User talk:Explicit/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

File:ABSA Group Limited Logo.jpg

Hi Explicit. You deleted this file per F5, which means it was also licensed as non-free. It was orphaned because someone created File:ABSA Group Limited Logo.svg to use instead. The svg file has been flagged as an NFCC#9 violation, but seems simple enough to be converted to {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if not PD in its country of origin. Can you check to see whether the jpg file which was replaced is the same logo? If the files are the same and the only reason the svg is being licensed as non-free is because it's a user-created svg and not because of its complexity, then it cannot really be kept as non-free per FREER; it's licensing would either need to be converted to PD or the file would need to be deleted and the jpg restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, File:ABSA Group Limited Logo.jpg is the same logo as File:ABSA Group Limited Logo.svg. We currently do not have information regarding South Africa's legal definition of threshold of originality. If the logo was created by Vectorebus and they would like to release it under a free license, it is best done so under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ℯxplicit 04:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I have uploaded svg logos for all South African banks, including ABSA. I will change the licensing details to {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if it suits this particular logo better. The logo is anyway just simple geometry shapes. Regards Vectorebus (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Explicit for clarifying the older jpg file, and thanks Vectorebus for clarifying the new svg file. It does seem that {{PD-ineligibleUSonly}} is probably OK here, with the non-free use rationale also being change to {{Information}}

FWIW Vectorebus, if you're going to be converting non-free files to svg, you might want to take a look a the last few sentences of WP:FREER because a user-generated svg might not be considered OK per WP:NFCCP. There is a discussion currently ongoing about this at WT:NFCC#WP:FREER and svg files so you're welcome to join in if you want to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Empty categories

It would help if you didn't only delete old categories from Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories but also tagged valid categories for CSD C1 deletion in 7 days. Do you think you could take a second from deleting pages to tag pages for future deletion? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the Simio_(software) article

Please help. This site deleted is for a provider of Simulation Software. The name of the company is Simio, and it appears to be under constant attack. This time it was (rather suspiciously) again deleted right before its user conference, and because it was deleted other people then (extremely quickly) removed links that pointed to it.

The company (Simio) is one of the largest providers of DES Simulators, and very important in its field. I am a software developer, user of simulators, and (full disclosure) also at the current time a contractor to Simio (although no one at Simio asked me to do this). Its absence in the list of simulator producers is a serious omission from Wikipedia, and I believe this harassment is being done by its competitors.

Please restore it and let me know if you have any questions. Any advice on how this could be prevented in the future would be welcome. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batpox (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batpox: In contrary, Simio seems to be in constant attack of Wikipedia. Simio has been deleted a number of times under speedy deletion criteria and as a result of an AFD discussion. In December, an editor hijacked the article Simion Galeţchi starting here and moved the page to Simio (software) while circumventing the title Simio, which was protected against creation due to the number of times it was created. You, along with several other users associated with Simio, are in direct conflict of interest due to your association with the software and should not be writing about it all. ℯxplicit 03:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I see your point. I don't really want to write about Simio; I just want to find out what happened so I can find out how to restart the process. I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interest to not include information about an important (wrt DE simulators) and popular software product. I'm a fan of Wikipedia, and it is always my primary source when I need info about a product, so users and potential users of Simio should be able to contribute to, discover, and get accurate and unbiased info. I presume it is exactly those people that you/me/Wikipedia would prefer to make entries. I'm just learning the ropes and studying the rules. I sincerely appreciate your help and will study your references and terminology. Batpox (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sanskruti Balgude deleted because of WP:PROD and also there was question of Paid editing

Hello, Explicit I want to recreate that article, I see there is a draft for this deleted page here so I'll fix it and I'll ask you to check and request you to move it in the mainspace if article Passes WP:GNG and has WP:RS also I'll try to comply it with WP:NACTOR --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 20:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@SidPedian: Very well, please proceed as you have planned. ℯxplicit 00:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Explicit, I have fixed the article please have a look at the sources and if possible move without leaving a redirect. and also marked as review, actresses is highly notable in Marathi (Indian regional) Cinema. I was looking for her latest information I find nothing so created stub, for now, hope other editors will start adding more appropriate information now. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 19:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Update I have moved it myself, please do not consider as I'm impatient, it's just I thought it's good to move myself, but if you think it's still not passing GNG and RS I won't mind getting deleted. but she is highly notable please consider googling her before taking any deletion step. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 19:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion of Picture of Guido Caldarelli at TedxFoggia 2018.png

Hello, we received an OTRS ticket for this file (ticket:2019032610005834). Can you please undelete it temporarily, so that I can check it? Thanks Ruthven (msg) 15:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ruthven:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia Soul Helmet 2019.png

Hi Explicit. You deleted this file per WP:F7, but I'm not sure if that was the result of a PROD or some other tag; usually, you mark a file deleted per PROD with "Expired PROD" so maybe it was a case of a disputed non-free use rationale. Anyway, the same file might have been re-uploaded as File:Philadelphia Soul Helmet.png, but I'm not sure. This "new" file has the same WP:NFCC#3a issues as other similar files uploaded by the uploader since it's essentially no different from the other non-free logo being used in the infobox. This is also the same uploader discussed at User talk:Explicit/Archive 31#Arena Football League logos and is not the first time they've uploaded a file which is essentially the same as one which had been previously deleted. (See User talk:Fastily#File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet 2019.png and User talk:JJMC89#File:Atlantic City Blackjacks Helmet.png for example). Anyway, if this file is different enough to require an FFD discussion then let me know. At the same time, if PROD is also an option then let me know. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The newly uploaded image is a duplicate of the deleted one. In cases like this where the same file is re-uploaded following a less enforceable deletion, it's best to proceed to WP:FFD. ℯxplicit 23:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Do you know who tagged the file for deletion and why it was tagged?

I'd also like your advice on some other similar files which were deleted but subsequently re-uploaded by this editor.

File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet.png: This is basically the same file which was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 21#File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet 2019.png with the only real difference being the coloring and design of the helmet imagery. There was also File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet Logo.png which you deleted as well. Anyway, I've nominated the latest upload for discussion at FFD (as advised by Fastily the admin who closed the first FFD), but it seems a bit pointless to have to go to FFD everytime pretty much the same file is re-uploaded with the same non-free issues. To me it seem like some simply recreating the same deleted article, only moving a few paragraphs around or adding a table or image, but not addressing the reasons why the article was first deleted. For example, File:Chicago Slaughter Helmet Logo.png was deleted via FFD, re-uploaded, and then deleted again per G4 for pretty much the same reasons.

File:Atlantic City Blackjacks Helmet.png: This was prodded and deleted on March 24, 2019 by JJMC89. It was re-uploaded on April 9 only to be deleted once again by you on May 13 per F7. It was then re-uploaded again on May 25. Although the file names are the same, I guess it's possible that the files themselves are slightly different.

File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png: Deleted in March 2014, but re-uploaded in November 2014. Deleted again in November 2014, but re-uploaded in May 2015. Deleted by you in January 2019, re-uploaded the next day. Deleted for a fourth time in February 2019, but re-uploaded in May 2019.

File:AFL Shield.png: Deleted by you in October 2017, but re-uploaded April 2018. Deleted again by you in Janaury 2019, but re-uploaded the next day. Deleted a third time in February 2019, but re-uploaded in May 2019.

This editor seems to be active in spurts: they edit for awhile, take a break, and then return for another round of editing. It seems that when they notice a file they've previously uploaded has been deleted, they simply re-upload the file without really trying to figure out why it was deleted. It's clear from their user talk page that they've been having a problem understanding WP:NFCC and how it's being applied for number of years. They continue to upload files which need to be reduced even though they've been advised about this before by others. Lots of editors make mistakes when it comes to non-free content, even those who go around checking files for problems make mistakes. Mistakes are OK and can usually be sorted out, but this type of editing indicates a pattern which is more of a CIR and IDHT issue than making an occasional mistake. It should be of concern that this editor simply keeps re-uploading deleted files without addressing any of the issues with led to their deletion, with no indication that editor is making any attempt to try and correct or modify their approach. Posts like User talk:Marchjuly#Football helmet images or User talk:NostalgiaBuff97501#Deciding to leave show that previous attempts (like User talk:NostalgiaBuff97501#Non-free logos and crests and User talk:NostalgiaBuff97501#Non-free logos) to try and explain things to this editor haven't been very effective at all. They are convinced they are right and that everyone else is wrong, and also that everyone is just making them unnecessarily jump through lots of hoops just to make their editing less enjoyable. Claiming that the policy is too vague or too hard to figure out might garner some good faith when you're just starting out and learning how things work, but I think this editor has moved well beyond the point of be able to try and justify things using that argument. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia Soul Helmet 2019.png was tagged by JJMC89 as {{Di-fails NFCC|3a=yes|3a-instances=File:Philadelphia Soul.png|help=off|date=5 May 2019}}.

Not quite sure why Fastily advised an FFD discussion for File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet.png. WP:CSD#G4 only requires recreated pages to serve the same purpose of the previously deleted pages. Exact duplication of the image is not a requirement.

I deleted File:Atlantic City Blackjacks Helmet.png under WP:CSD#F7 because it is higher up in the deletion hierarchy (PROD < CSD < FFD). I can't deny restoring PRODs unless there are serious copyright right or BLP violations per WP:CONTESTED. I can technically deny restoration of the image deleted under F7, but a different administrator can disagree and restore it, even if it's not necessarily good practice if I had already denied restoration (and are aware of it). I generally can't overturn FFD discussions as they require WP:DRV. For this one, the next step is FFD.

File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png was first uploaded under fair use, but then the license was changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. It was deleted as a result of a WP:PUF discussion and there was no mention of re-adding the non-free license, so it holds no bearing on subsequent uploads as the rest were uploaded under fair use and G4 could not be applied. In retrospect, I probably should have denied deleting the file under F7 in January and suggested FFD instead, as it was deleted as such five years prior.

File:AFL Shield.png was first deleted under WP:CSD#F5 which can't really be enforced since it was re-uploaded. After my initial deletion under F7, it should have been taken to FFD after subsequent deleting re-uploads, but it wasn't, for the same reason as the directly aforementioned file.

I will give NostalgiaBuff97501 a final warning and will immediately block them indefinitely should more NFCC-violating images are uploaded. Sometimes, a serious warning is all it takes. Sometimes. ℯxplicit 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#Bhutan national football team

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Bhutan national football team. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at this? There have been many discussions about UUI#17 and how it applies, but none have really established a new consensus. The latest WT:NFCC discussion was moving in that direction, but never quite got there and the talked about RFC never got done. If someone wants to go ahead and do so, then that’s fine; I don’t, however, think enough was resolved to start dismissing NFCR and FFD closes like Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA across the board in which files were removed from certain articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk • contribs)

You can ignore this. The filer has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry and incompetence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help sort this out. It’s unfortunate that things ended up as they did, but the way they quickly spiraled out of control probably meant that this would have eventually ended up with the editor being blocked by some admin for some reason most likely sooner than later. The socking, etc. probably won’t help, but their continuing with the IDHT arguments off Wikipedia mean an unblock is very unlikely to be granted. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My files are free!

The MotoGP 19 files should NOT be deleted because I even put in "It is under a fair rationale". 99721829Max (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@99721829Max: Hi, can you please link to the files you're referring to? The action you've taken issue with is not clear. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Motogp19.png 99721829Max (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@99721829Max: For this particular file, you only wrote "Rogers, Maxwell, Google" in the description. It also looks like you indicated that you weren't sure about the image's copyright status at the upload form, which led to the file automatically being tagged with {{Somewebsite}} and {{No license needing editor assistance}}. There is no other information on the file's page. ƏXPLICIT 04:12, 29 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)

There, the usage of this file in Brazil national football team has now been "officially" endorsed through a new FFD discussion. I hope that this now settles this specific issue at least.Tvx1 21:56, 30 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)

I have just added a second NFCC reason to Arsenal_FC.svg to cover Arsenal W.F.C. so that it's not deleted by a bot. This is literally all we ever had to do to fix this problem; instead we're out here lying to our readers for no reason. Absurd. Eightball (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The file was removed per a consensus established via an FFD discussion. If something changed since then, then a new consensus can be established, but the first step in doing so is to discuss things with the administrator who closed the FFD discussion and explain why. Perhaps in this case, item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is something which could be applied. The re-branding was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit participated in that discussion and yet he still restored the other file and re-added to the article with this edit. I explained this in my response here on my user talk page, but we had an edit conflict so my post came after your second post. Explicit will figure out what to do here. Adding a rationale is not all that needs to be done per WP:JUSTONE. What needs to be done is to follow CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Explicit: This now being discussed at ANI. You’re mentioned so perhaps you can clarify this one way or the other. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

See this is another instance were Marchjuly got involved in a dispute over a football logo and I wasn't involved this time. So this insistence that I was being disruptive in that previous case was just misplaced. The red line through these disputes is Marchjuly. I appreciate that they want to ensure that the right thing is done, but this is just overdoing it. What has happened to "Wikpedia is not a bureaucracy"? There is no rule anywhere that Wikipedia must rigidly follow procedures for each and every change. In this case all of this could have been resolved through a simple discussion on the article talk page or the file's talk page. There is no need to drag a change that is so uncontroversial (evidenced by no one opposing it at WP:FFD). The user turning this into controversy was Marchjuly, not Eightball. Sometimes is just better to use our common sense instead of insisting on rigidly following on each and every possible procedure. The simple fact is that if Marchjuly had not decided to revert the edit would simply have been accepted and no one else would have made a fuss about it. Therefore it would kindly request you, explicit, if you were willing to partially reconsider your aforementioned close and allow this file being used on the women's team based on the newly presented evidence by Eightball and on the simple fact that Marchjuly made a mistake back then by claiming that the women's team is a child entity of the mean's team with the immensely thin evidence of an affiliation. On a side note, this is being discussed at WP:AN, not WP:ANI.Tvx1 23:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The crux of the issue is that you and Eightball attempted to unilaterally overturn consensus of a discussion that resulted in an outcome you didn't agree with. Whether it's a matter of consensus changing or errors in the nominator's rationale that require reevaluating, a single editor does not have the authority to disregard the discussion, regardless if it's you, me, or a different admin. Proper procedure should be followed, and Marchjuly was reinstating the consensus of these discussions. WP:CCC adequately lays this out. Realistically, you're all at fault for your disruptive approaches instead of aiming to create a dialog to try to resolve the issue first.

On a side note, you're also mistaken about lacking the need to follow rules rigidly. Policies WP:NFCC and WP:BLP can both have legal ramifications on the project, which is why they are the so strictly applied. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The "rules" regarding NFC were being properly followed here. My comments with regards to WP:NOTBURO were aimed at them forcing sometimes very old closes of discussions often involving the view of only one or two contributors through every possible step of a bureaucratic chain and their refusal to accept any other way of resolving the issue than following that exact bureaucratic chain. This case could have been easily resolved through a simple discussion on the article or file's talk page instead of being dragged over a handful of noticeboards. On a side note, Marchjuly was not simply reinstating the consensus in their reverts of Eightball's edits. The consensus you assessed for the old discussion was merely not to use the men's club's logo in the women's club's article. You never mentioned that the ladies logo must be used instead. Since the fair use of the latter is clearly questionable the correct thing to do would have been to removed the logo's altogether instead of repeatedly reinstating the questionable "ladies" logo.Tvx1 00:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Twitter file was added per User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg. It was first added by me here. The file was removed by another editor in August 2017 and deleted per WP:F5. When that file was tagged for speedy deletion and I was notified here, I didn't try to force it back into the article. When it was deleted, I didn't re-upload it and re-add it to the article.

Someone then subsequently tried to re-add the FFD file to the article here, but it was removed by another editor here. Someone else then tried to re-add it here, but it was removed once again here. Another person then tried to add the file here, but it was removed once again here. Re-added once again here, removed again here. Re-added yet again here, removed again here. There was then some IP constantly re-adding the file and it was being removed each time by JJMC89 bot. I had nothing to do with those previous edits after the Twitter file was deleted. The file was then re-added again here and I did remove it here. When there was a discussion started about this on the article's talk page at Talk:Arsenal W.F.C.#Club Crest, I participated. When the use of the logo came up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., I posted this and Explicit responded here. Explicit is actually the one who restored the deleted Twitter file and then re-added it to the article. So, I added the file in February 2017, and made no other edits to the article until May 2019, and then only removed the FFD and re-added the Twitter file per Explicit. For some of that time after the Twitter file was first deleted, the article was actually without a badge file. So, if you feel that no file (at least until the current FFD is closed) is preferable to the Twitter one, then that's fine. The Twitter one will be deleted once again per F5 in a few days, unless someone else re-adds it to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The age of a discussion is irrelevant to its application, as it is binding until a new consensus is reached. WP:FFD is a poorly attended venue in general, but that does not grant users the freedom to sidestep the result of a discussion as they please. That would render the entire process useless. You are correct that a simple discussion would have resolved the issue, but the burden is ultimately on those who seek to include non-free content on additional pages. Per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCCE:

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

As evidenced by three separate admins at WP:AN who looked into the matter and the three separate editors (not including Marchjuly or the bot) in the diffs above, it is incredibly clear that there has not been any support to disregard the previous FFD discussion. Why do you ignore that aspect? No one has denied the opportunity for a fresh discussion regarding these files, they have just denied the attempt to circumvent the process. You see bureaucracy, others see consensus. ƏXPLICIT 04:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The age of the discussion is very much relevant in a case like this when the subject itself has changed their use of the copyrighted content and thus affected the claim of fair use since that discussion was held. This affected the consensus to the point of invalidating it and the evidence Eightball presented should have made this entirely controversial. Marchjuly created the disruption by repeatedly reverting to a file that is no long covered by fair use. They could've opted to leave the article be after Eightball's edit and just start a discussion to ease their concerns. And that brings me to my main question here which you haven't answered yet. Are you willing to reconsider your close of the aforementioned discussion in light of the changed real-life situation and newly presented evidence?Tvx1 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: And as policy clearly states: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. It is written is plain English. If circumstances have changed, editors should propose to make modifications the previously established consensus. Note how Fastily also agreed with Marchjuly and determined that Eightball's edits were disruptive at WP:AN. The involved parties are simply not following proper procedure. If that's still a bureaucracy issue to you, then I can't help you. The file in question is back at FFD—where this should have been discussed to begin with—so reconsideration of my previous closure is moot. ƏXPLICIT 00:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"The crux of the issue is that you and Eightball attempted to unilaterally overturn consensus of a discussion that resulted in an outcome you didn't agree with. "

Explicit, I am going to ask nicely that you please retract the accusations you level above. Tvx1 and I are not attempting to "unilaterally overturn consensus," nor are we complaining about a discussion simply because we don't agree with it. We are removing an incorrect image and replacing it with a correct one. I understand that you are responsible for applying the incorrect image to begin with; that does not mean you need to force your decision to stand permanently, nor does it mean you need to make personal attacks against those attempting to fix your mistake. We all make mistakes all the time, myself absolutely included. It is not a big deal. Eightball (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eightball: I will not retract my factually correct statement, so I will politely decline your condescending request. ƏXPLICIT 00:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy that you cite also states "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing" in plain English. And that is my issue all long. Marchjuly's stance that discussion is mandatory in order to deal with a previous consensus achieved through discussion is simply wrong. Policy simply denies that. User:Eightball making an edit with strong evidence to propose a new consensus was perfectly acceptable. Marchjuly, and not Eightball, then exacerbated the situation into all the subsequent mess. And my concerns is that this is not isolated. Marchjuly has engaged in repetitive reverting of football logo's with a wide group of users before. Now, if it is simple reverting of a user who is just ignoring consensus and has no justification whatsoever why said consensus would not longer apply, that is ok. But in case like this, where the editing user actually presented strong evidence of the changed situation than that could have been dealt with in a much better and constructive manner. They should simply have left the article alone while dealing with their concerns on a talk page. Also note that Cryptic also agreed with me and determined that Marchjuly's edits were disruptive as well at WP:AN. Now I really like to know why I received an aggressive warning and Eightball was blocked indefinitely over this discussion which is merely a constructive, civil attempt between the three of us to address one another's concern's.Tvx1 10:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The sentence directly after that says: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. This was the case for both incidents and you were well aware of that. If the first attempt to re-add the file was in spirit of WP:BOLD, then that would have been fine. But once reverted, you and Eightball should have observed WP:BRD instead of incessantly edit warring about it. Machjuly has been editing for several years and has never received any blocks or sanctions for his behavior. Prior to this, you and Eightball have. Both for behavior you have previously exhibited.

I can not speak on behalf of Fastily, but the message he left on your talk page was not remotely aggressive. I assume his actions are in response to Eightball's antagonizing message above. ƏXPLICIT 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

BTS article, believe it should be included

You removed my edit because you claimed it was "Single-vendor/single-network charts"

The data I got was from the app store, I don't know why this is not suitable? That is the only information that was released thus far, and there is no reason to remove it.

"They should never be placed in discography tables or tables of charts"

Why?

Another question: If I had data from google play, then can I post it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygrhmn2 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ygrhmn2: Because there is no need to publish every little factoid. ƏXPLICIT 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png and Haïti national football team

Hi Explicit. Another file with the same issues as the two mentioned above. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Manor

Is at AfD, but have applied a G3 speedy to this; from everything I have found, this is an incredibly blatant hoax with completely non-existent information, and two long-gone editors from twelve years ago have managed to avoid our processes for so long. Nate • (chatter) 19:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Cricket India Crest.svg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind keeping a watch on File:Cricket India Crest.svg and India national cricket team? The file was removed by you from that article per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. It looks like it's was re-added a few times recently, but was removed by JJMC89's bot for NFCC#10c reasons each time. This last time, however, something was added to the file's page and it showed up on my watchlist. When I checked the uses and saw that it was once again being used in the team article, I removed it and left an edit sum explaining why. If this was improper, please revert. In that case though the file will need a rationale for that particular use to stop the bot from continuing to remove it. The bot is obviously not aware of any previous discussion about the file at FFD/NFCR and will only be checking as to whether there's a rationale. If there is, the bot will leave things alone; if not, it will remove the file, and leave the same generic edit sum each time. If someone wants to discuss the file's use (i.e. that particular non-free use is now justified for some reason, or the close should be reviewed for some reason), then I've got no issues with that at all. In such a case, I will leave it up to your discretion to advise everyone on what needs to be done.

As a side note, I'm wondering if there might be possibly a way to tweak something about a file (perhaps its Wikidata) so that bots working with files are aware when one has been previously discussed and removed per a NFCR/FFD discussion for reasons other than simply NFCC#10c. Perhaps there's a way for such files to be flagged for further review after they're found by a bot. I'm also wondering whether there might be a way for some type of template similar to {{Oldffdfull}} or {{non-free reviewed}} to be also added to the talk headers of articles in which the file was specifically removed per one of these discussions; this might help clarify things to those wishing to re-add the file. I'm not sure how many editors actually check a file's page or its talk page before adding a file, but I'd imagine those that do would be in the minority. It probably won't stop some editors, but it might make it a bit easier for others to know that the file had been previously removed and why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The file has been re-added again to the article; so, perhaps you could take a look at it and see if anything's change since the FFD. If it has then, perhaps a rationale should be added to the file's page. If not, then the file probably should be removed. Since it doesn't have a rationale, JJMC89's bot should remove again in the next couple of days, but it might be re-added each time it's removed by those unfamiliar with the NFCC. Maybe it would be a good idea to post something about this on the article's talk page for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit that re-introduced the image to the article, as there has been no attempt to challenge the closure nor have new arguments arisen. Unfortunately, as the edits are not coming from new accounts, it would be rather pointless to semi-protect the article as it wouldn't alleviate the problem. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I didn't think PP was needed, and just felt it was re-added in good-faith by an editor not aware of the FFD close. Normally, I would've just removed the file again and left another edit sum explaining why, but I figured it might be best to try and avoid a repeat of recent events and check with you first this time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A new file File:Indian Cricket Team Logo.png has been uploaded and added to the team article again and a (sort of) rationale for that use has been added to the other file’s page as well. The two files seem to be pretty much the same which is something which was brought up near the end of the AN about the Arsenal file. Is this a case for G4 or is there enough of a difference for both files? Please advise. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Topeka_State_Hospital_(front).jpg

I have already completed the steps needed to verify permissions for use of [image]. See [talk page]. Can you please undelete the page, or tell me what further steps should be taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheelineerie (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pheelineerie. Files which have been deleted aren't gone forever; they're only hidden public view. So, if either you or the copyright holder sent a permissions email to OTRS, then the file will most likely be restored after an OTRS volunteer has verified the email to make sure everything is in order. It sometimes take a little time for the entire OTRS process to be completed since there are lots of emails to be checked and only so many OTRS volunteers to do the checking, but eventually someone should get to it. As long as whoever sent it the email made sure to include the name of the file (File:Topeka_State_Hospital_(front).jpg) in the email, everything should be OK. Whoever sent in the email should've gotten an automatic reply from OTRS containing an OTRS ticket number. This is sort of like a reference number and it can be used to ask about the file at WP:OTRSN. OTRS volunteers, however, won't discuss specific information about the email (e.g. who sent it, what sender's email address is) on Wikipedia because they cannot reveal any personal information about the people who send them emails, but they should be able to tell you whether the email has been received and how long it might be until the verification process is complete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

File:48-passenger_double-rail_unibus.jpg

The only specific reason that was given for deletion of this image was that it was too large. Some one had scaled down the image dramatically, which in my opinion was too much reduction for the picture in question. So I uploaded a resized version of 640x480 pixels, much smaller than the original and about twice as large as the one I found much too small for the picture in question. What is the upper limit to the acceptable size for this image? For reference, the non-free image was sourced from this press-kit. ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 07:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kmarinas86: Hi, in addition to the size reduction request, this image was also nominated for deletion with the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag for violating WP:NFCC#8. ƏXPLICIT 23:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore page: Aviareps

Hi Explicit, in April 2019, you deleted a page for "Aviareps". I would like to request its resotration, or access to a draft of the page, which I could resumbit for publication. Of course, I would disclose my paid COI, as I am currently an employee of the company. However, I assure you that I do not see the Wikipedia page as a marketing tool. Rather, I would like to make sure the number of employees, offices, clients, history, etc. are up to date and accurate.80.150.168.110 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a user account that you can login to? There is a need for transparency on your end, and such a disclaimer would best be displayed on a userpage. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense - thanks for the advice! Just created an account: Kfm MUC Would the disclaimer be better suited to my user page or to my user talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfm MUC (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kfm MUC: In accordance with the WP:PAID policy, you must disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions". You can do so by adding this information on your userpage or talk page. ƏXPLICIT 23:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay perfect. I've done so, and will also add the articles that I edit, when that is the case. Would it be possible to restore the "Aviareps" page now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.150.168.110 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ƏXPLICIT 06:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:99721829Max/Archive 9 deletion

Could you delete User talk:99721829Max/Archive 9 please? Thank you. 99721829Max (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@99721829Max:  Done. You can tag your user subpages for deletion using {{db-u1}}. ƏXPLICIT 03:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Thanjai-SriGuru-Logo.jpg

Please undelete File:Thanjai-SriGuru-Logo.jpg. We are authorized to submit the logo since we are the proprietor of the company. Hope you understand. You may find this on the company website as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartysasi (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Heartysasi: File:Thanjai-SriGuru-Logo.jpg was deleted because it lacked licensing information. You will need to follow the instructions outlined at WP:CONSENT to donate copyrighted logos. ƏXPLICIT 03:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Article images

Hello. I noticed you reverted edits to Choi Min-ho regarding image overkill so I was hoping you could advise me. The same user, User:노유찬, is adding a mass of images to Lee Tae-min, and ignoring requests not to do so. Alexanderlee (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Hi, thanks for pointing that this user's behavior extends beyond the Minho article. They have received a final warning by another user, so I will keep on eye on them. They are exhibiting an "I didn't hear that" attitude and this comment suggests that they must think their edits must be some sort of blessing to the project. ƏXPLICIT 23:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only mine, but all of users' edits are voluntary services for wikipedia. If you don't think so, I get it but I'm just saying that I think so. Lastly I'm not 'they'. Thank you. Have a nice day. --노유찬 (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Korean title translations

I'm currently working on this and was wondering if, when you have time, you could take a look at the translations for the various kor refs used and verify that everything is acceptable or possibly make corrections if needed? Most are pre-existing transl brought over from the current article page, but others were very recently done by me after scouring the internet/cross-checking multiple translators. Would really appreciate it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore page: Jane De Leon

Please restore the page of Jane De Leon she will have a movie which will be her first lead and i would like to add that on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolacson (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marcolacson: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ƏXPLICIT 07:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:All India Football Federation 2016.png

Would you also mind watching India national football team and File:All India Football Federation 2016.png? Pretty much the same situation as above only the discussion was Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg. The current file is the same as the one discussed at FFD, as was previously mentioned on the file's talk page. Just for reference, this file has come up before at 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 ?, User talk:Explicit/Archive 27#File:All India Football Federation 2016.png and there have been a couple of instances where the same file had been uploaded under a different name (e.g. File:India national football team(s) logo (all N teams).png) but deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. File:All India Football Federation 2016.png has been re-added to the article again. Nothing appears to have changed from before, but I'd figure I just check with you before removing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (video game) screenshot.png

I thought it was clear that the usage of this screenshot (File:The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(video_game)_screenshot.png) was acceptable. -- Frotz(talk) 01:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Frotz: This file was nominated for deletion for violating WP:NFCC#8 as it conveyed information that text alone could adequately describe. See WP:FREER for more information. ƏXPLICIT 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ring My Bell - Anita Ward.jpg

Is this image similar to File:RINGBELL.jpg, which was deleted per FFD for being just the cover of a compilation album of the same name? If so, can it be deleted per WP:G4? -- George Ho (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yup, same image. I've deleted it under G4. ƏXPLICIT 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Oregon Ornithology

Hi, you denied my PROD of this article because there was a prevous AfD. However, if you look at that discussion, you'll see that it was about a redirect named "Joo". The discussion was actually not about the journal. I'm not sure how this ended up in the history of the article on the journal, but it's a long time ago and things were sometimes done differently then. If you insist, I'll take it to AfD, but frankly it seems like a waste of time to me. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Hi, looking at the deleted history of Joo, the history of Journal of Oregon Ornithology, and the AFD, it easily became convoluted because of how many actions were done out of process—at least by today's standards. The original article was about the leet word, which was hijacked shortly after the AFD was initiated. Joo was moved to Journal of Oregon Ornithology, and the former was re-established as the article about the leet word. Editors went back and forth over between that and establishing it as a redirect to the journal, so the AFD became a jumbled mess that led to editors opining about the redirect and the journal article. ƏXPLICIT 08:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore page : Ribo(robot)

Hi Explicit, In July 2019, you deleted a page for "Ribo (robot)". I would like to request its resotration, or access to a draft of the page, which I could resumbit for publication.

I wanna know why did you delete my article Ribo (robot)?

For clarification, Ribo is the frst humanoid robot in Bangladesh. There are some research papers published on IEEE conference. Not only that I also attached references.

I do not see that this article meets any relevant criteria.

Zinia Sultana (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ƏXPLICIT 12:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh..?

Concerning [1], what gives? Those were fair use images? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Headbomb. Fair use and non-free content are not necessarily the same per WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Non-free cover art is generally allowed per item 1 of WP:NFCI when it's used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the work in questions, but it becomes harder to justify its non-free use in other articles or in other ways per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. It would easier to justify the non-free use of the journal covers if they were used in stand-alone articles about the journals themselves, but just adding them to infoboxes in Antique Wireless Association doesn't seem to satsify WP:NFCC#8. Anyway, most likely someone tagged or prodded the files for deletion and Explicit just deleted as a result. Generally, it's good practice to notify the uploader when such a thing is done, but it's not required. I'm not an admin, so I can't tell for sure if that's the case here. A file can also be deleted by an admin who deems it to be a clearcut violation of relevant policy and guidelines and WP:F7 does allow for that to happen. FWIW, I don't think, given the way the files seem to have been used, that the result would've been any different if they'd been discussed at WP:FFD without more sourced content specific to the journal's covers being added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You're not an admin? How could you have deleted those file otherwise? And using covers to identify journals in articles talking about the journals is definitely fair use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Please see WP:NFC##cite_note-3 for further explanation. As Marchjuly pointed out, the use of non-free covers satisfies WP:NFCC when the cover is used in the article about the work in question. In this instance, using File:AWA Journal cover.jpg and File:The AWA Review Vol 26 (2013).jpeg would be justifiable if they were used in articles about the journals themselves. However, they were used in Antique Wireless Association, an article about the amateur radio association that publishes the journals. In order to justify its use there, it would need to meet the contextual significance criterion and sourced critical commentary is required. ƏXPLICIT 11:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not how I read that criteria. To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc..." The journal is discussed, and thus this qualifies as "to identify a subject of discussion". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: As I noted, WP:NFC##cite_note-3 clarifies it further: NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. [...] The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles... in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. This is why album covers are only used in articles about the albums themselves and not discography or musician articles, book covers are only used in articles about the books and not the in the author articles, and so on. ƏXPLICIT 11:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Article images, possible sock?

I don’t fully understand how to report someone you suspect of sock puppetry, but I know that you have had some involvement and understanding of recent edits regarding images, such as at Choi Min-ho. I have just reverted an edit by a user who added multiple images very close together, but when I looked back at the edit history noticed that they were the same images repeatedly added to the article by the user who was adding them before. Their edit history also seems to be surrounding images in general and made me wonder if it was the same editor as this was also similar. Could you please take a look? Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee:  It looks like a duck to me and the account has been blocked. The appropriate venue to file sockpuppetry is WP:SPI. ƏXPLICIT 23:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beyoncé - If I Were a Boy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beyoncé - If I Were a Boy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Groove Line - Single by Heatwave.jpg

Is this image the same as File:The Groove Line - Heatwave.jpg, which was deleted per FFD? Shall G4 be enforced? Most people seem to prefer cover arts because they are attractive to most customers and music listeners. I wonder whether removing the image affects the readers' understanding. BTW, I've been thinking about re-using File:Heatwave the groove line 1978 UK vinyl.jpg because the band consisted of American and British members. -- George Ho (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, it's the same cover. The deleted cover at the time of the FFD was used in the alternate cover, while this new upload is being used as the main cover. This isn't a straight-forward G4 case. Which image should be used is up to editorial discussion. ƏXPLICIT 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi Explicit, can you undelete File:University of Kansas Health System logo.svg please? I never saw it get deleted from the article University of Kansas Health System two months ago... an IP simply put "The" at the beginning of the file name and that's what removed it. "The" should not be there. Thanks, Corky 02:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:  Done, file restored. ƏXPLICIT 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Corky 13:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check Heinrich C. Berann

You deleted this article a year or so ago based on an expired prod (no refs). I've restarted the article based on the sources I used for The Signpost article I wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-07-31/Gallery and a couple of other minor sources. The four pix shown are likely to be named Featured Pictures at Commons. The new article is almost complete IMHO, and might even be worth a B rating, but I just wanted to be sure you know about its recreation.

Thanks,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore pages: Joseba Beitia and Francisco Morante Martínez

Hey there, you have deleted those two pages. Those players play for an Indian club Mohun Bagan who play in the I-League, the top tier league of Indian football. I pointed that out because WP:NFOOTY was mentioned as one of the criterias but the I-League is a fully professional league. And the other criteria was it failing to meet WP:GNG but I would like to include sources in those pages as soon as I can (even though I am not the one who created them). As I am an editor who edits using mobile, I was not aware of those articles tagged for deletion. I'll be thankful if you see to it. REALMMB^(talk) 10:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Realmmb: Done – as contested proposed deletions, the articles have been restored upon request. ƏXPLICIT 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please delete User:99721829Max/sandbox 3 for me please?

99721829Max (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Igor Bantser (June 2018).png

Please restore the image to Wikipedia, as it has been shown as non-replaceable with no free equivalent. Thank you. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec: No, this image is a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ƏXPLICIT 00:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What would be a free equivalent to this? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec: A free image does not need to exist now to violate WP:NFCC#1. He is a living person, so a freely licensed image can be created. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BCW (Burson Cohn & Wolfe) logo

Hi, Explicit! You deleted this logo because it exceeded the amount of time allowed for a logo image to be unused on Wikipedia. The intention for the logo was to replace the existing logo in the Burson Cohn & Wolfe article, since that logo is for the predecessor company (Burson-Marsteller). Since I'm an editor with a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (I'm here on behalf of my employer, BCW) I know I'm not supposed to make changes myself, so I was reaching out to editors to add the logo, but no one has been available to assist. I don't want to cause issues by re-uploading the logo and then having the same issue occur, so I wanted to ask: if I upload the logo again, would you be able to place it in the infobox? Or is it possible for you to restore the image and place it in the infobox? Thank you. BCW Editor (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Explicit. The logo issue has been sorted! Disregard my last note. Thank you. BCW Editor (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Undelete image

Hi Explicit, I was wondering if you could undelete this file: File:Lonely and Horny poster.jpeg. I'm not sure why it was removed from the article in the first place, but I'd like to add it back into the article. – Anne drew 20:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Hi, it seems you removed the image in this edit. However, this is a title card that was used in a biography article. These types of uses generally don't satisfy WP:NFCC and it use would only be permitted if it was included in the article about the show itself. ƏXPLICIT 00:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Image of Atterbury House

​Hi, Explicit! I am here to ask you something. Would you like to undelete File:Atterbury House.jpg? As it was deleted per WP:NFCC#1, I just got a new image for it. You might want to check it here:

• https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/atterbury-house/4793 or
• https://web.archive.org/web/20190810125855/https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/atterbury-house/4793

It stated CC-BY-NC on its licensing. So, I want to update the file into the new one here. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samuelsp15: Hi, unfortunately, noncommercial licenses are subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. ƏXPLICIT 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Cast photos of Empty Nest

• File:Empty nest cast 1993 1995.jpg
• File:Empty Nest Cast Pre-1992.jpg

The images above were orphaned by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, claiming them as replaceable. I talked to him about it; he asserted consistency with other articles that don't use cast photos. Well, that was months ago. Recently, I saw an FFD nomination discussing a cast photo of some web series. If you can un-delete the photos, reinsert them, and take them to FFD for discussion, that would be great. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Hi, I'm assuming you're referring to this discussion. An editor has made an attempt to incorporate critical commentary of the fashion aesthetics donned by the characters in that particular case; whether that will suffice to keep the image we have yet to see. However, you have not presented a case for the files linked above. As you are likely well aware, articles are not entitled to non-free content. Non-free cast photos are no exception to WP:NFCC#8, just like non-free video game screenshots are not allowed without sourced critical commentary to establish some contextual significance. ƏXPLICIT 12:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Undelete request for UAAP Season 82 Logo

Please restore the image for the UAAP Season 82 logo as the article was just moved from the draftspace but is now returned to publication after inclusion of references. Thank you. File:UAAP_Season_82_Logo.jpg Aeron Valderrama (talk)

@Aeron Valderrama:  Done, file restored. ƏXPLICIT 06:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)