User talk:Peterspeterson
Non-free rationale for File:SuperiorFoesVerse.jpeg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SuperiorFoesVerse.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding a non-free use rationale to this file's page; however, you probably need to do some cleaning up because technically you're only the copyright holder of the photo you took and not of the two book spines you photographed. I suggest you use the template
{{Information}}for the photo you took since this is your "own work" and that you use the template{{Non-free use rationale book cover}}for the non-free use rationales for the two book spines you photographed; you should add a rationale for each work since their respective copyrights are held by their publishing companies. You can add these templates to the "Summary" section on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) - I'm not sure why, but you've removed the copyright licenses from this file's page. I do see anything that I posted above suggesting that you do that, but you've now created another different problem that needs to be resolved. All files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to have two things: information about its provenance and a copyright license. When the file in question is a non-free file, it also requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use and this generally takes care of the provenance part, but it still needs a copyright license. By removing the copyright licenses for both then photo and the book cover, you've made the file eligible for deletion per speedy deletion #F6. I totally get all of this is confusing and its easy to make mistakes; for this reason, it might be a good idea to refrain from uploading any more images until you've got a better feel for things to avoid for you or someone else needing to go back a clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually you're right in the sense that I'm not sure why I removed those two lines at the top. I think I misunderstood what you wrote in the sense of thinking you wanted the book cover rationale *instead* of what was there, not *as well as*.
- Is it right now? The bot shrunk the file too. Peterspeterson (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to clean things up a little bit. Perhaps by looking at what I did on the file's page, you'll better under what I was trying to explain above.The bot reduced the file because that's what it's been tasked to do. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file is expected to satisfy and one of these is WP:NFCC#3. Generally, non-free files are reduced in size/resolution by bots or real people to the point where they're still of value encyclopedically but not too high in quality which might somehow impact the intellectual property rights/commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. Even though you took this photo yourself, it's a WP:Derivative work since it incorporates copyright protected content created by others; for this reason, it's not considered to be 100% free content for Wikipedia's purpose and needs to be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy.As mentioned, there are ten non-free content use criteria and each of these need to be met for a non-free use to be considered policy compliant. Providing a rationale and being used in an article are only two of the ten, and other can still challenge the file's non-free use if they feel any of the remaining eight are not being met. Sometimes when there are disagreements over this, the file ends up being discussed at WP:FFD to see whether a consensus is established either way. So, even though the bot should stop removing the file, another user can still challenge it's non-free use. FWIW, I think there are probably issues regarding this file's non-free use related to WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS since it's not clear why the reader needs to see the spines of these two comics to understand they are different in size; so, any sourced critical commentary in reliable sources you can find about this difference should be added to the article supported by citations to avoid the use of the file being considered just WP:DECORATIVE and a bit of you're own WP:OR. You shouldn't assume it's importance to the readers is as obvious to others as it's to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I’ve had a look at what you did and think I get it. Thanks for the explanations. The citations for the article are actually there, though I figured this was illustrative and interesting, too. Peterspeterson (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just for reference, "illustrative and interesting" are pretty considered to be buzz words for "decorative" non-free use; what's needed is reliably sourced content specifically related to what's depicted in the image so that seeing the image significantly aids in the reader's understand of the content and not seeing the image is deterimental to that understanding. Finally, assessing non-free content use often is tricky and most of those who try to do so are doing so in good faith; so, referring to them as "drive by taggers" is usually counterproductive. It's better to try to understand their concerns and see if they can be addressed in a policy compliant way. It's the responsibility of the person wanting to use non-free content to make sure doing so satisfies relevant policy, and discussion focused on the file absent commentary on those who might see things different tends to be more productive when there are disagreements about a file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Drive-by taggers refers to people who offer little to no guidance and seemingly spend all their time simply… tagging. Which is not what you’ve done. You’ve been helpful and considerate. This is what helps people learn and do things better. Peterspeterson (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just for reference, "illustrative and interesting" are pretty considered to be buzz words for "decorative" non-free use; what's needed is reliably sourced content specifically related to what's depicted in the image so that seeing the image significantly aids in the reader's understand of the content and not seeing the image is deterimental to that understanding. Finally, assessing non-free content use often is tricky and most of those who try to do so are doing so in good faith; so, referring to them as "drive by taggers" is usually counterproductive. It's better to try to understand their concerns and see if they can be addressed in a policy compliant way. It's the responsibility of the person wanting to use non-free content to make sure doing so satisfies relevant policy, and discussion focused on the file absent commentary on those who might see things different tends to be more productive when there are disagreements about a file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I’ve had a look at what you did and think I get it. Thanks for the explanations. The citations for the article are actually there, though I figured this was illustrative and interesting, too. Peterspeterson (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to clean things up a little bit. Perhaps by looking at what I did on the file's page, you'll better under what I was trying to explain above.The bot reduced the file because that's what it's been tasked to do. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file is expected to satisfy and one of these is WP:NFCC#3. Generally, non-free files are reduced in size/resolution by bots or real people to the point where they're still of value encyclopedically but not too high in quality which might somehow impact the intellectual property rights/commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. Even though you took this photo yourself, it's a WP:Derivative work since it incorporates copyright protected content created by others; for this reason, it's not considered to be 100% free content for Wikipedia's purpose and needs to be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy.As mentioned, there are ten non-free content use criteria and each of these need to be met for a non-free use to be considered policy compliant. Providing a rationale and being used in an article are only two of the ten, and other can still challenge the file's non-free use if they feel any of the remaining eight are not being met. Sometimes when there are disagreements over this, the file ends up being discussed at WP:FFD to see whether a consensus is established either way. So, even though the bot should stop removing the file, another user can still challenge it's non-free use. FWIW, I think there are probably issues regarding this file's non-free use related to WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS since it's not clear why the reader needs to see the spines of these two comics to understand they are different in size; so, any sourced critical commentary in reliable sources you can find about this difference should be added to the article supported by citations to avoid the use of the file being considered just WP:DECORATIVE and a bit of you're own WP:OR. You shouldn't assume it's importance to the readers is as obvious to others as it's to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:SuperiorFoesVerse.jpeg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:SuperiorFoesVerse.jpeg. 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- But all images are used in articles…? And I’ve added the free-use rationales. I don’t know what else I can do? Peterspeterson (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The file wasn't being used when this notification template was added to your user talk page because it had been removed by a bot from where it was being used because it lacked the required non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Your user sandbox
[edit]Please take a look at WP:UP#OWN for more details, but your user sandbox is more of a rental than your property per se. For the most part, others will leave it be unless there's some sort of Wikipedia policy issue that needs to be addressed. In this case, the bot was removing non-free files from your sandbox because non-free files are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9 as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files. It's OK if you didn't know this, but please keep it in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-free use of File:Kraven-comparison.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Kraven-comparison.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука13 22:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's only concern if the person who drove-by tagged the file hasn't bothered to look at the article and/or do even the tiniest amount of checking. Peterspeterson (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)