User talk:Werieth/201304

Gaelic football club logo
Hi Werieth,

You removed the logo from WikiProject Gaelic games/club - but if you check the permissions given, you'll see that use of that logo is specifically allowed for the Project page as well as for the article on the club itself. No harm done, I've reinstated it. Please contact me if you need more info. Brocach (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if permission was given unless that file is released under a free license it cannot be used outside of the article, see WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS see email from Jimmy stating that wikipedia only permission files will be deleted. Werieth (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF are you doing????
The images used have been shared for Wikipedia to use. A WV County logo, is free use (as it pertains to the specific Copyright of non free use) in short, I dont have a publication I am using it in, look at the policy concerning the specific image. You have deleted thousands of images, WHAT are you doing ?????????? I researched every image on MY user page. I cant tell you how HELPFUL it is to be given NO heads up, NO warning, just a kiss off and removal. Thats NOT cool. In fact, its rude as hell. There are efficient and intelligent ways to inform people of such actionsCoal town guy (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CIVIL, as for the removal of File:Seal of Raleigh County, West Virginia.png in your userbox, it is a blatant violation of our non-free content policy which limits the usage of non-free media to article only. It was not shared for wikipedia to use, we are using it under the terms of fair use. Just because an image is on wikipedia does not mean it can be used on your user page. Only free media can be. As for notifying you it is not required, and doubles the amount of work necessary for someone cleaning up the violations there where over 700 such violations when I started. Most are quite harmless mistakes by users who are not familiar with the policy. If you have questions please let me know, and remember to please remain civil at all times. Werieth (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WIKI policy on dont be a dick. I shall remain civil. While you are by rule not obligated to be civil in letting people know that you are changing user boxes, per policy of course. Civility, would assume that any person would have the base instinct to say, golly, I am about to change thousands of images. While a person does not own their user page, it is again, basic civility to not snidely drop a link and walk away. AND yes, it was snide. Believe it or not, MOSt people, on Wikipedia and the real world do not quote a policy link and walk away. The logic of thi encyclopedia is to encourage editing. I cant tell you how inspiring it is, toquote a policy and then chide me about how I dont own it, with yet another policy quote......Pardon me while I wipe the sweat of eager anticipation off of my brow....Coal town guy (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So far in this discussion you have used the phrase fuck and called me a dick. I however have remained calm, and attempted to explain policy to you. 99% of the removals no one has issues with, however on occasion there are a few users that do not understand policy, or decide to cause drama over it. With 700+ removals needed I am not going to make 1400+ edits to do what should not be necessary in the first place. When removing a file from non-articles leaving a pointer to the relevant policy which explains why said removal was done is sufficient. There isn't a need to double ones work just to leave a nice pretty note on someone's talk page. We have edit summaries for a reason, and I use them for that. Werieth (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * INVALID. I asked you to review the policy on dont be a dick, I did not call you a dick, implicitly or explicitly. As to the word, fuck, I did indeed ask, WTF, this is not a censured environment. The word fuck can be used in many many ways, and while you might want me to say that to you and claim I am being uncicivil or rude, no, sorry. I asked, WTF are you doing.....While you are within policy bounds to perform the actions and I now understand them, it would have far more civil and (even gasp) POLITE to have explained the policy because, odds are, most people do not know the policy and ask, WTF does that mean etc etc. You CHOSE to just remove the images with no heads up, no hey how are you no here is what the policy means etc etc. IN FACT, had you just stated, Wow, you cant have this specific image in your userpace, I would have replied, Cool, I did not know that, thank you for letting me know. That way, I could probably let others know as well. There are in the real world no laws which require me to say excuse me, no laws which state I cant fart in an elevator, no laws which state I have to hold a door, BUT, as a civil peron in a social environment, I follow basic rules. I am at this moment UNinvolved in this discussion. I will state in utter clarity, that I would rather be polite AND civil, because my soul is not made of dogshitCoal town guy (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You removed File:Homer_Simpson_2006.png from my WP:Teahouse/Hosts profile. I was quite upset, and about to ream you a new one... However, after following the link to the sections pertaining it, I would instead like to request that Non-free promotional and other similar templates that are used on files that fall under this restriction have a note added to them "This image is only allowed to be used in the main namespace on articles. FMI: WP:NFCC."  Something as simple as that would have prevented me from using the file, or properly requesting use of it up front.  It is very agitating to invest time and effort into something and have it reverted or deleted outright.  That line in those templates used on those types of files "may" reduce some of the hurt feelings and rantings such as ctg has posted above, unless your some sicko that is into that sort of thing (j/k ) — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • View signature as intended) 22:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt think it was necessary to modify those those templates, they already include Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Non-free content which includes WP:NFC. To my knowledge every non-free file has that or similar wording. But a general rule is when using or re-using any non-free media is to ensure that every use meets WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear sir or ma'am,
 * The images on User:Sundogs/Gameplay of The Sims 3 is a subpage for The Sims 3 which I have copied and pasted onto my subpage for editing prior to R.F.C. status. Please make sure you do research prior to deletion. Thank you. Sundogs talk page sandbox 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFCC they cannot be on that page. Werieth (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalizing pages. I have recently ask to have the article in question to be looked at, WITH IMAGES APPLIED TO THE ARTICLE will demonstrate the gist of the game play of the game.  NO EXCEPTIONS . Sundogs talk page sandbox 04:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:VANDAL, WP:NFCC enforcement is not vandalism. Werieth (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth is correct; non-free files cannot be used outside of main articles, not even on AfC submissions, subpages, or user drafts. No exceptions. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read over Non-free promotional and can understand your viewpoint; however, the use of an unordered bulleted list suggests an "or" scenario in the section just above which defeats the purpose if the statement you are refering to. Might I suggest changing it to an ordered list instead to suggest an "and" scenerio or possibly removing the list all together and formatting it as a sentence or two? Thank you for your time and consideration. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • View signature as intended) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up these pages! These files used to be removed automatically by bot everyday, but the bot stopped doing this when one of the toolservers broke down last year, and the violations have since increased in numbers. I often see non-free files in userspace or AfC drafts when checking new files, but I often don't have time to do more than tagging the files as orphaned if they don't also appear somewhere in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of images in Damian Loeb Article?
Hi Werieth, I spent a lot of time filling out every single point of WP:NFCC to comply to those standards for each of the four images used in the Damian Loeb article. There are four sections in the article referring to four time periods and styles of the artist's career. The use of one image per section is not excessive. You said "Please stop re-inserting the files, you are not meeting WP:NFCC" I specifically edited the rationale for non free use for each of the images to meet your standards, please specify why they were deleted again, what am I missing that does not comply to WP:NFCC in the following four images used in the Damian Loeb article?
 * File:Damian Loeb Atmosphere 2010 36x36in Oil on Linen.jpg
 * File:Dl thecolorofmoney.jpg
 * File:Dl resolution.jpg
 * File:Dl ibelieveyoutommy.jpg

Also, if you are enforcing this policy fairly, you should remove most of the images used in the Damien Hirst article. They have similar if not less detailed rationales for free-use, and are used in the exact same way to illustrate periods the artist's career. Thanks.
 * The requirements for WP:NFCC are not on the image description page, rather it comes from sourced discussion in the article about the image. Werieth (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, I took a look at Damian Loeb and removed those files that do not comply with policy. Werieth (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple Question Regarding the Non-Free Pictures
Since Wikipedia is a namespace, Templates is a namespace, WikiPortal is a namespace, WikiProject is a namespace, Category is a Namespace, Talk is a namespace, userpage is a namespace and I believe you get the idea where I am going with this right? Since all of these ARE NAMESPACES I request that all pictures should be removed according to Wikipedia rules. I am strictly stripping the rule to its bare essentials and anything other than the article name is not allowed to have pictures. If you have a problem, not problem but you seriously need to rethink the rules. This is NOT a threat but stating an obvious statement. Sundogs talk page sandbox 19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Only non-free images are disallowed outside of the main article space. Freely-licensed images can be used anywhere. There is a distinction there. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is one key difference you should be aware of, free media and non-free media. Images from Commons and similarly licensed images hosted here on wikipedia can be used in any way that you choose. Non-free media however is copyrighted and its use is restricted by fair use, copyright law, and our non-free media policy Werieth (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So, basically your saying that picture are copyrighted. Then I suggest, as honest and non threatening, take down all pictures due to copyright issues. Sundogs talk page sandbox 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all pictures are subject to copyright, File:Puerto Pirámides y Golfo Nuevo.jpg is in the public domain and is not subject to copyright. However File:Homer Simpson 2006.png is copyrighted by Fox. Werieth (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag image
Thank you for catching this boo-boo. The other flags are on Commons, so I assumed that flag was, too. Good one! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  17:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No big deal, happens fairly often. Just glad your response was a lot nicer than the ones above. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't envy you the task you've taken on. Try to have fun with it, or else the boobs will drive you batty.  Kudes. –  P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think my above comment was mean or rude. Anyways, keep up the good work! Technical 13 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, its just the ones that cannot remain civil and expect others to walk through hoops and do twice as much work as necessary. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS in regards to your email, No real changes are needed in the template, however I did suggest an additional point on WP:NFC to clearly explain WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Actually I dont, Ive already cleaned the mess up :) Werieth (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for cleaning up the stupid default setting I get at my computer, and given the international address instead.

Arildnordby (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 

Well, I'm back
I'm leaving this not for you, Masem, and Stefan2. I just returned from my vacation and was tidying up some things IRL. I understand that we have different views on Non-free content review. No consensus has been reached. I am a little bothered that in the week I was gone, the discussion was closed ... without a consensus, but I'd like to move forward. I suggest we find a neutral place to arbitrate this because the discussion has now become circular. Please leave your thoughts in the State articles section. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures
Hello, I am JoshBlitz, creator of History of The Beatles, and, first of all, what did you think of my article? Also, you deleted photos that were previously used on wikipedia. May I ask why? The photos were on the other Quarrymen page, and some were on wikimedia commons, so why did you remove them?! JoshBlitz (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz
 * I only removed the non-free files, per our policy they can only be used in the article space. As for the article, I have not read it, but it is about 300Kb which puts it about 7 times larger than optimal. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But I got those pictures from Wikimedia Commons! The plaque one is from Wikimedia Commons. It says on the bottom that I am free to share and copy the picture. It is a Free File! JoshBlitz (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz


 * Josh, Werieth deleted HUNDREDS of pictures using AWB the other day. I suggest if you think that yours were deleted accidentally or without justification, then you should redlink the pictures here for Werieth to review your claim.  Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I not an administrator and cannot delete any content. I did prevent a large number of non-free files from being displayed in non-articles. Werieth (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed (did not delete from wikipedia) 5 files:
 * File:Quarrymen In Rosebery Street.jpg
 * Tagged with Non-free fair use in not from commons
 * File:The Quarrymen St Peters fete.jpg
 * Tagged with Non-free fair use in not from commons
 * File:Percy Phillips record.jpg
 * Tagged with Non-free album cover not from commons
 * File:Julia in hat.jpg
 * Tagged with Non-free fair use in not from commons
 * File:Sutcliffe in Hamburg.jpg
 * Tagged with Non-free fair use in not from commons
 * The edit in question is here. Werieth (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh... It's an AfC article... Yeah... That reminds me that I had a question I wanted to ask you about that. Is it against policy (since it doesn't seem really clear to me) for articles in User: drafts or WP:AfC drafts to have the linking text for the files on the page and commented out using or are the links required to be removed form the page, period? Technical 13 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking is fine, however they cannot be displayed. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to slightly modify your AWB script to link them on pages that are "under construction" as described above to link instead of delete? I had to undo a couple of your bot edits to my User: drafts the other day and add the comment wrappers.  It just makes it easier and less frustrating on the people trying to create something new to be able to un-comment or remove the extra : later when it actually is submitted/moved to mainspace.  If not, that is fine, I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.  I use AWB on another wiki (awaiting approval here - put on hold because of a recent issue I had) so I'm not sure if that particular part to do that is coded into AWB or a simple ReGex search replace (which I am assuming it is).  However, if my assumption is wrong, and it's part of AWB's automatic cleanup function, I would be willing to submit a suggestion/request to the AWB team to make the modification (and at WP:WikiProject Articles for Creation we could put a note someplace that tells people to link their images with the extra : in front and when we approve the submission automatically fix those to show images instead of link them.  I feel like I'm rambling now so I'll just say thanks for your time considering this, and feel free to ask if you need clarification of what I just said because I'm not even entirely sure what I said. Technical 13 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive found that removal is just about the only method that works reliable without breaking stuff. Having a : doesnt always work, and I am not a big fan of leaving a ton of HTML in my wake just to clutter the edit window. Werieth (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Figured I would ask. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Help
Can you help me with this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Museum_of_the_American_Revolution&oldid=549171280

I'm working on the description for the design and the accompanying photos. I've been picking up an idea of how it's done elsewhere in the other pages I've been working on, and reviewing the Wikipedia style info, etc. I cut the images that I downloaded down to a representative set for the description.

Commented on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_6#File:Museum_of_the_American_Revolution_Location_1.jpg

I'm happy to consider the best way to display images for the design/construction section, but I don't think they should all go. If you can provide some help and advice, I'd appreciate it a lot! --JC1008 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review our non-free content policy File:Museum of the American Revolution Day Rendering 1.jpg is the only file that might pass it. That file can be used either in the infobox, or the section but not both. The rest of the files will fail WP:NFCC. If you still have questions let me know. Werieth (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content from my sandbox
Hi Werieth. I see you removed some content from my sandbox and just to get a better understanding, I was wondering why? I read this but didn't see any info regarding the file's usage in a sandbox. Does the fact that it's in my sandbox not allow me some grace in terms of time to finish what i was working on? Cheers.  Rob van  vee  16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately non-free content cannot be used outside of the mainspace. This includes user sandboxes, there is not a grace period, as WP:NFCC isn't negotiable. If you need to use a file for layout purposes you can use File:example.jpg. Werieth (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

deletion
i would request u not to change my user page, but if u r still doing citing some reason. then i want u to provide me a free image of mumbai university so that i can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arja36 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I dont need to provide you with anything, your usage of the logo is unacceptable, see WP:NFC Werieth (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Arja, if you read above, you may so it is easily fixable when you move the article to article space, you may also add an extra : before the word File to link the file and not have it transcluded like File:Example.jpg which gives File:Example.jpg.  You may also use example.jpg to figure out sizing and formatting if need be. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Technical 13, Please review the facts before commenting, in this case the user was using a non-free file in a userbox. Werieth (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

if u can not provide, then do not delete it simple. do ur editing and do not interfere in my editing. i am here to contribute to WIKIPEDIA for myself and others. so please do not disturb me. i have been contributing here for past 1 year and want to continue. if users like u keep on disturbing then it will be not be a good place to stay. my use of that logo is not harming anybody.Arja36 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a copyright violation and is against the law. Werieth (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Arja, but that's not how it works. For copyright reasons, images that have been uploaded as non-free cannot be used outside of the main articles they were uploaded for.  We don't have the copyright permissions to use images like that one outside of a very specific set of circumstances, and your user page unfortunately just doesn't meet the criteria. (It's not necessarily against the law, but Wikipedia's copyright policy is intentionally much stricter than copyright law, to ensure that we stay well clear of actually breaking the law.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

thank u Technical 13 for ur advice and suggestion. thank u Writ Keeper for talking politely and explaining all the related issues. this is the right way. it should not be like Werieth who just deleted image from user pageArja36 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Arja, and thank you for taking the time to find a free image to use in your userbox instead; that image you have now will do nicely. Werieth meant well, but was perhaps a little bit overzealous in tone, particularly when they reverted the addition without noticing it was a different image. But everyone was acting in good faith, and no harm intended or done, so no worries, right? :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

now no worries. i have contributed quite a lot but do not know each and everything on wikipedia and do not have time also to read each and everything. earlier i was not knowing how to find a free image for me and thats why i asked werieth to do so for me. but now i have done on my own.Writ Keeper Arja36 (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!
Just wanted to say thank you for removing the non-free images from all the userboxes I created yesterday, I had no idea that only certain images could be used, I had assumed that all images on Wikipedia were available but now see the difference. I have changed the images in all of the userboxes to either text or free images. Once again, thank you!!! BrandonsLe (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bicol Region
I reverted your edit on Bicol Region after you removed the seals to identify provinces. The fourth line on the Fair Use Rationale on seal for Albay, Camarines Norte, Catanduanes and Masbate indicates in articles encompassing the LGUs (local govenrment unit). Those provinces (LGUs) are parts of the Bicol Region, so the use on this article is covered by that line on Fair Use Rationale. Please read WP:FUR. Briarfallen (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you wrote a FUR does not make the usage valid, see WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFCC, usage in that manner is not acceptable, and was re-removed. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I now understand which part is the problem. This is the first time I encountered that and had to do some reading. I am not the one who included those images in the article or the uploader. I only upload my own pictures or public domain pictures. I wished you'd be more specific on what the problem is, but of course, you don't have to. I donate my time in Wikipedia to relax, not to argue. But thanks for pointing that out. Briarfallen (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have questions feel free to ask, non-free content is a very complex issue that is easy to misunderstand. Basically, just because a rationale exists does not make said rationale valid. In order to make it valid it needs to meet WP:NFCC, in this case there are several factors that come into play, WP:NFCC which requires as little non-free media as possible, and each piece that is used is only used as little as needed. In this case the logos are OK in the specific cities, but not acceptable to also include in the regional article. The second major factor that comes into play is WP:NFCC which requires the non-free media to be used in a manner that non-having it hurts the understanding of the article. Those logos where being used as just a quick visual identification for the cities, yes having the logos are nice, but not required. Excluding those logos also does not harm the understanding of the article as a whole. Werieth (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MacOSX Leopard Dock Overloaded.png
Hi. I added the rationale ten minutes ago. If can't see it, try bypassing your web browser's cache. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I warned you about adding non-free files without rationales 10 minutes before you wrote it, and 18 minutes after you added it to the article without a rationale. Werieth (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. So that strange upload warning was about this image? I see now. Consider sticking to WP:DTTR in the future. Also, if you are not satisfied with the timing, write the rationale yourself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That warning was about upload or usage of non-free media. I actually dont need to write a rationale, the burden is on those who want to use the media. In this case I doubt it passes WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RAF Castletown
Sorry but I accidentally reverted your removal of the image. Finger trouble on a small screen. Have reverted my own revision. NtheP (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:RAF Fighter Command.jpg
Good Afternoon

I see you have been removed the file above from the infoboxes of a number of articles regarding "missing non-free use rationale's" is there a reason why on the file itself a Fair use rationale cannot be added for every article?

Gavbadger (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those uses would never pass WP:NFCC Specifically #8 Werieth (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Undid an edit
Just to let you know, I somewhat undid of Talk:dot the i. You removed a non-free inlined image per WP:NFCC, but I restored it in link form per the same rule. —Frungi (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw, no big deal. Werieth (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

First Bristol
Thanks for noting the missing rationale, a matter which has now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No big deal, Werieth (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cover image, the Dish and the Spoon
Hi. For "Source" you should give your source for the image, such as URL or "scan of personal copy", etc.

"Description" should specify the edition, if known, for the article caption—where we hope to be able to say "Cover of first edition". --P64 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive been getting them from Google, using the ISBN provided in the article. (I do include the year of publication, and publisher). Werieth (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wynnewood, Dallas
You indiscriminately deleted all the historic images from the Wynnewood, Dallas article. For one of these images, official permission to use it on Wikipedia was obtained from the Dallas Public Library, and that permission is documented in the copyright information. What is your justification for deleting it? Detailed rationales have been provided for the other historic images. (Clearly, an entry on a historic neighborhood is incomplete without some illustrations.) Please be more careful before destroying valuable hitoric evidence. Wissembourg (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't justification for the usage of 7 non-free files. Especially when it violates WP:NFG. The inclusion of a limited number might be acceptable, but there isn't a justification for 7. Werieth (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said, given the rationales on the files, the bar of WP:NFCC has not been met. Those files are unacceptable. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS take a look at Chicago an article with far more history and importance, There are 95 files used on that page, 0 are non-free. The justification for a minor town that needs 7? doesnt exist. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your rationale for removing a file for which permission to publish it on Wikipedia has been obtained? In my opinion, what you are doing is vandalism, and unless you restore the file, I will report you. Wissembourg (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless a file is released under a free license, it must be treated as WP:NONFREE files that have been given "for wikipedia only" should actually be deleted on sight per User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, see related email from 2005 . Our requirements for the usage of non-free media are high, in the case of Wynnewood, they have not been met. Werieth (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find your reasoning fanatical. You are saying that "the bar of WP:NFCC has not been met." By whose standards? Yours? Could it be that you are wrong? Is the understanding of a historic neighborhood not enhanced by images of that neighborhood? You have deleted historic documentation on an important part of the City of Dallas that would have been of interest to generations of users of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wissembourg (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting the second part of WP:NFCC and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding Yes those images do enhance the article, but they do not meet the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC. Keep in mind that Wikipedia's Mission is to create a free encyclopedia. Werieth (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you have understood my point, or at least all of it. When I asked about the source of your certainty as to whether criterion WP:NFCC was met or not, I was urging caution and humility regarding one's own judgment. Perhaps you should await some discussion on this topic, in its specific relation to the article under discussion, before summarily deleting material which was intended to make historic documents available to future generations. Is the omission of illustrations regarding a historic neighborhood detrimental to understanding that neighborhood? I would argue that your judgment that this is not the case is highly constestable. Your eagerness to delete valuable material perplexes me.Wissembourg (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to review policy. Lets take one random image. File:American Home Realty Wynnewood Brochure (1953) 3.JPG why does the article require that particular image? What critical information does this portray that makes understanding Wynnewood, Dallas without it not possible? Answer nothing. it makes the article look prettier yes but is not required to understand the history of Wynnewood, Dallas. Werieth (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Help
Can you help me with this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Museum_of_the_American_Revolution&oldid=549171280

I'm working on the description for the design and the accompanying photos. I've been picking up an idea of how it's done elsewhere in the other pages I've been working on, and reviewing the Wikipedia style info, etc. I cut the images that I downloaded down to a representative set for the description.

Commented on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_6#File:Museum_of_the_American_Revolution_Location_1.jpg

I'm happy to consider the best way to display images for the design/construction section, but I don't think they should all go. If you can provide some help and advice, I'd appreciate it a lot! --JC1008 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review our non-free content policy File:Museum of the American Revolution Day Rendering 1.jpg is the only file that might pass it. That file can be used either in the infobox, or the section but not both. The rest of the files will fail WP:NFCC. If you still have questions let me know. Werieth (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I made changes. Could you have a look?  I have 4 right now that seemed to represent the description (still being revised...had to remove the marketing fluff and all), but are still a limited use.  I'm open to more edits with the image use; just thought I'd give that a try and get feedback.  Thanks again!
 * --JC1008 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Article
Thank you for checking my article but I have a question about it. For some reason my family tree's of George Harrison and Ringo Starr are under the wrong section. Once you get to my article you'll see why, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles

JoshBlitz (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz

Family of Secrets cover image
Hi. I see that you removed the image from of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Family_of_Secrets I have been advised that the publisher has sent an updated paperback image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with permission <> I haven't yet figured out the WP documentation on using such images. Can you point me to help with finding this new image in wikimedia and including it in the article?Bn (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I now have the image on my disk as well. Bn (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive asked someone from OTRS to comment. Werieth (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found the ticket and have carried out the following actions. The original file on Wikipedia has been deleted and the new file that was received has been uploaded to wikimedia commons here with the OTRS permissions. I have also updated the image on the AFC you linked to above!  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Werieth (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Bn (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My Sandbox
I've just partially reverted an edit that you made to my sandbox. I'm currently reworking an article in there, and so I'd copied the content over from the existing article, including the non-free image. You're right in that it shouldn't be there, but I wonder if future you could go down the route I've used? Instead of deleting it, I've commented it out, so it doesn't appear in the content. This way, when I go to instate my changes, all I've got to do is remove commenting, rather than find the image I want, and retype the code for it. It doesn't add too much work on your end, and it would save other users a lot of hassle. Thanks. drewmunn talk 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found removal actually works best for most cases of WP:NFCC violations, otherwise the users are far more likely to just remove the comments and repeat the #9 violation. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to get allot, don't you?  Technical 13 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It just seems there could quite easily be a little kinder on editors who are attempting to improve a page. I understand your reversion issue, but is there possibly a way that certain users could 'opt out' of deletion, and mark our pages in a way that enables a comment out only mode? I've got quite a bit going on at the moment, and I doubt I would have noted that the image had gone because I'm working at the bottom of the page in question. As such, I'd have had to go back quite a way to find the right code if I hadn't flicked to my watchlist at the right moment. Vandals already cause us enough work as it is without them indirectly adding to our workload... On a similar note, would your script pick up the image in my sandbox even though it's commented out, or does it only see live connections? drewmunn talk 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer is . Technical 13 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#9
  M  aurice    C arbonaro    09:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sam Francis Gallery
Hi Werieth,

I am relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user so please be patient with me.

The gallery of styles that I added to the entry on Sam Francis was added at the specific request of the Sam Francis foundation, which has paid me to add to the Sam Francis entry. I had some trouble figuring out exactly how to justify the copyright of the images, and went with the "free use" alternative. It truly seems to me that this is an appropriate rationale, so I am disappointed that you deleted my work.

I have re-instated the gallery, and will be happy to provide any documentation (etc) to help clear these images for copyright. If you, or any other wikipedia editor wants to confirm that the estate wishes to see these images used, they can be contacted at: samfrancisfoundation@me.com

Thanks for any advice and assistance you can provide. John Seed (mydogsarelazy) johnseed@gmail.com

Mydogsarelazy (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the files are not under a free license. You used Non-free 2D art and  © Sam Francis Foundation, California/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York on every image. That means that the images are in fact still under copyright. See Requesting copyright permission specifically Requesting_copyright_permission. Please note that the original work does not need to be released but rather just a smaller version suitable for the internet would be fine. For how to confirm this and ensure that all necessary paperwork is on file to avoid further issues see Requesting_copyright_permission Werieth (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See also WP:MCQ. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved 3rd party to comment.
Hello. I am requesting your opinions at Talk:Thomas Savage (died 1611) as a third party to a discussion which I feel is nearing an impasse. I feel confident that if you chose to participate, your comments ideas and suggestions will be neutral and non-biased in favor or against either of the currently involved participants. If you do not wish to participate, I understand and respect your wishes. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Missed WP:NFCC violations
It seems that you may have missed some WP:NFCC violations when fixing them. Check File:Mavis Villiers (actress), promotional photograph - APR 14 1966.jpg: there has been a non-free file on the file information page since January 2013. I think that it is very good that you are fixing the other WP:NFCC violations, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually ignore the file namespace. Due to the inconsistent way MediaWiki handles file usages, you often see false positives and other issues to the point that trying to process that namespace is a time sink with little to no visible results. Werieth (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, OK. I've fixed this one manually, then. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

World_One_Mumbai.png
Hi... I just saw that you tagged World_One_Mumbai.png for deletion. I would like to know what is missing from that image description, I have clearly mentioned in image summary about uses and why its used etc(WP:ICT/FU). Let me know what else missing I will update accordingly, thanks  KuwarOnline Talk  07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFURG Werieth (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan banknotes close
Hi Werieth. Could you please link to the particular RfC's that you are citing in closing Non-free_content_review? Thanks. --B (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For me too, please.
 * This is exactly the kind of case, where it is roundly agreed that there is no legal issue and no NFCC #1 issue, and where the images are manifestly informative about the subject of the article, where we purposely *do* allow NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the requests for comment that I mentioned in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No see my updated closing comments, there have been two RfC's at WT:NFCC which stated that these uses are a clear violation of WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Links please. Jheald (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He edited the close to add them - 1 2. --B (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Okay. So the first RfC didn't even ask the question -- it asked a completely different, half-baked, stupid question. And the second RfC only had two respondents -- one of whom was you, who then went on to close your own Rfc while it was on an archive page, an RfC which it seems I wasn't the only person to have missed entirely. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the results does not mean you can ignore the results and WP:NFCC, this is just a re-hash of the List of X characters and discography debates. Werieth (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And even your argument in the RfC was based on a misconception. You say they're against NFLISTS, but look back in the archives to when NFLISTS was adopted, and you'll find Currency articles cited as an example of where the NFC was roundly considered to be okay, where NFLISTS was never intended to be applied.  Jheald (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So this isn't a re-hash of the List of X characters and discography debates. At the end of those discussions, when NFLISTS was adopted, the currency articles were seen and discussed as clearly appopriate use, to which it was not intended to be applied. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that rather than closing an RfC on an archive page, where there had been only two participants, one of whom was your very self, and it now seems that most people had never even seen it, the appropriate action would have been to re-list if for further discussion? Jheald (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wireth, thank you for adding the links. Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_58 - a discussion in which only two people opined and one of them (you) closed the discussion is not anything that would remotely resemble a binding discussion. The other one is more meaningful, but even in that discussion, the failure to affirmatively amend a rule to explicitly permit something is not the same as an allowance for summary deletion of the same. Also, some in that discussion opposed the rule not because they necessarily agreed or disagreed with bank notes in articles, but because they thought the rule was overreaching. While I don't see a need to revert your non-admin closure of the discussion, especially since it focused largely on issues that are not in question (ie, whether the images are public domain or not), I am restoring the images to the article and will nominate them for deletion in an orderly process. Representative samples can be chosen to be kept or the deletion discussion could result in all of them being deleted. --B (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For all interested parties, I have listed these at Files for deletion/2013 April 21. Please see that discussion if you wish to opine. --B (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a similar edit war in the article Coins of Madagascar. Shouldn't those images also go to a deletion discussion instead of being handled through an edit war? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Coins are sometimes tricker, because there may be photographer's copyright in the photography of a 3D object (according to Mike Godwin in the past). If the pics are free, but of unfree objects, then the case is similar.  But if the pics are not free, that probably raises other issues.  Jheald (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; in this case there is no photographer's copyright, because the pics were just scans made completely mechanically by placing the coins on a scanner. So the issues are very similar.  (Though some may argue as that knowledge of banknote designs or knowledge of coin designs has different real-world relevance). Jheald (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know that to be the case? The only thing I know is copies of 2D objects = okay, while copies of 3D objects != okay.  Do you know for sure (with a citation to a court ruling or some such thing) that this rule is only for photographs and not for scans? I can't think of anything magical about the choice of equipment that would make one copyrightable and the other not.  To use a crude example that is occasionally the subject of workplace humor, were I to sit on the photocopier and photocopy my rear end, we would all, I would assume, agree that this is copyrightable. --B (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright with 3d as opposed to 2d is supposed to reflect the artistic choices that the photographer has had to make -- eg angle, lighting etc. On the other hand, just pressing a button on a scanner/photocopier is called "slavish mechanical reproduction".  Jheald (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could make that same argument about a photo of a 2D painting. I have very, very old prints of Pinkie and Blue Boy in my dining room.  Were I to take a photograph of one of them with my camera, I am choosing angle and lighting, yet we would all agree that my photograph is not protected by copyright.  The reason that "slavish reproductions" are not protected by copyright is the result of a court case - not because it is in the law.  That court case only applied to 2D objects and our own lawyer specifically said not to apply it to coins.  So I'm really not comfortable in just assuming it doesn't apply to scans.  I agree with Stefan2, though - it's moot in this case since the uploader and scanner are the same person. --B (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Google for "'slavish copy'" or "'mechanical reproduction' copyright" then. It's an established principle that such things do not get copyright.  As to photos of 2d pictures, read the text of the decisions in Bridgeman vs Corel -- they fundamentally turn on whether what was being done was a slavish mechanical reproduction.  Remember that there may be a difference of opinion on this between the U.S. and the U.K.  In the U.S. Bridgeman set out that the photo of the 2d object did not meet the standards of creativity required for copyright.  In the U.K. most legal opinion is that such photos might, for exactly the reasons you suggest re your pics of "Blue Boy" and "Pinkie".  Jheald (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The coins are obviously scanned by the uploader. The uploader knows that they are scans and the scanner EXIF tells that they were scanned on the day they were uploaded. One coin has no EXIF, but it is reasonable that the uploader scanned that one too. If needed, it may be possible to obtain a licence from the uploader. I don't think that we should provide any images of coins for which we don't have any permission from the photographer (unless it would for some reason be impossible to take new photos of the item but that shouldn't be the case for any normal coins). Apart from that, we have the same currency issue as with banknotes which we would need to settle. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Maze images
I have undone your removal of images from The Crystal Maze article. Please review and respond to my comments on the article's talk page before reinstating your edit. Thanks. Cmch83 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already reverted you. See my post on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Files you removed at List of NRHP sites in Downtown Davenport
You seem to be wrong in your stated reason for removing these pix - there are statements on them of why these non-free images can be used. Perhaps you should go back over them and restate your case. In any case, please inform the uploader (most likely User:Farragutful for all of them) if you're intending to delete or just remove the pix he uploaded.

Thanks in advance for your more careful efforts,

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They may have a valid rationale, but it is not of the article where I removed the file. I can also cite WP:NFLIST as grounds for removal along with WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * copied from my talk:Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. The files in question do not have valid rationales for the list article, I could also cite WP:NFLIST as another reason for removal. Do not re-insert. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't upload these photos. As I mentioned User:Farragutful a very good editor did
 * "May fail our non-free image policy" is quite different than "does fail" - it needs to be discussed, not just removed.
 * You should always inform the uploader on a matter like this - it is just a matter of politeness.
 * Please do not presume to order me with a sentence like "Do not re-insert." You have been reverted - please take actions like these carefully, otherwise you risk coming across as a bully.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the time the uploader has nothing to do with the NFCC violations as they uploaded and used it on a single article, someone else comes along and adds the file to a second article without meeting WP:NFCC. Let me be specific, since my the nicely worded template didnt get the point across, These files fail WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC and WP:NFLIST. By adding them back to the article you are violating the non-free content policy which is why I warned you so. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just asked that you inform the person most concerned and discussed the issue, and you've started edit warring and being rather "forward." Do please look at the other comments around this one - I'm not the only one to see this problem. Maybe you should consider just calling it a day today - everybody can have a bad day every once in a while. If you'd rather not take this advice - then please read WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring Removing files that lacked a rationale
Please do not remove images without discussion when you have already been reverted once. People actually are watching this article, and are willing to add a fair use rationale if you would stop trying to remove it without discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk)|
 * Until there is a valid rationale the file cannot be on that article. Werieth (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Werieth (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing files that lacked a rationale II
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --evrik (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Scouting in Pennsylvania
 * Scouting in New York
 * Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine
 * The files that I removed from those articles where removed for missing non-free use rationales, which is required by policy see WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They all have the rationale, for example File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png. You are continuing the edit wat you started on Scouting in California. --evrik (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But not for where I removed them.
 * File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png
 * Is being used on two pages
 * Savez Izviđača Srbije
 * Which has a rationale
 * Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine
 * Which does not have a rationale and was removed.
 * Thus my comment is correct, before reverting me blindly please take some time to familiarize yourself with out non-free content policy WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blindly? Hardly. You have been engaged in contentious editng for a while now. now, NFC sets the minimum as one. Am I to understand that you keep removing the files because the template is wrong? Wouldn't it be less contentious to fix the template on the image file? --evrik (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please add some context to the statement NFC sets the minimum as one. I was removing the files because the files clearly fail WP:NFCC (missing a rationale for the article where it is being used). Its not a matter of just updating a template. The file is being used on multiple pages. Each use requires a separate rationale and to meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. In this case there are no rationales for the additional uses of the file. Without meeting all 10 points of WP:NFCC and having a rationale for each use I will remove the file. If you continue to revert and violate WP:NFCC I might need to request that you be topic banned from adding non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that removed File:Bucks County Council CSP.png from the article Scouting in Pennsylvania. This looks perfectly correct: the file only has a fair use rationale for the article Bucks County Council (Boy Scouts of America), so the use of the file in Scouting in Pennsylvania violates WP:NFCC. I see that the user has removed files from lots of articles citing WP:NFCC. In some cases, it might be a simple case of just adding a fair use rationale (and then readding the image after writing a fair use rationale), whereas in other cases there might be other parts of the WP:NFCC policy which aren't satisfied either (thereby meaning that it is unwise to readd the image to the article). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I went back to File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png and added Non-free image rationale for the second article. Is this going to suffice? Is there a preferred way to add a second rationale? Perhaps instead of stripping the images out of pages and angering people, you could add the second template yourself?--evrik (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is you are claiming that File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png is the logo of Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine but File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg is the actual logo, thus Purpose = logo is invalid. Werieth (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is ask why must this article include this image? If you cannot come up with a very strong reason, dont include the image. That reason should then be able to fill the purpose field. Werieth (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually answer my question as to whether or not use of the template was what you were looking for. --evrik (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If its filled out correctly and the rationale given in the template meets WP:NFCC then yes. Right now the rationale isnt sufficient. Werieth (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I expanded the rationale. --evrik (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fair use rationale currently tells that "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article". However, I have to scroll down quite a lot to see the image. Don't you see how wrong the fair use rationale is? Also, the logos obviously violate WP:NFCC. See also WP:NFC §6 --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is wrong is sloppy editing, of which I am guilty. I have adjusted the text. --evrik (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It still needs some work, and doesn't look like a valid use. The image is placed in an article discussing Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. identify the organization sounds like it is referring to Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine, while the logo is for another group. If the logo is not for Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine then it shouldnt be used on another group's page. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will no longer be commenting here as Stefan has opened a new discussion here. --evrik (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:YarraTramsLogoNew.svg
The logo you keep removing from the Melbourne tram articles only consists of typefaces, individual words and simple geometric shapes and is therefore Public Domain - see Threshold of originality. It follows that the logo is also not affected by WP:NFCC at all. I have retagged the logo file and moved it to Commons accordingly, and will also restore it to all the Melbourne tram articles in due course. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13
I've mentioned you in the discussion and think you might like to offer your own comments, so I'm posting this talkback to let you know about it! Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LGs of BC pics removed?
OK, guess I didn't see the code attached to the pix; but others in the same series, which are the official painted portraits of LGs, are used for other people on that table, same artist seems like too. Why are these blocked from use when others from the same series by the same portrait artist are not??Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, can I get some more context? Im not sure what you are talking about. Werieth (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)`