User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/February

Dinamo II

It's not the same picture. Rhinen

It's essentially the same file that was discussed in that FFD discussion with the only difference being the star, so that does not change the reasons why the other version was considered to not be NFCC compliant. If there has been a change in the team's logo so that the logos used for the main team and the reserve team are now clearly distiguishable in some way, then explain that to Czar and see what he says. Simply using the parent team's logo in the reserve team's article without properly justifying it's non-free use per WP:NFCCP, which includes WP:NFCC#10c by the way, just repeats the same problem with a different file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg

The IP seems insistent that the DRV resulted in keeping this in the articles. The DRV resulted in endorsing the FFD that removed it. I'm not an expert with file namespace issues, so I'll leave any further action to you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89. I am not an administrator, so there's not I can do other than continue to try and discuss things. I posted something about this at User talk:Sandstein#File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg, but neither Sandstein nor the IP have responded yet. There's no point in further edit warring and the IP is wrong for continuing to do that so I will start an AN3 discussion over this since the IP has been previously warned about this using another account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN3#User:2.25.221.253 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: ) for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what happens. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your Question About Possible Conflict Of Interest on Jean Jepson Draft Article

Hello Marchjuly

Here are your comments that I will respond to below:

"Hi CableHut. After seeing your latest post on Cullen328's user talk page I am wondering if you have (or had) had some kind of personal or professional connection to Jepson or her family. The way you refer to her in such a familiar tone in your talk page posts and throughout the draft you are writing gives me the impression that you were one of her friends or associates. If that's the case then I think it might be a really good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference."

I have read the Wikipedia COI guidelines and I am fully confident that there is no conflict whatsoever. I am undertaking this project on my own initiative and am not being paid for doing this. There are no commercial possibilities in this work at all and I am not trying to promote or market anything.

I did know Jean Jepson. I was a dance student of hers very late in her life just a few years before she died. That is the full extent of my contact with her.

Jean played a very important role in Vancouver's dance history. Among other things she was a veteran performer on Broadway in NYC in the heyday of the big musical spectacles and in the world of the famous Big Band Orchestras. When she returned to Vancouver to teach she passed on to the next generations of students much of her experiences in New York. Up until she died she was one of the last generation of Vancouver performers who had lived and worked in New York at that time.

Sadly a lot of her history has been lost and in an effort to honour her career a tribute event was held for her and two other notable dance teachers last year. I worked on a project team that collected as much information as possible on Jean's career. After the tribute event was over we decided to donate all the historical memories of Jean to the archives of the Vancouver Ballet Society.

Our plan is to simply give her a page on Wikipedia from where interested readers would learn about the archived material at the Vancouver Ballet Society.

That is it. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask.

Peter CableHut (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Although I think your attentions are good, it kind of sounds like you're misunderstanding something fundamental about the project. Wikipedia pages aren't given to topics, they are written about topics who can be shown to have received the significant coverage that Wikipedia's notability guidelines require for a stand-alone article to be written. There are lots of people in the world who have done lots of good things and have positively impacted lots of people, but not all of these people are Wikipedia notable enough to have an article written about them. That may sound cold, but that is the way Wikipedia works.

You're going to need to establish that Jepson clearly satisfies WP:BIO, otherwise any draft you submit is almost surely to be not approved and any draft you try to move to article namespace yourself is likely going to end up being deleted. Moreover, the fact that you are writing a draft about someone you did have a connection too either as a student or as a member of a group trying to honor her memory does mean that you have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia; it matters not whether you're being paid or whether you're doing this under your own initiative. When I read through you're draft, I get the impression that it was written by someone who wants to portray Jepson in a particular light rather than in a neutral encyclopedic tone. She sounds like a wonderful person, but you have to understand that you have no final editorial control over what is added/removed from the article and whatever version you read tonight may be very different from the one you read the next day. It might be a good idea to take a look at Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (even though you're not writing about yourself). Even if your draft is approved, other editors may request that you do not edit any further it if they feel your COI is becoming problematic. So, you might also consider asking someone unconnected to Jepson in any way to take a crack at improving your draft at one of the WikiProjects I have previously mentioned or at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

I've only been a Wikipedian for a little more than three years so I haven't been around as long as people such as Cullen328, but in that time I've come across many well meaning people trying who sem to come to Wikipedia to for the sole purpose of writing an article about an individual such as Jepson who end up being pretty frustrated and disappointed when things don't go as expected. You might want to take a look at some ongoing and past deletion discussions just to give yourself a feel as to harsh they can be, especially to a new editor who's not familiar with various policies and guidelines. You should try to write an article which can survive one of those debates, so knowing what you're up against is a good thing. Anyway, best of luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

I have just a few quick response to share about your most recent comments. I also want to say that I have been having parallel discussions with Jim Cullen on this subject and he has been quite helpful.

You and your colleagues are still doubtful about the notability of Jean Jepson and whether or not the coverage that I have mentioned is sufficient. You also mention that many people have done lots of good things and made significant contributions but they are simply not notable enough.

In our dance community in Vancouver, amongst those who are familiar with its history, there is absolutely no question that she is among the most notable. Very few of our teachers have the kind of distinguished pedigree that she has. The public tribute event held for her last year attracted hundreds of people and was a tremendous success and the programmes handed out to the audience provided written documentation.

In doing my research for this project I did look up in Wikipedia the names of several of Vancouver's dancers and teachers and a few of them did have pages. Not a single one of these people is in any way more notable than Jean and yet they appear in Wikipedia. I can make statements like this because I am quite learned and well informed about the Vancouver dance history. Much more so than any of your editors.

You still think that my connection to her, simply as a student, may be a COI. You think that I am not presenting her in a "neutral encyclopedic tone". However I would like to suggest that taking lessons with her and getting to hear her story directly has provided me with some clear advantages over the dance historians. I have had discussions about Jean with two of Vancouver's most eminent dance historians. Neither one is a dancer and neither ever did meet or know Jean. I am a dancer and I got to know her quite well and I have an appreciation of her as a teacher that a non-dancing historian would never acquire.

I have also taken lessons with several of the other well-known dance teachers and gotten to know them well. I am not claiming that Jean is better than any of these. I am not trying to present her in "a particular light" as you suggest. In the scrapbook that I put together I have simply told the story. Her story is also the story of the other teachers and they have been acknowledged and credited fully. Jean worked in full collaboration with the other teachers of her day.

In the draft article that I prepared on Jean I have been as objective and neutral as possible. I simply want to tell the story and in particular to attract younger readers who may not be familiar with this period of Vancouver history.

I recognize that Wikipedia has its own way of doing things and in fact after all that I have learned about Wiki over the past few days in particular, from exchanges such as this, I have decide to withdraw the article. I am trying to tell a short story (the full story is in the large 60-page scrapbook which is equivalent to about 240 regular book-sized pages) online where the focus is on the people, the places and their accomplishments. I do not want to limit it to just a few simpe statements of fact.

The Wikipedia focus is very different and is strictly governed by all your policies, regulations, hierarchies and more. To comply with all your rules would strip the story that I am trying to tell of all its vibrancy and essence. Most of the Wiki articles that I have read about other dance teachers and dancers are very sterile, devoid of life and vibrancy, limited just to a few facts and not very interesting or helpful. In going through the research books I did come across some very interesting and essential developments about some of the Vancouver Wiki dancers that are not included in your pages. Originally, given that Wiki does permit and even encourage open and ongoing editing, I was going to submit these developments for addition to their stories. But now that I see the way in which you operate and all the obstacles that you put in the way, it does not seem to be worth the effort.

There are other online repositories that are more focused and better suited for the Jean Jepson and Vancouver Dance Community stories and so I will say goodbye to Wikipedia.

Thanks for all your help!

CableHut (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dr. Calvin C.J. Sia, developer of the Medical Home concept.jpg

Thank you for your message on my talk page, but I'm terribly confused about the Wikipedia rules for photos, copyrighted or otherwise. The photo that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz took down and made an orphan was a photo that the subject of the Wikipedia page, Calvin C.J. Sia, asked his daughter-in-law to take. He gave Wikipedia permission to use the photo. It is not under a copyright. It has appeared in publications of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Hawaii Academy of Pediatrics but those publications were given the photo by Sia and they do not have rights of ownership of the photo.

Your message to me said this: "Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item ... by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject)."

I posted the photo with the understanding that Sia "created" the media by having his daughter-in-law take a picture of him. His daughter-in-law is identified in the photo credit. Perhaps I made a mistake in the way I described the photo? I thought fair use was correct, but I would welcome you help in labeling this photo, which Sia had taken of himself for the Wikipedia page.

I tried my best to read the Media Copyright Questions Page and other rules, but I'm confused and baffled over why Sia's own photo cannot be used. If this explanation helps you to decide that I merely need the correct language and coding to post this photo, will you please help me? I don't know how to fix this problem. Thank you for your help! Airsick656 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Airsick656

Hi Airsick656. The photo is copyrighted when it comes to Wikipedia unless the copyright holder agrees to release the photo under a free license for anyone anywhere in the world to use for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. If Sia's daughter took the photo herself, she would be considered the original copyright holder and therefore could decided to release the photo under a free license. She will need to send a declaration of consent to Wikipedia OTRS stating that she agree to license the photo under a license as explained in WP:DCP#Donating your photographs. Otherwise, the file will be considered "non-free content" and each use of it be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. It makes no difference what other websites may allow, you need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies if you want to use the file on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for your reply. The photo is actually owned by Sia himself, even though he arranged to have his relative take the picture. Why can't he donate the photo to Wikipedia? I don't understand what other options there are for photos that can be used with Sia's Wikipedia page if every photo belongs to the person who took it (or the media outlet that may employ the photographer). Is it possible to simply use a photo that has appeared on another copyright-free website, such as a U.S. government website (where no content is under copyright)? What kinds of photos can I use that don't violate Wikipedia rules against using privately owned or copyrighted photos? If a photo owned by the subject of a Wikipedia page cannot be used, I don't know where else to look to photos I can use. Thanks again. (You may be able to tell I'm new to exchanging messages on Talk pages. I tried to copy the formatting codes you used in your reply). Airsick656 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Airsick656

The copyright of a photo is almost always held by the photographer who took the photo unless there has been some sort of official copyright transfer agreement between subject and photographer. If Sia has can show that he is now the copyright holder of the photo, then he can donate the photo if he wants. It's best to assume that every image you find online is under copyright protection unless you can clearly show otherwise. Take a look at c:Commons:Licensing for some more general information.

Photos taken by US government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be in the public domain as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works, but not every photo you may find on a US government website should be automatically assumed to be in the public domain. Some websites may contain photo taken by others which are still protected by copyright, and in such cases it usually says so. Many copyrighted images are allowed under US copyright law to be used in certain contexts under the concept of fair use. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use, however, is specifically set up to be more restrictive than US copyright law when it comes to fair use. So, if you have a particular image you found online that you'd like to use and you're not sure whether it's OK to do so, then ask for assistance at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C. Just provide a link to the the page where the file can be seen online and ask whether it can be uploaded as public domain or a free license. If it cannot and you still want to use the file, it may be possibly uploaded locally for use on English Wikipedia only as non-free content, but you need to show how the file's use in a particular article satisfies all 10 Wikipedia non-free content criteria each time the file is used. Failing even a single criterion means the file should not be used as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Old School Hip Hop

The image of Warp 9's 12" that you deleted has been licensed by Wikipedia under fair use/ album cover since 2012. How is your deletion improving the Wikipedia page Old School Hip Hop for readers? The image is included for educational purposes in order to provide information about styles of Old School Hip Hop to readers and interested parties. Tell me what you need me to do in order to restore this legally used image, and I will do it. What purpose does it serve to unilaterally delete an image that has been approved under Wikipedia rules? Magdalamar (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted something on your user talk page at User talk:Magdalamar#Non-free use of File:12" Single "Light Years Away"cover.jpeg, but perhaps you did not see it yet. Also, the image has been used for a long time is not really a justification for non-free use simply because that does not mean its use has been in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

File names

Be bold! change them. templating them doesnt fix things. Suggestion. Victuallers (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Victuallers. It seems you're referring to File:A portrait of Matilda Knowles who died in 1933.jpg. Thank you for making the change. I looked at WP:FMV#How it works and it says that only administrators, file movers or stewards can move a file. I am neither of those, so I did not think I could do it myself. Perhaps you can clarify how I can move a file when I don't have the permission to do such a thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think that if you have a history of identifying poor filenames then it would be efficient to give you the ability so that you can "just do it" - willing to support an application in principle. Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste photo permissions

Hi March - I note your tags requiring permission from authors of the various photos, in all cases. Today the agent / copyright holder submitted his permission, via the interactive release generator. Now knowing, as you do, the tremendous effort I have gone to so as to make this page as near perfect as the subject deserves, can you please tell me if there is even a whisker more you require before I can finally say you have no more objections to make. Mark^Dask 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi markdask. You seem to be under the misconception that I am requiring this when it's actually Commons which is requiring this. Images without proper licensing can be tagged or nominated for deletion by at anytime by any editor who thinks there's an issue. I am not a Commons administrator, so I cannot delete files directly myself. An adminsitrator does review all files which are tagged/nominated and ultimately decides what to do based upon Commons policy. The idea is to get the licensing right as close to the beginning as possible, and not let issues remain unresolved until they become actual problems.

Since you said OTRS has been emailed, an OTRS volunteer will verify them to make sure the licensing is in accordance with c:COM:L. You can ,if you want, replace the c:Template:No permission since templates I added to the files with c:Template:OTRS pending. This will give OTRS 30 days to recieve and verify the emails. If by that time neither of these things has been accomplished, the template will automatically revert back to "No permission" since. If you're not sure how to do this and you need some help, just post something here or at c:User talk:Marchjuly.

Anyway, once OTRS has received the emails, a volunteer will replace the "pending" templates with c:Template:OTRS received, and then replace those with c:Template:PermissionOTRS once the email(s) have been verified. If by some chance a file or file is deleted during the process, there's no need to panic. Files deleted from Commons are not really gone forever per se; they are only hidden from public view and can be easily "undeleted" once their licensing has been verified. So, there's no need to re-upload the files. The person(s) sending in the emails should get some kind of reply from OTRS and this should contain an OTRS ticket number. This ticket number is like a reference number and can be used if anyone has any questions about the emails. The best place to ask such things is at c:COM:OTRSN. OTRS information is, however, considered proprietary/private, so OTRS volunteers are not allowed to give out too many details to the public, so specific questions might not be able to be answered.

Finally, since you've been around Wikipedia a long time, you're probably aware of WP:IMPERFECT. Articles can techinically be edited by anyone at anytime, so one editor's definition of "near perfect" may not be the same as another editor's. While it's OK to be steward of an article, it's not really OK to try and own it. Even in the case of freely licensed images, it may sometimes be necessary to reach a consensus on the article's talk page when then are disagreements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all that March - I will replace the tags with c:Template:OTRS pending, and yes of course an article cannot be owned. With me its just a life spent working in architectural joinery, mostly in hardwoods, that makes me a perfectionist; I take immense pride in what I do and, in this case, BLP sculptor, I'm keen that the younger generation find the page appealing. Mark^Dask 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again markdask. I noticed you added "OTRS pending" templates to the files. One minor point is that the [[:c:Template:OTRS pending]] syntax I used above is just a way to wikilink from Wikipedia to Commons. The ":c:" just tell the software to go to the Commons page and not the Wikipedia version at Template:OTRS pending. There seems to be a slight difference in the respective documentation pages about each template, so I linked to the Commons page instead in my previous post. For future reference, when you add a template to a file page, all you need to do is add the template's name between double brackets like {{OTRS pending}}. What you did still seems to have worked, so I didn't think there was a need to tweak your edit.

Another thing I noticed about the files is that another editor has added them to some new categories, such as c:Category:Sculptures in the Tower of London. Looking through the sub-categories, it looks like someone else has already uploaded photos of some of Haste's sculptures. This doesn't mean that the ones her agent uploaded are not OK, but it would mean that uploading them as non-free content would almost surely not be allowed per WP:NFCC#1. So, if the by chance there turns out to be a problem with the ones uploaded by her agent, you can use those other files in the article if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-free use of book cover on James Austin (photographer) page

The image of the front jacket of the book Thomas Jeckyll: Architect and Designer, 1827–1881 was inserted to show a typical example of James Austin's book work. I have now made contact with the photographer, who I believe holds the copyright to ascertain if he would be happy for the image to be made available on WikiCommons. On the assumption that he would be and on receipt of the appropriate email from the photographer, may I assume that the image can be retained on the page? User talk:Sedicesimo Sedicesimo (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sedicesimo. Image files which are freely licensed or in the the public domain are not considered to be non-free content and thus are not subject to WP:NFCC. So, can the answer to your question is yes as long as the file's use complies with WP:IUP. Image use, however, should strive to be encyclopedic and contextual regardless of copyright concerns, and in some cases it may be necessary to establish a concensus on the relevant talk page just as you would do in a content dispute. Also, try and keep WP:NOTGALLERY in mind.

if the original copyright holder agrees to c:COM:L, then it might not be necessary to upload the image to Commons unless he wants to upload a better, higher quality version. The non-free file can be moved to Commonsif so desired. Once an email has been sent, add Template:OTRS pending to the file's page and an OTRS volunteer will do the rest. The copyright holder should include the URL address for the file's page in their email to make it easier for OTRS to find the file. File's tagged with OTRS pending are given more time to be sorted out. If you have any more questions about non-free use, you can ask them here or at WP:MCQ. If you have any questions about Commons, you can ask them at c:COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

COI?

Hi March, I'm afraid I do not understand the Conflict of Interest - I am in no way related to Prof Y S Rajan, either personally or professionally. I have gone through his website, and observed that there is far more information there, than there is on his Wiki page. Considering the fact that he is an eminent personality, who has co-authored a best-seller with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, and has also been awarded the Padma Shri, I thought it best to ask him about why more was not written on his Wiki page. It was then that he requested whether I could do anything about it.

Please let me know how you would want me to proceed, without encountering any conflicts and while at the same time, maintaining the dignity of the person involved.

Thanks!

Sandii555 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sandii555

Hi Sandi555. In this post you made on Diannaa's user talk page, you wrote that you were asked by Rajan to edit the Wikipedia article written about him on his behalf. You reaffirmed this above in your post here. So, you do seem to have a conflict of interest when it comes to anything written about Rajan on Wikipedia. Although COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, it is something which is highly discouraged because it can quickly lead to other problems if one is not really careful. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with the kinds of edits that the Wikipedia community considers acceptable for COI editors to make.

As long as you are able to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), you should be OK. However, it is important for you and Rajan to understand that the subjects of Wikipedia articles do not have any final editorial control of what content is added and what content is removed. All of the content you add should be supported by inline citations to independent reliable sources, and anything that isn't can be removed by any editor at anytime. Wikipedia is not interested in what Rajan himself or anyone connected to him has to say about him as a person: articles are for the most part only supposed to reflect content which can be found in independent reliable sources. This is particulary the case with respect to articles written about living persons. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not the same as the purpose of a personal website, and any content which is too promotional in nature will be removed.

Another thing is that all content needs to be written in your own words. You should summarize the information you find in the aforementioned reliable sources in your own words and avoid closely paraphrasing or directly copying-and-pasting anything you find online into the article. If you do that, it will be removed as a copyright violation. If you are not sure whether an edit is appropriate or not, then you can always start a discussion on the article's talk page or ask for assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse. The most important thing is for you to be here for the benefit of Wikipedia, and not just here for the benefit of Rajan. If you can keep that it mind and edit accordingly, you should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Question on licensing

Marchjuly, I have a question about licensing. Should this file be deleted? I didn't think images of a person could be on Wikipedia (they have to be in the Public Domain with permission granted unless it's too old for copyright or uploader is owner). I ask this because I've had a few files of a person (living and non-living) deleted from Wikipedia for this very reason. I know living people can't be uploaded on here, but I'm not sure about dead people. Wouldn't the University of Notre Dame need to send permission for this file's use? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If Theodore Hesburgh was still alive, then I would say that non-free use would be clearly not allowed per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER. However, he is deceased and non-free images are often allowed to be used in such cases per item 10 of WP:NFCI. There is a caveat, however, to such usage which can be kind of tricky and it often depends on whether a reasonable effort has been made to find/create a freely licensed equivalent. FWIW, "reasonable effort" is quite subjective and may depend upon how much you are willing to WP:AGF.

If someone dies and a non-free image is added pretty much immediately thereafter, then there might be some question as to whether a sufficient effort was made to determine whether a freely licensed equivalent image either existed or could be created as required by NFCC#1. However, if quite a bit of time has passed between a person death and the image being added, then WP:AGF might be a better course of action.

The problem in this case is not so much when Hesburgh died, but the fact that there are other freely licensed images being used in the article. It is quite possible that one of these could be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free. In fact, File:Fr. Ted Hesburgh in his Office at the University of Notre Dame.JPG was being used prior to being replaced by the non-free and in my opinion serves the same purpose. It might not be as nice a photo, but being nice is not a justification for non-free use. So, in this particular case I think you can do two things: (1) tag the file with {{rfu}} per WP:F7 as replaceable fair use and leave it up to an administrator to decide or (2) nominate it for discussion at FFD and ask for community input. I think you can try (1) and based upon experience the administrator will either delete the file or say bring it to FFD for further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! I will try that #1 first. Thanks for the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Sometimes it helps to explain exactly why you feel its rfu by using the |reason= when using that template. You can also use |1= if your explanation is going to include wikilinks -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a reason. I'm new to these sort of deletion requests, if I need to do something else, please let me know! I'm new to this sort of deletion request, so I appreciate the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's basically the same as a speedy deletion request for articles. If you feel it qualifies for speedy deletion, then tag the file accordingly. If you're not sure, then probably best to take it to FFD or ask at WP:MCQ. The uploader of the file has already contested the speedy deletion, perhaps because the file was recently uploaded and still on fresh on their watchlist. You should, however, try to notify the uploader as a courtesy using the notification template specified in the rfu template. Sometimes the uploader may no longer be active, but someone else might be watching their user talk page, or the uploader may simply have forgotten about the file. You can also use {{deletable image-caption}} for the file itself when appropriate to do so. Infobox captions are usually not visible without an infobox image, but files added to the bodies of articles often have a caption and the syntax will remain if the file is deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep this in mind. I'll look for the template on Twinkle too. I use that a lot and it should notify the original uploader, correct? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Twinkle so cannot say what it does/does not do. I only mentioned it because I didn't see a notification template on the uploader's user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I think it does, but will (try to) make sure next time. I rely to heavily on Twinkle! Appreciate all of your help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Coco Star image

I'm sorry you felt the need to remove this image from Coco star. we filed a copyright permissions with wikimedia but lost the image anyway. Can this be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.23.62 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 88.110.23.62. There's no need for you to apologize for uploading File:Singer and songwriter Coco Star.jpg to Wikipedia without proper permission. Image licensing can be tricky sometimes and good-faith mistakes are often made. The name of the administrator who deleted the file is Explicit and if you want to ask him a specific question about that particular file, then you can do so at User talk:Explicit.

For what it's worth, files which are deleted are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from public view. So, if you are able to show that the original copyright holder has clearly agreed to release the file under a free license suitable for Wikipedia, then the file has a good chance of being "undeleted". What is typically done in such a case is for the copyright holder (or their representative) to follow the instructions listed in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send an email to Wikipedia OTRS. An OTRS volunteer will check the email to see if the licensing is now acceptable for Wikipedia, and undelete the file if it is. If you have anymore general questions, feel free to ask them here or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Karolina Styczyńska at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)