User talk:Explicit

It is approximately 1:59 PM where this user lives (South Korea). []

Discussion at File talk:India national football team(s) logo (all N teams).png#Not an orphaned image

 You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:India national football team(s) logo (all N teams).png#Not an orphaned image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hi Explicit. Would you take a look at this as well since it is another upload of File:All India Football Federation 2016.png? This is basically is the same thing that happened at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, and the other times I've asked you about this User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, User talk:Explicit/Archive 25#How are different of Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg and India nation football logo.png and User talk:Explicit/Archive 27#File:All India Football Federation 2016.png, but maybe there's something different that I'm missing this time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please Undelete MW 18014

Hello, I noticed that you deleted MW 18014 because of reliability / notability concerns. Because I have concerns that the original deletion request was not made under good faith, I wish to challenge that deletion. Are you able to undelete MW 18014 so that I can challenge the editor who requested deletion? TIA. Oshah (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshah: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you deleted this photo that I uploaded?

You deleted

ThebanTomb Where Joseph Smith Papyri Might have come from.jpg

with the reason "F3: File licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", "used with permission", or GFDL 1.2 only"

This file was used WITH permission. Can I please have it undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epachamo (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Epachamo: Hi, at the upload form, you must have indicated that you were uploading the image "for use on Wikipedia only". As a result, your file was automatically tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. The licensing terms are too strict and not allowed on Wikipedia. If the copyright holder would like to release their image under a more specific license, please refer to the instructions at WP:CONSENT. ℯxplicit 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Explicit: Ok, I have gone back and received an unconditional release from the copyright holder. Thanks for helping me do it the right way! Epachamo (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Wolfgang Willy Friedlieb Heuer

Can you explain why you deleted this article in-spite of my improving it and providing an updated external link and removing the intention of deletion notice? The article could quite easily be improved and that is exactly what I was about to do.

The article is indexed quite widely, so you have created an administrative burden which extends beyond Wikipedia. Gregorydavid (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gregorydavid: Hi, I'm not quite sure what improvements you speak of. You changed the external link from a dead link to a working link, which is a primary source. Then, you adjusted the death date according to the primary source and added an exact date of birth without citing a reference and removed a {{citation needed}} tag without addressing the issue. Lastly, you never removed the proposed deletion template, all while failing to address the WP:BIO concerns that led to the page's deletion nomination to begin with. ℯxplicit 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the primary source is extensive and has been expanded since the original link went dead. Please advise how I can go about recreating the article. Gregorydavid (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gregorydavid: You can simply request for the page to be restored here, but I highly suggest for you to read the aforementioned BIO link and the general notability guideline to determine if the subject is truly notable. Primary sources are not indicators of notability. The page can still be subject to a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

{{Reply to|xplicit} Hi, remember Wikipedia was not built in a day. I read the guidelines with the intention to delete notice and elsewhere. Remember notability in context of Stellenbosch may not be the same as notability in Korea. If the "Notable entrepreneurs" in Stellenbosch article is the same as before Johannes Wolfgang Willy Friedlieb Heuer has become a red link. I will be in touch with Friedlieb's son Hans to see what secondary sources he may be aware of. Gregorydavid (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptomonad Images Removed

Good afternoon,

Yesterday, you removed three copyrighted images of cryptomonads which I had uploaded a few weeks prior, per CSD F7 and NFCC #1. However, I believe this is mistaken in at least two cases,

File:Bjornbergiella hawaiiensis.png represents the only published depiction of the species. There is no free alternative.

Similarly, File:Hemiselmis rufescens.png represents the oldest available depiction of the species, with all other available images also being copyrighted, and with living copyright holders.

As Chroomonas is a much better documented species, I imagine that a free image is likely available, though I have yet to find one.

Thereppy (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thereppy: Hi, the editor who nominated these images for deletion specified his reason for doing so. He cited that "a free diagram/sketch could be created" of these species. Is there any particular reason why this alternative is not suitable? ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg

Hi Explicit. You removed File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg in this this edit Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The same logo had been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, but for a slightly different reason. The Brazilian team last won the World Cup in 2002, which means that most likely the fifth star was added long before either of these two discussions took place. The file wasn't removed because it was being used in both the men's and women's teams. It was removed because it was used in Brazilian Football Confederation and the team articles.

Tvx1 disagrees with this application of UUI#17 and has requested clarification of a previous discussion about it at WP:AN/RFC#Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. This disagreement about UUI#17 has also recently come up in the now-archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 125#Bhutan national football team and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#User:Bring back Daz Sampson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as well. Although I've mentioned CLOSECHALLENGE before about this kind of thing with respect to another file removed per an XfD discussion, Tvx1 apparently doesn't seem to think it needs to be followed. They are aware of the previous FFD, but have decided to re-add the file here and the rationale here; so, I'm going to ask you about it. Is this current version of the file the same one which you removed per the FFD? Is your close of the FFD discussion still in effect if it is?

I'm assuming here that previously established consensus for at least this particular file is still in effect until either the application of the NFCC to this type of non-free use is clarified to specifically allow it, or a new consensus for this file is established which allows it. If, however, that's not correct, then please clarify. At the same time, if you feel that enough time has passed and the file can now be used in the men's team article without at least a new FFD discussion, then that's fine as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the requested closure of the archived discussion revolving around UUI#17, I'd be surprised if any admin took any sort of action. That discussion naturally fell off the radar and there was no consensus to change the status quo, so the status quo remains in tact. Tvx1's attempt to rail against the status quo and to pick up the dead discussion is a classic example of beating the dead horse. Consensus can change, but through new discussions, not by ignoring the previous consensus based on an X amount of time that has passed.

The current version of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg is the same logo as the previous version in the upload log. ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but Marchjuly has given an inaccurate description with accusations of bad faith regarding my actions to this file. I'm not ignoring consensus here. The situation regarding the Brazil's team logo is different to other teams' Marhjuly mentioned. The crest that appears on the Brazil team's shirt, with five stars, is their own variant of the CFB's logo. The five stars are there because they won the World Cup five times. As I explained on the team's talk page, the CFB's general logo does not have stars and neither has the women's team's variant. I became aware of this while watching the Brazil vs Italy women's cup game yesterday evening because the commentator made a remark on the difference between the men's and women's crests. Strolling the CFB's site even more made me realize that the other team's (e.g. beach soccer and FUTSAL) use different crests as well. As a result, WP:NFC#UUI #17, using a parent't entity's logo for a child entity lacking their own branding simply doesn't apply here. The men's team does not lack their own branding, the crest with the five stars is their own branding. So I don't understand why it's use would be prohibited in the team's article and why I'm being dealt with so aggressively. This usage would be identical to the use of the crests in our articles on the german Men's and Women's teams, which also have a distinct crest.Tvx1 15:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure my description was inaccurate or in bad faith, but I will strike and apologize for anything that was. This is the same file which was discussed in the FFD discussion and removed as a result. It's also the same file which was discussed at Talk:Brazil national football team#Regarding the shirt badge missing from Brazil national football team. The file wasn't removed per that FFD because it was being used in team articles; the file was removed because it was being used in the confederation's article and the team articles. That's what the close says and what it also says at File talk:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The close was that the confederation is considered to be the "parent" of the individual teams, not that the men's team is considered to be the parent of the other teams. Anyway, the post I left at on the Brazil team's article's talk before when queried about this didn't make mention of the number of stars, but it did mention the reason why the file was removed, that consensus can change and CLOSECHALLENGE; which are all things which we've discussed before in other discussions. In these previous discussions, you've accused me of being POINTY or BLUDGEON whenever I've brought up this up. You also posted that the UUI#17 matter regarding parent/child entities and federation/national teams was resolved through WT:NFCC discussion (which means there's no need for CLOSECHALLENGE anyway), and that I'm the one ignoring and not allowing this "new" consensus to be implemented by trying to impose my own interpretation onto others. When I removed files or non-free use rationales you've re-added, files which had been initially removed by an administrator per one of these discussions, you accused me of edit warring in posts or edit summaries; even your request at AN/RFC accused me of edit warring and not recognizing this "new" consensus.

After seeing your post on the talk page of the Brazil team, I was going to respond that five-star file was the same file which was discussed, it was removed per FFD, and a consensus can change but you should discuss it with the closing administrator. However, I pretty much already posted that on the talk page and, based upon my previous interactions with you, I felt doing so would be met with the same responses as before and more claims of me repeating myself over and over, giving other orders and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. So, this time I didn't remove any files or rationales and I didn't try to tell others what they can or cannot do; instead, I followed CLOSECHALLENGE and asked the administrator who closed the discussion to clarify the close and left it up to him to decide whether the file or rationale should be removed. I explained why I was doing so, and provided diffs or links trying to show what the disagreement was and tried not misrepresent our respective positions. Your comment about the Bhutan NFCR and CLOSECHALLENGE is something you did post, not something I made up. I made reference to it because this FFD discussion like the Bhutan NFCR discussion is also from several years ago took place prior the WT:NFCC discussion about UUI#17. If it was bad faith to assume that you still re-added the file and the rationale even though you were aware of the Brazil FFD discussion and why the file had been removed, then my apologies. If it was bad faith to assume that you had read the posts on the Brazil team's talk page and then still decided that there was no need for to discuss things with the closing admin, then my apologies.

If you think that the five-stars means that this file's non-free use should be allowed on the team's article and is not something which was touched on in previous discussions, then that would seem to fall under item 3 of CLOSECHALLENGE as "significant new information"; however, the example you give about the German national teams might not be a good one because while it's true that the men's and women's teams (child entities) have "different" logos with different numbers of stars, the German Football Association (parent entity) does have its own distinct branding separate from the individual teams; moreover, the file used in the GFA's article is public domain which means that it's not subject to WP:NFCCP and could even be added to the national team articles if someone wanted to. All of these things combined might be one reason for arguing that UUI#17 would not apply to any of files used in German team articles. The German team (along with some other teams) was briefly mentioned in the discussion on the Brazil team's talk page and I mentioned WP:OTHERIMAGE and how other non-free uses might not be identical or even non-free in the first paragraph of my response to that post; so, I didn't feel it would be helpful repeating that once again in response to your post because (1) you didn't specifically ask about it and (2) your previous assertions of me just repeating stuff over and over again. Since you've specifically brought it up here, it seems OK to respond in some detail. If it was "bad faith" of me to assume that me "repeating myself" about "CLOSECHALLENGE", "UUI#17" or other things at the Brazil team's talk page would've just been met with the same responses as I previously received from you in other discussions, then my apologies for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

One possible way to resolve this (at least with respect to this file) might be to (re)assess the current file's non-free use in the article about the confederation. Are the stars more appropriately used to identify the team that won the World Cup five times or the confederation administrating the team. Would the confederation have a logo with even more stars if all of the teams falling under its administration won a combined number of World Cups that was more than the five that the men's team has won? Should the confederation simply use a star-less logo? These seem to be things which might be worth discussing and might also be considered "significant new information". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my article, but wanted to give it a try

So, I am here to talk about an article of mine u deleted, but only because I wanted the thanx to b personal, not just automated. I merely hoped for the possibility I was creating a meritorious article. I now intend to delete the dead link on the Wikipedia page from which I thought creating an article might be somehow helpful. No hard feelings, @ all.Slarty1 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please Undelete File:Showdown title screen.JPG

You deleted a file I uploaded: File:Showdown title screen.JPG. The reason you gave for deleting the file was: (F4: File without a source (TW)). This was correct, I did not add a source to the file when I uploaded it. I do know the source, however. It was a screencapture from the animated short Showdown (1942 film). The image is needed for the related article's infobox. Please undelete. I will make sure I record the source and author this time. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tea and crumpets:  Done, file restored. Please add the source information to the description page. ℯxplicit 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

92.10.223.166

Hello. Could you please block user: 92.10.223.166. CLCStudent (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete Detroit Free Press Mitch Albom 9-11 10th anniversary front page Sept 11, 2011.jpg

Could you please undelete File:Detroit Free Press Mitch Albom 9-11 10th anniversary front page Sept 11, 2011.jpg? You deleted it for being orphaned, which requires it be tagged for seven days. If you look at the history of Detroit Free Press, User:MarcelTheHippie was edit warring to remove the file from the article and the file was in the article for the past three days. 19 minutes before it was deleted, MarcelTheHippie reverted and added back the orphaned tag from the 16th to be deleted on the 23rd, when it should have restarted the process with an orphaned fair use template from the 22nd. I started a discussion at MarcelTheHippie's talk page at talk:MarcelTheHippie#Detroit Free Press cover three days ago that instead of edit warring to remove the file, they needed to start a discussion at WP:FFD. Instead they reverted again trying to get around the orphaned fair use rules by replacing an incorrect template before the deadline. I would also appreciate it you could leave a note at their talk page discussion that they should start a discussion at WP:FFD for file removals that are contested. Aspects (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aspects: I urge you to stop going to such great lengths to keep just one newspaper cover on Wikipedia. If you haven't already, take a look at my latest edit summary on the Detroit Free Press article. The less non-free files there are on Wikipedia, the better. This whole edit war is pointless, so please stop. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Explicit, it is equally pointless to undelete that file. If you don't count Aspects' edits and thereby exclude them from the picture, that file was tagged and unused for seven days. No other person objected to the removal, so it's safe to assume no discussion is even needed in this case. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aspects and MarcelTheHippie: I have restored the file. Aspects is correct – once contested, it should be discussed at FFD. This is not clear-cut case. ƏXPLICIT 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the article on Hariakhan Baba

Hi, not sure why you deleted the article on Hariakhan Baba on 11:48, 25 May 2019, in your notes you describe him as being a "crank" seems like a little prejudice and just a little offensive, He was a respected and historical personality and Hindu saint, I am sure thousands of people in northern India as well the western world will find your attitude a bit insulting,

I am wondering why you are not deleting articles about Christians saints and calling them "Cranks" as you delete them?

I am NOT the author of the article, But I am doing research on the historical person, I have traveled to India twice for research. If you are looking for cranks you should look in the mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:600:3520:95BC:B6B8:FC2E:53FB (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal W.F.C.

The image that was previously in use at Arsenal W.F.C. was incorrect. The club no longer goes by Arsenal Ladies and indeed never used that image as their badge, only as an image on their Twitter account. That Twitter account and the corresponding image no longer exist, thus I have updated the page with the correct image - the normal Arsenal badge. Please reach out to User:Marchjuly and ensure that he stops mistakenly reverting the page based on an outdated and incorrect ruling. Eightball (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eightball: While I was posting on my user talk, we had an edit conflict, so you didn't see my post before you re-added the file. Hopefully, my post clears things up a bit. As I posted on my user talk, the Twitter file was restored and re-added to the article by Explicit; so, he'll figure out what to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: There is nothing to figure out here. I fixed the page with the objectively correct logo and you have repeatedly reverted it with the wrong logo. You need to stop doing that immediately. Eightball (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)