User talk:Explicit/Archive 23

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

Deletion review for File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PanchoS (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of multiple album cover artwork

Hi Explicit,

I noticed that you have deleted several CD artwork covers for several Junior Eurovision compilation albums (example File:JESC 2003 album cover.jpg) stating that no rationale was used. I think you may have done these in error, as all of them were uploaded by myself, I was never even notified of any discrepancy for them nor notified they were up for speedy deletion, which makes it evident that no speedy deletion tags were applied and they were just deleted on a whim. All the files were tagged under rationale WP:NFCC#3 with an extensive description on how the files were being used and that they were only intended for their respective articles only. I followed the guidelines at WP:IUP and WP:NFCC. The same rationale is also used on other album covers for Eurovision and Junior Eurovision artwork and they follow the same exemption rules as album artwork for other articles and recording artists. If there were any problems then wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have inform the user first by following the appropriate methods, rather than just deleting on a whim? I would appreciate a response rather than being ignored on this matter. Regards. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Hi. I reviewed the images again, and there were no errors in their deletions. All of the files deleted were only accompanied by the {{Non-free album cover}}, and nothing else. They all lacked the required fair use rationale, which explains the deletion under WP:F6. You were not notified of their pending deletions because they were uploaded by User:009988aaabbbccc, who did receive a notification for each file. I hope that clears some things up. I check everything before I delete it, and although I am capable of making mistakes like everyone else, my deletions are never made on a whim. — ξxplicit 00:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. I knew I had uploaded several album artwork for other Eurovision/Junior Eurovision articles, such as File:JESC 2015 album cover.jpg, and had included an extensive and detailed rationale, which is why I got confused as to these others being deleted. I thought I had uploaded all of them, and didn't realise another user had also uploaded some too. I'm assuming I would be OK to uploaded them again seeing as I detail fully their rationale usage? Wes Mouse ✒ 08:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, they won't be deleted for lacking a fair use rationale if one is provided. — ξxplicit 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Image

Please advise on restoring deleted images to the page for Dongseo University. I believe they were deleted under the condition in F4 of your link on deleted media files. I sent an email resembling the sample provided to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from my Dongseo University account to establish I am authorized to upload the images but did not add OTRS Pending in the text within 7 days. Keir Thornburg 00:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keir Thornburg (talk • contribs)

@Keir Thornburg: Hi, since you've already sent the email to confirm that you are authorized to release the images under the public domain, it's best to wait until you receive a response from the OTRS department. When everything is confirmed, the files can be restored at that moment. You may need to wait a bit, though, as there is currently a month and a half backlog in that department. — ξxplicit 02:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Daniela Hantuchová picture

Can you help me step by step on putting that picture on her page. I'm still confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryson483 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bryson483: File:Daniela Hantuchová at the 2015 French Open.jpg has been deleted because it is a copyrighted photo. Wikipedia typically does not allow these type of photos meant to depict living, as we strive to create as much free content as possible. This is especially true for Daniela Hantuchová, as there are currently over 100 free photos of her. Further information can be found in our non-free content guideline page. — ξxplicit 02:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User + Sock

Just wanted to bring to your attention users The really REAl Bo Ryan and The REAL Bo Ryan. They were created one after the other, and the former inserted BLP material into... Bo Ryan (who'd have thought it?) GABHello! 00:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the former. If the latter does the same, let me know. — ξxplicit 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Antirom image

Hi....why did you delete the image of the antirom lineup? Its the only available image of the full team, was commissioned by antirom and the photographer was credited.....not sure i see the issue? Synthiaks (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Polarbeers performing in Rho (MI), Italy on May 31st, 2015.jpg

Dear Explicit, I sent the rights owner's authorization for File:Polarbeers performing in Rho (MI), Italy on May 31st, 2015.jpg to permissions-en@wikimedia.org before you deleted the file. Please let me know if it's not enough, as I'm waiting for the picture to be restored to submit an article for review. Thanks, FoxthroatTalk 17:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Foxthroat: If you have already sent the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, please allow some time for them to verify the claim and they will get back to you; it will be restored at that time. You are free to submit the article without the picture. — ξxplicit 23:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Permission statement for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adith_Arun.jpg

Looks like we now have a permission statement for this image (VRTS ticket # 2015101610010206). Undelete? KDS4444Talk 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444:  Done. There are some details missing that I assume you can fill in with the ticket. — ξxplicit 23:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Campagna-bronz-fokostarto.jpg

Hi! I've missed a message of F4, can you please restore it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Campagna-bronz-fokostarto.jpg

It's public domain, from 1865. Thanks SirGazsi (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@SirGazsi: I've restored the image. Please make sure to add the source. — ξxplicit 23:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Something a little unusual

See these two accounts, created within minutes of one another: [1] [2].

Not sure if this is significant -- if it isn't, then sorry for bothering you.

Thanks, GABHello! 00:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

At first, it seemed like the usernames may refer to a product or website that may be used for promotional purposes, but I can't seem to find anything with such a name. It is possible that the user misspelled their username the first time and decided to create a correctly spelled one afterwards. This is acceptable if the first account is abandoned. In any case, it is best to wait until an account edits, if it does so at all. — ξxplicit 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please excuse my silly paranoia. My mistake. GABHello! 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Recovering some merged categories

I noticed that some categories for Congress of Poland were merged such as Category:People from Warsaw Governorate. As a standard, most of the articles related to the Russian historical people (from the Russian Empire) contain as their origin Russian governorates (gubernia). Merging or deleting makes those articles inconsistent. Besides, the arguments that were brought at discussion such as defunct subdivisions have no grounds, due to the fact that there exist several similar categories among which Category:People from the Province of Brandenburg. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Recreating the categories after they were deleted via a deletion discussion is bad form, as they are now eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G4. If you believed the rationale of the nominator was incorrect, it should have been brought up at WP:DRV, where you could have asked the discussion to be relisted in light of the information you've provided. I suggest that you bring up your concerns with User:Marcocapelle. — ξxplicit 23:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:TetrationInf.png

The image in question was vital in the understanding of Tetration. It shouldn't be deleted. Can you explain why it was deleted? AJRobbins (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@AJRobbins: It was deleted under the basis of WP:F4. This image lacked essential sourcing information to verify that it was released under the {{cc-zero}} license provided on the file description page, which is required for all files. — ξxplicit 23:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

restoring File:Actress Reshma Rathore.jpg and File:Anaika Soti.jpg

Looks like we now have a permission statement for these: VRTS ticket # 2015101610010251. Undelete? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 02:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444:  Done. The information templates need some filling in, though. — ξxplicit 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Alicia Keys for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Ned lagin gd oct 1974.jpg':

on wiki page 'ned lagin', you have deleted 'File:Ned lagin gd oct 1974.jpg':

03:34, 10 January 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Ned lagin gd oct 1974.jpg (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 12#File:Ned lagin gd oct 1974.jpg)

this is considered as vandalism of the 'ned lagin' page by the wiki admin. please explain your action and reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihorwi (talk • contribs)

@Ihorwi: That's not what vandalism is, and I suggest you don't carelessly accuse others of this simply due to a disagreement. As it was outline on the discussion page, the image violated point eight of the non-free content policy in that the image failed to increase the readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. A non-free image of Lagin with the Grateful Dead is not necessary to show that they performed together, as text alone can (and does) already do this. — ξxplicit 01:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

it is interesting how all of a sudden all of my postings are being so closely scrutinized. you should join forces with wiki admin stefan2. that way the both of you can much more quickly remove all my posting from wiki.

you are absolutely correct - it is no longer vandalism. it is now a personal vendetta waged by the wiki admins under the guise of making wiki look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihorwi (talk • contribs) 2016-01-11T14:54:50

The rule is that files on Wikipedia should be used in accordance with policy. When a file is not used in accordance with policy, the file should be deleted, and you have uploaded a number of files which do not seem to be used in accordance with policy, so I tagged some files for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Articles under user namespace - User:Hnhusain/

Dear Explicit,

This is in reference to the article "Sami Mohammed Alhumaidi" and the rest recently deleted by you. The article were still in USER draft namespace and were being worked upon. Had we be given more time, the content would be trimmed down and corrected before being published to main article namespace. I hope the articles residing at USER namespace can be given this much benefit over the articles in main article namespace.

I, Hamdan Hussain, employee at PSATRI (Prince Sultan Advanced Tech. Research Institute) have been made responsible for creating wiki articles for this influential defense company of the state and its prominent MD & CEO, Dr. Sami Al Humaidi. However if certain content of our work has violated the wiki rules, we heartily apologize and will make sure it is not repeated again.

We will retry to publish the same article with a new content this time without soap-boxing or promoting anything (without G11 violation).

Your help and further guidance in the process will be highly appreciated.

Also, find attached the document by the organization which authorizes me to publish articles for them.

I hope I can post about my company on Wikipedia, of-course provided the Wiki rules and regulations are followed. Please advise on the same.

Thanks & Regards,


Hnhusain (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Authorization Letter

@Hnhusain: The pages you created were deleted because they were promotional in nature. Even if the page was a draft, Wikipedia does not allow such content to be hosted on this website. Please see our what Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As an employee of the institute, I also advise you to read out 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. — ξxplicit 07:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Vanessa Ferlito.jpeg

I'm am Vanessa Ferlito's management. Please stop taking down the photo, as we have rights to the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Roman1382: The file you uploaded was deleted because it was not accompanied by a proper license tag. If you are the copyright owner of the photo and would like to release the image under a free license, please see some of the license tags available for you to use. — ξxplicit 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Un-delete request

Hi there. On the 15th January, you deleted File:Coventry Bears logo.svg, because it was an unused non-free file. However, it was only unused because someone uploaded a version to Commons and used that in the original file's place. When the Commons file was inevitably deleted for being non-free, the page became logo-less. Could you un-delete the original if at all possible? Cheers, Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Malpass93: It's not problem at all. I have restored the file and added it back to the article. — ξxplicit 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Koi Peak

Hi Explicit, I just created the page Koi Peak. You deleted a page with that title under G7 a couple of years ago; please let me know if this is a problem.--Lemnaminor (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Anew Revolution albums has been nominated for discussion

Category:Anew Revolution albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Recovering an old prodded article

I was checking a few articles and found it. I was thinking to recreate it and works were done already, What is your opinion of undeleting it? This is a popular Bengali sweet, and sources from here may be used. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: If you are able to write an article about it, I have no objections to you restoring or recreating Langcha. — ξxplicit 00:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

File:UC Seal.svg

Do you recall if the SVG version the same as the PNG? If so, is there any reason why it was deleted over the PNG? I just stumbled across the FFD per my watchlist (I believe I uploaded the SVG years back) and was curious. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Connormah: I don't recall the images being different. I deleted the SVG because it was quite large in terms of file size—it was about 209 KB—which was double that of the already large PNG version. We generally try to keep non-free file sizes down lower than that, which I believe stands at about 50 KB in practice. — ξxplicit 22:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:A Charlie Brown Christmas trade ad.jpg

There's nothing I can do about this image? I know a lack of discussion leads to deletion, but I want to know whether it has potential. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Based on its usage, I don't believe there was enough of a justification to include the image under the basis of WP:NFCC#8. One wasn't presented in your nomination, so I don't believe it could have been closed any other way. — ξxplicit 22:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FFD closes for video game screenshots

Hi Explicit. I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:WWF Wrestlemania 1991 Ocean game.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:Zool snes.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:Xenon II Megablast in-game screenshot (Atari ST).png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:Bane cosmic forge panels.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg. Thought you should know that these FFD's are part of an ongoing discussion at WT:NFC#Clarification regarding general legitimacy of video game screenshots and WT:NFC#RfC: Guidelines regarding fair-use images within videogame articles just in case you weren't aware. While I will say that I don't really agree with the "keep" closes, I will not challenge them. I cannot, however, say that others will feel the same about the "delete" closes. I'm not sure if what is being discussed at NFC talk will cause you to reconsider any of your closes, but I just thought you should be aware there is still ongoing discussion regarding such screenshot usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I was not aware that those discussions were taking place. My closures were based on the discussion of those nominations, and whether or not I agree with them has no bearing on how to read consensus. Otherwise, I would have stated my view—as I did on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 19#File:Zork screenshot.jpg—because closing those discussions as 'delete' would have been a rather blatant supervote. Whatever the outcome of those discussions at WP:NFC turn out to be, the above mentioned images would have to renominated for discussion in light of any changes or interpretations of the NFCC policy. — ξxplicit 02:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for taking the time to reply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Help on a media file deletion

Hi Explicit, you were the administrator for deleting a duplicate file back around mid-October. I had two of the same image and uploaded the wrong file first, so I uploaded the photo that the author gave permission for use on Wikipedia which was (My father's Jacket. updated.jpeg) the one deleted. I understand the need to delete redundant files, and wanted to see if the one that remains can be deleted since that was the wrong file I mistakenly uploaded, and the one that was deleted be restored since that's the photo the author gave permission to use. Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Niknakc: I can take the deleted image and upload it under File:My Father's Jacket (Self Portrait).jpg, which will overwrite the one you seek to be deleted. Would this option be okay with you?
Also, was the image that currently exists not licensed under Creative Commons? If so, you may want to ask for that revision to be deleted over at the administrators' noticeboard at Commons (I'm not an admin there) once I upload the correct file. — ξxplicit 00:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit:, The overwrite option you suggested will work fine. The image is licensed under creative commons, and will do as you suggest. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niknakc (talk • contribs)
@Niknakc: The image has been uploaded, hopefully that resolves your concerns. — ξxplicit 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:WMC coxing.jpg

You deleted this. But I sent in permission to the usual list. Did you check? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Clue: it is Ticket#2016012010021971 William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: As I am not an OTRS volunteer, I have no access to the mailing list and was unaware of permission being sent, as there was no other indication of such. I will restore the image because I doubt it will be that much of an issue. For future reference, you can add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page, which will extend the amount of time—which is seven days plus the amount of days OTRS is backlogged—for the permission to be processed. — ξxplicit 02:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But if OTRS are unable to turn these tickets round in 7 days, perhaps people should think about extending the default 7 days delete time upwards. I can tell you, it pisses people off to have legitimate files that have clear evidence of permission deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: That's what adding the {{OTRS pending}} template does. It adds the backlog (which the template currently has at 94 days) plus the standard week notice, so that lends a whopping 101 days at the moment. — ξxplicit 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Scouting logos

Hi Explicit. Just asking to see if you were are of WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight regarding a large number of scouting logos tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} templates. I see that you have tagged some of the deleted file's talk pages with {{G8-exempt}} so that discussion may still continue and that you recommended other for FFD. Would it be possible to get a WP:REFUND for some of the deleted files if their non-free issues, particularly their sourcing issues, can be resolved at a later date? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't see the post you made at AN before checking the images. I have the page on my watchlist, but it so active that there seems to be a new added every minute or so. Anyway, sorry about the above post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is going on? I just saw a bunch of images get deleted. @Kintetsubuffalo:, @Gadget850: do you know? --evrik (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: It's no problem.
@Evrik: I've responded at the thread linked by Marchjuly to keep the discussion centralized there. — ξxplicit 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File talk:South African Scout Association pre 2008.svg

I feel you didn't look at the discussion on this one and would ask that you revisit its deletion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I did read the discussion. The image could be eligible for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but neither source provided indicated that the logo was first published prior to 1923. Do you perhaps have a source that would show otherwise, or that I might have missed a detail in the links on that talk page? — ξxplicit 05:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

deleter of others image

killer criminal
how can you delete my user image without my permission .undo it properly.i feel much angry on you.i had sent you a pluto which has been rejected by scientists .......................................... wiki tamil 100 12:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wiki tamil 10: I'm confused... — ξxplicit 04:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

I see that you played a role in the deletion of the Wiki page for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. I apologize that I do not know more about how this process works, but I believe strongly that this has been done in error. Please contact me at smcgrath@ispu.org -- Stephen McGrath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sperling16 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sperling16: The page was deleted because it was promotional in nature. Please see our what Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If you are an employee of the institute, I also advise you to read out 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. I went through the article's revision history to find a suitable version to use instead, but found none. In addition to that, it also contained passages of text that were blatant copyright violations, and found that it was not salvageable as a result of these things combined. You are free to recreate it, but the page must adhere to Wikipedia's policies. — ξxplicit 04:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of logo from List of Power Rangers Dino Super Charge episodes

I don't understand why the logo was removed from the List of Power Rangers Dino Super Charge episodes page. How can the Power Rangers Super Dino Charge logo not be considered to meet the requirements of fair use to be displayed on both the episodes page and the main Power Rangers Dino Charge page (for the same exact purpose), but for every other Power Rangers season the logo is considered okay for fair use to be allowed in both the main page of said season and its episodes page?

Listed above are all the seasons and their associated episodes pages for quick comparison purposes. 74.83.112.14 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Just for reference 74.83.112.14, the fact that a similar non-free image is being used in a similar way does not necessarily mean this particular usage also complies with WP:NFCC. Each case is looked at and evaluated separately, so what may be OK for one may not necessarily be OK for the rest. Having said that, I think there are NFCC problems with the way all of the files you listed above are being used. Many of those usages fail WP:NFCC#10c for sure and WP:NFCC#8 possibly, and it looks like they were just copied-and-pasted into the list articles without giving NFCC compliance much thought at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dongseo University Images

Hello, I wrote you previously about images removed from the page for Dongseo University on December 10, 2015. I sent an email on that date to permissions-en@wikimedia.org hoping to establish that I am authorized to add the images to the page. You advised that I wait, and I have been waiting for the images to be restored, but I hope you might provide an update or advise on what further steps may be needed for restoring the removed images. Keir Thornburg 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Keir Thornburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keir Thornburg (talk • contribs)

@Keir Thornburg: Hi, I read the message you wrote on User:Diannaa's talk page, and I agree that the waiting period has been extraordinarily long. I've posted a note over at the OTSR noticeboard and asked them to look into the issue. Hopefully, this can be resolved as quickly as possible. — ξxplicit 02:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Arthur Morris playing career.jpg

Hey, I noticed you deleted File:Arthur Morris playing career.jpg, which I uploaded. This was the main image in a featured article (Arthur Morris), and was uploaded under fair use (photo of a deceased person), with a very detailed fair-use rationale. I don't really understand your rationale for deleting it, as it was never claimed that the file was free. It would be good if you could elaborate further. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Stefan2: as well, as the one who brought the file to WP:PUF. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This previously had a non-free copyright tag, but someone changed the non-free copyright tag into a public domain copyright tag. I could not find any evidence that the public domain copyright tag was valid, so I listed the file at PUF. Unless a public domain picture of the guy exists, it seems reasonable to undelete the file provided that it is reverted to a revision where it says that the file is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@IgnorantArmies and Stefan2: Well, I suppose I'll do that and restore the non-free tag. The change in license probably should have just been reverted since it was provided without any evidence that the image was subject to it. — ξxplicit 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about non-admin FFD close

Hi Explicit. I pinged you in User talk:Codename Lisa#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 10#File:FESFUT logo.svg about an apparent misunderstanding about the closing of an FFD discussion. Any clarification you may provide would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatal Fear

Hey,

RoySmith gave a respond on the bottom, I believe this discussion could only be closed as no consensus, did you want me to revert it? Or leave the discussion for another time? Valoem talk contrib 21:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:DanielVassilieffwithDorisandLawrenceOgilvie1935.jpg

I appreciate that you deleted my contribution of a photograph that includes Daniel Vassilieff in England in the 1930s. This photo was taken with my mother's camera: I hold the copyright of it and happy to release it for the world.

The Wikipedia options of copyright are so multiple and complex: please advise me how to allow this photo to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanogi (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Duncanogi: The file you uploaded was deleted because you failed to provide a license tag. In the description, you stated: "I have copyright of the photo." However, this is insufficient because you did not specify which rights to the photo you've chosen to relinquish. To see a short list of the most common license types, please take a look at this section in that regard. — ξxplicit 01:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

RE:Possibly unfree File:Grossman in a post-game interview in 2006.jpg

Thank you very much for straightening out this issue! I obtained the the file long before I understood the actual process of requesting tickets. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion 2016 Feb 7

Explicit, it seems that maybe I wasn't explicit (pun intended) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 7#File:HornetsPrg112666Rochester.jpg - this discussion addressed three images, not one, as noted in the original non-free content review. The other two are still tagged with the ffd banner. If you don't feel the discussion is sufficient because that wasn't clear, I can open a new discussion for the other two. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Definitely did not catch that. Unfortunately, deleting the two remaining images wouldn't be in good form, as they were never properly listed. They'll have to be listed again. — ξxplicit 07:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg

Hi Explicit. I was in the process of adding another comment to this FFD thread, but you closed it before I could do so. No big deal there. Basically, my comment was going to be as follows:

"OK, the logo should be treated as non-free and subject to WP:NFCC; therefore, only usage in the main team's article seems appropriate. So, I suggest keep for "Arsenal FC" and remove from the other team articles per UUI#17. Any opinion on whether the logo used by "Arsenal L.F.C." on their official Twitter account is specific/different enough to satisfy NFCC for the the women's team's article?"

Do you have any opinion on whether the logo used on the official Twitter account of Arsenal L.F.C. is an acceptable non-free alternative to the logo being used by the men's team? If it is, I can upload the file and add a non-free use rationale; otherwise, I'll keep on the look out for something more specific. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Although the difference in minuscule, I think it is different enough from the main logo in the sense that it can only be used as a representative of Arsenal L.F.C., while the same cannot be said for the logo used in the Arsenal F.C. article. The logo seems specific enough to the extent that it's its own branding of the child entity. — ξxplicit 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

TecSurge article

Hi Explicit!

Is it possible to unlock/undelete the article regarding TecSurge company or should I have to create a new one from scratch?

I'd like to change the text, removing the G11 reason on it.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldirpjr (talk • contribs) 11:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Waldirpjr: Hi, based on the content that was originally included on User:TecSurge/TecSurge, I'm afraid you'll have to start it from scratch since it was irreparably promotional. I implore you to take look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies to not run the risk of having your work deleted again under the same circumstances. — ξxplicit 01:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit:Hi Explicit, thanks for the reply.
I was planning to start the content from scratch indeed, but I'd like to reuse/edit the structure of the sections page as information of the corporation, history, reference, external links, categories, that's why I asked just to put the previous page again in edition mode. Or once a page is deleted, the process is irreversible?
Moreover, reading some Wikipedia pages of some companies - including big ones like Microsoft, Aveva and Intergraph - I saw a lot of content hurting G11 clause. In fact many of them have an Wikipedia warning regarding to it - in some cases those warnings are older then one year. So, what's the Wikipedia policy in those cases? Will they be deleted in a near future or those companies are considered notable (unlike of TecSurge) and the page will remain posted?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldirpjr (talk • contribs) 08:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Waldirpjr: It is reversible, but promotional pages like this are generally not restored based on the principle of "blow it up and start over". I can email you the content, if that's an alternative you're okay with, and you can work on it that way.
Tags that warn users that something reads in a promotional manner generally refers content that was either added later on, but was not necessarily included on the page when it was first created, or that the subject is undeniably notable, but needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner. Even so, these articles are sometimes deleted under the aforementioned principle if the situation calls for it. — ξxplicit 03:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit: OK, got it. And thanks for the information. I'll start a text from the scratch.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg

Hi Explicit. You closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg as a keep for only All India Football Federation, but User:Sevcoteehee has been re-adding the non-free rationales you removed from File:India FA.svg and re-adding the file to India women's national football team despite being advised in edit sums of the FFD discussion and of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sevcoteehee seems to be claiming Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item voids any consensus based upon No. 17 of WP:NFCC#UUI, and has used to same reasoning to re-add non-free use rationales to File:Bhutan FA.png and re-add the file to Bhutan women's national football team despite TLSuda's close at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png as well as re-add non-free rationales and images to many other files and articles, including trying to combine multiple uses into a single rationale like here and here which violates WP:NFCC#10c. Would you mind taking a look? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says that deletion discussions may be challenged at WP:DRV. Discussions at FFD, RFD and some other venues are not always deletion discussions as the desired outcome may be to decrease file use or retarget a redirect. Do such discussions still count as "deletion discussions" within the meaning of WP:DRV? I'm not sure how users like User:Sevcoteehee are supposed to challenge an FFD discussion if the discussion is not about deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: I think they should at least discuss it with the closing admin and work off what they say. That seems to have been the case with NFCR, wasn't it? Maybe this is something that needs to be clarified on FFD. I asked about this same thing for a similar case and Steel1943 suggested DRV, but maybe WP:DCL#Challenging other closures is an option as well. Anyway, just for reference, Sevcoteehee has been blocked as a sock by an admin/checkuser in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha. Now, the question is what to do with the edits the socks made, particularly the ones made to FFD discussions and files. Can these be reverted, struck or marked to show they were made by a sock? -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Marchjuly and Stefan2: Well, now that User:Sevcoteehee has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, I think whatever disagreements they had are moot at this point, honestly. I'll go ahead and revert their edits. All challenged FFD discussions still go through the DRV process, since we don't have anything specific for the image venue like move review. I'm not sure as to whether one is needed, but the option to propose one might be something you could look into if you desire. — ξxplicit 05:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
        • There were quite a lot of edits made by Sevcoteehee yesterday to various football articles and image files just prior to their block, many of which do not seem to comply with NFCC, at least as I see it. Does the fact that they have been blocked indefinitely mean a blanket revert of all their edits or is there some discretion involved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi Explicit. I was wondering if you could clarify your close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 5#File:Croatia national football team badge.png. Your close was "keep File:Croatia football federation.png" and you removed the deleted file File:Croatia national football team badge.png from Croatia national football team; you did not, however, replace the deleted file with the one that was kept. "File:Croatia football federation.png" was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png and the close was "remove from every page except Croatian Football Federation". The file, however, has just been added to "Croatian national football team" and Croatia national under-21 football team by BiHVolim, who also added the relevant non-free use rationales to the file's page. The NFCR close was a non-admin close by Brustopher, but it seems consist with how No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI has been applied regarding similar usages or similar non-free images. Do think this should be discussed again at FFD or does your close cover the file's usage in other articles? For reference, I posted at User talk:BiHVolim#File:Croatia football federation.png and said I would ask you for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The result of Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png still stands, so the logo should only be used in Croatian Football Federation from the result of that discussion. It was removed in Croatia national under-21 football team by the user who closed that discussion, and should not be re-added without consensus to do so; there is no need to discuss it again at FFD when the same articles it was removed from are involved. I'm not too sure for the procedure when it's added to an article where it wasn't previously included. NFCR was not a venue I paid much attention to, so I'm not sure how binding the results there turned out to be. — ξxplicit 05:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. For reference, the logo was also removed from "Croatia national football team" here and the extraneous non-free use rationales were removed from the file's page here. {{Non-free reviewed}} was also added to the file's page by me here. Anyway, I just wanted to check just to make sure it would not be considered disruptive editing if I removed the files from the article and the "new" rationales which were added to the file's page and cited the NFCR discussion as the reason for doing so. What do you suggest for editors who wish to challenge this NFCR close? Should they also be referred to WP:DRV even though it technically does not involve a deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that Croatia national football team diff, I somehow missed it when I looked. I think DRV is the only option to contest the closure, and it wouldn't be much different from challenging a WP:CFD closure, where it isn't necessarily always a deletion discussion. — ξxplicit 06:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've gone and removed the file from the articles and the corresponding rationales from the file's page per the NFCR discussion. I also posted an update at User talk:BiHVolim (I pinged you), adding a link to this discussion and informing them that WP:DRV and possibly WP:CLOSECHALLENGE might be options for them to pursue if they wish to challenge the close. I hope this is sufficient. If anything else should be done, please let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

FFD close questions

Hi Explicit. I have some questions about your close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 16#File:Banco Santander.svg. For reference, I am not disputing the close, but I am just curious about a few things.

What (if anything) should be done if the image is added to other articles in the future? I am assuming that the narrowest interpretation of "keep as is" refers to the six articles where the image is currently used, but what if another subsidiary article is someday created and the image added there. Would it be acceptable to discuss the logo's usage in that particular article or does your close cover future branch/subsidiary articles as well?

Also, if someday the logo is changed (not an update of a file, but the bank or one of the subsidiaries actually changes its logo) and the current logo in the infobox becomes a former logo. Would that make it acceptable to discuss the file's "new" non-free usage once more at FFD?

I know these are hypothetical questions which may be sort of hard to answer, but as I said above I am just curious. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My "keep as is" closure only reflects what was being discussed on the nomination page, and that was the removal of the logo of the other five articles listed. If an article of another subsidiary is created in the future, the logo can be added without discussion if it's adopted in the same manner as the rest of subsidiaries.
If Santander Group or one of the subsidiaries decides to change its logo, it should definitely replace the one in the infobox. In the case that it becomes a former logo for any of the present or future articles, it can be discussed again at FFD it is moved elsewhere in that respective article instead of it being removed entirely. — ξxplicit 06:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg Close Challenge

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE Not exactly certain how these things work, but I believe that the MMPR 2010 logo being deleted from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article for WPNFCC#10c and possibly WPNFCC#8 and the fair use of the logo being kept in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) article was the incorrect outcome and it should in fact have been the exact opposite outcome. The fair use rationale should have been changed for the logo to be used in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article and deleted from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) article for WPNFCC#10c and possibly WPNFCC#8. The reason, the article titles are misleading as to exactly what they pertain to. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is the main article that addresses the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers show as a whole (executive producers, original airdate, original channel, characters, season synopsis, etc.). This includes all the information related to the re-version as it is an updated version of the original show. Keeping the MMPR 2010 logo in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article to compare/contrast with the 1993-95 logo would be functionally similar to the how the season 1 and "super" season 2 logos are used in the Power Rangers Samurai, Power Rangers Megaforce, and Power Rangers Dino Charge articles. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) does not meet WPNFCC#10c and possibly WPNFCC#8 for the for the same reason Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 1), Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 2), and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 3) do not meet WPNFCC#10c and possibly WPNFCC#8; it is an episode "list" page. The name of the article may be a bit misleading, but the article's purpose is only to show the "list of episodes" that made up the re-version season. 74.83.112.14 (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. This situation a bit different than most because Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) currently seems to serve as the main article of the season and as a list of its episodes, instead of having separate articles that serve each purpose. If the re-version article can not be expanded to a length that would warrant two separate articles (one for the season and another for the list of episodes), perhaps an option worth looking into is starting a discussion via requested moves and having the aforementioned article renamed to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) episodes or something along those lines. If that succeeds, the logo would be removed under from the newly renamed 'list' article for the reasons cited in the FFD discussion. This would also call to redirect Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) (which would point to the 'list' article as a result from the page move) to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and dedicate a subsection in "Series overview" under the first three seasons, where a reader can be linked to the re-version list article. I hope that makes sense. Would you consider this option?
For what's it's worth, the use of a second logo in Power Rangers Samurai, Power Rangers Megaforce, and Power Rangers Dino Charge all currently violate policy; the difference between them is so minuscule—all logos simply add the word "super"—to the point where the additional non-free images don't meet WP:NFCC#3a. The use of File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers wouldn't be too different of a case. @Marchjuly: What are your thoughts? — ξxplicit 01:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As I posted at User talk:Marchjuly#Removed image per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg, the re-version article seems to me to be more of a season article which just happens to have a list of episodes in it than a pure "list of episodes" article. That is why the use of the logo seems to be more appropriate there since the logo seems to be specific to that particular season, like File:PR RPM logo.png and File:PR Samurai logo.png are specific to their respective seasons. For reference, it appears that the re-version article was originally split off from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers when it was created here by Ryulong in January 2011, so maybe Ryulong should be asked for opinions on this as well.
If File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg is really more of a new logo for the entire series as a whole, then I can see it being used in the main infobox of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", but that would make File:Mighty Morphin Power Rangers logo.png a former logo. This means it would probably have to be removed from the infobox and incorporated into the article in a way that staisfies WP:NFCC. This is not impossible to do, but it can be sometimes hard to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8 for former logos since simply showing them is almost always considered to be decorative. Same goes for trying to merge the re-version article into a subsection of "Series overview" and using the 2010 logo in that subsection.
As for two logos being used in articles like "Power Rangers Samurai", etc., I tend to agree with Explicit the logos are similar enough so that only one is really needed per NFCC#3a. Perhaps a case could made for using the respective season 2 logos in individual articles about season 2, but I don't really see the need to use both in the infobox for articles about season 1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) episode page is kind of difficult to understand if you haven't actually watched both it and the original show at least once. The re-version only lasted one season (32 episodes) where as the original show was 3 seasons (145 episodes). The File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg was made for the re-version season mainly, but with that said it was also being applied to the series (as a whole at the time) by being used for the 2010 merchandise and toy line (which covered characters from all three seasons of the orginal show, not just the re-version season). After Saban repurchased Power Rangers franchise from Disney they went back to using the original logo for things like DVDs and toys from the original show, but File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg is still used when talking about the re-version. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) episode page actually split off from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 1) episode page, not the main Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article. The re-version season is technically similar to season 1 (same characters, stories, episode titles, etc.), hence why Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is used as the main article for both (listing characters, the executive producers, and such for both original and reversion) and it is why both Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 1) and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) are linked to under the season 1 synopsis. To have a separate main article for just the re-version would of been a lot of redundant information for synopsis, characters and such. With that said, the re-version was deemed just "different" enough from season 1 in a superficial sense (32 episodes instead of 60 episodes, the new File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg made for the re-version season, new air dates and a new channel, Saban's constant back and forth in press releases of season numbering for future seasons that came after the re-version, Netflix's listing it as a separate season, etc.) that it was determined that it deserved a separate episode page from the season 1 episode page (the opening explanation is mainly there to explain why the re-version was considered a separate season from season 1 to merit its own episode listing page separate from the season 1 episode page). Best comparisons to the re-version season that I can think of off the top of my head is Dragon Ball Z Kai compared to Dragon Ball Z, American Idol Rewind compared to American Idol or Transformers Generation 2 TV show compared to the Transformers Generation 1 TV show. A movie equivalent would probably be the original Star Wars Trilogy (from 1977-1982) compared to their Special Edition counterparts (from 1997). I doubt Ryulong will weigh in his opinion on the matter (I believe Wikipedia higher ups placed a one year banishment punishment on him).
As for two logos being used in articles like "Power Rangers Samurai", that was mainly done to stop edit wars about which logo to use for the main article since the main article for Power Rangers Samurai, Power Rangers Megaforce, and Power Rangers Dino Charge contains all information pertinent to both season 1 and season 2 of that show. As for making a case for the respective season 2 logos being in individual articles about season 2 only, that would be kind of hard as the only "season 2 only" articles would be the list of episodes pages for said second seasons, which were deemed WP:NFCC#8. The info box for the main articles actually aren't limited to just season 1 information; they contain combined information about both season 1 and season 2 (episode count is combined from both seasons, first airdate is from season 1 and last air date is from season 2, etc.). -- 74.83.112.14 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, the issue seems to boil down as to whether Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) should be treated like an article about the season where the use of the logo is justified, or a 'list' article which would call for the removal of said logo, the second of which is what you favor. In either case, I'm afraid the removal of the logo from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was the correct outcome both from a policy standpoint and as a result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg. Please note that policy generally does not allow multiple non-free images to be used in a single article in the sense it was used here; this is true for former/alternate logos, and as an example, alternate album covers—unless they are subject to critical commentary and are contextually significant. Whether the latter article should use the current logo or File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg one is an editorial decision, which is outside the bounds of FFD and should be discussed on the article's talk page. As for the re-version article, I believe that the requested move procedure is the best course to take from here to better determine how that article should be treated, which the utilization of a logo at all.
Although the re-version articles was forked out of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 1), it doesn't seem like a bad idea to add a small subsection about the re-version in the main article of the series, as is the case of Dragon Ball Z Kai, which redirects to Dragon Ball Z#Dragon Ball Z Kai. — ξxplicit 02:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Hi Explicit. I noticed a small typo in your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. I believe you intended to write "keep for", but wrote "keep from" instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Whoops. I probably wrote "remove from" initially before changing one word, but not the other. Thanks! — ξxplicit 04:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Normally typos are no big deal, but wasn't sure since it was in a close. Also, same typo made in "Oldffdfull" added to File talk:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

File:AshesToAshes3.jpg

HI Explicit. Your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 21#File:AshesToAshes3.jpg was "remove from Pierrot". You added an "Oldffdfull" template to File talk:AshesToAshes3.jpg which says the same thing and removed the non-free use rationale for the article, but didn't actually remove the file from the article. Is this one that just slipped through the net because you were busy doing other cleanup at the same time or should the rationale be re-added to the file's page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yup, definitely forgot to remove it in this instance. I've caught myself forgetting to remove files from pages before, but I missed this one. You can go ahead and remove files in the future by citing the discussion if I forget to do it myself. — ξxplicit 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Brabham BT43 Scan of Personal Photograph by Bob Paton

Hello : Just wondering if you could please explain to me as a new contributor to Wikipedia why this photograph that I upload and used in the Brabham BT43 page was deleted? The owner Bob Paton gave permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If there is something that I have misinterpreted when uploading it can you please explain what I did incorrectly please? Thanking You Dora Domino (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dora Domino: Hi, when you uploaded File:Brabham BT43 as completed by MRD employee Bob Paton in October 1973.jpg, you indicated that it was a non-free work. Because Wikipedia strives to use as much freely licensed content as possible, non-free images are subject to our extremely strict non-free content policy. This image specifically violates the first point: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
In regards to the owner of the image - does Bob Paton own the copyright to the photograph, as in, did he snap it himself or have the rights conferred to him and gave you permission to upload it onto Wikipedia? If he is willing to release the photo under one of the licenses found here, please take a look at the instructions written at the copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf) page. In a nutshell, we basically need Bob Paton to email the permissions department from an email associated with the original publication of the photo in order to authenticate his claim. — ξxplicit 01:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello :
Many thanks for your reply to my enquiry it is much appreciated. I think where the problem was my interpretation of "who" "free" applied to. I thought it applied to Users of Wikipedia and not Wikipedia itself. In other words I thought it meant it was free for Wikipedia to use but not free for Users of Wikipedia to use for other purposes. My "Newbee" mistake.
To answer your questions :
Yes Bob Paton did take it himself hence the description "scan of personal photo taken by Bob Paton".
Yes Bob gave me permission to upload it to Wikipedia released under "Attribution".
I can forward the complete e-mail trail between myself and Bob if someone gives me the e-mail of the "Permission Department" however if that is good enough if someone can provide the e-mail I can forward it onto Bob and ask (essentially again) if he can e-mail the "Permission Department" himself with his "Attribution" approval. I'm sure he would do this however he is a very busy person and essentially him doing it again does seem like a waste of his valuable time.
Please let me know what I should do?
Thanking You
Dora Domino (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dora Domino: The email address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In the past, simply forwarding the email was sufficient, but the process has changed over time and it now requires copyright owners themselves to email them directly. The instructions for Bob Paton can be found on the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. Once everything it cleared, the image will be undeleted. — ξxplicit 05:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Elitch Gardens Logo 120 Years.jpg

Do you mind deleting File:Elitch Gardens Logo 120 Years.jpg? It's been orphaned for 77 days. Elisfkc (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. — ξxplicit 05:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

2602:47:d765:3a00:a85e:25ea:1370:102c

Please hurry up and block user:2602:47:d765:3a00:a85e:25ea:1370:102c because the drama is getting progressively heated. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C9DE:1D26:778E:AD19 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in this IP's edits that would require a block. They are making test edits in the sandbox, which is its point. — ξxplicit 05:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

DOE EYED Groups

Can you look at User talk:DOE EYED Groups again? I am dealing with them on IRC and they would like to get unblocked (the new username should comply with the policy). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

US soccer team crest

I would like to challenge the closure of the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_6#File:US_Soccer_Federation.svg

But I am unclear how to go about this process. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is...not helpful, to say the least. Can you help? You were the editor who closed the discussion. Eightball (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) I think this may be in reference to my removal of File:US Soccer Federation (2016).png from United States men's national soccer team here. The file has been converted to {{PD-logo}} and uploaded to Commons as File:Crest of the United States Soccer Federation.png since then, so it is no longer subject to WP:NFCC. At the time, however, the file did not have a non-free use rationale for the usage in the men's team article so it failed WP:NFCC#10c and was removed per WP:NFCCE. That's the primary reason the file was removed. The link to the above-mentioned FFD discussion was added since I also felt the non-free usage was problematic per UUI#17 based upon the results of previous NFCR/FFD discussion about the non-free usage of similar logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

deletion of File:Norton Wankel air induction cooling.JPG

I misread the tagging thinking I was allowed 7 days for me to challenge this tagging. I messaged the editor who tagged it same date, 23 Feb: User talk:Rocknrollmancer#Replaceable fair use File:Norton Wankel air induction cooling.JPG

Will you please restore it? The expanded rational is already drafted. This is important for intended future development of the article. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: The issue was not about the fair use rationale. How will concern of the image being replaceable by freely licensed content be resolved? — ξxplicit 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe the tagging to be wrong; officious, over-zealous and unnecessary. The image-checking volunteer was only arguing semantics whilst detracting from WP content. The upload was commercially worthless - not a work of art, a fuzzy, low-res from 40-year old mass-produced media, relating to what are now valuable museum-pieces, and contained data which needed to be verified by an orignal graphic work - this included necessary use of colour. Any theoretical replication would therefore not be verified. This is specialist-editor stuff. I am an inclusionist and here to build, hence the basic upload was chosen and compliant with all FUR criteria, IMO. I did not add the content on a whim, or for myself - I already know, but readers do not, and need to be assured of accuracy. I did not have the opportunity to submit a more-clear argument. From Jimbo's alleged 25 million registered editors, only two are capable of producing this historic article, and only one has the source material. I do not possess the software and graphic artist skills necessary to replicate what could only be ultimately an unverified diagram. The technology moved on by a couple of leaps from the 1980s - this is the latest article - Norton RCW588, and article history showing the editors.

Deletion offers no incentive for editors to continue development, particularly where, in a sequence of articles still incomplete, pieces deemed necessary for historical understanding of the prose are missing.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I've gone ahead and restored the image. Please be aware that the file may be subject to being nominated for deletion at files for discussion if the originally tagger, or any other editor for that matter, decides to pursue this further. — ξxplicit 04:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - the original tagger has proceeded as you advised. To quote from a long-standing editor's recent talk page: "We should always look at stuff like ******* carefully, with an editorial view, otherwise we're just being 'bots". Different application, but same sentiment.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Alphago logo.svg

Is the image free or unfree? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: It's definitely copyrighted in the UK. As for the U.S., the swirl to the left along with the surrounding black and white circles, likely push this into unfree territory as well. — ξxplicit 01:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting File:TaylorSwiftCharlotteNC 8JUN2015.jpg. Eric Cable  !  Talk  17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Dakota jackson studio.jpg

You deleted File:Dakota jackson studio.jpg. This image was taken by an employee of the Dakota Jackson Studio. Dakota Jackson is subject, owner, and author. Correspondence in Ticket:2015082810001369 stating that he owned the copyright to this image. Please reinstate this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coda-fy (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coda-fy: The image was nominated for deletion by Storkk, who handled the ticket in the first place. I don't know the full details, but it seems the permission was not sufficient for this item; I suggest you ask that user for clarification. — ξxplicit 01:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Coda-fy: the rationale for deletion was detailed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_February_11. Essentially, for the photos of Mr. Jackson, I asked how he came to own the copyright (copyright is usually and by default held by the photographer), and of the magazine shots, I asked who the photographer was. No reply was ever received, and they should have been deleted a long time ago, I was just checking on some of my old edits. Storkk (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You deleted the media file for DuckDuckGo

I had File:DuckDuckGo-Homepage.jpg but you deleted it. You gave me F4 but the image is a screenshot of a Web page which I took myself. Could you get the media file back? BTW the site I took the screenshot for is Duckduckgo.com. NeatCoronet458 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@NeatCoronet458: I have restored the image for you. Please also make sure to add a fair use rationale, as it was tagged for missing that as well. — ξxplicit 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:DeVaolis Por fig1.jpg

REGARDING:

01:54, 23 January 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:DeVaolis Por fig1.jpg (F4: Lack of licensing information (TW)) Thank you for uploading File:DeVaolis Por fig1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status.

The image, DeVaolis Por fig1.jpg (deleted), is a personal photograph in the collection of the wife of the subject. She has given permission, by way of an e-mail statement, for use of the photograph in a Wikipedia article about the subject.

"You have my permission to include the picture of Russell L. De Valois in your submission to Wikipedia."

The complete e-mail from granter of permission is available

How do I transmit this permission to Wikipedia and appropriately tag the upload so that it will not be deleted and can be used in the article?

Thanking you

S051125E (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@S051125E: This image was deleted because you did not specify a license tag. The email you cite also does not. If the copyright holder of the image would like to release it under a free license, please follow the instructions outlined at the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. — ξxplicit 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:DeValois OppCell fig2.jpg (deleted)

REGARDING: 00:57, 25 January 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:DeValois OppCell fig2.jpg (F4: Lack of licensing information (TW)) Thanks for uploading File:DeValois OppCell fig2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

The image, DeValois OppCell fig2.jpg (deleted), is a from a journal article with Taylor and Francis Publishers. The publisher sent the following permission via e-mail:

"I am sending our gratis permission for Professor De Valois to reuse his data in the article figure for his Wikipedia entry. Thank you"

The complete e-mail from the publisher granting permission is available

How do I transmit this permission to Wikipedia and select the appropriately license and copyright tag for the upload so that it will not be deleted and can be used in the article?

Thanking you

S051125E (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This image was deleted because you did not specify a license tag. The email you cite also does not. If the copyright holder of the image would like to release it under a free license, please follow the instructions outlined at the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. — ξxplicit 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:DeValois RFs fig3.jpg (deleted)

REGARDING:

00:57, 25 January 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:DeValois RFs fig3.jpg (F4: Lack of licensing information (TW)) Thanks for uploading File:DeValois RFs fig3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

The image, DeValois RFs fig3.jpg (deleted), is a figure from a journal article with Elsevier. I obtained from the publisher a license (5 pages) with the following relevant entry :

"Homepage URL for posting content https://en.wikipedia.org/ Name of website owner Wikimedia Foundation"

The complete e-mail from the publisher granting permission is available

How do I transmit this license to Wikipedia and select the appropriately license and copyright tag for the upload so that it will not be deleted and can be used in the article?

Thanking you

S051125E (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This image was deleted because you did not specify a license tag. The email you cite also does not. If the copyright holder of the image would like to release it under a free license, please follow the instructions outlined at the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. — ξxplicit 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This TV logos

Hi Explicit. I have some questions about Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 26#This TV logos.

  1. Your close stated that File:Wmor dt2.png and File:KDMI Logo.png were OK to convert to "PD-logo". Can these files also be tagged with {{trademark}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}?
  2. You also wrote there was no consensus on File:ThisTV Phoenix.png and File:Wrgb dt2.png which is fine. Does that mean that File:Wlov dt2.png and File:Krnv dt2.png, two similar files with free licenses, should be discussed at WP:PUF?

If "File:Wlov dt2.png" and "File:Krnv dt2.png" are OK as free, then there are about 30 more almost identical files (including the two discussed in that FfD) which would also seem to be OK as non-free. If not, then they should probably not be tagged for a move to Commons and maybe should be converted to non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. Yes, that would fine.
  2. File:Wlov dt2.png and File:Krnv dt2.png were originally tagged as non-free when they were uploaded, so they can just be reverted back to that state instead of pursuing a discussion at WP:PUF. — ξxplicit 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Explicit. Should the files in #2 be reverted back to non-free in your opinion? I don't mind doing the cleanup, but just want to make sure that's the case. Any suggestions on what to put for an edit sum if they do need to be reverted? Do I just say WP:BOLD or is there something more relevant I should link to? For reference, the editor who converted "File:Wlov dt2.png" retired in 2012 and the one who converted "File:Krnv dt2.png" is an IP who has not edited since 2014 and only was active for two days, so not sure there's any point to asking either of them why they converted each image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
In the edit summary, it would be worth citing the discussion and mentioning that you're erring to the side of caution. — ξxplicit 02:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. I can add a link to c:COM:PCP and a link to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 26#This TV logos either in the edit sum or on the file's talk page. Last question, "File:Wlov dt2.png" is currently being used on a user page. If the file's converted back to non-free, that particular usage would not be allowed per NFCC#9. Any advice on how to proceed in regarding that? Normally, I just remove non-free images from user pages and leave an explanation as to why on the user talk. This time, however, I would be taking a freely licensed image, making it non-free, and then removing the file from the user page. This seems slightly different to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not a requirement to notify the user that you've removed a non-free file from a page that is outside of mainspace; citing WP:NFCC#9 in your edit summary, regardless of the file information page changes, suffices. Most editors, especially established ones, usually don't attempt to re-add it. — ξxplicit 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-free screenshots of news opens

Hi again Explicit. I'm just full of questions this morning, so I hope you don't mind if a pester you a bit more. I've been nominating various non-free screenshots of news opens at FDD (see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 4#Non-free screenshots of newscast opens, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 12#Non-free screenshots of news opens, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 22#Non-free screenshots in TV station articles) and prior to FfD I was nominating them one screenshot at a time using {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} (for example, File:Wwtv news.png, File:Wtvh news 2012.png and File:Wstm open.png). I started nominating the files at FfD based upon Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Nominating a really large number of files and have been trying to keep the discussions manageable, but there are still almost 200 similar files which I feel still need to be discussed. Is there a way to do all of these at once or should I just keep doing what I've been doing? Not all of the files were uploaded by the same editor, but they all have the same non-free problems in my opinion. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you looking to nominate large batches at FFD all at once? I haven't used it since 2012 (I think), but I've used WP:AWB when mass adding or mass removing deletion templates from pages in the past. You simply need to list them all on one page and then run AWB—after you've figured out how it works, of course. — ξxplicit 03:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Just wondering if there was a way or if it was even acceptable to discuss a large number (i.e., more than a hundred) of non-free files in a single thread. I realize there are a limited number of admins working on FfD and discussions are only really intended to go for 7 days, so don't want to muck up the system with a 100+ file thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) If you want to use AWB for tagging large numbers of files, then I think that policy requires that you first get your username added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage by making a request at WP:PERM/AWB. I've never used AWB myself, so I don't know if it would be practical to use that tool for this task. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I think these should all be tagged for speedy deletion first, then brought to FFD only if deletion is refused by an admin. Looking at the discussions, there is nothing controversial than needs to be debated here. Tag Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale per WP:F7. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind using "di-disputed fair use rationale" and started out doing so for each file. However, one of the reasons I switched over to FfD was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight. I guess I felt that nominating them at FfD would give those wanting to keep any of the files a place to comment. It's not clear (at least to me) who may remove the speedy deletion templates and what to do when such a template has been removed. Is it like {{PROD}} in that once it's removed (even in bad faith) it shouldn't be re-added? The template says "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern", but NFCC#8 interpretations vary quite a bit from editor to editor and some editors/Wikiprojects seem to actually feel that this kind of "decorative" usage is NFCC compliant. What should in cases where a "di-XXXX" template is removed, but the problem has not been fixed? Re-add the template? Take it to FfD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
In the case of {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} being removed, then the file should be taken to FFD if the dispute lies in the interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. In cases like {{di-no fair use rationale}} being removed without a fair use rationale being provided, or {{di-no license}} being removed without a license being specified, it should be restored. I believe only {{di-replaceable fair use}} does not allow removal from anyone other than a reviewing admin. — ξxplicit 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Explicit/Archive_23"