of non-free use. You can also discuss this further at WP:FFD if you want. The consensus in similar discussions about similar types of image use has almost always been that it is not OK, but maybe you will be able to establish a different consensus for this particular article. I have my doubts you being able to do such a thing based upon the reasons given above, but maybe you will be able to convince others that this is the exception to the particular rule. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: File:Twink.jpg. I'm not 100% sure file could be construed as unreplaceable, but I couldn't say otherwise either.. The subject, as a public figure, has been photographed many times. However I don't know of any free images offhand, particularly from the 60s. Yoou will note an earlier admin accepted the free use rationale (see talk). I did attempt to google the copyright status of passport photos generally - one imagines since they are nominally UK government commissioned/property they might be Crown Copyright, rather than belonging to the individual concerned - with no joy. I do believe the subject was the source of the photo, and I can contact him via facebook, which I will - suggesting that, if he wishes this, or another photo, to appear on the article, he should put it through the OTRS process. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 06:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw the file's talkpage, but I'm not sure that this is acceptable per WP:NFCC#1. The last time, the file was tagged with {{ badfairuse}} which can cover a variety of things, whereas this time I tagged it with {{ rfu}} which is specifically for replaceable fair use. I cannot see how this might be an exception to NFCC#1, unless the claim is that Twink's notability is primarily due to his appearance at the time and not his accomplishments as a musician as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. I did not find any sourced critical commentary in the article specifically related to his appearance at the time and that kind of look was pretty common among musicians in the 60s psychedelic rock scene. In addition, being a "historical" image tends to have a different meaning when it comes to non-free use on Wikipedia as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC, so not sure if that claim is a valid justifiction for non-free use in and of itself.

Even so, if you do feel that the image is not "replaceable fair use", you can use {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to explain why. FWIW, if Twink does turn out to be the copyright holder and wants to release the image under a free license, it can be converted as such once OTRS verifies things. Even if the file is deleted in the meantime, it will only be hidden from view and can be restored once OTRS verifies the licensing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep. He has responded positively. I am setting the wheels in motion. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 02:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's the same file, then it has already been deleted,. It probably can be "undeleted" by explaining things to the deleting admin. Whomever sends in the OTRS email, should receive a response containing an OTRS ticket number. That number is helpful is making inquiries to OTRS if there are any issues with the licensing. If it's a new image, then just add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file so that others are aware that an email has been sent. — Marchjuly 1:01 pm, 20 June 2017 (UTC+9) — continues after insertion below

The file was deleted. He did send in the permission to OTRS, and I was cc'd. My original request to him for approval also cc'd OTRS, and got a Ticket#: 2017062010002382, but I haven't seen one show up for his actual permission. Meanwhile, since the file is deleted, I have no option to add an {{ OTRS pending}} tag. As suggested, I will follow up with the deleting admin. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit and it does not seem too different from Cat Stevens. A current image should probably be used in the main infobox since Twink's still out there performing, but the older 60s image could be added to the body of the article to show him during that time of his career (as long as their are no outstanding licensing issues). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I suggested as much in my fb communication. He has supplied a contemporary photo, and the email of the photographer. I will see what can be done on that front. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so I just want to clarify...Am I allowed to copy and paste NHL logos from Category:National Hockey League logos and put them onto rivalry articles without violating any Wikipedia rules? I just want to know so that I don't become a repeat offender. Thanks! Jewel15 ( talk) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jewel15. Any logos which are freely licensed or in the public domain are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, so they can be used. You might be able to find such files at c:Category:National Hockey League logos. You should understand, however, that even the use of freely licensed and public domain images may not seem appropriate by some editors, and in such cases (like with disagreements about text content) it may be necessary to establish a consensus for using the image(s) on the article's talk page. Image licensing may not be an issue, but there may be contextual issues (such as logo age or logo accuracy) or editorial issues (such as consistency with other articles, WikiProject guidelines, etc.) which might need to be clarified and sorted out. So, if you add a logo found on Commons to an article and another editor removes it, try to engage the editor in discussion and avoid edit warring unless you are absolutely sure it is a case of obvious vandalism.

As for non-free logos, the consensus regarding this type of use tends to be to not allow it. If you feel there are some kind of special circumstances which should allow this type of use, then I suggest you ask for feedback at WT:NFCC or start a discussion at WP:FFD. Conversely, you could also provide a non-free use rationale for any logo whose non-free use in a rivalry article you believe can be justified, and then re-add it to the article. However, providing such a rationale does not automatically mean non-free content use policy compliance, and any editor who disagrees with your assessment may start a discussion at FFD about the file's use. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why it is wrong to have a svg instead of a png, it's still the same image. I already finished the conversions anyway, if someone decides to delete them we can turn back to the png images I guess. 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi 8Dodo8. It would've been better for you to respond at User talk:8Dodo8#Converting non-free logos to svg, but we're here now so I'll post my reply here as well. There are more specific details in those discussions I linked to, but I believe it mainly has to do with the origin of the data used to create the svg version. I'll ping Masem, Graeme Bartlett and Finnusertop since they seem to have more knowledge about this than me and perhaps one of them can probably better explain the reason(s) why such files are sometimes not considered to be OK per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The problems that can happen is that the conversion is flawed and that the logo or non free image then becomes a derivative. It may be important to tell that the image is genuine, in which case the direct copy of the original unfree file can be confirmed to be exactly the same image. Another source for .svg files is from the copyright holder. Sometimes other vector forms of images are available. Extra copyright is held in the encoding into the text form of the .svg. If you create a .svg file of a non-free file, I would recommend that you release your code as public domain or cc-zero to avoid making the copyright more mirky. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the two problems mentioned (authenticity and the copyright of the SVG code), there is a third – and I think ultimately insurmountable – problem. If you can't find a detailed SVG file published by the copyright holder, it's conceivably because the copyright holder thinks it's not in their commercial interests to provide one. Such SVG files are easy to use for the production of e.g. print items, which is something that the copyright holder might already do in hopes of selling these items (and if they don't, by retaining copyright they also retain this possibility for the future). Thus if the copyright holder has not decided to release a detailed SVG, you doing so potentially violates WP:NFCC#2. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)