User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/August

Active discussions

The Fox and the Cat (fable)

Hi, there! I'm a bit puzzled by the removal of the image from the fable article. Looking at the history of the image, there's a claim there that there was ORTS permission and a non-free use rationale. It was a long time ago when I wrote the article and got permission and I may not now have access to the email address through which I sought it. I'd be grateful if you would explain the grounds for your action. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission from the photographer only applies to the copyright that the photographer has. The sculpture's copyright is held by the sculptor. Since the photo is a derivative work of the sculpture, it is not free. Each use of a non-free file must meet all WP:NFCC, including having a separate, specific rationale. A non-free use rationale is only provided for the article about the work, not the fable article. — JJMC89 03:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal system overhaul and news support

Moved message to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Design#Automating news support, awaiting your response there.    — The Transhumanist   23:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Sorry for interrupting but you have not provided enough information on what exact violation did my changes to the article did.I have restored the article until a summary is provided and we come into a conclusion.Thank you for your time and effort. AlbusWhite— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusTheWhite (talkcontribs) 15:18, 2 August 2018 8UTC) (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@AlbusTheWhite:. I have gone a removed the files again because their use in that particular article does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Please do not re-add the files again.
While Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be used in articles, each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all ten of the non-free content criteria listed here. One of these criteria is #10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of a non-free file. The files in the Greece article were lacking the required non-free use rationales for their respective uses in the article, so they were removed. This information can be found in the edit sum JJMC89 left when he removed the files.
There is another reason why the files cannot be used in that article that JJMC89 didn't mention, so I will do so here. Non-free images of deceased individuals are typically allowed when they are used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the individuals in question. That is why files such as File:Kazantzakis black and white.jpg, File:Dimitris Mitropoulos.jpg and File:Manos hadjidakis.jpg are considered acceptable to use in Nikos Kazantzakis, Dimitris Mitropoulos and Manos Hatzidakis. The same files, however, are much harder to use in other article because the established consensus is that simple indetification (wanting to show the person) is not enough, but that the photo itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary. The same goes for movie posters such as File:Zorba the Greek poster.jpg; such posters are fine for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the movies themselves like Zorba the Greek (film), but almost never allowed in other article unless there is sourced critical commentary specifically about the poster itself. I hope that clarifies things a bit, but if you have any questions feel free to ask. You can also ask at WT:NFC or WP:MCQ as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Oklahoma 2009 Sacred Rain Arrow license plate.jpg

You tagged the photo in the file above for deletion, but it is not clear why you did this. Can you please provide a clearer explanation as to why this file does not meet the non-free use rationale? Everything required for the non-free use rationale, both the name the article is used in and a rationale, is posted to the file details. Thank you! Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no rationale for the article the file is used in, only two other articles. — JJMC89 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg

Hi JJMC89. Since you were a participant in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27#File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg, I thought you should know about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

hey, when you go through your mass-deletion binges

can you post them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Deletions? It's much more honest for those of us who don't have every Scout image watchlisted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They are already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article alerts, so there is no need for a manual listing. — JJMC89 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your removing 2 images on Bob Dylan

Is this something that can be addressed by expanding the discussion of rationale on the image page for either one of these 2 images which seem to have direct rationale by name-of-article and name included on image? JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

They are covers for an album and LP that contained the song, not a cover for the song itself. Given that and that there isn't any critical commentary on either cover itself in the song article, use doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 03:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
This image may solve this here: [1], with the caption "Chimes performed by Dylan at the Clinton inaugural." If you could look at the image and if it works, could I ask your help to bring it into Wikimedia with the correct rationale, since I'm not familiar with all the challenges being raised. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I don't believe Getty images are typically allowed to be uploaded as non-free content per WP:NFCC#2 (see item b of WP:F7 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
After looking, I don't think that is a Getty image, but that it may be a screen capture from a video of the inaugural performace posted on Rolling Stone magazine here [2] and on Classic Rock here: [3]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Marchjuly is correct; we cannot use Getty images per WP:NFCC#2. I don't see any evidence that is a screen capture. — JJMC89 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup Barnstar

  The Cleanup Barnstar
Of course. With thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, 99! — JJMC89 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Military Order of Maria Theresa recipients of Croatian descent

Hi JJMC89, Could you please tell me what's the problem with this picture File:Johann Iskrić.jpg? Thank you for your answer. Regards, --Silverije 18:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Using that image here violates WP:NFCC#9. Using that image on the list violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. I removed it for violating the latter. Also, see WP:NFLISTS. — JJMC89 00:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing draft links

Hi JJMC89, I see that you removed some links to draft pages, like here. The new link is red though, so it's better not to leave any link in such cases. Did you have a specific mainspace article in mind? —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yea, the whole thing should have been removed since it was in a (fake) hatnote. Thanks for doing so. — JJMC89 00:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Can you provide some suggestions for improving the draft Netmeds page. I had submitted it and thought it may be okay. Thanks. சென்னை (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I don't know anything about that company. — JJMC89 02:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


I don't understand? [4]CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no rationale for the article it is used in List of Pokémon: XY episodes, only List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 1–13) (10c). Removal would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding (8), especially since there is another logo already used there (3a). — JJMC89 04:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
These are two distinct logos. One is the original official Japanese version, and the other is the official international version. This is standard practice with every Pokemon article, and has been that way since I joined Wikipedia, and encyclopedic.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
None of that makes it policy compliant. — JJMC89 02:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
So you cherry-pick that one logo from the other dozens being used already on the other dozen articles?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've corrected 10a, and removed it from the deletion tag, but my opinion is that removing the original logo is detrimental as it is a Japanese television show. Just because the globe uses the international version doesn't mean the Japanese one shouldn't be documented as part of the series, which I've slightly clarified on the File (3a). Each logo is unique.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The 10c violation is what brought it to my attention. Only one logo can be used as the primary means of identification. (See WP:NFC#CS.) — JJMC89 02:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!


The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for your recent work reviewing new articles and redirects. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 01:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Insertcleverphrasehere and PaleoNeonate! — JJMC89 02:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

External links to campaign websites?

According to WP:ELYES, the official websites of an article's subject should be linked on the wiki article. As elections articles, it seems to me that the campaign websites of the candidates involved certainly count as "subjects" of the article, and they should be linked. Nothing in WP:EL explicitly bans or discourages linking to campaign websites, so it's all a matter of interpretation. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: The subject is the election, not the campaign. There clearly is no consensus for inclusion, so please revert yourself per WP:ELBURDEN. There are now two editors who think these do NOT belong. This is a prime example of linkfarming (we are not the yellow pages or an internet directory), and indirect (they would only be directon the wikipedia page on the campaign of that specific person). If you want a solution, a list-section might bean alternative. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Just because I'm the one who reverted the changes doesn't mean I'm the only one on the other side, I'm not the one who put them there in the first place. There's clearly no consensus to remove them either. WP:BRD would have us settle this while keeping the links there (the prior consensus) in the interim. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, they are sufficiently linked from other external links already included, and most candidates have their own wikipage where they could be orare linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
What Beestra said. Last time I checked there was already a discussion at WP:ELN, so let's not split the discussion. — JJMC89 02:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Pepsi Stuff

I believe you have incorrectly put a deletion on my image. This image is fair use and would not be appropriate to use any other image. If you still do not believe this to be true, please mark it for a deletion that allows for debate. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The rationale was very incomplete and did not address all WP:NFCC. I've converted the license to PD per c:Category:Pepsi logos, making the issue moot. — JJMC89 02:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2018/August".