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

You removed File:Nepenthes (sculpture), Portland, Oregon, 2015.jpg from the page Dan Corson article with the notation "Removed non-free file because its use in this article does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy"

First of all the file is not "non-free". On the associated file page we see:

The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain

Does this not imply that the image is not "non-free content" So the restrictions about non-free content do no apply to this image.

You then cite item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI which mentions "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" Is not this passage precisely about images that CAN be used in Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer and perhaps I got lost in the cascade of double negatives and am interpreting this backwards.

I notice that pages about artists frequently have images of their works. That is why I included this image. Perhaps your objection is the the image is being used twice in Wikipedia. In that case I would really like to be able to illustrate the article with at least one image of a work by Mr. Corson. Do I need to go to all the trouble of writing to Mr Corson again and try to get him to release copyright permission for a photo of one of his other (numerous) works.-- Toploftical ( talk) 21:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toploftical. File:Nepenthes (sculpture), Portland, Oregon, 2015.jpg is non-free content and is licensed as {{ non-free 3d art}}. This may seem confusing, but there are actually two copyrights at play here: one for the sculpture and one for the photograph of the sculpture. 3D-works-of-art in the United States are considered to be protected by copyright per c:COM:FOP#United States which is why the sculpture is considered to be non-free content; photographs of 3D works of art are considered to be derivative works (see also c:COM:DW), which is why the photograph itself is considered non-free content. "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" (I have added the bold for emphasis) refers to the "photograph", not the "sculpture", and the author (photographer) is saying they are releasing their photograph under a free license. Typically, it its better for the files such as this to have two copyright licenses (a non-free one for the artistic work and a free license for the photograph), such as by using {{ Photo of art}} like can be seen File:'A Rectangle and Circle within Square, by Robert Mangold , 1975.jpg, but the uploader did not do so for this file. Instead they added a statement stating they were releasing the photo. So, although the photograph is considered to be free, the underlying work (i.e., the sculpture) is still non-free, which means the entire file is treated as non-free for Wikipedia purposes.

Regarding item #6, Wikipedia tries to use free equivalents whereever possible per WP:NFCC#1, keep non-free use to a minimum per WP:NFCC#3, contexutally significant per WP:NFCC#8. So, when a stand-alone article about a particular non-free scultpture, painting, photograph, etc. exists, it's generally considered acceptable to use a non-free image of the work in question for primary identification purposes in the stand-alone article. Use in other articles, however, is a bit trickier per and generally a link to the stand-alone article is preferred instead (the link or "text" is considered to be a free equivalent in this case). One example of this is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, a very famous photograph by Joe Rosenthal. If you check, you'll won't find the actual picture used in the Rosenthal article even though it's arguably the Rosenthal's best known work. The primary reason for this is item #6, etc.

Does this mean that you won't find images of artwork, etc. in articles about artists, etc.? No, it doesn't; there could, however, be various other reasons why those images are used in those articles per WP:OTHERIMAGE. Their licensing might be different, they may have been added by someone inappropriately, or maybe nobody has gotten around to assessing the image use yet. Non-free images are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, but that doesn't mean they can only be used in one article. So, if you want to use the Nepenthes image in the Corson article, then it's your respnsibility to explain how its use in tht article satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. The way you do this is by providing a non-free use rationale which clearly shows how these criteria are met. Non-free files which lack the seperate specific non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c can be removed per WP:NFCCE. Adding the required rationale is just the first step (as explained in WP:JUSTONE), but it's a necessarily one. If you decide to do this, the hardest criterion to meet is going to probably be WP:NFCC#8, so make sure the rationale you add clearly explains how the context required for non-free use is provided. Just adding a boilerplate rationale and saying something like "for illustrative purposes" is not likely going to survive a WP:FFD discussion. Currently, there doesn't seem to enough about Nepenthes in the Corson article to justify non-free use (at least in my opinion), but perhaps you can find a way to improve the article to meet NFCC#8.

As for contacting Corson, the ideal situation would be for him to release an image of the sculpture under a free license of his choosing. It would have to be an image that he took because there are two copyrights in play, but that would be the best possible solution since he would then be both artist and photographer. If you could persuade him to do something such as that, then such a file could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used not only anywhere on English Wikipedia, but also anywhere on any language Wikipedia or any page operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. However, a free license compatible with WP:COPY or c:COM:L basically gives anyone anywhere in the world permission to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose, including commercial and derivative; moreover, a free license cannot be canceled or revoked. So, it's easily understand why artist's, professional photrapher's, etc. are reluctant to do such a thing.

Hopefully, the above answers your questions. If you have anymore, feel free to ask them below. If you want other feedback, you can ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for the explanation. I am not going to pursue this any further. Considering all the caveats, restrictions, exceptions, and the whole legal labyrinth of copyrights, it is a wonder that any images at all appear in Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.-- Toploftical ( talk) 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed an image from the Trump–Russia dossier article. I didn't realize it wasn't a free image. What is the proper way to use it, since the article describes the people in that image at that time. It describes why they were invited to that meeting. Isn't that a justifiable for use of the image in that article? Help me understand. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: I removed the image per WP:NFCCE because it lacked the separate specific non-free use rationale required for said use by WP:NFCC#10c. Sometimes just adding the missing rationale is sufficient, but other times it's not per WP:JUSTONE. There are two non-free issues that make trying to provide a valid non-free use rationale a bit tricky: WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. NFCC#1 says we should try to use a free equivalent whenever possible and limit ourselves to non-free content when only absolutely necessary. A non-free image showing Putin, Flynn and Stein sitting together at some function does not really need to be seen to understand the three of them were togther at the same table on such an occasion. That can be more than adequately expressed through simple text (a type of free equivalent). So, wanting to use the photo to show the three of them together or where Flynn was sitting in relation to Putin is not sufficient per NFCC#1 because that can be more that adequately verified through article content and citations to reliable sources. Now, if this particular picture itself was the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources and if there is article content about how it was the subject of sourced critical commentary, then it could be argued that context for non-free use in such that NFCC#8 is met and that omitting the image would be determental to the reader's understanding of the article content about the image. This can be tricky, but you should make sure to how this context is provided in the required rationale if you decide to try and provide one.

The other NFCC#1 issue is whether this really needs to be non-free in the first place. It might be possible that this work is some kind of official work of the Russian or US governments and falls within the public domain per {{ PD-RU-exempt}} {{ PD-USGov}} or some other reason. My feeling is that there's a good chance that source website is not really the original source of the photo and that it probably comes from somewhere/someone else. This is only a guess, but another image of Flynn on that same page almost certainly came from somewhere else, yet the website is claiming copyright ownership over it. It might be a good idea to ask about this photo at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C to see website that blog is really the original source or whether the image(s) came from somewhere else. A public domain image is not subject to WP:NFCC and is much easier to use than a non-free one. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the good explanation. It's complicated. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've asked at about the image at WP:MCQ#File:2015 RT gala dinner in Moscow, general Flynn next to President Putin.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for adding those Futurama images on my user page. Why aren't they allowed on my user page? I really wanted to know why. The reason why I put them there is because Futurama is one of my favorite TV shows.

-- Chili The Border Collie ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chili The Border Collie. The licensing of each media file you see used on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every 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 files are commonly referred to as "non-free". Non-free content use on Wikipedia is highly restricted and each use of such files must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content such as those Futura files cannot be used on you user page. Perhaps you didn't see the edit sums I left when I previously removed the file before; therefore, hopefully you now understand why such files were removed. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask them below, at WT:NFC or WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw them, but I just love Futurama. By the way, what happens if I keep doing it?

-- Chili The Border Collie ( talk) 11:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Making a mistake once or maybe even twice is expected, but continuing to repeat the same mistake over and over again, especially when you know it is a mistake, is eventually going to be seen as disruptive. Your account is only a few days old and you've only made a handful of edits, so perhaps you're not familiar with what Wikipedia is about. If you want to be a productive editor who is here to help improve Wikipedia, then you're going to have to be willing to edit according Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. On the other hand, if you just want to be here to do your own thing and could care less about these policies and guidelines, then you're likely going to try to log in one day only to find your account has been blocked by an administrator to prevent any further disruption. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Is fair use - promo, and has a conforming rationale?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Marc Lacoste: It did not have a non-free use rationale for that particular use when I removed the image. I didn't noticed you had adressed that issue when I removed the file a second time, but once I did I self reverted.

Just for reference, being WP:ITSFAIRUSE is not necessarily being the same as bieng WP:NFCC-compliant. Moreover, just changing the article parameter name as syou did is not always sufficient. You'd be better off further clarifying in the non-free use rationale how the context required by WP:NFCC#8 for the way the file is being used in the article is provided because "to illustrate this aircraft project" and ""promo" are pretty much WP:DECORATIVE type of arguments. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use (see WP:NFC#Background), and NFCC#8 tends to be one of the harder of the ten non-free content use criteria to meet. Providing more information in the rationale as to why omitting this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding would help clarify its non-free use. Otherwise, it's at risk of someday being nominated for further discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you help me write a better rationale then? The point is to show this plane general configuration, which is better conveyed through an image. Aircraft main pics are selected to show that and are good examples.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not really convinced non-free use is justified in this case based upon the short paragraph about the Paris Air Show, which I'm asssuming that this image is intended to support. Read that section with the image and then without the image and see if there's a difference in understanding. If there is then that's the thing you want to focus on. How is the understanfing of the article content related to this image significantly improved by seeing this image so that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, you need to explain as best as you can why the reader really needs to see this image. Generally, the idea is to try and tie the image to the relevant article content as much as possible, so that actually seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding. This is typically done by adding sourced critical commentary about the image in question to the article, but in this case maybe it's possible to add sourced content about the significant design changes/enhancements which can be clearly seen in the image. That's the best advice I can give since NFCC#8 tends to be subjective and different people look for different things. You can try asking for other opinions at WT:NFC if you want. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The point is it has a conventional tube & wing config, nothing wild like the sonic cruiser or blended wing body. Nothing extraordinary, but it is the interesting point of this config. Critical commentary is available from the pic origin through Jon Ostrower (a reputable aero journalist): "At first glance, the NMA resembles the familiar form of the modern airliner for the last 65 years, building on the generational evolution in subsonic aircraft design since Boeing’s 707.". It is placed in the most relevant section IMO, "2018", given it's a work in progress and will maybe evolve further. Perhaps a better Purpose of use would be to "depict the configuration of the projected airliner"? Can you show me comparable examples of technical projects with a good NFC rationale? Thanks. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Off hand, I cannot think of any particular examples you can use as reference. This doesn't mean there aren't any; it's just means I cannot remember one at the moment. You'll probably find images such as this being used in main infoboxes of stand-alone article most of the time, which tends to be a bit easier to justify; however, that doesn't mean they cannot be used in the other parts of an article as well. You can try asking at WT:NFC to see if any others can help you find some specific examples.

FWIW, it sounds like you have the workings of a fairly decent non-free use rationale. Many people don't try to make the extra effort and just add some boilerplate language or nothing at all, but at least you seem to be putting some thought into it. There's no way to guarantee that any image uploaded to Wikipedia will never challenged by someone someday, so my suggestion is to just explain it the best you can. One thing I do notice is that some people write really detailed rationales, which is good, but keep all the detail in the ratioanle, which is not so good. So, however you try to justify non-free use, you should try to include as much of the relevant detail within the article itself. Readers of the article are not typically going to go check out the non-free use rationale. In other words, if it's worth mentioning in the ratioanle, then it should be equallly as worth mentioning in the article itself. If Ostrower is a recognized expert/jounalist on stuff such as this, then it should be OK to cite/quote him as a reliable source per WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:SPS, etc., and if you can tie the image into his commentary or what others are saying, then that would be a good start. If anyone challenges the content or the image, you just have to be willing to discuss both. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your explanations. I replaced the purpose of File:Boeing-NMA-2018-rendering.png by "depict the configuration of the projected airliner" and of File:Boeing New Midsize Airplane side view.jpeg by "depict the size of the projected airliner". If you can think of something better or of a good example, please ping me! Bye.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Western Sydney Wanderers FC W-League logo.png. 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. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

hi, thank you for editing my wiki page. is it possible to remove my birthdate? I would prefer that info to not be online. Again thank you- rachell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysunsun ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Raysunsun. I'm not sure which page you're referring to, but the only article you seem appear to have edited is Rachell Sumpter. So, if by chance you are "Rachell Sumpter", then you should be aware of and read through Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Although Wikipedia doesn't explicitly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it does highly discourage it because it can lead to some serious problems. People closely connected to the subject of a Wikipedia article often have a hard time adhering to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as those explained in Wikipedia:5 pillars; so, these people are encourage to discuss any changes they which to make to the article on its talk page so that more experienced editors can assess the edits. Living individuals who Wikipedia articles written about them (I'll explain this more below) are encouraged to follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia and seek assistance from others, except is some very specific serious cases which warrant immediate attention.

Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are written about or the editors who create them, so there are technically no "my wiki pages" on Wikipedia. Subjects of articles do not have any final editorial control over article content and articles are collaboratively improved over time through consensus. Everyone is welcomed to participate in the process as long as they are willing to comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors who have a conflict-of-interest with the subject matter are, however, (as explained above) encourage to discuss their changes first on the article's talk page, except in certain specific cases such as WP:COIADVICE.

One thing to remember about Wikipedia articles is that they are only intended to reflect relevant encyclopedic content which can be verified through citations to reliable sources. This content may be of a positive or negative nature as long as it reflects what what reliable sources say about the subject as explained in WP:PROUD and WP:LUC as long as it is worded in a manner which complies with relevant policies and guidelines. Extra care is taken with respect to articles about living persons to try an ensure this, but Wikipedia's role is not to try and promote/disparage any particular person or things. Personal information if reliably sourced and deemed relevant enough for inclusion is often allowed as explained in WP:BLPPRIVACY, but Wikipedia does try to maintain a balance between individual privacy and content readily found in reliable sources. I don't see any information about Rachell Sumpter's date of birth in the article; there was something once in the article, but that was removed by an IP address in November 2015. The information can still be seen in the article's edit history though; if that's a concern, you should email Wikipedia:Oversight and see if they can remove it. You should be advised though the same information can be found on Rachael Sumpter's personal website, which means Wikipedia is not the original source for the information. If Rachell Sumpter is concerned about people knowing when/where she was born, then perhaps she should not post the info anywhere online. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. It is only reasonable to keep this page now, as it would be unlogical to delete and recreate it later on. I already explained this to another user, who agreed with my proposal. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. ZeR0101MiNt ( talk) 07:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The way reasonable is currently interpreted in cases such as this was recently discussed at WT:CSD#WP:F5 and reasonable exception and it is assumed that 7 days is a reasonable amount of time for an orphaned non-free image to somehow be de-orphaned. There are very few exceptions granted to WP:NFCC#9 and an image or lack thereof has no bearing on whether a draft is approved. So, unless another acceptable non-free use can be found for the file it will be deleted. If that should happen, you do not have to re-upload the image; you only have to request it be restored once the draft has been accepted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Help expanded article by Maureen Wroblewitz from [1]. Thanks you. 116.110.228.29 ( talk) 02:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You can try to expand it yourself per WP:BOLD; just try to make sure your edits comply with WP:BLP and other relevant policies and guidelines. If you make a good-faith mistake and are reverted, just follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article talk page. If you going to make a major change, however, you might want to discuss it first on the article's talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the above is Haiyenslna. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 14:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note JJMC89. I didn't recall ever interacting with the IP, so I just assume good faith and gave some general advice. I don't even think I've interacted with the master as well, so not sure why decided to ask me for help. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is protected, so they can't edit it. They have resorted to spamming user talk pages. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks Marchjuly for your comment. I only corrected some factual errors on the page highlighted by Frank's daughter and my mother so hopefully that is ok. I'm new and am doing my best, and take on board your comments and the policy.-- Secretpsychologist ( talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Secretpsychologist

Hi Secretpsychologist. You are now aware of the relevant policies and guidelines, so you should be OK as long as you adhere to them. Please explain how things work to your mom; other editors will do their best to help you out as long as any changes you want to make to the article are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; however, the two of you need to understand that being family members does not mean you have any final say over what content is added or removed from the article. You also should understand that past experience in similar situations has been that family members often have difficulty editing according to these policies and guidelines which is the main reason why Wikipedia highly discourages them from directly editing the concerned articles themselves. Most of these people really have good intentions, but their lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's purpose, etc. often (unintentionally) leads to problems. So, any "factual errors" which go beyond what would be considered acceptable in WP:COIADVICE or WP:MINOR should probably be discussed first on the article's talk page per WP:ER, or you can ask for assistance at WP:COIN. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks Marchjuly for this information which is very helpful and with which I agree. I do not intend to make any further entries on Frank Richards page as the accuracy issues I wanted resolve have, with the help of the Wiki people, now been resolved. -- Secretpsychologist ( talk) 10:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Secretpsychologist

The pictures you adjusted are ones that I specifically obtained info on at wiki commons?

Please advise why these aren’t available for use to an ordinary user, such as I MissTofATX ( talk) 22:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi MissTofATX. The three files I converted to links are File:DSPCoatofArms.jpg, File:Texas A&M University San Antonio seal.svg and File:Texas A&M–Corpus Christi seal.svg. These files are hosted locally on Wikipedia as non-free content; so, I am not sure which Commons files you are referring to above. Anyway, as I posted in the edit sum I left here, non-free content is not allowed to be used on user pages per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. If you still have any questions about this, feel free to ask them below, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m referring to the commons files above, which are the ones you modified. I obtained each one from their respective pages (named as above) that are being used & copyright appears to be free & and clear, as per verbiage with them. MissTofATX ( talk) 06:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As I posted above, the three files I converted to links are not from Commons; they are uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. The other files you added are also non-free content, so I've converted them to links as well. Non-free content can be used in articles when the use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. This means no user pages, no sandboxes, no templates, no talk pages, no drafts, no anything that is not an article, and only in articles when all ten non-free content use criteria are met for each particular use. Please check the licensing of a file before adding it to your user page. Non-free content is highly restricted and a bit tricky, so it's OK to make a mistake once, maybe even twice. However, if you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again despite being advised not to do so, then it's eventually going to be seen as WP:DE and WP:IDHT and will lead to an administrator being asked to intervene. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly:

Where do I look for unrestricted photos? Also, how can I tell if something is locally vs otherwise?

MissTofATX ( talk) 00:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

You don't need to "ping" editors when you post a message on their user talk page. They will automatically receive a notifiction.

You can tell whether a file is a local file by checking its page. If it says,"This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.", then it's not a local file; if it doesn't say that, it is. Being a local file, however, does not necessarily mean it can't be used, so you should check the file's copyright license. All images are required to have such a license, and you can find out how a particular image is licensed by clicking on it and then checking the file's page. If you see anything which mentions "non-free use" or "fair use", then it's probably non-free content and can't be used on your user page. If you see anything which says that the file is within the PD or released under a free license, then the file is should be OK to use. Commons doesn't accept non-free content, so anything you find there should be OK to use. I say "should be" because people upload files under an incorrect license all of the time, and these files end up being deleted when necessary, but that's not the fault of those using the file. If you're unsure about a license, just ask for help at WP:MCQ.

One last thing about non-free content and userpages; you can't display it, but you can link to it. So, you can simply add links to those files if you like; you can also WP:PIPE the link as you like; for example, this is my school (though linking to that actual school article itself is probably more informative). -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

How can an image be used on more than 1 page then? Grangehilllover ( talk) 08:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how the image is licensed. If it’s a free image or a public domain image, then the image can be pretty much used on any page as long as it is done in accordance with WP:IUP and there is a consensus established to use it. If the file is non-free, then in addition to IUP and consensus, the particular use of the image needs to satisfy all 10 non-free content use criteria. There’s no restriction which states that a non-free image cannot be used in more the one article, but Wikipedia expects non-free images to be used as minimally as possible only when a free equivalent cannot be used instead and using a non-free image significantly improves the reader’s understanding to such a degree that omitting said image would be detrimental to that understanding. If you can be more specific as to which files you want to use where, then it would be easier to give you a more specific answer. — Marchjuly ( talk) 09:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would like it if this page was the way it was. Grangehilllover ( talk) 12:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The way those files were being used on that page was pretty much the definition of WP:DECORATIVE and WP:NFG non-free use which is something which is almost never allowed. The non-free use of title screenshots such as those is generally OK when it is being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a TV series/program in question, which is the way each of those files is being used in their respective individual articles. When such title images are used in other articles such as the franchise article, they themselves generally need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary which is specifically tied into the article content. So, if you think that you can find sourced content about each title image (not about the show, but the actual title image itself), then you can add that content to the article and then provide the required non-free use rationales for each use explaining how WP:NFCCP is being met. Right now, these files do not have a rationale for the franchise article, so they fail WP:NFCC#10c. Adding the required rationales, however, is just a start as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I personally don't see how valid rationales can be written based upon how the files were being used and don't think a discussion at WP:FFD would result in a consensus that such non-free use is acceptable, but you can try if you want. I wouldn't have removed the files if I thought there was a way their non-free use could be justified, but perhaps you might find a someone who has a different opinion at WT:NFC or even WP:MCQ. Most likely the first thing anyone else is going to tell you, however, is that you need to provide the required rationales before re-adding those files to that particular article. Once the files have the required rationales, there will at least be something to assess and discuss at WP:FFD if necessary. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As I posted on your user talk, you don't seem to be too familiar with how non-free content is allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Just for reference, it's the reponsibility of the person wanting to use non-free content in a particular article to provide the relevant non-free use rationale explaining how said use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I'm not sure why you would think that the non-free book cover File:Tracybeaker.jpg would be acceptable to use in the article about the franchise since such book covers are almost always only considered OK to be used in stand-alone articles about the books in question as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. However, if you do think that the cover's non-free use in the franchise article is justified, please provide the required rationale for said use before re-adding the file to that particular article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I received and answered a COI edit request you suggested that an editor make regarding the article Piksel. I advised them that before making the edit request, they should seek clarification from the editor who first made the sentinel changes to the article's name. As I told the COI editor, that editor who made those changes appears at first glance to be an active editor who should be able to provide them with an answer to why the changes were made. If those changes weren't warranted, than the editor who made them ought to be willing to revert their changes. I told the COI editor that in the event that the editor responsible for the changes refused to act, and the COI editor had proof of otherwise, then they should seek the involvement of either WP:COIN or WP:ANI. I made those suggestions believing that what the COI editor was dealing with was either one of three possibilities:

1. the mistake of the editor who made the changes, in which case they should revert those changes
2. the mistake of the COI editor making the request to revert, in which case they should drop their request
3. the wrongdoing of an editor making changes without merit, in which case admins should be involved in order to curtail that editor's actions

I told them this because I believed that none of the above outcomes are ones that a COI review editor like myself would be able to handle alone, and that any changes I could make to an article in response to a COI edit request such as theirs without the COI editor first trying the three possibilities listed above might prove futile. I hope that my advice was correct, but if it wasn't, please let me know ASAP and I will redact my advice with apologies. Thank you for any help you can offer on this, I appreciate it!    SPINTENDO          17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you posted above or at Talk:Piksel#Request edits to page. It seems like sound advice to me, especially since a page move and removal of possible BLP content are some of the changes which were requested. I'll ping Jytdog and ask him to take a look. Jytdog has lots of experience dealing with COI stuff and may notice something we both have missed, or may have a better suggestion on how to approach something such as this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That was a way to try to adjudicate things. Not bad. I gave my reading of what we should do there. Jytdog ( talk) 01:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Jytdog. -- Marchjuly ( talk)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• I'd rather you assisted in improving the article rather than being a detriment to it, if you feel that there is an issue, please take it up on the talk page. Thank You! Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• No where in WP:NFCCP does it require the user to provide rationale for the use of the image in the article. I feel like your just making up policies to satisfy your own ends. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Read WP:NFCC#10c and then re-read WP:NFCCE, and then ask at WT:NFC if you like. Also, read item 5 of WP:NOT3RR as well. Non-free content use can be tricky, so if you don't understand something, then ask for assistance or clarification. Each use of a non-free file is required to be provided with a separate specific non-free use rationale and none the files you're inappropriately re-adding have a rationale for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Now, if you think their non-free use in that particular article can be justified, then please provide the required rationales. Be advised, however, that this kind of non-free use in lists and in tables is pretty much never allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because it is considered decorative: such non-free files of deceased individuals are generally allowed when used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the individuals in question, but pretty much never allowed in these types of articles, especially to illustrate individual entries in a list or table. Once again, if you feel the use of these files in this particular article is an exception to that, then provide the rationales clearly explaining how. You can also ask for the opinions of others at WT:NFC or WP:MCQ if you like. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll leave it to someone else to sort, the article isn't within the scope of the projects I normally work on, the person who added the images in the first place is probably the best person to ping (although I believe I added at least one of them). Good day. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The four images I removed ( File:Walter_Elliot_in_1933.jpg, File:Anthony_Barber_1959.png, File:Sir_Keith_Joseph,_Bt_in_1964.jpg, File:Patrick_Jenkin_Valediction.jpg) (the key word being "removed", not "deleted") were added by you with this edit. Many editors are unware of Wikipedia's non-free use content policy and WP:OTHERIMAGE, and just assume all images are licensed the same and can be used on any page they want. Adding images to pages is technically easy to do, but can be tricky when non-free content is involved. So, I find it to be good practice to click on an image and check a file's licensing just to see whether it's non-free content before adding it to any articles; if it is, then I try to determine if a valid non-free use rationale can be written for the way I want to use it. It's not good practice to add non-free content to articles without the required rationales since you (=the person adding the image) understands why they want to use the image better than anyone else, and therefore is best suited to write the rationale. Generally, those checking non-free content use are pretty good at leaving edit sums explaining why a file has been removed; they also typically only remove files when there is really no other option (i.e., they feel a valid non-free use rationale cannot be written) In such cases, especially when they are specifically citing non-free content use policy, it's better to ask for clarification instead of this inappropriately re-adding the files to the article and that claim those removing the files are simply making up policy to satisfy their own ends. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I assumed you would have the capacity to judge when I was no longer interested in continued discussion with you, in addition, you're a hypocrite to the very statement you have written: "Generally, those checking non-free content use are pretty good at leaving edit sums explaining why a file has been removed; they also typically only remove files when there is really no other option (i.e., they feel a valid non-free use rationale cannot be written)". Two reasons for this A) You're edit summary was insufficient in explaining why the images were removed. And B) It would be perfectly possible to write a fair use rationale, you took the lazy option of simply removing the images instead which is in direct conflict with WP:NOTHERE. I will not be communicating any further on this discussion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I would however just like to point out that the aforementioned images also lack a rationale for their used on each of the individuals pages, therefore they should also be removed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
            • You posted on my user talk and I responded. If you're no longer interested in continuing the discussion, then you're not obligated to respond. Each of those four files linked to above do have non-free use rationales for the respective stand-alone articles, so perhaps you might wish to check again. If they didn't have the required rationales, they would've been removed or tagged as such.

The initial edit sum I left was clear as to why the images were being removed; the edit sums you left here and here, on the other hand, indicate that you did not carefully read through NFCCP, NFCCE and NFLISTS because if you did you would've seen that (1) NFCC#10c states that a separate specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use of non-free content, (2) NFCCE states it is the responsibility of the person wanting to add a non-free file to an article to provide said rationale (despite your above claim to the contrary), and (3) NFLISTS has nothing to do with an image being used only once in a list article, but everything to do with using non-free images to illustrate individual entries in articles.

As for being perfectly possible to write a rationale, it's not a question of simply adding any old rationale and assuming that resolves things, but whether a valid can be written for such a use. I don't believe it's possible to write valid non-free use rationales for the way those files were being used; so, I'm not going to just add invalid rationale for the sake of adding them. As I posted above, if you disagree with this assessment, you can write the required rationales yourself and explain how you think non-free use is justified. Just be aware of WP:JUSTONE and that simply adding a rationale does not automatically make it a valid type of non-free use. Also, as I posted above, you can always ask for the opinions of others at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC if you want; you can even start a more formal discussion about the files and how you want to use them at WP:FFD. Finally, if you really think I'm NOTHERE, you can start a discussion at WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop writing in bold to try and look hard, darius. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 07:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)