User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/October

Removal of AIFF logo and removal of non-free and fair use license from the pic page
May I know the reason why do you remove the proper license that i provided in the pic??? Dey subrata (talk)
 * The reason was given in both an edit summary and on the file’s talk page. I also left a note as to what needs to be followed if you have any questions about the relevant FFD’s close. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg
I disagree with your assessment. There is no free alternative image, so the one in the article is better than none. Please also see: WP:DTR. I won't remove the warning template, but I an adult enough to agree to disagree with. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus against this type of non-free use is pretty well established: a non-free image doesn’t need to currently exist and a non-free is not used by default until a free equivalent is created. It’s reasonable to expect in cases like this, especially with someone such as a major political party leader likely to appear in public quite often, that they will be photographed by someone somewhere at sometime who can then decide to release that photo under a free license Wikipedia accepts. The photograph doesn’t have to be you, Hullaballo Wolfowitz or even me; it can be anyone, perhaps some attending an event where the subject appears. It also doesn’t have to be taken today, tomorrow or even anytime soon; it could be taken at anytime in the future as long as there’s a reasonable expectation that such a photo could be taken. If you want other feedback on this, you can ask at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ; if you still think this particular image is an exception to WP:NFCC(there are some possible exceptions given in item 1 of WP:NFC), you can add replaceable fair use disputed to the file’s page explaining why.Finally, the template I added to your user page was just the general speedy deletion notification template associated with rfu and is the one recommended for use when a file is taggged for speedy deletion per WP:F7 for this reason; it’s not really the same as a user-warning template like uw-disruptive1 which you added to warn Hullaballo Wolfowitz about being disruptive when he clearly wasn’t. The edit sum he left might not have contained links to relevant policy pages, but it was clear from it there was a reason the file was removed, and he just didn’t do so to be disruptive. Moreover, the note you added to the end of the template indicates you aren’t very familiar with how WP:NFCCP, particularly NFCC#1, is applied to files such as this. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s no real need to email any editor to them whether they’ve responded to a post you made; all you need to do is check the relevant page. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason ... #2
This has been on my mind for a while. So I searched your talk page archive and noticed the question has been asked before here. Has anything changed for the better in the past two years? I think it would help you with your work immensely. Alex Shih (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi AlexShih. I'm not sure I'm really ready either knowhow-wise of desire-wise to take such a step. I keep saying this to myself over and over again without having any effect, but I do think I spend a little more time doing Wikipedia stuff than I probably should be for my particular circumstances; I'm not gravely ill or anything, but there are somethings which I probably should focus on a little more. The problem is that it's hard to wean myself away from editing because it's quite enjoyable. I thought being computer-less might help, but it's almost just as easy to edit on a smartphone. Plus, there's the RfA thing to go through. While I have no problems with criticisms, etc. and if people dig deep enough into my contributions history they probably find plenty of stuff to point out, I don't think I'm really the uber-content creator that many seem to desire an administrator to be. I created some articles and even got a DYK, but nothing really off the charts or of a high quality type. FWIW, I seem to more like being able to kinda flit about from page to page, trying to do little things to improve articles, and then moving on to something else and letting others have a crack at them, which is quite Wikignome-like but probably not very Wikiadmin like. Maybe my feelings will change in a year of two, but I don't think I'm ready right now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ER: File:DFRG logo.png
Thanks for the advise on the DFRG logo. Everything you said makes sense re copyright versus trademark. I'll attempt to follow your example in the future. I will be uploading several other logos for use in articles. Apologies for any inconvenience I caused by not getting it right the first time. (Condorman (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC))
 * No inconvenience caused since sometimes it's better to play things safe and upload a logo as non-free. The licensing can always be converted to something else at a latter date if it turns out to be better to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove my image?
You removed an image from my user page because it was "not free"? I used an image I found that was uploaded to Wikipedia, so shouldn't it be okay to use it? Kingerikthesecond (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . “Not free” in this context refers to non-free content. There are basically two types of images you’ll find on Wikipedia and how they can be used depends upon their file licensing. Files that are released under a free license by their copyright holders or those considered to be within the public domain are commonly referred to as “free”, while those licensed as non-free content are commonly referred to as”non-free”. A ”free image” much easier to use and subject to relatively minimal restrictions; each use of non-free content, on the other hand, must satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy and this policy is quite restrictive. For example, non-free content can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9, which mean it cannot be used (i.e., displayed) on user pages as explained in Wikipedia:User pages. That is why I removed File:MadokaBD.jpg from your user page. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for the answer. Kingerikthesecond (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: File:KTVT morning newscast title card.jpg
Whiie the multiple infractions are duly noted regarding stills and screenshots I thought would help illustrate certain articles, I feel I should not stand corrected on anything I did not do. Another user/editor had already uploaded the KTVT morning newscast screenshot prior to any of my recent screenshot additions. That particular warning should go to him, not me. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Really sorry about that and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was intended to be more of a notification than warning, but I shouldn’t have added it to your talk page since it wasn’t for a file you had uploaded or added to the article. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo
Hi, since you seem to know what you're talking about, I'd like to ask for your advice. My discussion with User:Kwamikagami has stalled due to his WP:Status quo stonewalling. In other words, you chose the version without my Dietrich section as Status Quo (even though it had stood for 1 year), and after initial discussion, he decided it was a 'waste of time' and has become unwilling to participate. I plan to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard in the near future and see where it goes from there. However, I've made some changes to my section in the meantime. Could I tentatively put up my improved section without edit warring? Is it only edit warring if I revert it back after its reverted? Also, I'd be interested in any other thoughts you have to offer on this matter. Thanks in advance, arigatou gozaimasu. Xcalibur (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dan, you can develop the section in your sandbox, or post it in the talk page of the article. Also, "stonewalling" is hardly the appropriate term to describe someone trying to keep garbage out of an article.
 * The only reason I let the section sit there, despite the fact that the only other editor there at the time wanted to delete it immediately, was that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as I waited for the experts to get back to me. But given that the only response (from someone your source herself recommended) was snarky, I don't see that there's much more doubt I can grant. BTW, his email is included in some of his papers online, so you can always write him yourself. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been tinkering with it in my sandbox. I'll consider adding a collapsible section in talk page if that becomes useful. I was asking MarchJuly if I should test the waters with my improved version or not.
 * It is not garbage, and the fact that it lasted for 1 year testifies to that. When I first put it up, I had issues with Mr. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz because I had uploaded the images as fair use, which created a conflict with minimal use rationale. After conferring elsewhere, I realized I could crop the images differently and upload all but one as free works, thus satisfying minimal fair use. There was another editor who objected, but I addressed that by pointing out that the content is backed by a reliable secondary source, which was published AFTER FA review, after which he withdrew the objection. That leaves just you & me. BTW, one of my changes was to reduce the scroll-length of the section, so that it's close to Pozdniakov (which has much more text), which should make it even more suitable.
 * I'll give you credit for asking around for third opinions, but one quip is not enough to go on. I'll also give you credit for discussing initially, but even then you seemed unwilling to consider my points in good faith. However, I must correct you: cutting discussion short and claiming it's 'wasting your time' so that your preferred status quo can stand, is in fact status quo stonewalling. If you review that page I linked, it directly mentions the tactic.
 * To reiterate, my content is fine, my arguments in favor of it are more than adequate, and it's backed by RS in the form of scholarly journals, including a secondary RS. The opinion of reputable scholarly journals trumps our personal opinions when it comes to Wikipedia. Xcalibur (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so I cannot really comment on who's right in this particular case. Kwamikagmi last posted on the talk page four days ago, so it's not like he or she is refusing to engage in discussion. Sometimes people get WP:BUSY or get involved in editing other articles, so they might take awhile to respond to a post. There's really no deadline, when it comes to talk page discussions such as these so patience can be a virtue when it comes to them. However, you can post a Talkback or a more personal reminder on Kwamikagami's user talk if you want; if you're civil about it and avoid commenting on he or she as a contributor, you should be fine.I reverted back to the last version prior to the edit warring which was taking place. That might not have been your preferred version, but it seems to have been sufficient to stop the edit warring. The version you prefer may have been there for a long time, but that doesn't automatically mean it should've been there as explained in WP:CONTENTAGE; it could just mean that it took a long time for somebody to assess the version and decide it's not appropriate. It's OK to assume WP:SILENCE when you make an edit that goes unchallenged (even one which goes unchallenged for years); however, as soon as someone comes along and undoes the edit, you then are going to be expected (except in the case where the revert is a serious policy violation) to follow WP:BRD and WP:DR. If you start discussing things and no progress is being made, then you move up to the next rung of the DR ladder and seek input from others; for example, seeking assistance at WP:DRN or another WP:PNB, or even by starting an WP:RFC. (Sorry about the all the Wikispeak, but those are links to relevant pages where you'll find more detailed information.) You can even post a Please see template on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page to try and get more people familiar with the subject matter involved in the discussion. As long as you avoid the problems of canvassing, it's OK to ask for the help of others.
 * Now, I'm going to politely ask the both of you to try and avoid turning my user talk page into a new place to continue your dispute; nothing is going to be resolved here on and content disputes like this are best resolved on the artricle talk page. I also suggest that you should try and stick to commenting on the relevant content and refrain from commenting on each other as much as possible. If either of you are unsatisfied with the progess being made on the article's talk page, then take it to the next stage of the dispute resolution process. I seriously doubt anyone knowledgable on the subject matter is watching my user talk page, but there may be an administrator or two watching it who will have no qualms about stepping in if one of you posts something about the other which you really shouldn't have posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this informative response. My intention was simply to seek your advice, I wasn't expecting kwami to show up, and felt obligated to respond. I agree that Talk:Decipherment_of_rongorongo is a more appropriate venue. I'm certainly willing to be patient during discussion, especially since I myself had to take a week off due to irl issues (although I posted updates at the time). However, he stated he was 'done with this' because it's a 'waste of time', while there was one more response after that, I was led to believe that kwami was not willing to continue discussion. I'm willing to wait longer if need be. I did not mean to get personal, insofar as I referred to kwami, I kept it relevant to the issue at hand, and I have made an effort to be WP:CIVIL at all times. Thanks again for your assistance. Xcalibur (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @: When you added the syntax  to your original post, you were basically WP:PINGing kwami about the discussion; so, for future reference, you shouldn't do that kind of thing if you don't someone to know you're asking about them. Even it such a case, however, all of your edits (including ones made to talk pages) are visible in your contibution's history; so, pretty much anyone can see where and what your posting if they want to. Whether the person your discussing responds is up to them, but there's really no way to keep you posts secret from them. My comment about "stick to commenting on the relevant content and refrain from commenting on each other" was just meant as general advice and not really directed at anything you posted in particular. Discussions often get heated, especially when both sides seem quite firm in their resolve that they are the one who's right; so, if you ever feel the urge to slam the other person because they really deserve to be slammed, WP:DOGGY instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That explains it. I honestly hadn't realized that linking a username would ping them, my mistake. Yes, Wikipedia is fairly transparent, which is for the better. Once more, arigatou for your assistance. Xcalibur (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Esther1986 DVD Cover Art.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Dispute argument over nvidia graphics card web page
well sir maybe you need to tel these people to not try to block my own freedom of expression and then do things that all of a sudden they wanna do because I already did them and APPROPRIATING things that they didn't even bother to do themselves...things I DID and researched and put my time on for hours....so It's unfair for you to give me threats of blocking for someone who is actually CONTRIBUTING...am I putting false info? am i messing up an article on purpose? hmmm? no i'm not but I just personally find my way of doing these tables proper and others before me have done them similarly...so just because he or others do them differently doesn't mean it's wrong ...you people have a big problem with plagiarism, other people take their time to do the hard work and research and others who does things differently take YOUR WORK OR IDEAS and use them for themselves...so if you're going to take that guy's side over the one whose actually done the work of some of these articles then there's a serious problem right there...this is a complain I hear alot from wikipedia....people like to abuse their admin power or go complain about that ACTUALLY do the work and because they're too lazy or stupid to do them properly they gotta bash cause they didn't com up with themselves to do them right? does that seem fair to you? now no one taught me how to do articles here...I had to learn that myself by lots of trial and error..and yes I read some articles in the way to do some edits here..but trial and error is just that...the more mistakes you make the more you learn from them. no ones is perfect but I didn't put my hard work into this for other to go crying to an admin just because they didn't do it right themselves..I think that's the real issue...maybe you should look up peoples contributions to articles and see if we purposely messed up articles...yes I said we cause theres more than one at times...but we, I do the articles I like or care about with the intention to make them better, not ess them up, ok so he does things differently in tables...that's good for him but most people would agree so far the way I do the tables is majority accepted otherwise I'd had people complaining left and right that i'm purposely messing it up...there's a difference with making editing mistakes especially if you're not that experienced or because you type fast etc etc, we all make mistakes in editing and between purposely wanting to mess them up, it seems to me  difference of opinion thing to me...so let's not blame the ones doing the hard work putting hours at a time (not getting paid for this mind you) and focus on the ones who purposely wanna mess up articles..I don't troll articles to purposely mess them up and others don't either...some prob do to be immature and stupid, we re not like that but what I won't accept is someone telling me how I should do my editing on tables i'm pretty knowledgeable on and took the time to go looking for articles for some references etc etc...there's even things I found out on my own to make the tables efficient..that guy and others never even took the time to expiriment and not realize that by putting some articles in a certain way,  doing spaces between words etc etc that you can save ALOT of space and still be able to put all you need on them...they most of your editors took the time to do that hmmm? I hardly think so...take a look at my GEFORCE 900, 1000, 2000 and volta series contributions...does that look like we're trying to mess up an article or trying to improve it best as possible hmmm? maybe you should listen to both sides of this argument...giving us threats for doing the hard work is not only unfair is one sided, biased even, just because the ones who didn't take the time or effort to do the hard editing work and they wished they would be the ones who came up with it does not mean they can go cry to mama, an admin  and complain because they weren't the ones who came up with  doing them first, taking my hard editing work and claiming it as their own...yeah no....now I want to inspire people to do them like mine and i inspired many to do so..but not someone taking my way of doing things and then claiming it as their own and then trying to get us blocked ...for what ? for doing a great job that others couldn't do or think of doing first? lol...maybe the higher ups above you don't know you're acting biased when you should act based on merit and hard work....our editing work, cause there's more than one of us speak for themselves, if the only thing some of these editors are complaining about is because they haven't thought of the idea or way of editing first, that's not our problem, I care about the articles here, we put hard work into this, listen to reason, but i'm not gonna be told how to do my own edits that others wanna try to take credit off and tell me not to do them and then STEAL my way of doing things and claim them as their won? lol thats plagiarism, he and others can the editing how they wanna do it, I do it how I wanna do it if we can't agree on something..no harm done, all he and others have to do is just let us do our thing and they either do it their own way or get inspired by us and do them the same way themselves but they haven't some of them, some just wanna steal other peoples hard work and claim them as their own, not cool..how's that for an argument? maybe if he and others wouldn't stop messing articles up we wouldn't need to get rude at times...he should just mind his own business and let us do our work and he can do it his own way if he likes but the thing is majority rules and sure as hell most editors in wikipedia would agree with how we do editing here, i know sure as hell we inspired many to do them the same way and others have done them like i have before we wevn done them, they inspired us to make them better, we re supposed to inspire each other to make them better not hinder the other and then take their hard work and claim them as their own and then go nagging to an admin just because they do the edits differently, some of these people who complain to an admi are taking OUR HARD WORK and claiming them as their? like wth... all that calculation or makin the tables as efficient as possible and conserving as much space as possible ...you think it's fair others like ionpike claim them as their own hmm? did we get any money or gratitude for our hard work? noooope and if we was to go to a competitor website to wikipedia or if we had the manpower to make a competitor to wikipedia well that wouldn't be good cause you'd be losing pretty good editors like us how about focusing on the ones who complain and steal other peoples hard work that come crying to an admin just because they don't like others who do a better job at it, making them because they wished they'd came up with it themselves hmm? how about you focus on that...that's our argument...and i'm being as respectful as possible..just let these editors let US do it our way and they can do it their way if they like ...if we can't find common ground, but the thing is if our edits were bad we d be hearing from admins all the time that we re messing it up...now another thing to point out, i noticed a lot of hypocrasy (i know I spelled it wrong lol), some make mistakes on edits and then when we make mistakes and then we get blamed for the whole thing being messed up? lol what's that all about...people make editing mistakes ..it's called trial and error and if we don't know or have the time to fix it we say if anyone can fix it for us, fix it but not change or alter the article in a big way...we all amde editing mistakes...but it doesn't mean we re trying to purposely harm it lol, our contributions here speak for themselves....just look at the damn geforce articles we contributed on for christ sakes, does that look like people who want to improve it or harm the website hmmm? if we had all the time in the world (cause we have lives and jobs, school and lives too lol) we'd fix all the sections in the nvidia graphics card articles but we don't lol....we wish but we don't have that time and I believe by improving the few articles we have done so far and making it the best we can on them that then we can expand our way of doing these tables on other sections of this article...so you see me we re not the bad guys here but we hate being harassed by some who not only don't appreciate our hard work but want to claim them as their own and go nagging to admin to block them? like seriously come on now, whose the one contributing and whose the one complaining to an admin, tying to get them blocked and then claiming the work that we done for themselves and putting their own little twist on it?...that's "plagiarism" if I'm not mistaken...thank you have an nice day, don't block us...we contribute greatly here (FOR FREE), focus on the haters and the ones who wanna take credit for our work and claim them as their own.68.193.153.95 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, wmf:Terms of Use, Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Free speech because you seem to be completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about. Every time you click "Publish changes" you are basically relinquishing any claim you have over your work which means it can be revised or reverted by anyone else at anytime as long as their edits comply with relevant policies and guidelines. A record of your contribution can be found in the page history of the article in question and that is all that is required. So, if you would like complete control over the content you create, then Wikipedia is not really a good fit for you; if you're looking to get paid for your contributions or some type of more formal recognition for your contributions, then Wikipedia is not really a good fit for you; if you're unwilling to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, then Wikipedia is not really a good fit for you. As I posted on your talk page, the personal attack you made against another editor is unacceptable and cannot be justified no matter how much you try to rationalize it. If you're going to continue to post such things, then Wikipedia once again is not really a good fit for you. To sum up, if you want to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to have to play by Wikipedia's rules; otherwise, you're going to need to start your own online encyclopedia where you can create your own rules. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Retaining File:MCDungeons.svg until draft is in mainspace
Hi, I'm contacting you regarding edits about the File:MCDungeons.svg and its usage on articles. It is intended to be used on the Draft:Minecraft: Dungeons, but since it is a non-free image, it can't be put on the draft at this time. Now, the file has been put up for deletion by Wednesday, October 24, 2018, and I'd like to ask if the file can be retained on this site until the draft for Minecraft: Dungeons becomes an article in the mainspace. Thanks, 101blazertrail (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per Wikipedia non-free content use policy crierion#7; so, if you can find another article where the non-free use of the file can be justified (i.e., satisfy all ten non-free content use policy criteria), then the file will no longer be "orphaned non-free use" and shouldn't be deleted per WP:F5. If you do find another article where the file can be used, please make sure to add the non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page as required by non-free content use policy #10c: a speparate specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use of a non-free file. You need to understand though that just adding the article to any article and then adding a (boilerplate) non-free use rationale, is mostly like not going to be considered acceptable per WP:JUSTONE; so, if you cannot find another acceptable non-free use for the file, then just let it be deleted.The file being deleted sounds kinda bad, but files which are deleted are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date once whatever issue led to their deletion has been resolved. So, once the draft you're working on has been approved as an article, click on the file's link (it should be a red link) and then look for the name of the administrator who deleted the file. You can then post a note on that administrator's user talk page and ask them to restore the file. F5 deletions are pretty much non-contentious, so restoring the file should not be a problem unless there are other issue which need to be resolved first. If you're unable to figure which administrator deleted the file, you can ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. Whatever you do, don't just reupload the file again if it's still going to be an orphan; it will only eventually be deleted again for the same reason as the other one and it might be seen as dsiruptive if you continue to re-upload the file each time it's deleted. If you have any further questions about this, you can ask them below, at WT:NFCC or at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. I am open to waiting for the file to be deleted and restored once the draft article is put into the mainspace. 101blazertrail (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No offense
But you really need to work on avoiding information overload. The only thing better than a correct answer, is an answer that is both correct and concise. G M G talk  01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Chico Heat logos
All Chico Heat logos were used by the Heat franchise on two separate occasions. All are displayed proudly on the Chico Heat for historical purposes only and may NOT be removed for ANY reason. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Each use of a non-free file must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it matters not how proudly they are being displayed on an article. Non-free former logos are not simply displayed for historical purposes unless the logos themselves are specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary. All of these logos are licensed as non-free files and their use in an image gallery doesn't comply with WP:NFG, WP:NFC, and WP:NFCC; moreover, some of the files are being used more than once in the same article which is not necessary per WP:NFCC and which doesn't comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Just to say thank you for your final discussion of why the page for St Peter School was rejected. Your detailed explanation was helpful for me as I could share it with my Principal and the School Board as a way of explanation. Thanks again. --ALB (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)