User talk:Explicit/Archive 24

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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Hi Explicit. Just in case you aren't aware, there's been a proposal made to merge PUF into FFD at WP:VPR#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Since you are one of the admins who regularly helps out at FFD, I thought you might be able to provide relevant comments to the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, hope you're well. Since you process a lot of the F11 files, I just wanted to let you know that I've created a bot which automatically notifies uploaders (if they have not been notified by the following day) when their files are nominated for deletion under F11 (as well as F4 and F6). It's in trial for the next 10 days, but is otherwise fully operational. Hopefully that makes life easier :) -FASTILY 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: ping for @Diannaa, who might be interested as well. -FASTILY 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please restore this image, if possible? The original image was deleted by an uploader who violated fair use by adding a bunch of other images to the KGUN-TV article while deleting this one which is in PNG and placing a non-preferred JPG in instead. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disregard; I wanted to upload with a better title anyways, but thank you. Nate • (chatter) 13:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted your edit to the Lake Ontario talk page, but I'm not sure your edit was in error. Did the file name change on the photo? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: The file was originally uploaded here on Wikipedia under the file name File:Lake Ontario.jpg, which blocked the Commons file with the same name: File:Lake Ontario.jpg (the Commons files now shows as a result of my deletion, of course). When I transferred the image to Commons, I renamed it to File:Lake Ontario through the snowy glaciers.jpg. My edit to the talk page was not a mistake. — ξ^xplicit 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I'll revert. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Can you tell if File:Croatia national football team logo.png is the same as File:Croatia national football team badge.png which you deleted on February 15, 2016? It looks like the same one to me, but not sure. The latter was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 5#File:Croatia national football team badge.png and I still don't see a reason to have two files for the federation's logo: File:Croatia football federation.png was the one that was kept. Can the "new" file just be added to "File:Croatia football federation.png" as an updated version? -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It is the same file which was deleted as a result of the discussion you linked, so I've deleted under WP:G4. If there is an updated logo for the federation, one can simply overwrite [[:File:Croatia football federation.png] with it. — ξ^xplicit 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you added the {{rename media}} to that page, but as you are an admin, was it a mistake? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: The current file was originally named File:Logan.jpg. Poynerdelvento uploaded an image of the poet William Logan and overwrote the original file. The file was then renamed to File:William Logan the poet.jpg, and the image of the poet was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 7#File:William Logan the poet.jpg. I added the {{Rename file}} tag because the current file name is wrong, but there is an array of places named Logan, so I didn't know how to rename it. I hoped that someone could possibly identify which Logan exactly is in the photo. — ξ^xplicit 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you, let me see if I can identify it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, it was a statue in Logan Circle, Washington, D.C.. Regards. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I saw your close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 7#Disney radio logos. File:RadioDisney1110.png, File:RadioDisney1590.png, File:RadioDisney1190.png, File:RadioDisney910.png, and File:RadioDisney990.png have the same non-free issues as the two you deleted. I thought it might be a chance for these to be converted to a free license, but once again they're essentially the same as the two you deleted. I am not sure if these need to be discussed at FFD or would be better off tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} instead, so any advice you can give would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Personally, I usually go for {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, and only take a file to FFD if its proposed deletion is disputed. As for whether or not the logos would meet the threshold of originality, I err to the side of caution in cases that aren't straight-forward like in this case. — ξ^xplicit 06:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am writing to ask you about your deletion of a file that I uploaded to replace the incorrect one on the habs home page. I am wondering why you have done this, as I had been supplied with that image from Haberdashers' Hall.

If you could get back to me on what the issue is, hopefully we can sort it out.

Many thanks Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave j ewart (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dave j ewart: File:Haberdashers' Aske's School for Girls Coat of Arms.png was deleted as a result of the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 2#File:Haberdashers' Aske's School for Girls Coat of Arms.png. As stated there, you uploaded an image of a coat of arms under fair use, but they are generally deleted because coats of arms can be recreated under a free license - see more information in regards to this matter at this coats of arms information page. — ξ^xplicit 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you deleted this file a few months ago as it was orphaned. It was incorrectly removed from its article at that time, and I've re-added it. Can you restore the file again? Amusingly, I see this has happened before. Thanks for your help. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Per a request from Torchiest I've fixed up this accidental deletion, so it should be good now. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you incorrectly deleted the fair use image File:Hosea Williams delivering a speech (capture from US gov National Parks Service "International Civil Rights Walk of Fame" web site.jpg from the article Hosea Williams. The image, from a US government publication is of a deceased person, is not replaceable, is used to identify the subject of the article, and is of minimal resolution. It was nominated for removal from a second article for which fair use requirement was not met, not for removal from en.Wikipedia an the Hosea Williams article. Please restore. — Neonorange (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neonorange: A freely licensed alternative of the individual exists: File:Hosea Williams; from entry in 'Individuals involved in civil disturbances, vol. 2, distributed by the Alabama Department of Public Safety during the 1960s civil rights era (image plus text).jpg. Is there any specific reason why a cropped version of this image was not being used over the non-free one? I don't see how the file I deleted satisfies WP:NFCC#1. — ξ^xplicit 11:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: File:Hosea Williams; from entry in 'Individuals involved in civil disturbances, vol. 2, distributed by the Alabama Department of Public Safety during the 1960s civil rights era (image plus text).jpg is not a suitable alternative:

1. it is essentially a mug shot (distributed by the Alabama Department of Public Safety as an aid to suppressing the African-American Civil Rights Movement; it is useful in the body of the article as the complete image of the identification material including the text—removing the text inervates the impact
2. the extremely low resolution does not lend to use as an identifying image at the lede of the Hosea Williams; descriptive text in the body of the article is necessary to set up the ADPS image
3. the two images serve different purposes; the deleted image illustrates Hosea Williams—the mug shot image illustrates Alabama's official repression of the civil rights movement
4. the deleted image was nominated for deletion from an article about a granddaughter of Hosea Williams, not from en.Wikipedia and Hosea Williams.

File:Hosea Williams delivering a speech (capture from US gov National Parks Service "International Civil Rights Walk of Fame" web site.jpg fully meets WP:NFCC#1 as there is no suitable free image for use in the lede of Hosea Williams. I uploaded both images discussed here, and discussed the licensing and use considerations with an editor experienced in image use at the time.

Please restore File:Hosea Williams delivering a speech (capture from US gov National Parks Service "International Civil Rights Walk of Fame" web site.jpg, as it meets the resolution and other non-free image usage requirements for a deceased (2000) subject and the ADPS is not a suitable replacement for resolution and other reasons given above. — Neonorange (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neonorange: I can't say I agree with your evaluation that the freely licensed alternative is essentially a mugshot; it simply is not one. However, the image being perceived as such may be worth discussing, so I will restore the non-free, but will nominate it for deletion at WP:FFD at a later time (I'm currently at work at the moment, and I'd rather much pursue this action at home). — ξ^xplicit 03:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Explicit, thank you for your reply and efforts toward a resolution. I welcome the discussion. "Mug shot" seemed an adequate shorthand substitution for a few sentences of text, but I will be happy to expound more fully at WP:FFD. — Neonorange (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Just wanted to let you know that I pinged you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marchjuly reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Page protected). It has to do with your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I will comment at the noticeboard shortly. — ξ^xplicit 03:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry to pull you away from the real world stuff you've got going on at the moment. I am not sure if the discussion at AN3 has been closed, but the article was protected as a result and can now only be edited by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw your post at AN3. A version of the article was protected with the file being used. A non-free use rationale was also added to the file's page for the article, but that page isn't protected. Since you were the one who originally removed both when you closed the FFD discussion, I'll defer to your judgement on whether they should be removed once again or whether its better to wait and see how things develop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!!! Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. The following is moved here from Carnildo's Talk Page

Deletion of William J Brennan detail

This is a cropped (by me) detail from an existing Wikipedia file, as you can verify by comparing it with the larger Wikipedia file: William Brennan color.jpg - Please revert your delete. PraeceptorIP (talk) 1:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

What image are you referring to? ImageRemovalBot has handled hundreds of thousands of images over the course of the past decade. --Carnildo (talk) 9:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

The image is File:William Brennan color.jpg - PraeceptorIP (talk) 9:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

That file quite clearly still exists. Which is the deleted image? --Carnildo (talk) 10:38 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Your bot deleted the detail of that file that I had made and put in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul#Majority opinion. The detail showed Brennan's head and shoulders without the rest of the body. PraeceptorIP (talk) 11:51 am, Today (UTC−4)

I'm guessing you're talking about File:Justice William J. Brennan - detail 1976.jpg. In that case, it was deleted by User:Explicit for lacking source information, and the bot merely removed the link to it from the article. Your best bet is to talk to Explicit about the deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 4:27 pm, Today (UTC−4)

@Explicit - Would you please restore the deleted material. It is not unsourced. It is a cropped version of a preexisting Wikipedia file. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: You did not provide an exact source for File:Justice William J. Brennan - detail 1976.jpg; "this is detail of existing WP file" is insufficient. It is not a crop of File:William Brennan color.jpg, but of another image where the subject is slightly younger. Could you specify exactly which Wikipedia file it was extracted from? — ξ^xplicit 11:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. File:US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1972 official portrait.jpg is the file. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: Apologies for not responding in a timely manner, I ended up on a business trip with no internet access, but I see you've already reuploaded the file. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for speedy-deleting an image I uploaded in 2007, without even trying to contact me first.

It was my own passport, scanned using my own scanner.

Is there any other information you need to undelete it? --My another account (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@My another account: Hi, thanks for clarifying that you scanned the passport yourself. I'll go ahead and undelete the file. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you see that someone posted a comment on the file information page after you deleted the file? If the deleted file is the same as the current file, then you should maybe undelete the deleted revisions for better transparency. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Good point, I'll do so shortly. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. There seems to be another misunderstanding about a non-free file removed from an article as a result of an FFD discussion you closed. I tried explaining things at User talk:Ashhab1323#Non-free image use, but I have not had much luck. Perhaps as the admin who closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Bangladesh Cricket Board Logo.svg you might be able to clarify this for Ashhab1323. Based upon this edit sum, it's possible Ashhab1323 just might not be aware of NFCC and how it applies. This time I actually self-reverted and re-added the file when I noticed that Ashhab1323 had added a non-free use rationale for the file's usage. My edit sum said that I was going to start a discussion about the file's usage at FFD. Ashhab1323 even thanked me on 18 February for this edit. I then started a discussion about the file's usage at FFD and notified Ashhab1323 of that discussion as a courtesy shortly thereafter. For some reason, Ashhab1323 did not add any comments to the FFD before it was closed. This time two other editors commented in the FFD: Finnusertop and Rangers died, Sevco lied (who was later confirmed to be a sock puppet). I believe I followed proper procedure, so I am not sure what else I am expected to do in such cases.-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The edit summary you point out seems to be a case of WP:OWN, in addition to the application of NFCC. I will drop a note on the user's talk page. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You were provided with the appropriate permission. You guys need to improve your game and read your emails more carefully.Don Brunett (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

@Don Brunett: Only WP:OTRS volunteers have access to the emails, and unfortunately I am not one. There was no tag added to the file's description page to confirm permission; three months is quite a long time. Did you receive a ticket number or a permission confirmation email? — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete MY PERSONAL picture? I own it. It's not Free for others to use. It's for me to use only. Don't cite any links to anything, explain WHY YOU think this is acceptable behaviour by you. IF i have entered it incorrectly for the upload to my user page, then EXPLAIN how this needs to be done. I make no apologies for my tone, as it is a picture of me wearing my DECEASED brothers Footy jersey....

05:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you don't bother to explain yourself do you? I'll just upload it again then. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: I was away on a six-day business trip, so I apologize for not being able to respond immediately. Please note the template at the top of my talk page which reads: "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." In regards to File:My bros footy jersey.jpg, you indicated in your upload that it was a replaceable fair use image of a living person. As a result, it was automatically tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}, which led to its deletion. If you'd like to release the photo under a free license, there are some available for viewing here. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we've both misinterpreted the context. I'm not putting it up as a free licence for anyone to use, it for my personal use only. I thought that I had done this correctly. And yes I understand real life also, so not a problem.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: Per point nine of WP:NFCC, non-free images can only be used in articles; any use of said images on other pages is restricted. If I remember correctly, this file was only used on your userpage, which is not allowed. The only option available would be to freely license the image; otherwise, the terms of your license are too restrictive for its use on Wikipedia. — ξ^xplicit 01:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, well then I've misread the terminology on how to go about this. Touchy subject matter also. I will have to crop a pic that doesn't involve any of my face at all to have it used in such a way, potentially. Anyway thanks for the explanatory of the NFCC as it wasn't read as such by me, though clearly, now, there is a part which outlines this element.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You often delete files, and AnomieBOT then closes the WP:FFD or WP:PUF discussions. Do those edits by the bot generate "mentioned you" ping notifications, saying e.g. "AnomieBOT mentioned you on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 25"? 96.41.0.15 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. It really clogs up my alerts. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Explicit, I am wondering if you can undelete ¨Educate!¨ so that I may edit it to be a proper Wikipedia page. The page was started by a volunteer but other work kept them from continuing to edit it. I would like to continue their work and properly create the page. I also saw that it was labeled as unambiguous advertising or promotion, although it was flagged as a test page earlier, so I will also be sure to make sure that the page keeps a neutral point of view. Thank you for your time. Rainbowtrout2016 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Rainbowtrout2016

@Rainbowtrout2016: I'll only speak on behalf of my action. Educate! was deleted because it was promotional in nature; irreparably so that a restoration of the content is not merited. Please see our what Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. There appear to be various accounts associated with the organization, to which I advise reading the conflict of interest guideline. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers topics that adhere to our notability guideline; this is generally conferred upon though coverage of independent, third-party reliable sources. — ξ^xplicit 03:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good mate I understand. Do I delete the talk or do you? Thanks for responding. Rainbowtrout2016 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Rainbowtrout2016

Hi Explicit - page moves are pretty much over my head. You moved Dean's page, but did not fix the connection to the Wikimedia Commons category with the other name. Sorry, I don't know how to do that. [1] this is the category that has been left behind. Thanks!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry forget about it. I will manually move each photo, there aren't that many, to a new category, which should be named Dean (South Korean singer) anyway. Thanks.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll also link the other language pages which you forgot to do. If possible, could you notify an active and involved editor, like myself, if you want to discuss page moves and get some assistance doing it? I'm sorry, it's a little late here, and I was just finishing up my work on WP today, when i saw the move and the "untidiness" you left behind. I like to make an effort to talk to other editors about major and minor changes and get their feedback if possible. As I had originally named the page what you changed it back to, I don't mind. But when it was changed previously, editors did discuss it among ourselves, perhaps adding the capital letters wrongly, albeit.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

After thinking it over, and wishing to have an opinion, I think the page should be called Dean (singer-songwriter) or Dean (musician) which more aptly suits this artist that began a career as a songwriter, and is current with that; but who also released his first songs in English, with American artists. This differs somehow from a label of (South Korean singer). If you had given me the chance to give it some thought, and discuss with you, this is what I would have said. As the page move to (singer-songwriter) is fairly innocuous, I don't think you will object to the change. I have found several similar examples, here [2] and here [3]. I knew this artist's selection of the name Dean was too generic, and think that's why he attaches the stylized names and TRBL to it. I have asked the editor who consulted with me over the prior page move to work with me again. Thanks for your attention and hard work, as always!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to. Commons and the other language Wikipedias work entirely independently from the English Wikipedia, and from each other. We have our own guidelines and policies, and they have theirs. For example, the Japanese-language and Chinese-language Wikipedias allow all caps; the English Wikipedia does not. The English Wikipedia allows fair use media files; the Spanish Wikipedia does not. The categorization scheme on Commons is entirely different from ours. The changes that happen here only affect this project, and none of the others.

It is also not required for me to notify the main editor of a page of my changes—that train of thought treads awfully close to ownership issues—especially when my edits follow manual of style and naming conventions. Dean's nationality is South Korean , so 'South Korean singer' is correct; which language he released his first two songs in or who he collaborates with does not interfere with that. Kanghuitari's move was the one that should have been discussed, because not only did it subsequently make a different mess, it just fell back into the problem of being ambiguous—Dean (musician) is no different from Dean (singer), which redirects to the disambiguation page Dean because Dean Delannoit also performs under the mononym 'Dean' and he is also a singer and musician. In fact, the only "mess" I made I promptly cleaned up, but the page move of the aforementioned user made an entirely separate mess. — ξ^xplicit 12:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good day Explicit Thank you for your comments. I looked over my words to you and cannot find "mess" anywhere. I did gently "borrow" your "tidy" language from your Edit Summaries. I think your use of it is cute. (or is it standard WP lingo - either way)

Per the other language pages - I fully understand they operate differently, I can easily see the nuances - many don't have references at all and remain unchallenged. I was referring to your not "re-attaching" those pages that had been linked, prior to your move. Especially with WikiProject Korea, I as a volunteer editor take a big interest in linking to the kowiki page, as several of the pages I work on or have helped create, were first generated on the Korean WP.

Re: "ownership issues", I like to work on WP with what I call "politeness and recognition of others issues" (give me some time to locate that in policy - I know I've read somewhere that we should work together and respect each other's work and contributions.)

Relative to Dean (musician) being generic and ambiguous - yes, but the name Dean itself is the problem. Deanfluenza was certainly unique, but he only uses that as a songwriter; and only used Dean Trouble (now there's a name for you!) part of the time. (Oddly enough - editor Kanghuitari and I met on this "generic name" issue long ago - he moved an early page I did from Bohemian (South Korean band) to Bohemian and we (fought) back and forth over it for a while until I finally agreed with him.) He and I didn't end up with any bad feelings, and I hope that is the case here, Explicit.

Thanks again, I think many of these lengthy discussions on Talk pages are caused by our time zone differences - sometimes editors are simply tired, and the best intentions aren't realized. I've seen your name and work on many things, and know that you are thoughtful. I'm sorry that we argued a bit. But, for me, debate is healthy - I feel frumpy when I'm ignored.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC) I came back to add a personal note of thanks, I bought Blueming this weeknd at our local Kpop store - and looking over the page to add a Twitter note on it I realized you did it and other work for CNBLUE - it's good to see really good editors working on K-pop articles. Congrats, that one is excellent. (a lot of us were thrilled with Jung-shin's contributions.) Thanks again--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, time zones differences can account for a large gap in time for my response. Most editors who leave messages on m talk page generally live on the Western Hemisphere, while I'm currently living in South Korea. I also edit while I'm at work (as I am doing so at the moment), and when and how much I edit also depends on the day. It's generally best to wait a minimum of 24 hours for a response to allow users the time to respond.

The interwikis are a simple fix, so I'm not sure why it was brought up as an issue. It makes no difference—to me or in the grand scheme of things—whether the page was titled using "singer" or "musician", but the omission of "South Korean" is the main issue here. Dean (musician) should redirect, as Dean (singer) does, to Dean. It came as a surprise that Dean (South Korean singer) would be such an issue, especially in light of it being created under DEAN (South Korean singer) by you to begin with. — ξ^xplicit 05:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You deleted a page dedicated to "Primal Sympathy" from Wordsworth.

For years, it was the number one, most-visited page on the subject on Google. Thousands of people visited it and learned about Wordsworth's message through that page. There was absolutely no valid reason to delete it.

As someone who has donated generously to Wikipedia over the years every time a donation campaign is raised, I have decided no longer to ever support Wikipedia again on account of your thoughtless and baseless actions, with utter disregard for a serious topic.

Clearly, and ironically, you are wholly without primal sympathy.

And you'd know what that meant if there were a Wikipedia page to learn about it!

Miserable.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.148.47.161 (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Page was kindly restored, which also restores my faith in this beautiful community.

Allow me to quote from the donation e-mail:

"Everyone is a potential Wikipedian. If you don't find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, you can start creating it yourself. The articles, words, pictures and data are created by a diverse community of people who volunteer to share their knowledge with the world."

I believe the page I created helps others learn of a topic that deserves scholarly discussion and debate. Thanks!

Best wishes, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.148.47.162 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Recently you replaced an 1,060 x 1,147 image with a 303 x 327 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BG_Sophomore_ALB_dj_small.png

Your explanation was simply that "non-free files in such large resolutions are simply not allowed." Would you please clarify this position? On the Wikipedia page that gives the relevant guidelines, it says that "non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail." Under these "very qualitative" guidelines, such a quantitative, non-contextual assertion as the one you posted is simply not true. That no such rule exists is also intuitive: If it did, the obvious solution would be to place a limit on the size of non-free uploads (i.e., a specific version of the general 100mb upload limit). The guidelines explicitly account for a situation in which more than 1,000 pixels are needed, then tells the "editors [to] ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail."

As an editor/administrator of the file, it follows that the job is not to simply resize the file to its size, but rather to ensure that its size comports with its purpose. Indeed, the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag on the previous (larger file) page carried a notice to that effect, stating "Administrators: Check the image talk page for comments before deleting this file." On the talk page in question can be found a detailed explanation of why a higher-resolution file is necessary, and why the problem faced with higher-resolution images (namely that "the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement") is nevertheless met by the condition of the dust jacket scanned for the image.

I welcome your clarification on whether such higher-resolution images are "simply not allowed," as you state, or whether they "require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution," as Wikipedia states. If the latter, then I look forward to a discussion on the need of having the higher-resolution image, and how Wikipedia's copyright infringement concerns are nevertheless satisfactorily addressed.

Thanks, Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I read the image talk page and did not find the argument—that the entire cover art is needed in order to depict a portion which is discussed in the article—to be very convincing. In practice, it is virtually impossible for such a high resolution non-free image to be used; in the past nine years, I don't believe I've ever come across a case where it is warranted. WP:IMAGERES does suggest that, "[i]f a small area of a large image needs high resolution to see details that are discussed in the article text, it may be better to crop the section to show the critical portion at a higher resolution, than to try to reduce the full image." It may be an alternative to consider. — ξ^xplicit 08:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_1#File:Boeing_X-50A.jpg was never announced on the affected article talk page at Talk:List of X-planes. As a consequence, none of us there knew about this discussion and the existing consensus for the use of this image was not presented to the discussion. Consequently I regard the review process as broken and its outcome invalid. I have restored the image, and also restored and updated the rationale deleted from its maintenance page. Please could you take appropriate steps to reopen the debate that you closed, or whatever other action you deem appropriate, and to inform the article talk page accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: The only process broken was restoring the image without having consensus to do so. There is absolutely no requirement to notify the affected article, regardless of how you view that process. Whatever existing consensus you speak of can not override WP:NFCC, which governs the entire project. I've reverted your edits, which is the only appropriate action at this time. I suggest you refrain from restoring it without discussion. — ξ^xplicit 09:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However as far as I can tell this image use meets all ten criteria listed at WP:NFCC. If I am to start a wider discussion it would be useful if I can understand how you arrive at your position. Would you mind being a lot more specific about where you judge that this image use fails NFCC? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: As Stefan2 pointed out in the discussion, non-free images are generally not allowed in list articles (WP:NFLISTS), especially when its usage is there to "simply provide visual identification of the elements". This is also the case where an article exists, as the alternative would be to link it to direct readers to the subject which contains the non-free image (point six of WP:NFC#UUI). Theses aspects are ingrained in WP:NFCC, specifically: WP:NFCCP, "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia"; WP:NFCC#3, minimal usage; and WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." — ξ^xplicit 02:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I think the technicalities are arguable, but the intent of NFCC is clear. My apologies for needlessly stirring you up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If I am able to supply the appropriate info ({{Photo of art|1={{cc-by-sa-4.0}}|3={{Non-free 3D art}}}}), are you willing and able to resurrect File:Akbar's Garden, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.jpg from the dead? I was unclear about what needed to be done to keep this image, but since the image was deleted I've learned what needed to be included. If you are able to help, I'd be really grateful. I have no idea when I will be back in Eugene and able to photograph this sculpture again... Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yup, it's no problem at all. Image has been restored. — ξ^xplicit 23:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi there, How to upload a company logo in the info box? Soniathappa (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Soniathappa: Hi, I believe this is in regards to UrbanPro? File:UrbanPro Logo.png was removed from the article and was deleted for not being used. I'll go ahead and restore the image for you. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You recently deleted File:Non-free - Jessica Bennett described shock at recognizing this photo showed her 'resting bitch face' -b.jpg, as non-free content criterion #1. I've explained why I think that was a mistake.

At Talk:Resting bitch face I mentioned your closure.

I explained there, one more time, why I disagree with this image being replaceable. As I said there, I think it was premature to delete this image until a genuine discussion had decided whether Bennett's role was significant enough to justify including the frankly iconic screen capture that triggered her to trigger the flood of reporting on this meme. Geo Swan (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: From what I saw on the article and file's talk pages, an ongoing discussion was taking place and there wasn't much support in using this non-free image. In addition to the WP:NFCC concern, there was of course the editorial dispute as to whether or not using a living person's image was in violation of WP:BLP. The usage in this regards also failed to gather much support, and it served as double negative for this particular image, hence its deletion.

Viewing the article's talk page again, I do notice that the editors of the article continue to search for a freely licensed alternative of a resting bitching face which is also subject to coverage in reliable sources. This is perfectly in line with the spirit of NFCC, and I think this is the direction you should continue. If you are unable to gather a consensus for the use of a specific image, I'll offer to restore File:Non-free - Jessica Bennett described shock at recognizing this photo showed her 'resting bitch face' -b.jpg, but also list it for discussion at WP:FFD for community input. Is this a reasonable approach? — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my understanding is you deleted the file: File:Jacqui Thurlow-Lippisch.jpg because you believe it does not fall under 17 U.S. Code § 107 as a document eligible for fair use. It does. Can we undo this deletion?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StLucieRiver (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@StLucieRiver: Fair use images of living people are not allowed to be used, as per the first point of the non-free content criteria policy. This is because, as a living person, it is possible for someone to take a photo of the subject and release it under a free license (under the public domain, or under a suitable Creative Commons license, for example). Until then, the article will have to do without a photo. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm requesting that discussion pertaining to File:Walk Away Renee.ogg at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_29#File:Walk_Away_Renee.ogg be reopened. There were 3 votes for delete based on invalid reasoning (the music as it pertains to Baroque pop is not discussed in the text) which was patently untrue and I did not get a chance to address this. (Relevant text: "Guerriri writes that the song is anchored by its "elegantly jangling harpsichord", while Guerriri named it the style's 'quintessence'".) At the same time, nobody even bothered to acknowledge the virtually-baseless Coldplay sample that already exists on the page, which surely has less merit for inclusion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I see the text now that you've pointed it out, but the 'delete' votes are also understandable for two reasons: the critical commentary of the audio file was added two months and and one month, respectively, after the discussion was initiated, and the file itself was moved to a different location—the file should be directly adjacent to the sourced commentary—which made the commentary essentially invisible. I'll relist the discussion and ping those who voted in favor of deletion. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted as "I4" eight years ago. Today, someone has recreated the file information page with some information. Does this new information nullify the original deletion reason, or is there still something missing? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The uploader never provided a license, so the issue remains unaddressed. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I am wondering if the same reasoning given in your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 16#File:Banco Santander.svg would also be applicable to the non-free use of File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg. The file is being used in multiple subsidiary articles which on the surface, at least to me, appears to be contrary of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The source link given for the file is no longer working, but an archive can be found here. That's probably fine for the non-free use in National Bank of New Zealand, but there's no indication that the logo was used by the subjects of any of the other articles. At least it could be established that the Banco Santander logo is being used by its subsidiaries. Anyway, I was going to take this to FFD for discussion, but then I remembered the older FFD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The file violates WP:NFCC in at least Lloyds Bank as it is being used in the body of the article without critical commentary; a different logo is being used in the infobox. Taking a quick look, National Bank of New Zealand also uses a different logo in its website. It's a bit more difficult to determine the status of the remaining three articles as those banks went defunct anywhere from 26 to 31 years ago. I'm not quite sure how one would go about figuring out if the same logo was used the the mid-to -late 1980s for these branches. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I will see if I can find sources for the other articles before bringing it up for discussion at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen you are quite active around WP:FFD, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_March_23#File:Madonna_Rebel_Heart_physical_standard_cover.png? It has been open for quite sometime now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

04:24, 10 May 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Robin D. Gill (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMICS. Sources and writings are almost entirely self-published. The single independent source merely lists him as one of many who have written on the subject.)

Was there any notification or discussion on this? I haven't edited that for a long time, and I only noticed it red-inked on my page today, while adding am update to the articles I create. I could easily have added substantial material from further secondary sources. Gill is reliably published and very well-known in Japan, where he had at least 6 books in print before repatriating to the US.

• おもしろ比較文化考 Kirihara Shoten 1984
• 日本人論探険－ユニークさ病の研究 TBS Britannica 1985
• 反日本人論―a touch of nature ドドにはじまる Kōsakusha 1985
• 天国 ことばのＰＬＡＹとＭＩＳＰＬＡＹ Hakusuisha 1987
• コラッ！！む 雑学エッセイ集１９８３‐１９８８ Hakusuisha 1989
• 英語はこんなにニッポン語 言葉くらべと日本人論(ちくま文庫) Chikuma Shobō,1989

These 6 as you can see on the publishing house articles I linked to, are by notable publishers, and, given the span of time, a mere 5 years, and different venues,it is obvious that Gill had a receptive Japanese public, since the firms competed for his work.

I gather he had difficulties with US publishers. His books are not 'academic', in the sense of wearing the full citational format fruit salad indispensable to gaining a PhD or getting tenure, so university presses reject him. His books are extremely erudite, full of recondite lore, and above all, as all scholars of Edo Japanese poetry know, his translations are ingenious and generally superb. So he set up his own publishing house, and must have produced over 15 books in the last decade and a half (I've collected several). The non-recognition by universities is, I think, scandalous, but recently tenured academics like Matthew Fraleigh (Brandeis University), David G. Hebert and Adam L Kern (University of Wisconsin, Madison) have gone public in reviewing, and appraising, often glowingly, his unique and idiosyncratic, if deeply knowledgeable work on the forgotten corners of Japanese poetry. Please reconsider. p.s. I have no conflict of interest here, other than a technical competence in that field, and as a collector of books.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Explicit, I'm trying to find the policy regarding the need for file permissions that says something about a file not needing permission of it was uploaded to Wikipedia before 2004 or 2006 or something like that. I recall that once upon a time, you declined some of my speedy nominations due to this, but I cannot for the life of me find this policy now. Could you direct me to this policy? Steel1943 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Commons has a page about this, see c:COM:GOF: OTRS is needed if the file was uploaded on 15 March 2006 or later. If the file was uploaded on 8 January 2006 or later but before 15 March 2006, then the uploader must quote the copyright holder's permission statement on the file information page (which could be problematic as the permission statement itself might not be licensed even if the file is licensed). Note that c:COM:GOF is a Commons guideline: Wikipedia is not required to follow it, but normally seems to follow it. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Steel1943 and Stefan2: Yes, COM:GOF is the one. In practice, it has appeared to be acceptable to transfer such files over to Commons. Unless there is a serious doubt in the uploader's claim, it's generally okay to do so. — ξ^xplicit 01:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you deleted a file I had uploaded for Valeri Larko's page. I did received a message asking to send proof of permission: "if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected]". Which I did. Can you tell me then why this image was deleted? And can you please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjol80 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marjol80: As the message instructed, the {{OTRS pending}} template should have also been added to the file's description page to prevent premature deletion. Without it, I would not become aware that a permission statement was sent in the first place. Did you receive a ticket number? — ξ^xplicit 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: Yes I received a ticket number Ticket#: 2016051010012901. Should I upload it again mentioning the ticket number or can you restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjol80 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marjol80: I will restore the file to allow OTRS to look into the matter. — ξ^xplicit 01:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjol80 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you deleting images (eg: File:Belton Arch Giano.jpg which I have gone to the trouble of uploading? Please undelete at once and also any other imaged which I have uploaded. Giano (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I see you have done this one too. Undelete it at once! People like you should not be allowed near tools let alone have them. Giano (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

and this one too File:Aylesbury WH.jpg, why are you wrecking pages like this? Giano (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ascott_House&curid=413552&diff=721954351&oldid=702556985} what the Hell are you doing? Giano (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Giano: As Risker has explained on their talk page, Amandajm (talk · contribs) did not link back to the original files in the file's description pages. As WP:WHYCITE (and the subsection regarding media files directly below it) states, without proper sourcing information, other users are not capable of determining whether the license claim is correct. It has not been uncommon for users to claim a free license while citing another use, only for said claim to be false. As aforementioned, this can be avoided by citing the original file link. As media files specifically come with legal ramifications, perhaps it can be understood why their handling is more strict. As for File:Aylesbury WH.jpg, this file lacks a source to verify the claim that the the image was first published in 1848. File:Aylesbury WH.gif also happens to carry this same issue.

If I make a mistake, I have no problem in going back and rectifying the issue. Your current approach is unjustifiably combative, and is ultimately: a) not helpful to the editing environment, and b) ineffective of making me feel some type of way. — ξ^xplicit 02:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody bothered to tell Giano what the problem was; the silly little tools notified Amandajm instead of the clearly linked author of the image. The situation would have been corrected by linking back to the original .gif file if the author had known there was a problem. The user who tagged these images (there are a pile more mentioned on Amandajm's talk page) knows very well that Giano is an English Wikipedia editor - they had gone round and round about images in the past - and so this seems like a back-door way to remove the images. It was clear from the documentation on the .jpg files that there should be a .gif file with the proper attribution and licensing. I think perhaps it should have been clear to you too. Perhaps consider checking to see if the *author* has been notified before deleting, if the author is a Wikipedian. Nine times out of ten, if the author is still active (or has clueful talk page watchers), the image can be salvaged; that's a useful and valuable objective. It's a lot less work to fix these things before the image is deleted. Risker (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: I deal with thousands upon thousands of media files per month and I can guarantee you that the uploader generally tends to not be an active editor. I also do attempt to rectify concerns whenever possible, as I did here for a file that was incorrectly tagged for lacking evidence of permission, correcting licensing information here for incorrectly tagged a non-free, and adding a proper license template as I did here, just as a few examples to refute the undermining of my work. In this specific instance, "previously uploaded as gif" was simply not specific enough; admins can't be left to second-guess the source file should have been clearly spelled out to begin with, as the case is usually that the file names don't match.

Kelly notified the uploader, which itself is not a requirement by any policy—a strongly encouraged courtesy, but not the word of law—let alone notifying Giano. If it was made as an attempt for facilitate "back-door way" deletion because of a past disagreement between the two editors, that's an issue I simply could never have been aware of, and most importantly, something that should be addressed to Kelly if the files were nominated in bad faith. I will be more vigilant for instances like these in the future, which will still involve me attempting to save files wherever possible, as I have been doing all along. — ξ^xplicit 05:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't anything personal or any bad faith involved - if you look at my contributions, I was going alphabetically through Category:Copyright holder released public domain files and tagged scores of files missing sources and permissions. Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry, but you did not even notify me about the PROD. Can you please restore it? This could go to AFD, but not PROD. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 05:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you just deleted the image File:Buckland Trophy.png for no permission. The permission holder sent an email to permissions on May 24th.... I know because he CC'd me in the email. DMighton (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Explicit. File:Saipa F.C. logo.png is the same logo as was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 11#File:SAIPA Corporation logo.svg. The uploader was informed of this aforementioned FFD discussion via edit sums when I previously reverted them for adding the file to the article and a non-free use rationale for the article to the file's page. I'm not sure why they feel reuploading it under a different name resolves the non-free issues, so I have asked them to clarify this. Any suggestions on how to further proceed in this particular case? As always, thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This case is identical to the Iraq Football Federation logos above. It will handled in the same fashion. — ξ^xplicit 02:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Explicit. Another editor has uploaded File:Saipafc.png for use in the team's article. I'm not sure if the two editors are connected or it's just a coincidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I followed your lead and removed the image from Saipa F.C. and left a link to the FFD discussion in the edit sum. If this was inappropriate, please advise on what should've been done instead. I thought of tagging it with db-g4, but wasn't sure if that would apply in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, your action was reasonable and in line with the consensus established at the discussion. I agree that it's a bit tricky in regards to applying G4 for a file that was removed from an article, where the file itself is not actually deleted, so this is the most reasonable action. — ξ^xplicit 02:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you a couple times because there was a bit of edit warring going on about the image in Saipa F.C.. I posted something on User talk:Hooman98 and Talk: Saipa F.C. explaining about the FFD discussion and what Hooman98 should do if he (?) wants clarification. One thing about this logo is that in the FFD discussion I asked Is this is simple enough for {{PD-logo}}?. I assumed that it wasn't because usually you or other closing admins tyoically convert files to PD whenever appropriate, but I just thought I'd ask again just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I usually change the license if the case is obvious, but I erred to the side of caution with this file because the arrangement of the shapes may be complex enough to surpass the threshold of originality. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I figured it was something along those lines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am writing to ask why you deleted this file. It is my own creation which I uploaded, and was, I thought, a good addition to the articles in which it was linked. I am really clueless as to why this was deleted.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@DMorpheus2: Hi, the file you uploaded was tagged with {{di-dw no license}}. Basically, the picture you took of the model is a derivative work—although you are copyright holder of the photo, the creator of the model still holds a copyright to the model itself. As a result, you aren't really able to freely license the image because you would be infringing on the rights held by the creator of the model. I hope my explanation makes sense. There is further information in regards to how this works, which you can find here. — ξ^xplicit 02:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the model itself also. I would like the image restored please. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@DMorpheus2: Ah, thank you for clarifying. I've undeleted the file for you. If there are similar images you've uploaded, you should consider noting that you are the creator of the model pictured on the file description page. — ξ^xplicit 05:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it if you would be just a little less eager to make assumptions. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Both IndianBio and BlueSatellite were against the inclusion of this side label in I Want You (Marvin Gaye song) because they prefer cover arts from overseas. If requesting an undeletion is controversial, shall I take it to deletion review instead? Also, is the Tamla logo free or non-free? --George Ho (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: The file was deleted as orphaned, which is not a controversial deletion. It can be undeleted upon request. As for the Tamla logo... the status of its copyright should probably be subject to the input of others. — ξ^xplicit 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Umm... BlueSatellite orphaned it. I asked the user to reinsert it without avail. I tried to ask IndianBio to approve it, but he opposed it also. If undeleted and then reinserted but then re-orphaned, the cycle would repeat itself. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: That's an editorial dispute. The deletion itself is still uncontroversial, as would be its undeletion. — ξ^xplicit 03:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

IndianBio and BlueSatellite would not think so otherwise; even a such dispute would extend to the undeletion issue. George Ho (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: By policy, F5 is uncontroversial. Requesting undeletion at DRV would just result in the file being restored and sent to FFD for this exact reason. A week's worth of time can be saved if you simply would like to request undeletion here. — ξ^xplicit 03:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's hear IndianBio's and Bluesatellite's opinions first if you please. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the alternative cover from this article, and I never saw a discussion regarding this. It did not appear to violate NFCC. What was your basis for this removal? Chase (talk | contributions) 00:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: File:Justin Bieber - Purpose (Official Album Cover) (Saudi Arabia).png was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by Stifle for violating the following: Criterion 3a, because multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice; Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — ξ^xplicit 01:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have re-uploaded the image at File:Justin Bieber Purpose Saudi Arabian cover.jpg. I dispute the rationale that it fails NFCC 3a and 8 because the original cover's ban in Middle Eastern countries and the need for an additional one was documented by reliable third party sources. If you or Stifle object, I suggest one of you bring the image to FFD. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you delete UNFICYP 2015 deployment map? I dully added sources. What was wrong with the file? Potjernik (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Explicit. This was previously discussed before at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg and your close was to remove from the individual team articles. It was also sort of discussed at User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg where you explained that any challenges to the close should probably be discussed at WP:DRV. Based upon the mass deletion of logos which I mentioned above in Iraq Football Federation logos above, a discussion has started at WT:FOOTY#User deleting national football team logos about the non-free use of these logos. That is fine, but that discussion has now led to ArsenalFan700 try and use edit warring to re-add File:Indian football logo.jpeg to Indian national football team with this and this. I tried to explain about the previous FFD discussion here, but do not wish to engage in edit warring over this. You removed the file with this edit and and removed the corresponding rationale's from the file's page with this edit, but ArsenalFan700 has simply reuploaded the same file under a different name and format as File:Indian football logo.jpeg and added to the article. Perhaps you can take a look at this when you get some time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at my reasoning for re-uploading the logo and probably also where I got it from. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You added a link to the AIFF's official Twitter account as the source to your image. That's fine, but I don't think anyone was claiming that the team was not using the same logo as the AIFF. UUI#No. 17 takes this into account when it says "The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." The last part of the statement has been interpreted in various FFD discussions to mean that the use of the parent logo in child entity articles is not automatic just because the child logo uses the same logo. This reasoning was most recently used by Masem and Hammersoft in their responses to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. This is the consensus established via FFD. If you disagree with that reasoning then you can discuss it at WT:NFCC.

Moreover, Explicit removed the file from the article on February 14 after he closed the FFD discussion. Nobody seems to have re-added the logo until you decided to do so today. You could've discussed your new source and why you feel the file's non-free use in the team's article should be allowed with Explicit here on his user talk, but apparently you simply don't have the time nor care enough honestly to go through that according to this post at WT:FOOTY. You had time to post this on WT:FOOTY yesterday, but you had no time since February 14 to ask Explicit to clarify his FFD close? You could've have just tried to add a non-free use rationale (which included the new source link) for the team to the file that already existed, but instead you decided to upload essentially a poorer quality version of the same file, perhaps under the assumption that consensus achieved at FFD regarding the old file would not apply to it. This seems to me to an attempt to avoid discussing or to get around Explicit's close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ArsenalFan700: And I've reverted your addition of the logo. Your edit summary here is incorrect. I see that Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item was brought up in WT:FOOTY#User deleting national football team logos, which is new to me—but that's because I was inactive from February 2013 to September 2015. In any case, the application of point 17 of WP:NFC#UUI was established sometime last year at WP:FFD, and consensus found that permitting the use of non-free logos in "X national football team" was in violation of the WP:NFCC policy. There are misguided assumptions that, because the logos have been present for so long, their use is in line with policy, which is simply not the case. WP:NFCCP is very clear in that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", and these articles are not entitled to any non-free media files.

Your re-addition of the non-free logo in done so against consensus, against policy, and your behavior is bordering disruptive. You are free to discuss the matter at relevant venues, but any action should not be done unilaterally; you are required a new consensus to do so in order to defy one that has already been established. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't give a toss about this stuff. All I know is that since that logo is the same logo as the AIFF, it is not allowed but I have showed that it is also the logo of the India national team! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: One of Wikipedia's goals is to minimize the amount of fair use content, especially in regards to media files. While you may not care about the matter, that is one of the main missions of the project - it is a free encyclopedia after all. You don't have to agree with every policy, guideline, and detail which govern the community—I certainly don't—but you're expected to abide by them for the best interests of the project. As mentioned above, the excessive use of non-free logos across various articles, which violate the WP:NFCC policy and specifically WP:NFC#UULP, is what's being avoided. — ξ^xplicit 07:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand now what is going on but what I don't get is this... I understand you want to minimize the amount of fair use content on here but what is the harm exactly of having the AIFF logo used just twice when it is indeed the logo for both the federation and the India national team? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• The harm? You increase the burden of non-free content usage on the project. We try to minimize that here. Yo ucould say "but it's just two uses". Sure. Then the next person says "But it's just three uses!". Then the next says "But just one more use to four doesn't increase it much!". We draw the line somewhere, and that line's been explained to you above. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit and @Hammersoft: The file's licensing has been converted to {{PD-textlogo}} by Hashim-afc with this edit. If that's the case, then fine and the file can also be tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. However, I think this probably is above the TOO and should remain non-free. For reference, I've posted at User talk:Hashim-afc#File:India FA.svg abut this as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The logo definitely does not fall anywhere below the threshold of originality. I'll be reverting that. — ξ^xplicit 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir,

The Image File:Bihar Kesari Sri Babu & Bihar Vibhuti Anugrah Babu.jpg is deleted, the said image is quite known and common as it belongs to 15th August 1947 when country gained independence, however, there should not be any copyright or source issues as the image is older than 60 years and as per Indian laws its copyright has expired.

Since, its a historic image without which, article about first bihar government would be incomplete, kindly tell us what info is required to duly upload the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.231.36.238 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

While File:Bihar Kesari Sri Babu & Bihar Vibhuti Anugrah Babu.jpg is in the public domain in its source country of India, it is not in the public domain in the United States because its copyright was restored due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. As far as images being uploaded onto Wikipedia, they must be freely licensed at the very least in the United States, as that is where the servers are hosted and the laws which govern it. As a result, the file constituted as a non-free file, all of which require a fair use rationale. This image did not contain one, and was deleted under that basis. — ξ^xplicit 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you deleted this file: File:Choruslineph1.jpg Can you let me see what it was? Perhaps I can supply the missing information. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: The file was deleted because it was tagged with {{PD-author}}, but lacked evidence of permission. You specifically cited http://www.centertheatregroup.org/tickets/productiondetail.aspx?id=2732 as the source, along with the statement: "Photo is freely downloadable from this source." There was no evidence to suggest that the license claim was true. — ξ^xplicit 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. They appear to have deleted the original information from their website, and it's no longer on the Wayback Machine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that AfD for me [4]. I had no idea how to do it. I was thinking that you were "Johnny on the Spot" with this one, because it happened so quickly. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: No problem. As for my timing, I just happened to see it as I strolled through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea shortly after your comment was posted. The procedure to close AFD discussions can be found at WP:CLOSEAFD. — ξ^xplicit 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

user:67.232.42.184 vandalized after her final warning, and [[wp:aiv] is semi-protected.. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8C73:D6E8:6FF5:F27E (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Thanks for the notice! — ξ^xplicit 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Now I need user:2601:199:C200:E625:CDA5:851A:1E66:43DE blocked. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4021:617C:E657:19B8 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This non-free image was nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 1#Hungarian Football Federation logos and you closed the discussion with the result that the file was to only be used in Hungarian Football Federation article. Is there any chance or possibility to appear this logo at least in Hungary national football team article too? --Norden1990 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Norden1990: The image was removed due to the policy cited by Marchjuly. Do you have a policy-based reason to restore the logo in that article? — ξ^xplicit 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see the non-free logos of UEFA football associations: Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria (upload twice), Cyprus, Czechia (upload twice), Denmark, England, Estonia, and go on... Most of these logos were used in several articles. So there is no universally applied rule. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an "other stuff exists" argument, which doesn't hold much weight considering the nomination cited point 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. This has only been enforced relatively recently, so it should be of no surprise that many of these logos have not been subject to discussion; they remain in violation of established policy. — ξ^xplicit 03:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The discussion on File talk:New radiation symbol ISO 21482.svg is referred to in a deletion discussion on Commons. For the sake of accessibility, could you restore the talk page? Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Paul 012:  Done. — ξ^xplicit 03:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)