Archives

2015: 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 2017: 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 2019: 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 2021: 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 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

A week or two ago you did some edits to images at Akira Kurosawa which looked well made. Could you check the other images to see if they look correct and with proper notations on Wikimedia, and let me know if they are ok. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: File:The Idiot (book cover).jpg doesn't have a rationale for that article. With the current non-free license one is required, but the image could be PD. (I'm not familiar with Russian copyright, so I would ask at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C.) If it remains licensed as non-free: If use in the article can be justified (WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion), you should add a rationale; otherwise, remove it. The other images are free or have a rationale, so they are okay. — JJMC89 02:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it and I have swapped the book image for one with better rationale. The other images were given a hard time at the FAC last year in 2017 in the image section here if you might comment if they are now better resolved: [1]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I only checked the non-free images for rationales. I can look the others over later – hopefully this weekend. — JJMC89 01:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've posted a review on the article talk page. Watchers feel free to chime in. — JJMC89 04:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Watchers have not chimed in; do the images look any better now after being updated? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably not many interested in image copyright. I'll take a look at the images this weekend. — JJMC89 04:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Much thanks for looking at these images. Previously, the FA assessment last year for Kurosawa was stalled because of the image translation issues. Given that the images are in reasonably fine condition now, I would ask if you might consider a co-nomination of the article with me for FAC. I have been trying to prepare it for a run at FA but the complicated Japanese images combined with International images made it very difficult to be convincing. The rest of the article has been very stable for almost an entire year now with good page counts. Would you have any interest in co-editing the article and particularly its images as needed with a co-nomination for FAC? JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing the ref checks on Kurosawa and for keeping me on my toes. I did many of those about exactly one year ago and its remarkable how quickly some of the urls need to be verified. All is well now. I think your Talk page would look much nicer with a FA icon at the top of the page. Am I getting any closer to kindling your interest in a co-nomination for a Kurosawa FAC? JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never done anything with FAC. What would be involved on my part? Also, I haven't really contributed to the article, though I may do some more gnoming, particularly with references. — JJMC89 21:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Of the two peer review processes in Wikipedia, the WP:FAC process involves more editors in the assessment than normally appear for Good Article assessments. There have been two previous attempts to move the Kurosawa article to Featured Article status (FA) and the last one did not make it because of challenges to the images in the article. Now that the images look quite good, I thought that it might be worthwhile to try to re-nominate the article now with you looking after the inquiries about the images and references, while I would take care of the inquiries concerning the main body of the writing and narrative in the article. When these types of efforts are successful, then both co-nominating editors get to display a FA-icon (the gold star of Wikipedia) at the top of their Talk page. If it still sounds interesting to you, then I am comfortable going forward with a co-nomination. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If the article is to go back to FAC, some of the sourcing needs work. I went though and added some details to the references today. While doing so I noticed a number of unreliable sources being used. When I get some more time, I can annotate them in the article or post on the talk page. — JJMC89 04:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice catches by you over night. The marked cites should be up to date. IMDB cites for films are often discouraged by other editors at Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. An image was recently removed from 2014 Indian Premier League Final page but it was also being used in 2014 Indian Premier League page. Can you tell me why it was still present and also on why this image was removed now after almost more than a year after it was placed. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Every use of a non-free image must that satisfy all WP:NFCC. I removed it for not satisfying criterion 10c. — JJMC89 01:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Sagavaj. In addition, to the WP:NFCC#10c issue mentioned by JJMC89, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally does not allow logos of events, such as a sports competitions like 2014 Indian Premier League, to be used in other articles besides the main one about the event itself except where there's a pretty strong justification for the additional non-free uses. The file is fine for the main article about the 2014 season itself, but a logo specific to the 2014 final should be used instead in 2014 Indian Premier League Final per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Many sponsoring organizations have specific branding for the their league finals or other in-season tournaments and championships, but the automatic default is not to use the parent article's logo in any of these child articles even if such specific branding does not exist. Finally, the fact that file was added to the article about the final in November 2017 doesn't mean that it's non-free use was considered to be non-free content use policy compliant as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; it could simply just mean that it took until now for someone to notice it and assess its non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

For this; I have no idea, though—if you can tell me—how that was all made small after this section was opened, when the section you corrected has been there a month or something?! I'm baffled—it only started yesterday! Hope you're well, by the way, and thanks again. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: On July 5 RemexHtml replaced Tidy. Tidy closed unclosed tags, such as <small>, at the end of a section, but RemexHtml does not do so. All is well here – enjoyed some mean ribs for the Fourth yesterday. — JJMC89 20:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you recently removed some icons from White horse of Kent as being wp:NFCC violations. I later removed the same icon from Welling United FC and was reverted because it was claimed it was not a NFCC violation. I thought you might be interested in commenting on the Welling United article seeing as both you and the other editor seem to be more knowledgeable about this than I am. If you would rather not comment, that's fine by me. My position is pretty neutral, I am just curious to know if the use really is a violation or not - and really isavailable under fair use. Thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: File:WellingUnitedBadge.png has a valid rationale for Welling United F.C. It is the standard logo rationale, and usage aligns with WP:NFCI#2. The files that I removed from White horse of Kent don't have a rationale for that article, and even if they did, WP:NFCC#8 would not be satisfied (also see WP:NFG). — JJMC89 20:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful - many thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you tagged this image: File:Jaguar 2012 logo.png as "NFCC not applicable" and I don´t know where the error is, so I can´t solve the problem. Could you explain me the issue please? Thanks! Fma12 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fma12: The rationale for that file did not have the author/copyright holder and explanations of why use in Jaguar Cars satisfies WP:NFCC #1 (replacability), #2 (commercial opportunity), or #3 (minimal use). I've replaced the rationale with one that does. — JJMC89 03:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I see you have removed various national football team badges from their pages, claiming "No valid WP:NFUR for this page." In the images you removed, pretty much all of them have rationales on their pages, and as a result, most football team pages are looking bare. What, in your mind, would be a "valid NFUR" to restore them to the pages? Tom Danson (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Without a specific example I can't tell you for sure. The most likely case is that the rationale was for a different article. Each use of a non-free file must satisfy all WP:NFCC, including having a separate, specific rationale (10c). — JJMC89 06:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Some of the files might have been removed per discussions at WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. You can check for this by looking for a {{Oldffdfull}} or {{Non-free reviewed}} template on either the file's page or on the file's talk page. Sometimes checking the page history for the file's page also can show why a file was removed since any non-free use rationales determined to be invalid might have been removed around the same time a file was removed. The non-free use of these logos is not automatic for national team articles, and some have been removed per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. So, simply adding a rationale is probably not going to make the file's non-free use be complaint per WP:JUSTONE.

The general consensus established in FFD/NFCR discussion related to this type of non-free content is that the non-free use of such logos is acceptable when it's used in the main article about the national association/federation, but the same cannot be automatically assumed for national team articles. This is because the association/federation article is considered the "parent entity" where any critical commentary about the particularly branding used for the national teams is most likely to be found, or where such content can be best added. Individual teams articles, on the other hand, are considered to be "child entities" and its preferred to use a logo specific to the team if such exists or even no logo at to just automatically adding the main federation/association logo to the various team articles. Many of the team articles simply contain a lot of stat-type content with some historical background content mixed in, but there's not really any sourced content about the team badges per se. Some logos are also old enough or simple enough to fall within the public domain so their usage is not subject to the same policy that the non-free ones are, and non-free content use policy is quite restrictive.

This occasionally comes up for discussion at WT:NFC, so you probably can find more detailed discussions in that page's archives. However, I don't think there's been a major shift in how relevant policy has been applied up until now, so I wouldn't automatically assume that these logos are OK to use in any national team articles (from the main men's and women's teams to the Under XXX and reserve teams). -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you identify what exactly is copyrighted considering that I wrote the original language. Matty1019 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There is blatant copying from both of the sources noted on the page. From playbill.com: will also have scenic [...] Nigrini.[2] This from therogersrevue.com.[3] — JJMC89 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. I'll do some rewriting and we'll be done with this. Matty1019 (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to do that on the appropriate temp page. — JJMC89 04:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Replying, I don't if it's the same thing, can you please help me get rid of it? — User:Social Studies Rules (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not that is the issue, I can't help. You haven't provided enough information about the problem. I suggest following mw:Manual:How to debug/Login problems and reporting your issue on Phabricator answering the questions from the debug page. — JJMC89 02:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I’m going to Wikimedia Commons, I get into (login to your account), and it says “Central login, You are centrally logged in. Reload the page to apply your user settings.” I don’t what to do. On Phabricator I don’t even know what to do, I can’t even register a account. — User:Social Studies Rules (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Please do not remove the image. It is valuable here, and conformed to the policy. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not coform to policy, and by restoring the image, you are violating policy. — JJMC89 22:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what's the problem (or fix it) instead of removing the file without explanation? It certainly meets NFCC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You've fixed the issue. The previous rationale was not for the article it was used in. — JJMC89 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Maybe I am doing this wrong - can you help me with the license? since Jacob Rader Marcus died in 1995, I believe his picture can be presented in the article under fair -use license. what explanation is missing? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Golan's mom: I've fixed the license and the rationale. I used {{Non-free use rationale biog}} to make it easier to complete. — JJMC89 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89. Since made the edit to File:Logo for WXGI radio in Richmond, VA.png which seems to be the subject of some disagreement/misunderstanding, perhaps you can clarify it on Neutralhomer's talk page . I'm kinda running out of new ways to try and explain the same thing. FWIW, if I'm completely misunderstanding what you did, then feel free to point that out. I've got no problem admitting when I'm wrong and apologizing for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you've explained things well on this talk page. There is one rationale, for WXGI. As you know, use on any other article is not permitted without adding additional rationales (WP:NFCC#10c). This edit had nothing to do with the (lack of) rationale for WTPS (AM); it was to correct shortcomings (noted in the edit summary) in that rationale. — JJMC89 20:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What you did seemed pretty clear to me, and I tried to explain it Neutralhomer. Nothing I tried, however, has worked and that discussion seems to have jumped the rails into a kinda WP:RIPPED direction. Do you think the file can be converted to PD? I suggested this on that talk page, but that might’ve not be noticed by Neutralhomer. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Given c:Category:ESPN logos, I don't see why not. — JJMC89 23:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. My only concern is whether the "radio waves" at the very bottom might push it over the TOO. This logo is basically the same as File:ESPN Radio.png with some additional call letters, etc.; so, if the main radio logo is PD, this one should be as well. Another alternative would just be to upload the version that appears here without the "radio waves" shown here per WP:NFCC#1. However, I can't find the WTPS call letters being used anywhere on that website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The radio waves are okay. I've uploaded the logo from the homepage as File:ESPN Richmond radio logo.png. It looks like WTPS 1240 AM (Petersburg) airs programming from WGXI 950 AM (Richmond) but is omitted from the logo. — JJMC89 00:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Do you think it's best to leave the non-free file to be tagged by a bot for SD by WP:F5 or should that be converted and moved to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point in keeping an old, low resolution logo around. I'm not going to object if someone wants to update the license to keep it though. — JJMC89 01:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the older one is needed, and feel letting it be deleted per F5 is fine. My concern only has to do with someone trying to re-add it back to either of those two articles, but perhaps that won't happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sure you made a mistake with this deletion : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remix_culture&diff=849159213&oldid=842803805 , the book was released under a free license (CC -BY-SA). You may have seen the mislabeled Webarchive mirror which is indeed non-free, but the original release was free. Shaddim (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shaddim: It was not a mistake. The book is not available under a compatible license since it is licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0, not CC BY-SA 3.0. — JJMC89 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You are right, Lessig has it now under the CC-NC: http://remix.lessig.org/remix.php The license link on the page links to CC NC, while strangely the Internet Archive gives CC BY-NC-ND. https://archive.org/details/LawrenceLessigRemix (this was the mixup I was originally referring to). But, the cover is simple and should be either PD or covered by fair use, the media is also still uploaded on the English WP and is used on the books's page? cheers Shaddim (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Fair use is often used to refer to non-free content use, but they are not the same thing. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made to be much more limiting than the concept of fair use, so this is what needs to be met if this file stays licensed as non-free (BTW, I don't think {{Non-free album cover}} is the correct license to use if this stays non-free). Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally permits non-free cover art to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but other uses (as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3) are much harder to justify. Personally, I don't see how the non-free use of the book cover in Remix culture, at least how the file was being used, per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 or item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Now, if the file's licensing is converted to PD, then it would no longer be subject to the restriction placed on non-free use. If that's the case, the file should be moved to Commons instead since there's no need to host it locally on Wikipedia. Before you do that, however, you probably should make sure that Commons will keep it by asking at c:COM:VPC; otherwise, you might find the file being deleted from Commons and ending up back here as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the license to {{PD-simple}}. Marchjuly has covered the NFC restrictions above. — JJMC89 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. License-wise, this could be re-added to the "Remix culture" article since it's no longer non-free. Any contextual objections to doing that? There are nine images already being used in the article, so some might say what difference does one more make. At the same time, the cover art can be seen in Remix (book), so not sure how much the image adds to the second article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why one would want to have the image there. What does it add? Since it is now freely licensed, someone else can restore it if they think it is useful. — JJMC89 02:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The benefit would be that it is an example of a book licensed for being open for remix. and the book about the topic, so special in this regard. I will re-add it. thank you Shaddim (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the point of mentioning the book. Including the cover doesn't add anything to theat. — JJMC89 14:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello! why was this CD cover removed from the bio page about Maxx? File:Maxx-get-a-way single.jpg what was the violation? and what are the 'rules' for pictures existing on a wiki article for a band Dancemusicfan (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There were multiple violations. I removed it for violating WP:NFCC#10c, but it also violated WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

okay to be quite honest these 'rules' are very complicated to understand and read. i still don't understand what the violations are. can you explain more clearly in simple terms how the cd cover being in the article violates rules? for example what if a photographer shares his photos of the band members of this band in wikimedia commons and i share it to this article. what exactly are the rules? is the rationale that the CD cover is not needed in the article so therefore you deleted it?please clarify? Dancemusicfan —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Every article that uses a non-free file must have a separate, specific rationale (10c). This could be overcome by writing one. As a part of that rationale you must justify why it meets the contextual significance criterion (8). Use of a cover in an article that is not the article about the work is rarely justifiable. There would need to be sourced commentary on the cover itself to possibly justify its inclusion. — JJMC89 17:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Daily News logo March 17 1934.jpg I don't understand your message. Sorry. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The rationale is there, as follows: 'Fair use rationale: Demonstrates the early history of the Daily News by use of the logo, which has an illustration of downtown Los Angeles and the News's motto of "The Journal of the New Era." The issue in question is the history of the newspaper. The logo also notes that the Daily News was the first Los Angeles newspaper to subscribe to the NRA code..' BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BeenAroundAWhile: The NFCC criteria require the indication of the article name. You should add {{Non-free use rationale}} to the file page to indicate which article the file is used on. JJMC89, I think it would be helpful to add the template in future cases where the only issues are bureaucratic matters like this and the file is only used in one article. Jc86035 (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Simply adding a missing rationale might seem like a quick and easy fix, but things often are not so simple per WP:JUSTONE. The file could've simply been removed per WP:NFCCE, but tagging them the way JJMC89 did does at least give the person wanting to use them a chance to provide a non-free use rationale explaining how the particular non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria. FWIW, I don't think the non-free use of both File:Los Angeles Daily News logo March 17 1934.jpg and File:Los Angeles Daily News 8-07-1945.jpg in Illustrated Daily News can be justified per WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 based upon how they are currently being used in that article and both could be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way in my opinion. So, simply adding a new rationale or changing the article parameters of the current rationales is probably not going to seen as sufficient if these files are discussed at WP:FFD. There needs to be a much stronger contextual connection between article content and image; otherwise, the non-free use is mainly WP:DECORATIVE and probably would not be considered OK per an FFD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bureaucracy. I tagged the image for not satisfying WP:NFCC#10c; the rationale doesn't have a link to or the name of the article it is used in. As Marchjuly said, there are other issues. — JJMC89 03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I did not change the rationale. It has been there all along. Is it that you don't agree with the rationale? How does this use of a newspaper flag (or masthead, as it is sometimes erroneously called) differ from other newspaper articles where flags are used? As for a link, I guess I can put that into the rationale although it is pretty obvious where the image will be used. Thanks for your help. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, you didn't address the rest of the concerns above. — JJMC89 05:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89, I've seen you have been removing non-free logos from university athletics articles... is there a category that shows you files w/out a FUR? I've been trying to find one so I can improve them with a PD logo. Thanks, Corky 04:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Corkythehornetfan. Category:Wikipedia non-free files lacking article backlink and Category:Wikipedia non-free files with red backlink contain a small number of files with obvious issues, but I'm not using a category. My bot detects some violations and reports them here. — JJMC89 05:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I will watchlist those categories... do you mind if I add your not page you listed to my watchlist? I am only interested in the university/college athletics logos. Corky 14:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

​ Go ahead. Finding free replacements is helpful. — JJMC89 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you removed the File:Nike descending staircase 3sept1939.jpg image from the Evacuation of the Louvre museum art collection during World War II because of non valid Wikipedia:NFUR for this case. However, I seemed to me that all the necessary components were there in the image. What did I forgot? Hervegirod (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a rationale for that article at all, only Winged Victory of Samothrace. — JJMC89 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Our gracious host has deigned to identify the problem, but not the solution. The fair use rationale already given applies just as much (perhaps more so) to the article on the evacuation itself as it does to the article on the sculpture. What you needed to do, Hervegirod, was copy the existing fair use rationale, and replace the one reference to Winged Victory of Samothrace with a reference to Evacuation of the Louvre museum art collection during World War II. If this seens like bureaucratic form-filling, it is. Thankfully that was a simple form for a dog like me to fill in. 149.254.250.247 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for having done this, it seems to me that the explanation on fair use rationales in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:NFUR) is not clear at all Hervegirod (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Re removal of image, I copied it from Bonnie Prince Charlie (1948 film) so I assume should be removed from there as well. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The use on the film article is appropriate and is supported by the rationale on the file's description page. — JJMC89 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89:Explain to me what exactly is missing from the File:Kinghomer.jpg file? You go around tagging it over and over again claiming it doesn't have rationale. The purpose of that upload was to show a pop culture reference to the character as described in the article and I used a shot of Homer Simpson to illustrate how the character has been referenced in pop culture. This is listed on the file page summary and is clearly defined within the details of the article itself in which the file is used (in the King Kong from the 1980s to the present section). So doesn't that cover the "detail of the name of each article on which the image is used"? Isn't what I wrote under "Summary" enough? Doesn't that give the detail of the article in which the image is used and explain the purpose of the upload? Then there is "image is missing a separate, specific, and relevant fair-use rationale in clear, plain language for each use". Well its only used in that one article and free use rationale is clearly listed in the third paragraph. So what is missing exactly? What more needs to be done? Any help would be greatly appreciated.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Previously the only rationale that addressed the NFCC was for Treehouse of Horror III, not King Kong in popular culture. What was written in the summary section was inadequate since it did not address all the NFCC. It looks like you've remedied this now. — JJMC89 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, Although the information defined in 10c was on all three pages you marked (File:NRA Marksmanship Qualification Badges.jpg, File:NRA Explorer Service Handgun Qualification Badges.png, and File:NRA Law Enforcement Excellence-in-Competition Badge.png), I went ahead and updated the templates and expanded on some of the information. The article they support is now cited three different times on each page. There should now be no question that the criteria defined in 10c has been met. --McChizzle (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Before your edits the rationales did not contain a link to or the title of the article's the files were used in. Templates aren't required, but the link or title are. — JJMC89 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, so the link to the article where it is used, under "File usage," is insufficient; I don't understand that but I will note it for the future. Regardless, thanks for removing your templates on two of the three pages. What remains wrong with the third item at File:NRA Marksmanship Qualification Badges.jpg? --McChizzle (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File usage links are not sufficient; otherwise, the requirement in 10c would be pointless since those links are always there. I just forgot that one; now done. — JJMC89 20:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I made correction that I believe addresses concern about this file. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think that a cover almost per definition meets the non-free rationale, so I don't understand this removal. Please correct me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a rationale for the series article. (WP:NFCC#10c) Use in the article about the book meets the criteria, but use in the series article doesn't. (3, 8) — JJMC89 20:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that the usage of the cover of the first book in a series can be argued as reasonable in the article about a book series. Was this discussed somewhere, or should I open a discussion? Debresser (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

From a quick search I didn't find any direct discussion on this, so feel free to start one. — JJMC89 01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi JMCC89. I think the reason this file keeps getting flag for NFCC#10c might be due to Harlequins Ladies and Harlequin Ladies. I believe the non-free use rationale added here was intended to be for the former, but the editor adding the rationale forgot to add the "s" to "Harlequin". FWIW, I'm not sure if these two articles are duplicates, so I've asked about them at WT:RU#Harlequins Ladies and Harlequin Ladies Football Club. I'm also not sure if the logo could be used even if there was no typo in the rationale since previous FFD discussions about similar non-free use have resulted in the logo only be allowed in men's teams' articles per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI even if the men's and women's teams both use the same logo, but that is something which might require further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Marchjuly. — JJMC89 01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89. I notice that in this edit you restored the <noinclude> tags surrounding the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Could you explain the reasoning behind this? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That was from using the clear button that is part of the instructions. — JJMC89 01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello dear. I have restored this page (that you deleted) temporarily. I *know* it seems odd, but we do need it for a few days as we are finalising the Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiFundisoftware V2 version. Please see more explanations here. I'll make sure to redelete it asap [4] (which is likely to be within a week). Thank you for your patience. Anthere (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anthere. I did tag it for deletion, but RHaworth deleted it. I'm not sure what a broken redirect is good for though. — JJMC89 03:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok. Sorry, I was confused. The redirection is broken here, but not broken on WikiFundi. That's a bit complicated. All right, we are still working on the final releases of the software. 2 releases done out of 4. Cheers. Anthere (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have decided to declare war on this image, File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG, but it looks like, to me anyway, that you are mass tagging images without any true regard for what harm you are doing. I've seen many image deletionists get into serious trouble over the years at WP:ANI for doing this. You and others like you, mass tag hundreds of images a day. Then some random admin comes along and just mass deletes them without any regard to the possibility that the image was poorly tagged and without discussion. Some editors have actually been banned from tagging images over this type of behavior. You seem to tag a lot of images, maybe you need to slow down and tag them correctly instead of mass tagging them. Quality over quantity. Thank you. Now for your reply if there is one.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Jojhutton: If you're going to start discussing non-free content use policy and how editors who try to enforce it end up at ANI, you yourself should at first at least have a decent grasp of the policy and how it is applied. Non-free images are never allowed to be displayed in the username space per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images, and never on talk pages per WP:TPG#Non-free images, so you violated the very policy you're accusing JJMC89 of not understanding by displaying the Mickey Mouse image on this page. Moreover, simply having a non-free use rationale for a file does not mean that the particular non-free is policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. I agree with JJMC89's tagging of the file because its use in Main Street, U.S.A. does appear WP:DECORATIVE and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8; furthermore, removing that file from that page will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding in anyway. If you feel more discussion is warranted, then perhaps moving this WP:FFD is what should be done.

JJMC89 is an experienced file reviewer. He may make mistakes, but he's not disruptive. Administrators reviewing the files tagged by JJMC89 are experienced in policy related to files, and they will not delete a file if they don't agree with the tag. If you feel otherwise then bring all of this up at ANI. Please provide diffs supporting your claims though and don't just argue WP:RIPPED. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to second this. Reviewed the deleted revisions, and the tag was correct. @Jojhutton: I suggest you take a moment to familiarize yourself with policy before slinging personal attacks and bad faith accusations. -FASTILY 05:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the non-free content tag on the New York Jets logo, since it seems to be obviously a case of PD-logo (not original enough to qualify for copyright), consisting of only simple text and a simple geometric shape, far below the threshold of originality required for copyright. See this page on Commons for more details. If you disagree or have any concerns, please feel free to voice them. Thanks! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the license. — JJMC89 06:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello my name is Sunriseshore

I saw your removal of the Beatles clip, I also read about the non free content policy. I would ask that the clip be reinstated, as it was placed there to give the reader an idea about the culture of the post 1945 world. While the article itself is not about the song its placement is relevant nonetheless. For the history of modern history, and modern history itself the Beatles were revolutionary in shaping popular music.

I will appreciate any reply Sunriseshore (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What file and/or article are you talking about? — JJMC89 06:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

When tagging stuff G13, might I suggest using twinkle to do it so that the parameters are automatically filled out? At current, your nominations appear to be missing the timestamp parameter. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. I've started adding the parameter. It is optional though. Using Twinkle for mass G13s is too much clicking. — JJMC89 06:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89 I'd add to this that it would be best if you left the creator a message, which twinkle offers, especially if you're mass nomming as there are drafts in there that are viable but may have been forgotten had they not been on a watchlist (as is the case for mine.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In most cases G13 notifications are counterproductive and/or pointless. — JJMC89 03:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hiya mate, you left a tag on Charles R. Conn's page. That's fine, could you be a bit more specific about what exactly you find sensational about the page or the tone and I'll try and fix it for you buddy. Best regards Pug of the day (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never edited that article. — JJMC89 03:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)