At which point does JJMC89 start communicating in plain English? I would argue it is only by the time of the very last line, which is what he should have said at the beginning, and nothing more (except perhaps a small explanation of what "non-free" means in this context).Jim Griffiths photo
Hi, any chance you could explain in plain English why the photo of Jim Griffiths you deleted is not allowed on this page: Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) but is allowed on his profile page? Littlemonday (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Use one [sic] that page does not satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, particularly 8 (contextual significance) and 10c (separate rationale for each use). The bot removed it for violating the latter – there is no rationale for that article. — JJMC89 00:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain why it is allowed to have a photo on one article but not the other? Also, which article is there no rationale for?!? Littlemonday (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no rationale for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK). That is one reason (and the reason it was removed) why it is not permitted. The other is because the image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Non-free images of people are, generally, only permitted as identification in the article about that person. — JJMC89 01:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, after a promising start where they seemed to accept JJMC89 was being less than helpful, several Wikipedia Administrators have now descended from on high to declare JJMC89 did nothing wrong, was communicating effectively, and the person who reported him to AN/I needs to be executed. Others variously busied themselves with unhelpful comments, including their own attempts to use multiple paragraphs to explain what JJMC89's last line covers quite adequately, in plain English.
Wikipedia is so screwed. These sort of BASIC mistakes in how to effectively communicate would be avoided if Wikipedia could attract a higher grade of volunteer, and crucially, selected the best of those to be Administrators. Good luck with that.
Dead encyclopedia walking.