User:Church/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to the confusing field of media files (which, when we're through, won't be all that confusing). In this lesson, we will mainly be covering the speedy deletion criteria of Media Files, components required on file description pages (and what do when they are not there), FFD/PUF, Copyrights/WP:NFC/WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, Upload Log Patrol, Commons, and any other related subfields.

Let's begin with the components of free images.

Arbitrary Section Break/Archive: Part I

For the sake of example, Let's use File:STM-NovabusLFS-2ndGen.jpg, a recently uploaded file that I randomly selected. Analyze and describe the parts (Summary and Licensing) that you see on this file's description page. I want your analysis and opinions - why is each component important? Are there any parts that are excessive/unnecessary? Do you see any reason to doubt/dispute the uploader's copyright claim? (If you wish, you may use WP:IUP as a reference, though I doubt you'll need it)

A:Well, with my limited (I mean very limited) knowledge of images this one looks to be fairly, if not completely complete. It contains a basic summary, containing the description, the source, Date uploaded, and then you have the permissions license which states that people can modify and share the work in anyway. The file history, the articles it's being used in and the Metadata preserved by the camera. The Summary is important because it basically sums up the entire work. Licensing, simply because people need to know what they can do with it. The history to see all the different versions of it. File links holds value in case it was orphaned, people would be able to tell, and Metadata so people can tell the exact way the image was taken.

Not bad! I must hand it to you - you're more observant than most, who would have, in a twinkling, overlooked the meta data (which, for our purposes, is useful in some instances for discerning copyvios - more on that later however). For a total newcomer to the file namespace, you've more than exceeded my expectations - Great job!! :) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk a bit about licensing. As you probably already know, on Wikipedia, we use license tags to denote the copyright status of files. Unlike any text users add to this encyclopedia, which is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL (aka the copyright status of Wikipedia text), files can be licensed differently. This is why we have such a long list of license tags for Wikipedia, each which denotes a different copyright status.
Before we continue, I'd like to ask that you skim down WP:ICT and get a general feel for our license tag policies. Please indicate below once you have finished:

A:Read.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

When the uploader of a file fails to provide a license tag, generally, we will apply the tag {{subst:nld}} to the file (just like one would a CSD tag, only without the "subst"). The file will deleted after a week of being tagged if the issue is not resolved.

So is that what I did wrong with my upload?--SKATER ^Speak. 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to that shortly. It has to deal with fair-use rationale, which we will cover in detail. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a file can be deleted if it lacks a source. Recall that content posted in Wikipedia's article namespace must be verifiable by others - the same applies to images. The copyright status of files must be verifiable by others. That being said, a detailed/specific source is indispensable when it comes to dealing with media files.
In your own words, please describe (in general) what constitutes a good, verifiable source and what would not be a good source. Provide several examples.

A: In general what constitutes a good source if it is from a reliable source that the information has been verified. For example, from a newspaper/news cite, .edu website etc. These have had to be verified by others in order to get published. A blog, youtube, or any other site where the information has not been verified is not a good. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Yes, you're absolutely correct! An easy way to remember that is by thinking a good source is a specific source which is verifiable. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Now with the above in mind, we shall apply it to images. When an image does not have a source altogether or a specific, verifiable source, you tag it with deletion tag, {{subst:nsd}}.
Now let's jump to non-free images. We'll return to free images shortly (which ironically, are probably more complex in all respects than non-free images). There's not too much difference when you take a look at a non-free image and compare it with a free image. You still have all the same components: description, source, licensing, metadata, file history, ect. The only difference however, is that non-free files are restricted in their use and require fair-use rationale.

Let's begin with fair-use rationale. Please read WP:FUG and template documentation for Template:Non-free use rationale. Using what you have learned, see [1] (don't peek at the current version - Salavat already fixed the fair-use rationale, but if you have seen it already, that's ok too, but I would rather you not look because Salavat used a standard template which doesn't teach us anything) and fill out the empty parameters below, with your own words.

A:

Non-free media information and use rationale true for Shadow Company: Left For Dead
Description	The Cover of Shadow Company: Left For Dead
Source	IGN
Article	Shadow Company: Left For Dead
Portion used	The entire front cover
Low resolution?	Yes
Purpose of use	To illustrate the cover of the game in the infobox
Replaceable?	Any other copy of the image would still be copyrighted so there is no free version.
Other information	This will in no way affect the copyright holders rights or use.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Shadow Company: Left For Dead//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Church/Admin_coaching/Lesson_3/Archivetrue

Very good! This was exactly what I was looking for! You didn't peek now, did you? ;) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly no.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that's even better. Give yourself an extra pat on the back :) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, a fair use rationale consists of three parts: what is the purpose of the file?, is the file of resolution?, and is the file replaceable by a free version that could portray the equivalent meaning? Basically, with those three parts, a fair-use rationale is considered complete. This means that something like (and please don't ever write fair-use rationale like this) "the file is needed to illustrate the entity in question, it's of low quality, and it is not replaceable by a free version" slapped onto a non-free file, would be a valid fair-use rationale, despite being pathetically skimpy. Users are strongly discouraged from such using such a fair-use rationale in favor of a detailed, descriptive fair-use rationale.
When a given non-free file is missing any one or more of these components, we consider it as incomplete (I'm usually a little more lenient when I patrol the upload log - I don't tag unless two or more parts are missing and I will usually try to fill in missing WP:FUG parameters if I can. At any rate, this is totally at your discretion - the aforementioned method is just how I do it). Such files should be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}.

Gotcha--SKATER ^Speak. 03:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So now that we know a little more about fair-use rationale, mainly, how to better write a good fair-use rationale, let's try a few exercises before moving on - fair use rationale is a big part of non-free content and I just want to be sure you have it down. Using the provided files, simply fill out the missing parameters, and make corrections as necessary to the fair-use rationale (and lastly, not assuming you would of course, - no peeking!):

File:Prince 1 in Prince of Perisa .JPG

Non-free media information and use rationale true for The Prince (Prince of Persia)
Description	This is a screenshot of the The Prince (Prince of Persia), taken from the original Prince Of Persia video game.
Source	Self: screencapture
Article	The Prince (Prince of Persia)
Portion used	The entire screenshot
Low resolution?	Yes
Purpose of use	To Illustrate the Prince of Persia article
Replaceable?	Any Screenshot would be under the same copyright
Other information	This will in no way affect the copyright holder's rights
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of The Prince (Prince of Persia)//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Church/Admin_coaching/Lesson_3/Archivetrue

With this one the source on the page was different from the one listed here, was that intentional?--SKATER ^Speak. 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was intentional. Using plain, non-specific website links is generally discouraged, because it does not help others to verify the copyright status of the file. However, noting that the file is clearly a screenshot of a non-free game, using "Self: screencapture", as a source is acceptable. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Noted.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Expression web 3 win7.png

Non-free media information and use rationale true for Expression Web
Description	The Wikipedia Main Page being edited in Expression Web 3
Source	Screenshot by uploader
Article	Expression Web
Portion used	The entire Screenshot.
Low resolution?	It is of sufficient resolution for viewing.
Purpose of use	To show an example of the new interface in version 3 of Expression Web
Replaceable?	Can't be replaced with more suitable image, as this is a screen shot of non-free software.
Other information	The uploader does not claim any rights to this image. Software depicted belongs solely to the Microsoft Corporation. Fair Use Rationale: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Expression Web//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Church/Admin_coaching/Lesson_3/Archivetrue

File:FGSomethingSomethingSomethingDarkSideDVD.jpg

Non-free media information and use rationale true for List of Family Guy episodes
Description	The front cover of the Something Something, Dark Side DVD
Source	From Fox Broadcasting Company
Article	List of Family Guy episodes
Portion used	Entire Front Cover
Low resolution?	Yes
Purpose of use	To illustrate the article in the infobox
Replaceable?	Any copies would be held by the copyright holder as well.
Other information	This would no way infringe on the holder's rights.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of List of Family Guy episodes//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Church/Admin_coaching/Lesson_3/Archivetrue

Very good! I think you've got fair-use rationale down pretty well. The only change I would make is to the image FUR of the interface of "Expression Web". You should always use "Yes" or "No" for this parameter. It's not against the rules to use anything else - it's just generally discouraged. When a non-free file is too large to be considered low quality (rule of thumb: 500x500 pixels/250,000 total pixels or larger), tag it with {{non-free reduce}}. A bot will then come by and reduce the resolution of the file shortly afterward. Other than that, well done! -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One last thing to know about non-free files in general before we move on, is that we do not retain orphaned non-free files. This is done because Wikipedia is not a media repository and because per United States (our servers are located in Florida) Fair use laws, we cannot retain such files. That being said, orphaned non-free files are tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. There is currently no need to do this manually however - we have bots which automatically track and tag orphaned non-free files.

Arbitrary Section Break/Archive: Part II

Now let's talk about the non-free content criteria. This is essentially the doctrine on which we use to police non-free media. Please go to WP:NFCC, and read the whole page. It's alright if some parts don't make sense right now, I just want you to have some idea of what WP:NFCC entails. Indicate below once you've finished.

A:Read

There's going to be a little change of plans. I was originally going to teach WP:NFCC to you by myself but I believe found a 'professionally', if you will, written instructional page that will do a much better job. That being said, please see here, read the whole page starting from "Background" down, and summarize all the non-free content criteria in your own words (please be very specific - I want to be sure that you understand these criteria, they are the backbone on which WP:NFC exists. If you aren't clear on any one of the criteria or have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me.):

#1 - No free equivalent, where it would be absolutely impossible to have an image that wouldn't fall under the same copyright such as a video game cover.
#2 - It would no interfere with Commercial activities, meaning something if any other organization besides Wp were to try to use it they'd have to sell it, whereas if it's a picture distributed as an advertisement it's allowed as no profit was thought to be made.
#3a - The item should be used as little as possible.
#3b - The picture should not be used to it's full extent, it should be of lower resolution, and the whole portion should not be used if possible.
#4 - It must have been published previously before it was on Wikipedia. Wikipedia can not debut images.
#5 - It must meet the usual WP standards, meaning it can't be a WP:BLP, or [[WP:NPOV] issue.
#6 - It must meet it's own specific policy (For images it's the Image Use Policy.
#7 - It must be used in AT LEAST one article, they can not be orphaned
#8 - It should only be used if it would benefit the article, and hurt it if it's not in the article. ((An example would be the whole Goatse image debate))
#9 - It can only be used in article space
#10 - The image description page must contain a source and a copyright holder, a tag that states why its use it permitted, and the name of each article it's being used in.

Not bad for a first try - you seem to have gotten most of the criteria down. For something this complicated, you're doing pretty well! Some notes/things to remember on your answers below:

#1 - "No free equivalent" means that there is no free version that could be reasonably created or located to represent the entity in question. Non-free images are only used when no free version reasonably obtained and when the inclusion of the image would greatly enhance a reader's understanding of the article, and when omission of that particular image would detrimental to a reader's understanding. The last point is a bit redundant I know, but a non-free file should satisfy both parts of the above "and" statement. This criteria is usually applied to the items noted here.
#2 - Non-free images should not be used in a way where they might replace the original market value of the photo. So using images from press agencies like Reuters to illustrate polar bears would be violative of this criteria (in addition to failing WP:NFCC#1).
#3a - Basically, this is to say that Non-free images should be used as little as possible. Uploading 10 images of Halo 2 gameplay to illustrate gameplay would be unacceptable (not to mention a lack of compliance with WP:MOS). On the other hand, using only one of those images to illustrate gameplay would be acceptable. One image has conveyed the meaning of many for the purposes of the reader.
#3b - This is the reason why we bother with non-free reduces; non-free images must be of a reduced resolution (500x500, 10% of a music/video clip, is essentially the limit in terms of size for non-free content - for images, this is on the high side). A high-res version could be used for creating copyvios elsewhere, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to facilitate such behavior. Also, this criterion prohibits users from creating collages of non-free content (hence, when one small portion will do), and inclusion of irrelevant parts of a non-free file (basically, crop out the parts of the image that don't relate to the subject at hand).
#8 - Although an interesting case, the Goatse debate is hardly based on policy. Rather, it would appear to be a battle of opinions (e.g. wikipedia is not a shock site, violates an interpretation of WP:MOS). WP:NFCC#8 applies when the exclusion of a file would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding. An example of this would be an screencap of a Lady Gaga music video (say, Bad Romance) used in an article about Bad Romance, but not accompanied with critical commentary. Omission of this file would not be detrimental to a user's understanding of the article because the image isn't even mentioned in the text of the article.
#9 - When you find a non-free image in someone's userspace (draft or not), please remove it.

I'm honestly glad you missed the points of criteria #1, #3, #8. These are the most important of WP:NFCC and the criteria people have the most trouble with. As you may have noticed, we have pretty much gone over most of the other criteria in the past sections. When an image is violative of any of the above criteria, apply the {{dnfcc}} deletion tag to it (only if there is no other deletion tag in existence specific for that particular criteria - e.g. {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:nld}}). The template is fairly easy to use. If an image is violative of WP:NFCC#8, tag the file like so {{subst:dnfcc|8=yes}}. The same applies for images violative of WP:NFCC#3a - {{subst:dnfcc|3a=yes}}. If an image violates multiple criteria, apply multiple parameters - {{subst:dnfcc|3a=yes|8=yes}}. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're glad I Missed them?--SKATER ^Speak. 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, that could have been better worded. What I meant to say was that I'm glad to have an opportunity to better explain these concepts to you. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Now let's try a few in-depth hypothetical-situation exercises (all of which are valid RfA questions I have used in the past). Answer as specifically as possible, as if this were an actual RfA. It's alright if you make mistakes now - that way, you won't make them in the future, or worse, on your RfA:

1. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A: The answer is no, It would only be able to be fair use iff it would be impossible to create a work without it falling under a copyright.

More or less a trick question, but a frequently asked question to candidates with interest in files :/ The correct answer would be yes, non-free images of living person(s) can be used when it is next to impossible (or impossible) to take a free image. Common examples include obscure notable figures such as the late J. D. Salinger (a non-free image was used in the infobox even when he was still alive) and images of bands which have disbanded. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-self}} (public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?

A: The problem is the characters are under copyright, and while the images are his own work the characters in them are copyright of Disney. Meaning that unless Disney were to release the characters they would not be in the public domain.

3. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2, in a gallery. Explain the problem with this situation and why it is a problem.

A: Per NFC criteria 3a, these images should be used as little as possible and only when they have would boost the readers understanding. Uploading one is more then enough to understand the game engine, possible Covenant or Flood species and everything else needed.

4. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?

A: It wouldn't be allowed, as I'm almost positive there are free images of Sea Turtles out there. The situation with this user would be a problem because for that very reason, per NFC criteria 1 these images should only be used if there is no free equivalent.

5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere. In a detailed, manner, explain your course of action.

A: Per NFC criteria 4, this is not allowed they must have been debuted before they're on Wikipedia. With a quick look, it doesn't seem to meet any of the CSD criteria for images but is clearly a problem so I would probably just tag it for deletion.

6. Say for instance, on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a user adds 25 images (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) which illustrate gameplay. Detail every step you would take to address the situation.

A: Per NFC G8 Non-free images should only be used if they would be helpful to the reader in the article, I'd find which one would be best for the article, then tag the rest for deletion.

I think you meant to say WP:NFCC#8, but G8 is close enough for me ;) (just don't say G8 during an RfA and it's all good) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

7. A user adds multiple screenshots of Gandalf, as seen in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, to Ian McKellen, none of which are accompanied by any critical commentary. Detail how you would react to this situation.

A:None of them have critical commentart, so once again G8 comes into place and people may not know what their looking at, I'd probably try to provide commentary for one of the screenshots, and tag the rest for deletion since they should be used as little as possible.

I think you meant to say WP:NFCC#8, but G8 is close enough for me ;) (just don't say G8 during an RfA and it's all good) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I must say, very good. These are not easy questions to answer and you're doing fine with short, succinct, straight to the point answers. I very much like what I am seeing.
I think it's time to move on - you have the non-free content criteria down fairly well. Remember that Wikipedia is an open-book test; when in doubt, refer back to the appropriate policy page.

That's what got me on my last RFA I must admit, that one Speedy question I was positive I had right and was clearly wrong :p I have no idea where I got G8 -facepalm----SKATER ^Speak. 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break/Archive: Part III

Although we've covered them indirectly, it's still a good idea to know the CSD criteria for files. So just like before, define the following criteria in your own words and be sure to note any exceptions/unusual conditions/ect.

Y F1: - Redundant files,if these images are lower resolution, unused images. Does not apply to images on commons
N F2: - If the file does not work, meaning Wiki can't resize it or such.

For a file to satisfy WP:CSD#F2, it must be corrupt, empty (e.g. no pixels or very few OR there is an image description page in existence, but no file associated with it), or an image description page for Commons (not including files tagged as picture of the day or valued pictures - these are of course, exceptions to the "empty" rule).

N F3: - This seems to be one of the most common CSD that is seen, It's for improper licenses they will be deleted unless they comply to the NFC guidelines.

This is reserved for files that limit usage, that is to say, they are licensed under free licenses, but these licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia. Essentially, any free license that limits derivatives, commercial use, or restricts usage to educational use only is not considered free enough for Wikipedia. See WP:IUP#Adding images, bold text under point 4.

Y F4: - The file does not have licensing information, and will be deleted a week from when it was marked.

Remember: Files subject to deletion under WP:CSD#F4 have been tagged with {{subst:nld}} for 7 days.

Y F5: - An unfree image that is not used. Deleted a week after it was tag, exceptions can be made for upcoming articles.

Remember: Files subject to deletion under WP:CSD#F5 have been tagged with {{subst:orfud}} for 7 days.

N F6: - If they do not have a fair-use rationale the exception is if it has it but it is disputed.

Remember: Files subject to deletion under WP:CSD#F6 have been tagged with {{subst:nrd}} for 7 days. If fair use rationale is disputed (aka it fails WP:NFCC), then it should be deleted under WP:CSD#F7.

N F7: - These are for the invalid fair use claims, where images could have free equivalents. These can be deleted after two days. Or if it's clearly invalid such as a videogame cover tagged as a logo these can be deleted immediatley.

This is the complicated one. It's rules/exceptions are essentially a parallel of the difficulty editors have with WP:CSD#A7, only for files. Basically F7 means "invalid fair-use claim"; this could mean several different things. One way F7 can be applied is with respect to WP:NFCC. As you might already know, this is why we have the {{subst:dnfcc}}, {{subst:rfu}}, and {{subst:dfu}} tags. Essentially, files that have been tagged for longer than the specified amount on the tag (lengths can vary from 2-7 days, depending on the which NFCC criteria is a file is being tagged for) should be deleted under WP:CSD#F7. The instance during which files should be deleted per F7 is when an uploader claims a non-free image as something that it is not. For instance, claiming a costume photograph of a school mascot as a logo (either through the license tag or the fair-use rationale) would make the file eligible for immediate deletion under F7.

Y F8: - The same image is available on Commons and meets a certain set of requirements: It is the same file format and type, the license and source are absolutely correct, all of the information in the description of the commons image meets the same, and they are not protected.
Y F9: - Copyvios, pretty self-explanatory. Just be sure to have the URL. They can be deleted immediately

Remember: Copyvios only occur when an uploader claims work that is not theirs as their own and licenses it differently.

Y F10: - If they are useless files that are not images, videos, or sounds.
Y F11: - If there is no evidence of permission for the file to be used.

We haven't discussed this in great detail yet, but this is generally an acceptable answer.

Not bad. Many people have a lot of trouble with the above CSD criteria (especially F3 and F7, but this is something that takes some time and experience out in the field to understand so no worries.) but you are doing fairly well! Nice job!
Now let's transition from non-free to free files again where we'll go over permission. This is going to be the last "textbook", if you will, lesson before I send you out to do some upload log patrolling.
Let's dive headfirst into file permission. Read WP:PERMISSION and indicate below once you have finished.

A: Read.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skater, finished up with my RL businiess earlier than I thought. Just wanted to let you know that I'm ready to resume coaching anytime you are. When you've got the time, it would be helpful if you could review everything we've gone over thus far. I look forward to hearing back from you soon! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A: Welcome back Fastily, hope everything went well. Of course I'd like to resume my Admin Coaching :), I'll look over everything again.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So now that we know a little more about Permission, I'll give you a quick and dirty overview of what you'll need to know about permission as applied to Files:

So, hypothetical situation: An editor takes a picture of a tree in their backyard and uploads it to Wikipedia under a free license, say, the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike 3.0 license for instance. Essentially, what the uploader is doing by publishing the image under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license is giving permission to others (others being anyone with an intent to use/modify and republish the file) to use the file under the terms noted here. As a result, the uploader in this case, is relinquishing some of their copyright rights over the file they took (Remember that a copyright is created the moment the photographer presses the button on the camera, i.e. the moment an artist creates their work).
Another hypothetical situation. So now let's say that an editor (John) has a friend who is a novice photographer (Bill). John asks Bill if it's alright to upload some of his photographs to Wikipedia. Bill agrees, but does not specify a license. John posts the pictures with a {{pd-self}} license and sources the images to Bill. Although John has good intentions here, he is actually infringing on Bill's copyright rights. Firstly, John is not the creator of the photographs. Secondly, John has no right to choose what license Bill's photographs should be licensed under. Bill never gave permission of any sort to anyone to freely use/distribute/modify/republish his work.

While the Wikimedia Foundation is largely immune to being sued over copyright (yes, the above case actually can result in a court case against the Wikimedia Foundation, because Bill's work, now "released" under a pd-license, is causing him considerable distress and/or financial loss - assuming Bill's occupation is photography), the goal of strict permission/copyright enforcement is to protect users downstream. Businesses/individuals who use improperly licensed work are also immune to the aforementioned legal allegations because they would not have known the proper copyright status of such a file because it had not been properly documented. As can clearly be seen from the above, it is the author of a work who has the most to lose when files are not properly documented and permission is not properly established. The Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in ruining or creating trouble for authors of creative works.

Basically, when a source of a file is provided (so that would mean that a given file is sourced to someone other than the uploader), but it cannot be established whether the original author agreed to release the file under a given license, we tag the file with {{subst:npd}}, as lacking evidence of permission.
If an uploader claims to have permission (usually in e-mail format) from the original author for a given file (meaning, that the original author has specified a license the file is to be released under), that email should be forward to the Wikimedia Foundation's OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Further Reading: WP:DCP and WP:ERP (Please do it - these are solid explanations)

I'll go through them right now, but on a side note I think I got it :)

Read both.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the tag, excellent work. That was picture perfect. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, once you've read the above, please answer the following questions:

1. An editor uploads a photograph of a ladybug under a {{pd-self}} license, claiming their friend told them it was alright to post the photo on Wikipedia. Detail your course of action.

A: Well, given the example you have above this is a violation of his friends copyright rights because not only is he plagiarizing (In a sense, by the definition of taking someone elses work and claiming it as your own), but it's also possible that he might not have told him to release it under the license it was given on. Seems like a simple tag of {{subst:npd}},

2. An editor uploads a photograph of the USS Midway from a website, claiming that the photograph is in the public domain, and tagging the file with {{PD-release}}. You go to the website and see nothing to back up that now dubious claim. How do you react?

A: Another simple tag of {{subst:npd}} and move on.

3. Let's say that the editor in question 2 tagged the file with {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Again, there is nothing on the source website to back up that claim. Do you do anything different?

A:I know It's seeming repetitive, but see my answers for the first two, tag the first two and get the verification.

4. An editor uses Google Earth and takes several screencaps while viewing the satellite map of the natural formation, Colletto Fava. The editor uploads these screenshots under a {{pd-self}} license, noting that since they "created the images themself", they are the copyright holder of the images and can do whatever they wish. How do you react?

A: He may have created those Screenshots themselves but not the images that he screenshotted, therefore he did not make the image themself and a {{pd-self}} tag would be innapropriate for such images, {{subst:npd}} again.

Not quite - This was the only situation question where the answer wasn't {{subst:npd}}. Google Earth images are fully copyrighted by Google, and the editor in this case has no rights whatsoever to release the images they took under a pd-self license, despite being the one who created the screenshot. Essentially, what's happened here is that the editor has created a derivative work (we'll go into more detail on this shortly) of a non-free set of files which is in essence, a blunt copyright violation. The proper response would be to tag with {{db-f9}} (for normal users) or delete on sight (for admins). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

5. An editor uploads an image of Taylor Swift's latest album and claims it under a {{PD-release}} license. How do you react?

A:I doubt that's in the public domain very seriously, in this case I probably wouldn't tag and would create a fair use rationale for it.

6. An editor uploads a black and white photo of a piano, sources it to a website, and tags it with {{pd-old}}. Other than the copyright tag and the external link, there is nothing else on the image description page. You head to the website provided, but are neither able to locate the image nor find information on its copyright status there. How to do you react?

A:Just because somethings black and white does not make it old, I could go into photoshop right now and make something black and white, tag it with {{subst:npd}} and perhaps add on explaining the links wrong too.

7. Same as above, except the uploader tags the file with {{PD-release}} and through the website link provided, you find that the image was taken in 1950. There is no information on the copyright status of the file. What do you do?

A:Looking through the public domain page, the author hasn't/couldn't have been dead long enough for it to be placed in the public domain. Seems like another {{subst:npd}} tag ((I must be a broken record...))

8. Explain the difference between copyright and permission, in your own words.

A: A copyright, is the right to copy something and control who uses it. It is given to the creator of the work. Permission is given by the copyright holder to reproduce the image and how it should be done.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While it's clear you understand the definition of Copyright, just remember that "copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work". Think of permission as sharing. When you tag a file with {{subst:npd}}, you are essentially tagging the file as "no evidence of sharing of copyright". -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about question 4; it wasn't at all clear what I was trying to ask. Would you like to give it another shot? Or shall I just give you the answer? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I understood what to do but just didn't notice i didn't answer the question, my bad. Answered now.--SKATER ^Speak. 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for doing it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And there you have it. Media files and copyright, the quick and dirty version. There's a few more important aspects we have yet to cover, but I think you know enough to give patrolling the upload log a shot. Let's get started.

The upload log may be found at Special:Log/upload. The same rules apply to the upload log as they do with the NPP log - don't tag a file until a file has been live for more than 10 minutes or so. This is really common courtesy, that's all.
There is, unfortunately, no "mark this file patrolled". We desparetly need one of these.
You can tag files with twinkle or manually. If you're using twinkle, the deletion/maintenance tags you will need to use can be found under either the "csd" or "di" tabs. Be sure to notify the uploader of the file's deletion. If you use twinkle, it will be done automatically. If you tag manually, you will need to manually notify the uploader with the provided messaging template.
If you're tagging manually, the following may be helpful:

No license	No Fair Use Rationale	No Source	No Evidence of Permission	Disputed	Non-free replaceable	Fails Non-free content criteria	Orphaned	Orphaned b/c replaced
{{subst:nld}}	{{subst:nrd}}	{{subst:nsd}}	{{subst:npd}}	{{subst:dfu}}	{{subst:rfu}}	{{subst:Dnfcc\|#=yes}}	{{subst:orfud}}	{{subst:orfur\|REPLACINGFILENAME}}

In short, expect the unexpected. You'll surely encounter the oddest of situations on the upload log.

I'd like to see you you go through at least ~40-50 files from the top of the log (which shouldn't take you more than 20 min max), although, more would be nice. Please list the images you've tagged (copy & paste from your contribs works just fine) below and any files you weren't sure how to deal with (so we'll be able to go over those). Good Luck. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's some, I'm going to do more but I wasn't sure about the ones I tagged with no licence. I think they're tagged correctly though.

Well while I'm waiting for more on the log, here's some more.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

18:51, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:GORIZARD ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rambo3poster.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:51, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Rambo3poster.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:49, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:MoJoMayJuneCover.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 18:49, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jnp2109 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:MoJoMayJuneCover.JPG. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:48, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Ischa3 ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nederland3childident1989.png. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:48, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Nederland3childident1989.png ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:47, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:DD Dub ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Drake.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:47, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Drake.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:46, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Aurorapio ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Aurora_Reservoir_Colorado.jpg. (TW)) (top)
18:46, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aurora Reservoir Colorado.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:45, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Galaconcierge ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Kandeyce-Jorden.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:45, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Kandeyce-Jorden.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) 
20:29, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Cristiano Ronaldo 2009-10.JPG}} ~~~~) (top) [rollback] 
20:27, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Cristiano Ronaldo 2009-10.JPG ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:25, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Zinedine Zidane Finale World Cup 2006 Penalty.jpg}} ~~~~) 
20:25, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Zinedine Zidane Finale World Cup 2006 Penalty.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:23, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ (→May 2010: Ooops) 
20:21, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Sneijder 2009-10.JPG}} ~~~~) 
20:19, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sneijder 2009-10.JPG ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:17, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Gonzalo Higuain 2009-10.jpg}} ~~~~) 
20:17, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Gonzalo Higuain 2009-10.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:53, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) 
19:53, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Pepe Real Madrid.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:42, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mmschettler ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Irene Headshot.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) [rollback] 
19:41, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mmschettler ‎ (Undid revision 362909253 by Skater (talk)oops) 
19:40, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mmschettler ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Irene Headshot.jpg}} ~~~~) 
19:40, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Irene Headshot.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:37, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mmschettler ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) 
19:37, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Irene Cover1.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:36, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mmschettler ‎ 
19:36, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Irene ColorBalance.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:34, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Surrey Le Roux ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Breaking.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) [rollback] 
19:33, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Breaking.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:31, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Lockevincent ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Pinnaeffect.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) 
19:30, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Pinnaeffect.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:28, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Rymac140 ‎ ({{subst:di-no source-notice|1=Arialphoto2009.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) 
19:28, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Arialphoto2009.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nsd}}) (top
19:23, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Natalino7 ‎ (Another) (top) [rollback] 
19:23, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Mladen Stojanovic.JPG ‎ (+more) (top) [rollback] 
19:22, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Surrey Le Roux ‎ ({{subst:di-no fair use rationale-notice|1=RamRam.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) [rollback] 
19:21, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:RamRam.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nrd}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:20, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Natalino7 ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Stara kula.JPG}} ~~~~) 
19:19, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Stara kula.JPG ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:18, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Surrey Le Roux ‎ ({{subst:di-no license-notice|1=AFBTN.jpg}} ~~~~) 
19:17, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:AFBTN.jpg ‎ ({{db-f4}},) (top) [rollback] 
19:15, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Megapop ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Danielle Hope, OTR.jpg}} ~~~~) (top) 
19:15, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Danielle Hope, OTR.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:07, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Canboy4u ‎ (+) (top) 
19:06, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:RichardNewmanZurich.jpg ‎ ({{di-no license|month=May|day=18|year=2010}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:04, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Vuk1992 ‎ (Notifying) (top) [rollback] 
19:03, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Warwick sc thumb 2010 6.jpg ‎ ({{di-no permission|date=18 May 2010}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:01, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Dalbster ‎ (Notifying) (top) [rollback] 
19:00, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Nagano hockey profilelarge.jpg ‎ (No FU) (top) [rollback] 
18:57, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Bennetea ‎ (top) [rollback] 
18:55, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Graduationcu.jpg ‎ (tagging) (top) [rollback] 
18:52, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Natalino7 ‎ (top) [rollback] 
18:51, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Fountain in centre prijedor.jpg ‎ (Right tag) (top) [rollback] 
18:51, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Fountain in centre prijedor.jpg ‎ (Undid revision 362901931 by Skater (talk)Oops) 
18:50, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Fountain in centre prijedor.jpg ‎ (tag) 
18:48, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Natalino7 ‎ (notifying) 
18:48, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Glavna ulica Main street.jpg ‎ (tagging) (top) [rollback] 
18:40, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Glavna ulica Main street.jpg ‎ (Undid revision 362900262 by Skater (talk)Actually not enough time has elapsed, will keep an eye) 
18:40, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Glavna ulica Main street.jpg ‎ (No License)

Just realized I messed up most, if not all of my {{subst:nld}} tags, I was talking own works with it because they did not have a permission specified..ooops.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not bad for a first try. The majority of your tags are correctly placed. You did make a few mistakes, but this being your first time, you have already exceeded my expectations! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:RamRam.jpg - You realized this was a non-free file of some sort, so you tagged it with {{subst:nrd}}. If a file has no license tag, tag it with {{subst:nld}}, regardless of whether there is fur, the file is non-free, there is a source, ect. There is an order in which problems with files should be identified. They are as follows: CSD -> nld -> nsd/nrd/dnfcc/rfu/npd -> orfud
File:Danielle Hope, OTR.jpg - see above. While npd will work, the problem of "no license tag" supersedes npd.
File:Warwick sc thumb 2010 6.jpg - see above.
File:Gonzalo Higuain 2009-10.jpg‎ - same as above.
File:Zinedine Zidane Finale World Cup 2006 Penalty.jpg - same as above.
File:ArcSoft Logo CMYK.jpg - same as above.
File:Nagano hockey profilelarge.jpg - This file, despite having a pathetically short fair-use rationale, does in fact have an acceptable fair-use rationale. A table template is not required for a file to have good fair use rationale. When determining whether a file has valid fair-use rationale, look for information on portion used (is the file cropped, whole, screenshot, ect.), resolution (is the file of low resolution? If not, tag with {{non-free reduce}}), purpose of use (is the file being used to illustrate the entity in question?), and replaceability (can this file be replaced by a free version that would convey equivalent meaning?).

Please make the appropriate corrections to the files listed above. Apart from everything just mentioned, I saw no other issues with your tagging. Great work!!
Btw - You don't have to wait for new entries in the log - simply clicking "Older 50" will give you more entries to work with.

Done, will tag more in a bit--SKATER ^Speak. 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining but stop me when you feel I have enough, I'm having a blast tagging them now.they now make up 1% of my edits

Please feel free to tag as many as you like! Although, I'd appreciate it if you could copy+paste from your contribs, the images you tag. Just makes it easier for me to check your, thus far, outstanding work. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been updating the list every few seconds, should I make a new list per each update?--SKATER ^Speak. 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a new, separate list below would be nice. It would make it much easier for me to "grade", if you will. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

# 19:34, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Syedalinaqinaqvi ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:S_ali_naqi.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:34, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:S ali naqi.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:27, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User:Skater/Admin coaching/Lesson 3 ‎ (Question)
# 19:02, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) Pioneers, Rebels, and Wolves ‎ (Wikify)
# 19:01, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) m Pioneers, Rebels, and Wolves ‎ (Adding category Category:2010 books (using HotCat))
# 19:00, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) m Anton Chekhov's The Duel ‎ (Adding category Category:2010 films (using HotCat))
# 18:59, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Kingcartwright ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:ThedanceFaithless.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 18:59, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:ThedanceFaithless.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback] 
18:51, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:GORIZARD ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rambo3poster.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:51, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Rambo3poster.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:49, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:MoJoMayJuneCover.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 18:49, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jnp2109 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:MoJoMayJuneCover.JPG. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:48, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Ischa3 ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nederland3childident1989.png. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:48, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Nederland3childident1989.png ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:47, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:DD Dub ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Drake.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:47, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Drake.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:46, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Aurorapio ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Aurora_Reservoir_Colorado.jpg. (TW)) (top)
18:46, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Aurora Reservoir Colorado.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:45, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Galaconcierge ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Kandeyce-Jorden.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
18:45, May 19, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Kandeyce-Jorden.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) 
20:29, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Cristiano Ronaldo 2009-10.JPG}} ~~~~) (top) [rollback] 
20:27, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Cristiano Ronaldo 2009-10.JPG ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:25, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Zinedine Zidane Finale World Cup 2006 Penalty.jpg}} ~~~~) 
20:25, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Zinedine Zidane Finale World Cup 2006 Penalty.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:23, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ (→May 2010: Ooops) 
20:21, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Sneijder 2009-10.JPG}} ~~~~) 
20:19, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sneijder 2009-10.JPG ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
20:17, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:di-no permission-notice|1=Gonzalo Higuain 2009-10.jpg}} ~~~~) 
20:17, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Gonzalo Higuain 2009-10.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback] 
19:53, May 18, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Daniaguilar ‎ ({{subst:npd}})

Everything looks great so far. After looking through your recent tags, I recommend you look over the following three images:

File:B.A.R.I.High.School.jpg - Although di-no permission technically applies, when no license tag is provided, a di-no license tag should always be applied first.
File:Kandeyce-Jorden.jpg - Same as above.
File:ThedanceFaithless.jpg - The uploader provided a source, but the file is missing fair use rationale.

Just a quick reminder: tagging images is no different from tagging articles at WP:NPP; much care should be exercised in placing proper tags!
Other than that, keep up the great work!! I like very much what I'm seeing.

I'm trying to become more accurate with my taggings, but as I do that. I got my first responce from one of my taggings, would you mind seeing how I handled it?--SKATER ^Hmm? 14:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Adamlancegarcia ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:GLBookMarkTitles.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:GLBookMarkTitles.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arizaalberto ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Penguins.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Penguins.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Hoya gomez photo.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arizaalberto ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Hoya_gomez_photo.jpg. (TW))
# 16:26, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Mudan.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:26, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Yangkangee ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Mudan.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:25, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Yejy.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:25, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Yangkangee ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Yejy.jpg. (TW))
# 16:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Kaskew ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Sandiego_fidm_campus.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sandiego fidm campus.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Kaskew ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Camp_la_annex_2B-4.jpg. (TW))
# 16:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Camp la annex 2B-4.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:23, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Kaskew ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Fidm_oc1.jpg. (TW))
# 16:23, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Fidm oc1.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:23, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Kaskew ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Camp_la_front_view.jpg. (TW))
# 16:23, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Camp la front view.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:21, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mgabrys ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Hackers.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:21, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Hackers.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 16:06, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:74.128.161.39 ‎ (General note: Vandalism on Jason Spitz. (TW)) (top)
# 16:00, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) m Jason Spitz ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 74.128.161.39 identified as vandalism to last revision by Skater. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 13:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:31stbath ‎ (Notifying of Speedy Deletion)
# 13:24, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) The Simpsons (season 23) ‎ ({{db-a1}},)
# 13:21, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) m Dean Aspen(actor) ‎ (Wikifiy)
# 11:27, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Skater ‎ (→Re-your message- Radio23 image use: fix)
# 11:26, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Skater ‎ (→Re-your message- Radio23 image use: re)
# 10:15, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fiedorczuk ‎ (→Talkback: new section)
# 10:11, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User:Skater/Admin coaching/Lesson 3 ‎ (sign) (top) [rollback]
# 10:10, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User:Skater/Admin coaching/Lesson 3 ‎ (re with question)
# 10:08, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Skater ‎ (→Re-your message- Radio23 image use: re)
# 09:43, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Charron69 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Charron.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 09:43, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Charron.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 09:43, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fiedorczuk ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Radio_23.jpg. (TW))
# 09:43, May 20, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Radio 23.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

Looking much better!! There was one issue however. File:Hackers.jpg is a dead copyvio. I saw the discussion on your talk page, and I know the user claims that it's a Public Domain file, but you should really be skeptical of such claims. Just because a user claims a free license and permission doesn't necessarily mean they have it. In the case with File:Hackers.jpg, the file should have been tagged with {{subst:npd}}, the uploader should have been directed to WP:DCP, and then asked to forward the letter containing permission to OTRS. Alternatively, you could have listed the file at WP:PUF, but more on that later. I would not have expected you to have been well acquainted with any of the processes I just detailed, but alas, practice and experience makes perfect. Keep up the good work!! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something didn't seem quite right to me on that one. He had me somewhat believing he had made enough changes to it to make it a seperate piece. Bad judgement on my part when I hadn't seen the original, ah well, no use crying over spilt milk.--SKATER ^Hmm? 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

# 19:20, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Vitam et Mortem.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:20, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Goroth ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Vitam_et_Mortem.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:20, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Life in Death cover.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:20, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Goroth ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Life_in_Death_cover.jpg. (TW))
# 19:19, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Commanding the Obscure Imperius.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:19, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Goroth ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Commanding_the_Obscure_Imperius.jpg. (TW))
# 19:18, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Death Metal 666.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:18, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Goroth ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Death_Metal_666.jpg. (TW))
# 19:17, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:RohanMalik1999 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Speednewmovie.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:17, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Speednewmovie.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:16, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Cyrus40 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Montanatale.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:16, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Montanatale.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:15, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Nerd 101 ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:Merrie melodies blueribbon.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 19:15, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Merrie melodies blueribbon.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback] 
# 17:10, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Juniormembershipform.pdf ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:10, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Mattashdene ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Juniormembershipform.pdf. (TW)) (top)
# 17:08, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:ShippBrick.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:08, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Lizleung ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:ShippBrick.JPG. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:07, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Lizleung ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:HSskyDiving.JPG. (TW))
# 17:07, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:HSskyDiving.JPG ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:07, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fergumungus ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of Visnic Custom Homes. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:07, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) Visnic Custom Homes ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:06, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Archaka ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Sapatil.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:06, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:Sapatil.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:06, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Rui789 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:High-society.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:06, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:High-society.jpg ‎ (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:04, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Lotus Wolf ‎ (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of File:LawOfIllusion.jpg. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
# 17:04, May 21, 2010 (diff | hist) File:LawOfIllusion.jpg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD F6). (TW)) (top) [rollback]

Much better!! I found no glaring issues, although, I think the tag on File:Merrie melodies blueribbon.jpg could have been a bit better placed; the file had short, but sufficient fair-use ratioanle. Frankly, I like what I see - with a ~5% error ratio, I think we're more than ready to move on. I'd like to request that you continue posting your the files you tag from your contribs at User:Skater/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/File Tagging. Practice tagging as often as time allows!! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)