User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/Archive

 __NONEWSECTIONLINK__  '''Now let's move on to the discussion of media files. In this lesson, we will mainly be covering the speedy deletion criteria of Media Files, components required on file description pages (and what do when they are not there), FFD/PUF, Copyrights/WP:NFC/WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, Upload Log Patrol, Commons, and any other related subfields. Because you've mentioned earlier that you're familiar with this field, we'll be moving through this section at faster pace than my other coachees. If you need me to slow down or would like clarification with regards to a specific area, please do not hesitate to let me know.'''
 * Let's get started by discussing sources and citing them with regards to files. Recall that content posted in Wikipedia's article namespace must be verifiable by others - the same applies to images. The copyright status of files must be verifiable by others.  That being said, a detailed/specific source is indispensable when it comes to dealing with media files.
 * In your own words, please describe (in general) what constitutes a good, verifiable source and what would not be a good source. Provide several examples.
 * A:
 * Oh wow. How many pages should this dissertation be? No, in all seriousness, verifiability is fairly common sense, but there is certainly a lot of gray area. That's why we have, um, the linked page. In terms of media, ideally the source should be traced back as far as possible, to the original author and publication. The source must be good enough that any person with reasonable access to media can retrace it.
 * Good examples:
 * New York Times, Apr. 17, 1790, page a18, David Broderfield, Can the French Monarchy Survive the Anger of the Masses?
 * Flickr user LookAtMyCCBYSAImages, link to image
 * Mona Lisa, done by Pablo Picasso. Image obtained from RateMyAmateurPainting.com, link.
 * Bad examples:
 * flickr.com
 * Czech Wikipedia user IDidntSourceMyImageWell (not original)
 * My grandfather had this image is his cabinet.
 * As I've said before, some images are in a gray area. For example, the image that is all over the internet, and the best anyone can tell it was uploaded to a homepage on GeoCities in 1994, with only the reference, "public domain, done by Leonardo da Vinci." This probably should be better sourced, but no one can find the original. And the internet isn't the only example: sometimes things are reprinted in newspapers, and after a while no one knows the original author - it really gets down to the definition of anonymity. I am not going to pretend like these are black and white cases, and maybe PUF/FFD would be the best place for those.
 * Is this enough? I feel like I might be skipping some of the answer you're looking for. Not to mention I cheated and didn't even look at the policy page, but went from experience/memory. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's more than sufficient. Good work.  Just a quick reminder - apply the {{subst:nsd}} tag whenever a file lacks verifiable source information. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right then, so a brief overview of how we're going to proceed through the rest of admin coaching.
 * WP:NFCC/WP:NFC
 * WP:CSD
 * WP:PERMISSION
 * WP:FFD/WP:PUF
 * Moving files to Commons
 * Derivatives/FOP
 * Obscure bits in the WP:IUP
 * WP:BLOCK/WP:AIV/WP:RFPP/ect.
 * RFA


 * With any luck, this should take about a week and a half tops. I'm going to be in China starting the 13th of June for two weeks and my goal is to have your RfA nom written and transcluded before I leave.  The last thing I want is to leave you hanging due to the censorship.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try some application questions on the WP:NFCC. I should warn you though - these are not easy questions, but they should be within your reach.  If you have any questions or aren't sure about a question, feel free to make a note of it and we can go over it.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅1. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
 * A: No, with rare exceptions. the first exception would be to demonstrate the appearance of an individual from many years past (where the appearance was notable and no free equivalent exists), and the second to demonstrate the individual inside of a group which no longer exists (e.g., a band). In rare circumstances, such as incarcerated individuals or fugitives where no free equivalent could possibly exist, we may accept the images (e.g., Mohammed Omar).
 * I think you may have meant "yes", which is the correct answer. Either way, your explanation is right.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag PD-self (public domain).  Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
 * A: See derivative works.
 * While this is a derivative work, the main purpose of this question was to check whether you saw the copyright violation. The file described above can be speedied under WP:CSD. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2,  in a gallery.  Explain the problem with this situation and why it is a problem.
 * A: WP:NFG, WP:NFCC #3a. This is a problem because it has the potential to infringe on the work of the copyright holder. "I really want to see what all the levels look like" might lead someone to buy the game - unless Wikipedia has an image of them all. But a few images are useful to commentary. It's hard to explain it exactly; it is a very grey area.
 * While sometimes a grey area (e.g. television station logos in an article about television station logos), this particular example is black and white. The aforementioned exhibits files bluntly fail WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC (WP:IG), and WP:NFCC.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅4. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?
 * A: The user may be able to use this image, provided that the sea turtle's notoriety was somehow greatly related to the album. Say: the album is so popular the pet sea turtle's quadruple in one year in Western Europe, and this very image was key to the increase. Otherwise, no: there are thousands of free images of sea turtles which could be used.


 * ✅5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere.  In a detailed, manner, explain your course of action.
 * A: Again, this could definitely infringe on the profits of the copyright holder. NFCC #4. Ideally I should tag the image with db-badfairuse, but applying WP:IAR and just deleting it would be better.
 * On a side note, WP:NFCC applies here too. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. Say for instance, on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a user adds 25 images (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) which illustrate gameplay. Detail every step you would take to address the situation.
 * A: See #3. Place a message on the user's talk page, tag most of the images for impending deletion, and remove all but a few from the page. The talk page message would state what I did, and what the user can do in the future, especially if he doesn't like my solution.
 * Standard procedure mandates that you remove them all per WP:NFCC (only applies if there are already pre-existing images on the article) and WP:NFCC and mass tag. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. A user adds multiple screenshots of Gandalf, as seen in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, to Ian McKellen, none of which are accompanied by any critical commentary. Detail how you would react to this situation.
 * A: See #3 & #6.
 * The files here fail WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I was a little overconfident, assuming you knew everything that had to do with image policy - but then I realized that you would not have come to me to ask for admin coaching had that been the case. Well duh. -_-  Feel free to trout me.
 * I'm glad we're finding areas we need to spend time on. All the above questions have been asked in a RfA before, if not by me, then by others.  As you know, these days, a single wrong answer is enough to cause any RfA to crash and burn.
 * I think a little review in the WP:NFCC would be helpful, although I'm positive you have most of it down.


 * In your own words, summarize each of the following criteria (feel free to use hypothetical situations or examples as necessary). You may wish to consider referencing Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. It does a very good job of explaining the non-free content criteria.


 * #1 - There is no free equivalent, and none could feasibly be created. An example is a company logo, but not a copyrighted image of Keith R. McCall, though no free equivalent exists - because it could be obtained by someone snapping such a photograph.
 * #2 - Usage must not significantly infringe on the market role of the file. An example may be a photograph of a plane crash, where only one person took a photograph, and the publication owning the photograph has made clear it does not want anyone else to make use of the image while breaking the story. To be honest, this is a difficult category, and my lack of legal experience in the area leaves me inadequate to be sure about many further examples.
 * #3a - If one non-free image is enough to convey the meaning, then do not use more than one.
 * #3b - If only a part of the image/file is necessary to convey meaning, then only include this part. A sound file for a popular song should only have a portion of the song, not the full song (this is also valid for rationale 2). A high-quality image is unnecessary where a low-quality suffices.
 * #4 - The content must have been previously published. Someone who obtains a copy of a song before it is released to the public cannot upload a portion of it.
 * #5 - Content must be encyclopedic and meet Wikipedia's standards. An pornographic image of Traci Lords prior to her 18th birthday cannot be displayed because it fails our standards (which are to follow the law).
 * #6 - Content is in line with Wikipedia's policies regarding media use specifically. For example, does not violate privacy rights or ridicule a person - a magazine cover ridiculing Ariel Sharon on an article about the magazine should be replaced by another cover without this problem.
 * #7 - The file must be used in >=1 article
 * #8 - The file must serve the purpose of significantly improving the understanding of the article that could not be accomplished with only free content.
 * #9 - Can only be in the article namespace, save necessary administrative pages.
 * #10 - Must contain source, as well as author/publisher/copyright holder information where possible; a sufficient copyright tag; and a sufficient and clearly comprehensible rationale for why the file is valid fair use: listed separately for each and every article in which it is used.

Now in my defense, I did answer some of the questions correctly, but I answered why it's a problem, rather than what I would do about the problem, which was an oversight of mine. That's OK, I can certainly go through these steps. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I think that was almost too easy :)  Sometimes a short review is all it takes.  Just a quick caveat - exercise caution when applying WP:NFCC criteria 1,3, and 8.  These are the most commonly misinterpreted and frequently are incorrectly applied.  Above all else, be sure you know these criteria backwards and forwards! - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's try some file CSD, which, incidentally, is based off the non-free content criteria. So same as before, I'd like a short definition in your own words; feel free to use examples if/when needed.


 * ✅F1: - A file in the same format (e.g., ogg, jpeg) which is identical or lower quality to a second file on en.wikipedia. Although not stated, all links to first image should be made to point to second.
 * ✅F2: - Empty or corrupt images, including ones not resizable by Wikimedia software. I'm not sure what the second clause about metadata means (or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information), but I think it might be referring to something like this.
 * WP:CSD also covers file description pages for files on Commons. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅F3: - Improper free use tag listed. E.g., for non-commercial use only, or GFDL < 1.3. E.g., "I contacted the artist who said I could use it on Wikipedia."
 * ✅F4: - A file which lacks a license (i.e., no copyright identification tag). Must be tagged for seven days before the file can actually be deleted.
 * Or source information. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅F5: - A non-free file which isn't being used. Must be tagged for seven days before it can actually be deleted. A non-free file used only on a recently deleted page and which is very (in bold) unlikely to be used elsewhere, deletable immediately. "Exceptions can be made for an upcoming article", although IMHO the seven days clause handles this fairly well - it's more of an admonition not to WP:BITE by immediately tagging a file after someone uploads it.
 * ✅F6: - Rationale for a non-free file is completely missing: it is not explained explicitly why this file falls under fair use for the articles in which it's being used. Disputed rationales not included.
 * Good. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅F7: -
 * Obviously incorrect non-free tags - e.g., Non-free game cover for a picture of a person. Immediately deletable.
 * Irreplaceability disputed for non-free media - deletable two days after rfu tag has been applied, if not addressed.
 * Fair use rationale disputed for non-free media - deletable seven days after dfu tag applied, if not addressed.
 * Very Good. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅F8: -
 * File available on Commons in same format (see my response on F1) AND
 * Said file is of higher or equal quality to en.wikipedia image AND
 * All links to said file on en.wikipedia have been altered to point to the one on commons (if applicable) AND
 * File unquestionably abides by Commons policies (e.g., sourcing - including GFDL history of authors if transfered from a Wiki project, stricter copyright concerns)
 * The file is not a protected on en.wikipedia because it is of high-sensitivity.
 * ✅F9: - Claimed to be free use, when it's obviously not the case. "Hey I am the one that took this picture, even though it says Associated Press in the lower-left hand corner". Comparable with G12.
 * ✅F10: -
 * File is neither sound, image, nor video AND
 * Said file has no foreseeable encyclopedic purpose.
 * E.g., "Here is a PDF with my softball league's schedule."
 * Files eligible for deletion under F10 must not be in any of the following file formats: "png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga" and must satisfy the aformentioned criteria for WP:CSD - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * F11: - Copyrighted photo, where uploader asserts that copyright is released into a free license, but there is no proof. Proof will usually be an OTRS ticket, or a note placed on the author's website confirming the license. Deletable seven days after npd tag is applied. Cases where it's really obvious the uploader is wrong about the license can be speedily deleted (e.g., someone uploading an entire Metallica album).
 * The file in question does not have to be a copyrighted photo. A commonly misinterpreted CSD criterion, F11 applies to all files that are claimed as free (regardless of their actual copyright status).  F11 is to be applied when the uploader sources a file to someone/something/some entity other than themselves and claims the file under a free license.  If there is no way to feasible way of verifying that cited source, tag the file with {{subst:npd}} - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Fantastic work on F6 and F7.  Most people have the most trouble with F7 and I'm glad to see you're having no difficulty with it.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Before we move on, I have a question, or rather, brainteaser for you. Good luck :)


 * 1. With as much detail as possible (and using examples whenever needed), explain the difference between the terms Permission and Copyright as they are used on Wikipedia.
 * A: That is definitely a brain teaser.
 * Copyright is the legal right that the author (or authors) has to dictate how the work is reused, if reused at all (including how to make a profit), within certain legal guidelines (e.g., fair use). If this right is violated, there are legal ramifications for the breaker of the copyright.
 * Permission - within the context of Wikipedia - is the formal relinquishing of those rights to allow the item to be copied according to the terms of a free-use license. That's the correct type of permission - of course there is incorrect permission, which I mentioned above ("allowed to use this on Wikipedia").
 * Is that enough? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad. When dealing with copyright and permission in the future, remember that "copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work [when they create the work], including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work".  A copyright holder is free to do whatever s/he wants to do to an original work, including transferring copyright to other entities/individuals.  Think of permission as sharing. When you tag a file with {{subst:npd}}, you are essentially tagging the file as 'no evidence of sharing of copyright'. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is a short blurb I wrote awhile back in coaching other users. I guess it would be helpful to have this resource at your disposal, although, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.  I just want to make it available to you:


 * So now that we know a little more about Permission, I'll give you a quick and dirty overview of what you'll need to know about permission as applied to Files:
 * So, hypothetical situation: An editor takes a picture of a tree in their backyard and uploads it to Wikipedia under a free license, say, the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike 3.0 license for instance. Essentially, what the uploader is doing by publishing the image under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license is giving permission to others (others being anyone with an intent to use/modify and republish the file) to use the file under the terms noted here.  As a result, the uploader in this case, is relinquishing some of their copyright rights over the file they took (Remember that a copyright is created the moment the photographer presses the button on the camera, i.e. the moment an artist creates their work).
 * Another hypothetical situation. So now let's say that an editor (John) has a friend who is a novice photographer (Bill).  John asks Bill if it's alright to upload some of his photographs to Wikipedia.  Bill agrees, but does not specify a license.  John posts the pictures with a pd-self license and sources the images to Bill.  Although John has good intentions here, he is actually infringing on Bill's copyright rights.  Firstly, John is not the creator of the photographs.  Secondly, John has no right to choose what license Bill's photographs should be licensed under.  Bill never gave permission of any sort to anyone to freely use/distribute/modify/republish his work.
 * While the Wikimedia Foundation is largely immune to being sued over copyright (yes, the above case actually can result in a court case against the Wikimedia Foundation, because Bill's work, now "released" under a pd-license, is causing him considerable distress and/or financial loss - assuming Bill's occupation is photography), the goal of strict permission/copyright enforcement is to protect users downstream. Businesses/individuals who use improperly licensed work are also immune to the aforementioned legal allegations because they would not have known the proper copyright status of such a file because it had not been properly documented.  As can clearly be seen from the above, it is the author of a work who has the most to lose when files are not properly documented and permission is not properly established.  The Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in ruining or creating trouble for authors of creative works.
 * Basically, when a source of a file is provided (so that would mean that a given file is sourced to someone other than the uploader), but it cannot be established whether the original author agreed to release the file under a given license, we tag the file with {{subst:npd}}, as lacking evidence of permission.
 * If an uploader claims to have permission (usually in e-mail format) from the original author for a given file (meaning, that the original author has specified a license the file is to be released under), that email should be forward to the Wikimedia Foundation's OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
 * Further Reading: WP:DCP and WP:ERP


 * I have several fairly easy questions relating to Permission and Copyright below. I'm not really looking for specifics here, rather, I just want to know what you would do if you encountered one of these hypothetical situations.  That being said, there's no need to write a long paragraph for each answer; a simple one sentence response works just fine.
 * 1. An editor uploads a photograph of a ladybug under a pd-self license, claiming their friend told them it was alright to post the photo on Wikipedia. Detail your course of action.
 * A: First, I would usually give the editor a warning, so as to note bite the newcomer. If the editor takes no action after a few days, I will delete it under F3. It's not very friendly, but we do want to be careful about copyrights, and like I said, I would warn the user. The user can always reupload the material.
 * I'm afraid not. F3 applies only to media files that have been tagged as free but place restrictions on derivatives, commercial use, and/or limits on educational/Wikipedia use only.  The correct action to take here would be to tag with {{subst:npd}}.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅2. An editor uploads a photograph of the USS Midway from a website, claiming that the photograph is in the public domain, and tagging the file with PD-release. You go to the website and see nothing to back up that now dubious claim.  How do you react?
 * A: {{subst:npd}} along with the appropriate template on the talk page.


 * ✅3. Let's say that the editor in question 2 tagged the file with Cc-by-sa-2.0. Again, there is nothing on the source website to back up that claim.  Do you do anything different?
 * A: No. I have a nasty feeling I'm missing something and this is a trick question.


 * ✅4. An editor uses Google Earth and takes several screencaps while viewing the satellite map of the natural formation, Colletto Fava. The editor uploads these screenshots under a pd-self license, noting that since they "created the images themselves", they are the copyright holder of the images and can do whatever they wish.  How do you react?
 * A: Delete under F9 - obviously a derivative work. See Google earth.


 * ✅5. An editor uploads an image of Taylor Swift's latest album and claims it under a PD-release license. How do you react?
 * A: Honestly, if there was no proof provided, I would probably just fix the tag + rationale and give the user a friendly reminder about licenses and verifying them.
 * Alternate correct answers include "delete per WP:CSD". - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅6. An editor uploads a black and white photo of a piano, sources it to a website, and tags it with pd-old. Other than the copyright tag and the external link, there is nothing else on the image description page.  You head to the website provided, but are neither able to locate the image nor find information on its copyright status there.  How to do you react?
 * A: Ooh, tricky - my reaction would be WP:PUF.
 * Good. If you're not sure about something, rather than potentially make a mistake, list the file at WP:FFD or WP:PUF.  The preferred answer to this question would be "tag with {{subst:npd}}". - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅7. Same as above, except the uploader tags the file with PD-release and through the website link provided, you find that the image was taken in 1950. There is no information on the copyright status of the file. What do you do?
 * A: I would do PUF again; the situation is murky enough that NPD may or may not apply. It's a tossup though really, I believe there is some overlap between these two.
 * Again, nothing wrong with PUF, I think your answers to 6 and 7 are, while non-standard, very much so correct. Way to think outside the box :)  The preferred answer to this question would be "tag with {{subst:npd}}" - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point in my admin coaching syllabus, I typically have coachees do some hands on work, namely patrolling the upload log. However, given your background in media files and already proficient knowledge of the media file policy/guidelines, I'm going to make this step optional for you.  Would you like to spend some time improving your tagging accuracy or should we move on.  If you elect to move on, I'm going to ask that you actively tag media files from Special:Log/upload on a near daily (or more frequently) basis until the end of coaching.  The choice is yours :P - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Sure I can go for it, what exactly am I to do? I'll start doing some now! TBH I do have a history of working with these files but wow I feel so bogged down by the mere intricacies of the rules, I feel like a pure n00b. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. We can do this in two different ways - you can a) post a list below (copy and paste from your contributions is just fine, but please use   tags) of the files below you tagged during a file tagging session OR b) list the files you identified as having a problem but weren't sure how to proceed so we can go over them.  Personally, I'd prefer you choose option b - it's a little easier on me to check files, especially if you tag a large volume of files.  At any rate, all my opinions aside, I'll let you choose.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I almost forgot - some guidelines to follow when doing upload log patrol (you probably know most, if not all of these but I figure a review can't hurt)


 * The same rules apply to the upload log as they do with the NPP log - don't tag a file until a file has been live for more than 10 minutes or so. This is really common courtesy, that's all.
 * There is, unfortunately, no "mark this file patrolled". One of these would be helpful although.
 * Respond to queries regarding your tags promptly.
 * You can tag files with twinkle or manually. If you're using twinkle, the deletion/maintenance tags you will need to use can be found under either the "csd" or "di" tabs.  Be sure to notify the uploader of the file's deletion.  If you use twinkle, it will be done automatically.  If you tag manually, you will need to manually notify the uploader with the provided messaging template.
 * If you're tagging manually, the following may be helpful:
 * In short, expect the unexpected. You'll surely encounter the oddest of situations on the upload log.

Part a: Below is a nearly complete list of the files. At the top, the already deleted ones, below that, the still existing ones with a timestamp:

# 23:48, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Stoopid Monkey.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 23:43, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Zodiaccover.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 23:16, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Target footprint.png ‎ (uploaded a new version of "File:Target footprint.png": +AK, HI) (top) [rollback] # 17:01, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Lahey Headshot.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 16:57, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Hari Mata Hari Eurovision.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) # 15:20, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Xnews website.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 15:20, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:X-news.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 15:13, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Help green poster art.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 15:12, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Chiodos-TimHarmon.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 05:13, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:NAMJPG.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 05:12, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aerocar 2163840054 ffdac21418 o.jpg ‎ (PD-US) (top) [rollback] # 05:11, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aditya Chopra 300.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 05:10, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:ACM Rao Qamar Suleman.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 05:08, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Gaga.jpg ‎ (This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed; See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files #File:Gaga.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 05:03, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:June 2010 Rehearsal.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) # 04:56, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Studio23-2010.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:56, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Maxxxchannel.png ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:56, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Velvetchannel.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:45, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Angela dodson.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:22, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Dejan Stojanović and Prince Nicholas Petrović Njegoš of Montenegro.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:21, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Neowizlogo.gif ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:21, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Neowizgameslogo.gif ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:20, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sonic.png ‎ (Revert to revision 367640665 dated 2010-06-12 18:33:45 by PCMaster2010 using popups) # 04:18, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Screamingfemalespowermove.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) # 04:17, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:DMMC logo.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:17, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg ‎ (This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed; See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:14, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:CREE.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:13, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Cree logo.gif ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:12, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Paul Niven1.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:10, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:DEMOLITION.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:10, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Dalin Bus.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:08, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Dejan Stojanovic in a conversation with Saul Bellow, Chicago 1992.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:02, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:JieMa standing pipa.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 04:01, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:JieMa standing with Pipa.smaller.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback] # 03:48, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Abdolmalek rigi.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
 * File:Sri Sadguru Adishtana Mandir.jpg
 * File:Sri Malayala Swami Pooja Mandir.jpg
 * File:Roshd Year 23.jpg
 * File:Downtown Cleveland Euclid Avenue.jpg
 * File:Downtown Cleveland Warehouse District.jpg
 * File:Downtown Cleveland Avenue District.jpg

Part b:
 * File:SnipManager.png - does this file include enough of the Wikipedia logo it should be tagged? Is the very layout of Wikipedia copyrightable? And how about the browser's rendering of a webpage?
 * The Wikipedia globe is too small to warrant a Wikipedia license tag (De Minimis is applicable here). As long as there are no non-free elements in the page (e.g. OS icons/elements, logos, any copyrightable content), there is no issue.  The license tag however, should not be pd-self.  The correct tag to use would be Wikipedia-screenshot.  Recall Wikipedia's licensing scheme (or just read the fine print beneath the edit box); all text posted to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Airyangontail2010may.JPG and File:Airmandalay tail sittwe 2010.JPG- this looks like a derivative; but can it be legitimately claimed as fair use? Having a view of a plane of this model would certainly be helpful. So I don't know whether to retag it or just go for deletion; and if I go for deletion, I'd rather not have to put up my own fair use rationale, and then try to dispute it.
 * Wow, you're more inclusionist than I am to have considered what you did! If faced with this situation, I would just tag with {{subst:nld}}.  As a rule of thumb, files that contain large enough portions of non-free logos like these you cite above must be tagged as non-free, despite the fact they were taken by an editor.  When two works are combined in a derivative work, the more restrictive copyright of the work(s) used to create the derivative is applied.  At any rate, such files would bluntly fail WP:NFCC.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:InsidePindayaCavesmay2010.JPG - I found it utterly impossible to determine which of any of the statues on the inside may retain a copyright. According to the article, "most" statues in the place are before the 20th century.
 * Just tag with {{subst:nld}}. I don't know whether Burma has Freedom of Panorama.  At any rate, this is possibly unfree at best.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Tower of Terror Dreamworld Construction.jpg - strictly speaking the usage is OK because it shows the roller coaster during construction, but it seems a bit dubious to me. What is standard procedure at this part?
 * Fails WP:NFCC. It's now possible to obtain a free photo, as Australia permits full Freedom of Panorama and the structure is still in existence.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Offical Album Cover.JPG - the title says right in it that it's an album cover. But how am I supposed to say "permission required" when I can't even find the cover online?
 * Album covers are rarely free content. This looks like a hoax and/or a copyright violation.  I've gone ahead and deleted it as such.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Diana Pinto in 2009.jpg - for this one, I just asked the uploader directly, because the only page that appeared to be the source was down, and it seemed likely that the uploader was in fact the photographer.
 * While there's nothing wrong with your approach (in fact, I applaud you for taking that approach), I think there is something you should know. When newbies upload PR-style photos, they're usually copyright violations.  While it's not nice to bite newbies, statistically, they upload the most copyvios, both unintentionally and deliberately.  I hate to say this, but dubious claims from newbies should be taken with a grain of salt.  This belongs at WP:PUF.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Dejan Stojanović and Saul Bellow.jpg - why in the world isn't there a bot to tag images without a license?!
 * I believe there was, although I'm not sure about the current status. I do know that Betacommand used to run a bot that did just that until he was forced to stop.  As of a couple months ago, ChrisO had another bot that tagged these files, but I haven't seen it running lately :/  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall, looking good. I found very few problems with the tags I sampled above.  Here's what I have to say:
 * File:Paul Niven1.JPG, File:JieMa standing with Pipa.smaller.jpg File:JieMa standing pipa.jpg - these files, all PR/studio/photoshoot style photos of (notable) individuals are very unlikely to be free. The accepted procedure is to nominate them for deletion at WP:PUF as a possible press release photo.  While I am no fan of stepping on newbies' toes, the majority of copvios are uploaded by that group.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, nothing else. Let's try another upload log patrol of that magnitude; same thing as before.  After we're done with this, we'll move on.
 * Re Ms. Pinto: a quick google search showed that the girl has posted herself on a huge number of websites, and the username of the uploader was in line with her name. I'm still going to tag it npd. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Part a:


 * 1)  04:48, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Wilecup2010.png (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:47, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:KiwiRail DFT 7008.jpg (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F3). (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:46, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:777235018 campus, mom 017.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:46, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Salvation Musical.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:46, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:BearLakeSummer.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:45, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Emilio piano dominicano.jpg (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F1). (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:44, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:HuntsmanSchoolClassroom.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:44, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Emilio's Studio.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:43, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Witch window interior.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:42, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Students Discuss.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:42, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Huntsmanstudents.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:42, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:ProfessorCovey.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:40, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:SteveMilovich.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:39, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Thomas Graves Meredith.JPG (This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed; See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Thomas Graves Meredith.JPG. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:35, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:ULB767ER.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:34, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Riley+cote.jpeg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:33, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Birds of Paradise (musical).jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:33, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Alexeiwithstick.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:33, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Teddypatches.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:32, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:StudentsGatherAroundtheA.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:32, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Swinburne croydon campus.jpg (This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed; See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Swinburne croydon campus.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:29, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Stansmyl.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:28, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Craigmc.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:28, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Mactavis2.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:28, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Kevlowe.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:28, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Kevinlowe.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:27, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Jacob Lewis slave auction ad.jpg (→Licensing: +PD tag) (top) [rollback]  #  04:26, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Zoetifex avtar.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:25, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:KiwiRail DFT 7008.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))  #  04:21, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:United Methodist Church of Batavia.JPG (nsd, source too vague) (top) [rollback]  #  04:20, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:ProSoya Staeta Logo.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))  #  04:20, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aviastar.jpeg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:19, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aviastar bae 146.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:18, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Serebro ep.jpg (+article name) (top) [rollback]  # 04:16, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Dejan Stojanović, Chicago, 2003.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:16, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aviastarlogo.jpeg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:15, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:FulcrumSymbol2.JPG (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:15, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Headsquare.gif (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))  #  04:14, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Jasa.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:11, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:JASA Eco Official Logo (Low Res).jpg (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F9). (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:08, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Greatpac.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:08, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:CEOs.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:07, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:G film poster.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:06, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Indalecio Liévano Aguirre.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:05, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Manuel del Río y de Narváez.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 04:04, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Carlos Lemos Simmonds.JPG (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  04:02, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Wilecup2010.png (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))  #  04:00, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sergio Camargo Pinzón.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 03:59, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar.JPG (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 03:58, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Ganesha.gif (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  03:58, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Suavementescooter.jpg (→Summary: One block of text for explanation is sufficient) (top) [rollback]  # 03:56, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Exterior View of EW26.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  03:56, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Bs merdiven.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))  #  03:51, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Diana Pinto in 2009.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 03:48, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Tower of Terror Dreamworld Construction.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 03:46, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:InsidePindayaCavesmay2010.JPG (This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed; See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:InsidePindayaCavesmay2010.JPG. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  # 03:45, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Airyangontail2010may.JPG (nld) (top) [rollback]  # 03:44, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Airmandalay tail sittwe 2010.JPG (nld) (top) [rollback]  #  03:42, 11 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:SnipManager.png (→Licensing:: Wikipedia-screenshot) (top) [rollback]  #  23:48, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Stoopid Monkey.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]  #  23:43, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) File:Zodiaccover.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

Part b:
 * File:Sergio Camargo Pinzón.jpg -eh, I just tagged it as RFU, but upon inspection, I could find no other images of the man other than a painting done by someone half a century after his death.
 * Looks fine to me. Considering that he was a president of Colombia in the late 1800s, it's highly likely that some sort of free portrait can be found of him. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:VanKoughnet of Colmar.JPG -this comes from the uploader's "private collection" and as such he tagged it pd-self. I doubt he created it; in fact it may (or may not) be related to Philip VanKoughnet. Should I tag this nld or what? I'm figuring if I can't figure out the purpose, FFD as a useless unused file with the wrong tagging?
 * Yeah, you might as well go with FFD. The license claim and sourcing is dubious and I do not foresee any encyclopedic use with the file.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that got tedious, and outputing the data in human readable form was a huge pain in the ass. But I'm done. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I saw no glaring issues or significant problems.  Thanks for going through the trouble of making it readable for a human.  I really appreciate that :)  I think that deserves a cookie.



Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * If you can, I'd like to request that you continue to tag files and patrol the upload log on a consistent basis. We're almost finished with admin coaching, and I want !voters at RfA to see that you have plenty of experience in media files (after all, that is the main platform I'll be nominating you on). There's no need to post your contributions here anymore. I am confident that you've got the basics of tagging media files down.  Although of course, if you come across anything unusual/confusing, please feel free to note it here and I'll do my best to help you out.  So At any rate, keep up the good work!!! - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So moving on to WP:FFD and WP:PUF. I have another short blurb for you to read, use as needed:
 * I believe I've mentioned this in the past, that we have two methods of requesting community input on media files which do not satisfy any of the criteria listed at WP:CSD or media files with questionable copyright status. Respectively, the methods are Files for deletion (essentially the XFD specific for files) and Possibly unfree files.  Files for deletion (FFD) to files is essentially what AFD is to articles.  At FFD, you will find files that have been nominated for a variety of reasons, ranging from disagreements in interpretations of NFCC to the usefulness/value of files.  As for Possibly unfree files (PUF), one can think of this to files as WP:PROD is to articles, except for the fact that nominations can be controversial.  The idea behind WP:PUF is to reduce the strain on FFD and create a separate venue where files with questionable or unclear copyright status can be explicitly discussed.  The formatting of FFD and PUF is a little different from its counterparts at WP:XFD.  Instead of creating new pages in the Wikipedia namespace, a section header is created on a parent page subpage of FFD/PUF bearing the date.
 * So now I'd like to ask you - Have you ever performed a non-admin closure on any WP:XFD discussion? If possible, please recall/list the discussions (it's alright if you don't have the exact discussions - a general estimate of the number of closures you've made is just fine).
 * A: Actually, to my surprise, I've closed exactly one deletion discussion: . I have on the other hand closed a few move requests:   . That's everything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad. Thanks for finding those.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got an ambiguous question on consensus. While there is no right or wrong answer, I think it would be helpful for you to consider one of the main driving forces of the project. In your opinion, what do you think consensus encompasses?  Is it measurable by the number of Keep/Delete/Support/Oppose !votes, is it measurable by comments, or is it both?  Why do you think that?
 * A: The definition of consensus is driven both by the volume of a certain opinion and by the quality of the opinions.
 * First, regarding the quality of the opinions: We're all familiar with WP:VOTE and WP:ATA. Someone who simply agrees with another poster does nothing to further the discussion, and someone who gives an entire invalid argument even hinders it. In deletion discussions, invalid arguments are usually ignored in whole.
 * Second, regarding the volume of opinions: it's popular for people to say the volume isn't important, only the quality of the arguments, but this isn't really basd on fact. Jimbo Wales, for example, has thus far promoted users to ArbCom based solely on vote count, though he has reserved the right in the future to deviate from that. Adminship discussions put more emphasis on vote count as well.
 * The difference seems to lie in the fact that in the latter discussions, the votes/!votes are provided by experienced editors. In essence, one has to take both into account. If a deletion discussion, for example, leans towards keep by 6:1, then the keep arguments would have to be awful to ignore them in favor of the deletion argument. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. The quality of the opinion of course is determined by improper consensus building techniques like meatpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that'll do. Nice work.  I see you have a fair understanding of consensus.  That being said, let's try closing some deletion discussions.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For each of the below, review each linked discussion and indicate how you would close each debate (assuming the full 7 days has elapsed), with a short explanation detailing why you would take the action you indicated. Because I chose old revisions, the conclusion you come to may be different from how the debate was actually closed; either way, please don't peek. FYI - you may find reviewing WP:DGFA and WP:DPR helpful.
 * Don't peak? Fair enough, but if the file was closed as delete, then I'm sure confused seeing as to how I'm looking at it. In all seriousness, I am not going to peak; am I too honest for my own good? I could only hurt my RFA in this section with wrong answers! ;)
 * 1. Discussion, File
 * A: I would not have closed this discussion. The keep arguments are valid because I don't see a copyright notice, and as such it is probably PD. As such I would have posted a comment to the effect, and possibly a talk page message advising the uploader maybe to look a little harder for the copyright symbol. I would have also left a note that this discussion should remain open a bit longer while we do the verification. Hopefully PD-Pre1978.


 * 2. Discussion, File
 * A: Heh, you certainly didn't choose the easy ones for this discussion, did you? To be honest, I probably would have posted at WP:VPP asking for a second opinion on NFCC#2 and attempted to gain additional consensus among those who are more familiar with US fair use precedence (both legal precedence and practical precedence). Do other press agencies copy images like the one above when a story is first broken? To be honest, I'm leaning towards delete for a while until such time that opportunity for commercial gain dies down (after other agencies take pictures, story less popular), but again, my lack of experience in the media means I would not be the right admin to make a final decision based solely on this discussion.


 * 3. Discussion, File
 * A: Delete. Not used in any articles, and as such has no encyclopedic use, and it additionally appears it may be a yearbook photo and as such the uploader is mistaken in the license provided. Better safe than sorry.


 * 4. Discussion, File
 * A: Rename. Can administrators move images? - I think they can. If not it would involve a deletion and reupload with proper attribution. Rename the image so that the commons version shows up, and use the renamed version on the page it's currently being used on. Then the users can decide amongst themselves which image is best to use, not be limited in choice, for this page and others. Everybody wins. :)


 * 5. Discussion, File
 * A: Keep - this one made me laugh. Actually I came across it just in the past few days. The image now has an encyclopedic use, and if the user is engaging in attacks and WP:POINT, then we can address that directly with the user: remove the image or we'll remove it for you. This is another discussion though - should go on WP:ANI. Now to be fair, after typing this, I peaked, because I need to see what's on the user's page, and I see someone already removed it. And, if this discussion isn't closed yet, I plan on !voting on it as soon as I'm done with these responses.


 * 6. Discussion, File
 * A: Delete - unused possible copyvio. Delete with note that if user can reupload if s/he can prove it's not a violation of commons:Commons:Fan art. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. Discussion, File
 * A: I would place a comment - did a Soviet legal entity create this image? I'm not familiar enough with Soviet breakdown of powers and the source isn't specific enough to say yes or no. If they did create it, then it's definitely keep - PD-US-1996 which combines with the clause in Template:PD-Russia, which states works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1, 1954, are also public domain in Russia. I'm going to contact the email listed at, who will probably know the status of the copyright better than we do. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Very Good. I don't see any problems with your answers.  You're right, I did choose some of the more complicated discussions, but TBH, FFD is usually pretty boring and straightforward.  I'm confident closing FFD discussions won't be a problem.  In particular, I like your response to question 1.  As a sysop, you are not required to close discussions if you are uncertain; there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  And if you were still wondering, yes, admins have the technical ability to move a file.  Beyond that, I have nothing else left to add.  I see you've been tagging a plethora of files lately - keep it up (remember, if you have any questions or are unclear about anything you come across, let me know! I am here to help you and will be more than happy to do so).  While you're at it, comment in some FFD and PUF (same as FFD, just a narrower scope) discussions and maybe do some non-admin closures.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)