User talk:JJMC89

JJMC89 bot question
Hi JJMC89. Do you know why JJMC89 bot is not picking up on the use of File:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG in Sarah Brightman as an 10c violation? The file seems to have never had a rationale for that use and doesn't appear to have been recently added to the article. I didn't remove the file myself in order to give you a chance to take a look at it first just in case the bot is seeing something that I'm not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Unfortunately, it is a false negative due to the bot needing to consider rationales that don't use NFUR templates. —&thinsp;JJMC89 00:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Just was curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey no fair!
You just removed the MGA Zapf Creation logo from the MGA Zapf Creation page. I just confirmed that the file is copyrighted. This is so confusing to me when I confirm a file is copyrighted. Chidie345 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not JJMC89, but I'll try to explain what happened and why.The reason why the bot removed File:MGA Zapf Creation GmbH logo.png from Zapf Creation has to do with non-free content use criterion #10c as explained in WP:NFCCE. The bot left an edit summary that included a link to WP:NFC which explains this. Did you click on that link and read what that page it leads to says. If you did and didn't understand what it meant, then that's OK. However, if you didn't, then you might want to do so now. The non-free content use rationale you provided for the file gives "MGA Entertainment" as the article where the file is to be used, but you didn't add the file to that article, did you? You added it to "Zapf Creation", right? Don't you think it's a bit unfair for you to expect the bot to figure out what you might've meant to do when you actually did something else? Anyway, if you fix the name of the article in the non-free use rationale on the file's page so that it's for "Zapf Creation", the bot shouldn't remove the file again.Before you do that, though, you might want to consider whether that's really the thing to do right now. How did you confirm you uploaded is copyrighted? From a copyright standpoint, the file you uploaded is pretty much nothing more than a combination of the public domain licensed File:MGA Entertainment logo.svg and the public domain licensed File:ZapfCreation.svg. There's not a whole lot of creativity involved in combining those two logos together which means the combination is also likely public domain; in other words, there's a really good chance it's not eligible for copyright protection and doesn't need to be treated as non-free. In addition, from an encycloedic/contextual standpoint, the source you've provided for the file makes no mention that that this combined logo is the new "official logo" of Zapf. The source article could've simply been using each company's logo to identify them and add some color. So, Wikipedia probably shouldn't treat this logo as the new official logo of the Zapf until the copany starts doing so itself on its official websites or issues a press release annoouncing it has changed its logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I made a mistake saying MGA Ent. on the file page instead of the MGA Zaph page. I just now realized that I don't need it. Alright, take down the file. Chidie345 (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)