2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
BagBalm refund?
I missed the deletion of File:BagBalmOblique.jpg last year. I think it's a better picture than the one that is currently in use on the article. Could you restore it so I can add a proper rationale and fix any other fair use issues? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi SarekOfVulcan. If the other image you're referring to is File:Bag balm.jpg that's being used in Bag Balm (which appears to be the case), then it's unlikely a non-free image is going to be allowed per WP:FREER. The image currently being used was uploaded to Commons under a free license, and there's no way a non-free is going to be accepted if that licensing is accurate. Of course, the Commons file may be mislicensed and actually need to be deleted, but this is not clear at the moment. Product labelling generally falls under c:COM:Packaging, but there is also s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. to consider in that a photo of the entire tin might be OK for Commons even if it includes a copyrightable logo. Such a thing will probably need to be sorted out over on Commons first before a non-free image can be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy pinging of Explicit since he's the administrator who deleted the local file last November. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, read the history too quickly the first time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SarekOfVulcan: Actually things might be more complicated than it seems per c:User:Clindberg#File:Bag balm.jpg and the Commons file may not be able to be kept (at least not as is). A lot depends on the copyright status of the primary logo being used by Bag Balm on its product labels. It looks like it been used for quite some time and it's possible that its copyright was never renewed. If that's the case, then a better photo of the product could be uploaded to Commons and used instead of the current one. They key might be to avoid isolating the company's logo from the rest of whatever's on the label (the problem with the Commons photo currently being used is that it seems to trying to isolate the label) and simply show the entire product with its label. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That's pretty much what I did - take a picture of the whole container to show what it looked like, rather than focus on any one part of it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you licensed it as non-free because you thought that's what it was, then it would've end up deleted per WP:F5 shortly after it stopped being used in any articles. Perhaps you should try to ask about your photo over at c:COM:VPC and see what others might think. If most feel such a photo should be OK, then you probably can just re-upload it to Commons under a c:COM:CC license of your shoosing, and make mention of Ets-Hokins for the label in the file's description. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That's pretty much what I did - take a picture of the whole container to show what it looked like, rather than focus on any one part of it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SarekOfVulcan: Actually things might be more complicated than it seems per c:User:Clindberg#File:Bag balm.jpg and the Commons file may not be able to be kept (at least not as is). A lot depends on the copyright status of the primary logo being used by Bag Balm on its product labels. It looks like it been used for quite some time and it's possible that its copyright was never renewed. If that's the case, then a better photo of the product could be uploaded to Commons and used instead of the current one. They key might be to avoid isolating the company's logo from the rest of whatever's on the label (the problem with the Commons photo currently being used is that it seems to trying to isolate the label) and simply show the entire product with its label. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, read the history too quickly the first time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Bot question
Hi JJMC89. Since you run a bot, perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at User talk:DatGuy#File:Youth Olympic Games Third Version.svg. I'm trying to figure out why DatBot reduced File:Youth Olympic Games Third Version.svg and tagged it with {{orfurrev}} since the file isn't and never seems to have been licensed as non-free. I think it might have something to do with this edit (which seems to be a mistake), but I'm not sure. The deleted revisions were subsequently restored by Jonteemil, but it's still not clear why the file was reduced and the oilder revisions tagged for speedy deletion per F5 in the first place. Do you know whether files tagged with {{Non-free reduce}} simply reduced regardless of the file's licensing? I have basically zero knowledge of how bots work, but I'm assuming there's something about a file that tells a bot its non-free. Just for reference, the reason I stumbled upon this file was because it was flagged as a NFCC#9 violation for some reason, and I thought that could also be due to adding of "Non-free reduce" to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I mean Dinnerbrone mistakenly tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}} and DatBot subsequently reduced it, is it anything weird with that? I didn't restore anything, nothing was ever deleted.Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't any weird or wrong with what you did; you just unhid the "deleted" versions. What I found weird was that DatBot resized the file and then tagged the old versions for deletion. The file was also flagged for a NFCC#9 violation as well since it was being used in a template. None of those things should happen to a file that is not licensed as non-free. I don't know if the reason was simply because of the mistakenly added "Non-free reduce" template or some other reason. If it's just because of the "Non-free reduce" template, then that doesn't seem like it should happen since such a mistake is relatively easy to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
you just unhid the "deleted" versions
No, nothing was as I said ever deleted. If I hadn't removed {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} then the versions except the most recent would have been deleted.If it's just because of the "Non-free reduce" template, then that doesn't seem like it should happen since such a mistake is relatively easy to make.
Yes, that mistake is the reason. I don't think that mistake is done very often, but I mean if it happens again it is very easy to reverse it, so I don't think this should be given such a high priority, but yes, optimally DatBot would check both if {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} is there and if the file is non-free.Jonteemil (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't any weird or wrong with what you did; you just unhid the "deleted" versions. What I found weird was that DatBot resized the file and then tagged the old versions for deletion. The file was also flagged for a NFCC#9 violation as well since it was being used in a template. None of those things should happen to a file that is not licensed as non-free. I don't know if the reason was simply because of the mistakenly added "Non-free reduce" template or some other reason. If it's just because of the "Non-free reduce" template, then that doesn't seem like it should happen since such a mistake is relatively easy to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)