User talk:Explicit/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Haken L+1ve

Hi why did you delete the photos of this page? You said it was unsourced but it wasn’t? Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lukejordan02: Hi, the only content provided as a source was the word "Google". This is not sufficient. Please see WP:NFCC#10a for further information. Ə XPLICIT 13:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png

Hi, could you restore this. I assume you did check that the deletion tag was left appropriately by looking on the talk page - I believe it was left inappropriately and that the file meets all free use requirements, and I hope if you look beyond to the article at where the image is used, you'll agree with me. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hi, I'm not seeing how this deleted image satisfied WP:NFCC#8. The text in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World#Music describes how Envy Adams' appearance was designed and modeled after Emily Haines. Meanwhile, the article already contained a freely licensed image which depicts Haines in an almost identical fashion. How does a non-free image of the character add contextual significance to the article that is not already present? Ə XPLICIT 13:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I guess because the image of Haines alone doesn’t have that comparative to align with the film and show the character. I’m not sure if that makes sense? For both verifiability of the character appearance and reflecting how much the character was visually based on the singer, down to stance and outfit. While the article text and Haines image does cover the first, the second is a very visual reference, in the same way as other articles use fair use images when visual inspiration for something is mentioned (the first I think of is the reference screenshots for de-aging in Captain Marvel (film), which I think is either GA or FA; I will note in this case there would be no free images, but two fair use ones are used for comparison, so it’s no different). In short, I’ve never seen fair use images for this purpose contested before, and specifically in this article I believe that the use for visual comparative of the inspiration to the film character works much better when both are shown. (Sorry if this is a bit repetitive- typing on phone and can’t scroll back) Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The existence of non-free files in other articles is not a particularly strong argument per WP:OTHERIMAGE, as each circumstance is different. In the case of Captain Marvel (film), this is actually an example listed at WP:NFLISTS: "...if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media." Please note the language used: "when needed", "may be appropriate". Describing the reverse aging process in text alone is pretty difficult, which is further complicated by the lack of freely licensed images of Samuel L. Jackson in the 1990s (the oldest we have is from 2004). There is a strong argument for an image's inclusion for that case. For Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, we have a freely licensed image that does a pretty good job at depicting what the text describes, so arguing for a non-free supplement doesn't a quite have the same footing to stand on. Ə XPLICIT 01:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The text is describing a comparative of physical appearance (the similarity with the other example, just the first example I thought of) - I find it appropriate that the comparative be shown, it helps the reader see visually the comparative and how well the likeness was adhered to. You seem to be arguing that the free image is fine alone, even though there’s nothing to compare against without the fair use image, so it doesn’t accurately depict the actual point (inspiration and comparison). You also may have missed the equivalency with the Captain Marvel example that it isn’t just an old image of Jackson used (the equal in Scott Pilgrim being the free Haines picture), but that there’s also a non-free image from the film used. It’s a prime example that a comparison should be made, not just using one image showing 90s Jackson/Haines without what they inspired (Jackson in Captain Marvel/Envy in Scott Pilgrim). I wasn’t saying ‘this other article has a non-free image, so this one can, too’, obviously. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a comment to say that I hope you understand me, because by insisting the effective ‘before’ image is fine without an ‘after’ shows that either you’re not actually understanding my argument or don’t want to. After this, I’ll just go to REFUND. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I do understand your argument, I simply don't agree that it is enough to justify the use of this image. However, I think the best way to proceed is to restore the file and take it up to discussion at WP:FFD. I will do so shortly and link you to the discussion. Ə XPLICIT 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Stanley Charles Seagrief01a.jpg

Hi, I see that on 14 November 2019 you deleted the File:Stanley Charles Seagrief01a.jpg citing as reason "F7: Violates non-free use policy". Would you please explain in which respect it does so. cheers Paul venter (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul venter: Hi, File:Stanley Charles Seagrief01a.jpg was an illustration of halimeda cuneata, but it was used in Stanley Charles Seagrief's biography article. In doing so, it violated non-free content criteria, particularly WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFC#CS, the inclusion of this image did not meet the contextual significance criterion. The illustration was not "itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" and did it not "identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article". As the image was neither discussed in the article nor was it accompanied by sourced critical commentary to justify its inclusion, it violated the aforementioned media files policy. Ə XPLICIT 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfair proposed deletion of Dick_Olsson

Hi. I just noticed that my page Dick_Olsson was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Olsson As per your comment, I did indeed create the page myself but I don't think that should be a reason to propose its deletion. The contents of the page is both accurate and relevant. When creating the page I made sure to include correct references to the Swedish Motorsport Association that keep archives of the results of all Swedish National Championships of which I was the winner 2006.

Would you please bring my page back? :)

Best regards,

Dick Olssonn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickolsson (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dickolsson:

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Ə XPLICIT 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Dickolsson. Even though Explicit has restored the article per your request, you still have a conflict of interest with respect to not only that article, but also with respect to the one about your dad Anders Olsson (motocross driver). What this means is that you shouldn't really be editing either article as explained in WP:COIADVICE, WP:PSCOI#Steps for engamement, and WP:BIOSELF, but instead propose any changes you'd like seen made to the articles on their corresponding talk pages by making edit requests. I've added a template explaining this in more detail to your user talk page; so, please take a look at that for further reference. One thing to try and remember is that Wikipedia articles are written about subjects, not on behalf of or for subjects, which means that neither the editor who creates an article nor the subjects of articles have any claim of ownership or final editorial control over the content contained therein (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content for more on this). So, any content deemed to not be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be revised/removed at any time. I'm going to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport to take a look at both of the articles and see if they can be improved. My guess is that most likely you and your dad do meet some specific notability guideline related to motorsport biographies, and the members of WikiProject Motorsport can probably best assess that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Riverside Company -- deletion

Hi -- I'm not a wiki guru or anything, but I think it's problematic to delete articles for private equity companies based on the criteria you cited for The Riverside Company (I forget what the code was was but I did read it). These companies operate with a high level of secrecy and only make news when either something blows up in their face, or when they want to. They don't have products, but believe it or not they have a log of control over products with household names, but it's nearly impossible to trace. A lot of their holding won't show up in SEC filings since they operate as **private** equity, not public. Having a wikipedia page with the basic information about the company allows for people to fill out the article about the company as things they have a stake in make news or impact a particular community. So I just think that "company article" criteria should be interpreted differently for financial companies / private equity.

I'm not affiliated with them or anything. I was just editing a product page for a major name athletic brand and was surprised to find there was not a page for Riverside to link to. Please think it over... no need to reply.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.126.28 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Football crests, images.

I am curious why old football crest images got deleted, File:AS Roma logo (1997).svg and PerugiaCalcio.png got deleted, not sure what else got deleted, I was hoping you could further clarify their deletion for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Hi, the crest images tagged for deletion with the following rationale: "Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that historical logo." Unless a particular former logo has been subject to sourced critical commentary, its inclusion in the body of the article is generally not justified under policy. Ə XPLICIT 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Except a lot of football club crest/emblems, contain rather interesting information, in England a crest will tell you about the history of the location of the football club, which noble house supported that club. It can very much be the same in Italy, these old crests can convey rather a lot of information in the image, when they get removed that is removing rather a lot of information from an article. It also feels that removing the older crests is removing valuable information from the article in my opinion. I think it's unhelpful to the reader and unhealthy for wikipedia with this obsession to delete something without true analysation. Govvy (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: File:AS Roma logo (1997).svg was used in A.S. Roma#Kits, crests and nicknames and File:PerugiaCalcio.png in A.C. Perugia Calcio#Perugia Calcio. The former logos were not subject to any sourced critical commentary in their respective articles and were textbook violations of the WP:NFCC policy, as noted above. The files were deleted for failing to address WP:NFC##cite_note-4 in full; in fact, it completely ignored the requirements and directly violated them. I believe I've fully and adequately analyzed the situation in context of Wikipedia's policy. Ə XPLICIT 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi,

problem was fixed, please restore Andaleeb (actress).— Hammad (Talk!) 09:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hammad: Hi, can you please elaborate on how the problem was addressed? You have not indicated so in your message. Ə XPLICIT 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WEZV

You put a corporate logo on BNC Bank. I don't remember the procedure for asking someone, but WEZV has a new logo. https://www.facebook.com/EasyRadioMyrtleBeach/photos/a.817482964960107/3580466701995039/?type=3&theater Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Vchimpanzee. The new logo is not really more than some simple shapes and text and thus seems too simple for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. Since the country of origin is also the US, you should be able to upload this file to Commons using the license c:Template:PD-textlogo.

The former logos (File:WEZV2017logo.png and File:WEZV logo.png) also seem too simple to be eligible for copyright protection for the same reason; so, I've converted their licesning to "PD-logo" and tagged them for a move to Commons.

For future reference, however, please don't just move former logos uploaded to non-free files to the body of the article without updating the corresponding non-free use rationale accordingly. There's a big difference in using a non-free logo for primary identification purposes at the top or an article, and using a non-free former logo in the body of an article. The non-free use of a current logo is fairly easy to justify, but justifying the non-free use of former logos is much trickier and typically requires that the former logo itself be subject of sourced critical commentary. Things seem to have worked out with these two files in this case because they are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and therefore are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; the situation most likely would have been quite different if the former logos needed to be non-free, with the files likely ending up deleted. Anytime you add/move a non-free file to another article or even to a different location within the same article, the rationale for the prior use almost certainly no longer applies and a "new" rationale needs to be provided for the "new" use(s). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I always forget. I've been seeing former logos moved for the longest time. I think people are being entirely too picky, as people would recognize the logo and that would identify a previous format, while a person might not realize that format is the subject of part of the article without it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Cowboy Bob (Simpsons character).jpg

Hi there, can you please help with the Cowboy Bob image you deleted. I may have edited the wrong section and didn't know what the bot was talking about on the message left on my page which mentioned to fill something in, I did ask for help but no one bothered and I also put notes with the file explaining about this and asking for help which again was ignored and isn't great when it's supposed to be a helpful community. The file was just a screen capture under the fair use category to illustrate the character in the article only. This is important because there are a few characters under the name Bob which can be confusing hence why this was there and needed to illustrate the character. If you could be so kind to help rectify this so the image can used in some way to illustrate this that would be much appreciated as it's quite relevant is this for that reason and thanking you kindly!! Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Music Editor 2017: Hi, I think you'll need to refer to WP:NFLISTS for this case. One of Wikipedia's aims is to minimize the amount of non-free files used on the project, and montage shots of characters are generally preferred over an individual image of each character. As The Simpsons universe is quite expansive, it is not realistically possible to include a shot of every single character that has appeared on the show. As the sixth point of WP:NFLISTS suggests: "...images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. Ə XPLICIT 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi thanks, but did you read and take into consideration as to why this was important for this specific character. I think it's got a good reason as to why this specific character should be illustrated due to confusion of the character, I think this is very important for this character for the reasons mentioned above and why this should be illustrated. Thanks Music Editor 2017 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Music Editor 2017: You wrote, "because there are a few characters under the name Bob which can be confusing". Aside from Sideshow Bob, what other characters are listed with that name? And how does not negate the fact that WP:NFLISTS states to restrict the use of non-free images to major characters? Ə XPLICIT 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Explicit: No worries, seeing your other replies here there's no point trying to debate these things, I just know when there's other characters with the same name it helps to illustrate them hence why. The screenshot was used under fair use which I've seen plenty of screen shots over Wikipedia many times, in fact there's a ton here on an article covering this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_television. That's the thing I find often here you try to debate something but you constantly feel like your opinion doesn't matter or is taken on board, it's just how it makes me feel that's all. Don't worry about it though, I actually feel the same with with whoever moved the Carl and Lenny illustration too because people often get confused which character is which as they're always seen together. I know characters shouldn't be illustrated all over unless needed (which I agree with completely) but I do feel these one's should be, they have reason. You do a good job here and I'm still learning the ropes however thanking you kindly :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Explicit: Also these here, how were these used and ok but the Cowboy Bob one wasn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Simpsons_screenshots. Again this is just a learning curve for me but if you can kindly explain this then I'd appreciate it but this is what I checked before hand with the Cowboy Bob screen shot as well as the page above. It's just a fair use thing to illustrate the character on this page only for the article. Thank you :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Music Editor 2017: The presence of similar images on other articles might not reflect policy; they may also be in violation of WP:NFCC. There are hundreds of thousands of fair use images in existence at the moment and most have likely not been checked adequately. Pointing out such instances is a "other stuff exists" argument, which does not necessarily mean they automatically do or do not abide by policy, nor does it take context into consideration for those particular articles.

Can you point to a more specific example article that I can look over? The Cowboy Bob image needed to satisfy WP:NFLISTS, which would probably not apply to most other images in those categories. Just for the sake of it, I looked at the first image in each category to determine if policy was being followed. The first image in Category:Screenshots of television is File:¡Ay Güey! poster.jpg, which is an official poster for a comedy series. This image is subject to WP:NFCI#1, which it satisfies, but is oddly coupled with the wrong license; I have changed that from {{non-free television screenshot}} to {{non-free poster}}. In Category:The Simpsons screenshots, the first image is File:3dsimpsonsbutterfly.png and it is used in El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer)#Production. This screenshot is subject to WP:NFC#CS: "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." The article text reads: "During Homer's voyage, the clouds in one shot are live-action footage, and 3D computer animation was used for the giant butterfly." The image is justified because it enhances the reader's understanding of the animation style described by well-referenced text.

I hope these explanations have offered a better insight of the WP:NFCC policy and it complementary WP:NFC guideline. Ə XPLICIT 01:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for that. Yeah kinda it's just a lot to take in I think haha but thank you I appreciate it. As I say the reason why I felt the Cowboy Bob was a good reference to have was to avoid confusion with similar characters as I did know already we've to try keep it scarce otherwise the page would be congested with loads of images which aren't needed. If you look on that Simpsons Screenshots page you'll see lots of various screen shots and each one will tell you which article it's on and how it's used, would take a lot of time to go over it I know but some are in the image with the info box which I'm sure while it's there it's very valid though some you do see on the page of the episode randomly (I forget which it was but there definitely was a few). That's why I felt with the Carl and Lenny one also be there (I've no idea who added and removed that but I do remember it was there) however as those two are always seen together sometimes people aren't sure which is which so an illustration there is kind of fitting, same with Cowboy Bob and Sideshow Bob, maybe it would be best to have a double image of them together to showcase this instead of one but I'm sure you can see where I was coming from in regards to why I felt this image should be there, usually I would agree when the character has no reason. Thanks for the kind explanation too, I appreciate it :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

File:LoriVallowMugShot20200220.jpeg

You also trashed Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow by removing File:LoriVallowMugShot20200220.jpeg, without warning. As noted this is a publicly available mug shot from a public police department already used freely by multiple news sources. If that doesn't prove license, what does? Please restore, or at least respond here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Need_help_specifying_copyright_license_for_mugshot_from_Kauai_PD. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Actually, you uploaded File:LoriVallowMugShot20200220.jpeg without a license and the file was deleted under WP:CSD#F4 for that reason. Mugshots are not automatically freely licensed, unless they taken by the governments of California and Florida. Neither the Facebook post nor the New York Post links you provided indicated which state the mugshot originated from, but it seems it would either be Hawaii or Idaho. There was no possible way to save this file. So, before accusing anyone of trashing an article, please check your surroundings and make sure you aren't the one who has been placed on a curb waiting to get picked up. Ə XPLICIT 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It was definitely Hawaii. Kauai PD. So, commercials news sources that clearly do not own the image use it without attribution but we cannot? That's ridiculous. --В²C ☎ 01:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: The state government of Hawaii does not allow commercial use, which would make their images eligible for WP:CSD#F3. Mugshots originating from California and Florida are created by agencies that are not allowed to claim copyright over such photographs and are therefore under the public domain. Ə XPLICIT 01:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"The state government of Hawaii does not allow commercial use." Then why is this image used commercially by countless commercial reliable news sources/services, including The LA Times for Pete's sake? This makes no sense. What is the real concern here? --В²C ☎ 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to restore

File:Tottenham Hotspur old logo.png
File:Tottenham Hotspur crest.png

They do not violate non-free use. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You have also trashed Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Crest by removing those, as they provided vital information. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I have restored the first image and aligned the image directly next to the corresponding text which describes it, instead of having it in a gallery. I have not restored the second image to minimize the use of non-free content as dictated by WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". According to the article's text, the elements of File:Tottenham Hotspur crest.png were described as having been "altered by adding the two red heraldic lions to flank the shield... as well as the motto scroll". File:Tottenham Hotspur old logo.png contains similar designs. Ə XPLICIT 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

At least got something back, cheers. Although I most point out, in my view there seems to be a few issues surrounding bad judgement, maybe not from you, but the treatment of logo images. What would be more appreciated is, instead of deleting straight away, find the closest persons associated with the images and ask for clarification first before going the delete route. Cheers know. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg request for undeletion

I first went to the request for undeletion page and was told that it was deleted for invalid-fair use , yet I'm confused for this line of reasoning as the image serves the same purpose (Minimality = Will be used only once, in the main article about the game. Image is low-resolution, not useful for more than a thumbnail) as the existing box art that is currently present on the Command page and seeing how that image has been judged to be suitable to remain on Wikipedia, I don't see any reason as to why the case would be different with this image. Tookatee (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tookatee: Hi, the image was deleted in accordance with WP:NFC#CS. As explained there, "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." That single item of non-free content is File:Command, Modern Air Naval Operations cover.jpg. The inclusion of additional cover art is generally more difficult to justify unless the cover art itself is subject to sourced critical commentary. Ə XPLICIT 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding here, that image that's currently on that page correlates to one specific piece of software (Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations), a previous entry in that series of games, and not the entire series as a whole (of which is the topic of that page.) That box art is not representative of (nor associated with) its sequel (Command: Modern Operations.) That specific piece of software has its own associated marketing materials to identify it as a new entry in the series (of which includes File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg), thus making this image the "single item of non-free content" associated with the software Command: Modern Operations on the Wikipedia page for the entire Command Series. Tookatee (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tookatee: If this is the case, then File:Command, Modern Air Naval Operations cover.jpg may also be violating the WP:NFCC policy. Cover art is reserved for articles about a particular game itself; uses outside of such instances are generally not allowed. If there is a particular logo used by Matrix Games which represents the series as a whole, it should replace the image currently used in the article. As an alternative, the current image can be cropped to focus solely on the namesake itself, Ə XPLICIT 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find an alternative image on the steam page for the game that is more of a thumbnail for the game than the prior image. Here is the if possible for your review if possible. Tookatee (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tookatee: That does not resolve the issue at all. Command (series) should not contain any cover art. WP:F#cite_note-3 reads: "NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover" (emphasis mine). File:Command, Modern Air Naval Operations cover.jpg could be used in Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations if it existed, and File:Cmopromoart2.jpg in Command: Modern Operations. As the games do not have articles, their respective cover arts simply should not have been uploaded. Ə XPLICIT 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The main subject of the Command (Series) page is those games, that is the only topic covered on that page (of which is segmented into two different sections dedicated to each piece of software.) By the very nature of the content within that article those images serve a genuine purpose in giving the reader context as to what is being discussed, and from reading the specific policy you quoted (NFCI#I) it seems like that's completely acceptable as it states, "Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys." Which, by being used within the proper context on a page dedicated to said products, satisfies that criterion entirely. From reading your rationale (and what's stated in the policy), it seems like inappropriate use of these images would be if they were used (without critical discussion) on a page dedicated to the games' publisher, genre, or game designer, or in other words an article who's focus is NOT those products, but that of a derivative connection to said products.Tookatee (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tookatee: The main subject of Command (series) is the series as a whole, while Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and Command: Modern Operations are the types of articles NFCI#1 defines as the "main subject" for the purpose of the cover art. Contra (series) is a good example of this, as it utilizes the logo File:Contral (logo).png in that article's infobox, and cover art is used in separate articles about each individual game. Some of those games do not have articles, but inclusion of cover art of these article-less games in the series article isn't justified under the aforementioned policy. As I mentioned above, the best way to address the issue is to simply crop one of the images to focus on the namesake (see Grand Theft Auto, where the logo File:Grand Theft Auto logo series.svg was extracted from Grand Theft Auto III, for example). The same can be done for the Command series. Ə XPLICIT 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The only similarities between that example you gave and the Command (series) article is the inclusion of the word "series" and the fact that both include video games, a difference that, to be quite frank, is made painfully obvious when you actually read the content in Command (series). Contra (series) gives critical discussion on the that series as a whole, only briefly summarizing and listing each game in said series (no critical discussion on each individual game is included, as that is not the intended focus of the article), thus not satisfying the NFCC for including box art of each game on this topic. Meanwhile, Command (series)' focus is on the two games currently in the series that it covers, it does not attempt to comment on the series as a whole (only briefly summarizing the gameplay mechanics similar to both games) thus making the article's focus that of Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and Command: Modern Operations. Additionally, a comparison between something like Contra (an established video game franchise with marketing representative of that) and Command (what was until recently a singular piece of software that, even now, has no existing marketing touting any sort of "Command franchise" [with the developers even going as far as to remove the previous entry in the series from all vendors]) would be like attempting to compare plants and animals; yes both have scientific names and are forms of life, but that doesn't mean they function the same, nor should they be treated as such. Although at this point the discussion on the undeletion of this specific image is a moot point, since I was able to find a more suitable image in File:Cmopromoart2.jpg as it is the specific logo for Command: Modern Operations on both its vendors sites and is a thumbnail rather than specific marketing art.Tookatee (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Tookatee: Do you consider the Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations to be something which meets WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE or other other notability guideline so that a stand-alone article can be written about it? Do you think it would survive a WP:AFD? If you do, and such a stand-alone article is created about it, then the use of the cover art for primary identification purposes (i.e. item 2 of WP:NFCI) it that article would probably be OK. If you think this is the case, then WP:SPLIT might be a way to create a new article solely about that game, with the content in the series article being trimmed as needed. At the same time, if you think the game is Wikipedia notable in its own right for a stand-alone article, but it's best to keep everything about the individual games in the series article for encyclopedic purposes, then perhaps that could be something worth considering when it comes to non-free content use. Non-free image usage simply for identification reasons in individual subsections of articles does, however, seem to be something generally not considered to be a valid justification for non-free use absent any specific sourced critical commentary of the image itself.

Pretty much any Wikipedia article about a product line like a videogame series, book series, etc. could be considered a series of "mini-articles" about the individual products; however, in most cases, alternatives to using non-free images for each individual subsection are going to be preferred whenever possible; for example, a box set for the series exists and the cover imagery for that is used to identify the series at the top of the article about the series and then individual images specific to each item of the series used in articles about the items. Simply adding content about something to another article and then arguing trying to argue that non-free use should be allowed for this "article within an article" doesn't, at least in my opinion, seem like a valid justification for non-free use in and of itself. If I'm misinterpretating anything you've posted above, please accept my apologies; that does, however, seem to kind of be how you're trying to justify this file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

CMANO has already been cleared through those processes, the only one in contention is Command: Modern Operations. The page Command (series) used to be the page exclusively dedicated to Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations, but after the release of CMO it was repurposed to be a page inclusive of the entire series due to the fact that a draft for a separate article exclusively on Command: Modern Operations failed to meet the WP:GNG and was deleted, and thus what would've been it's own article has been combined into one article that contains detailed information on both entries in the series. As for your interpretation of my justification, that is a vast generalization that is wholly incorrect. As I stated in my second to last reply, citing NFCI#1, seeing as the main focus of the article in question is these two specific games (and not the series as a whole, with critical commentary on both to back that up, and the lack of any freely available images relevant to its topic), as per Wikipedia's stated guidelines the use of these images in this fashion seems appropriate. I feel like the confusion in this whole thing has been the belief that the Command (series) page's main focus is critical discussion on the series as whole (and considering the fact that most other articles with that naming scheme do such a thing it's not that wild of a confusion without the proper context) but in reality that title merely serves as an indicator to say that all entries in that series are detailed on that page (with all redirects on the topic leading to the specific sections on that page.) So for all intensive purposes there is detailed commentary on both pieces of software on that specific page, therefore warranting the use of the one piece of non-free imagery for each one of the specific games in the series detailed on that article as per NFCI#1 while also satisfying all parts of the NFCC.Tookatee (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCI is a guideline that list some types of non-free use generally considered acceptable; it's not really a policy page per se. The relevant policy page is WP:NFCC. The fact that a draft for the "Command: Modern Operations" was not considered to meet GNG, and the content was thus merged into the series's article doesn't automatically make it OK for a non-free image to be used for primary identification purposes. When an article is merged into another article, it shouldn't be assumed that the justification for non-free images is also automatically the same as before because in many cases it isn't. There may be some confusion over the focus of this article as you say, but maybe that is due to trying to turn the article from one about the series into one that is really about two separate games. If both games are Wikipedia notable in their own right, but the content about each of them is just being combined to form a single article about the series for encyclopedic purposes (something similar is done with songs and cover versions of the same song), then I could possibly see how the non-free use of an image for each is justified. However, I'm not sure I agree what your assessment and interpretation of the NFCC, at least with respect to the current article. Similar arguments to what you're making have been made many times before for all kinds of other non-free images such as album covers, book covers, sports team logos, photos of deceased persons, photos of fictional characters, etc. where content about such things had been added to or merged into subsections of other articles, with the general consensus (going back many years) being that this type of non-free use is not the same as a file being used at the top of or in the main infobox of an article. Maybe this is a different case, but it probably would be better off discussing that at WP:FFD. Since the file has already been deleted, you could (I think) possibly request a WP:DRV if you want per item 2 of WP:DRVPURPOSE. Is that what you're requesting? Another option might be for you to initiate a discussion about the file at FFD, but I'm not sure how that works for a file which has already been deleted.

You also seem to have uploaded File:Cmopromoart2.jpg for use in that article and it has also been tagged for speedy deletion by an administrator named JJMC89. Is this the same file as the one deleted by Explicit? While I can understand disagreeing with the tagging of the files, and even being frustrated that their non-free use is being challenged; repeatedly uploading the same deleted file or a similar file and trying to add it to a particular article where its non-free use is already considered contentious is not really the best way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As I already stated in a previous reply on this page, File:Cmopromoart2.jpg is a separate image that I found that more appropriately fits the page. Therefore, like I also mentioned in a previous reply here, that makes this request a moot point as I no longer want File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg to be undeleted. However, I continued this discussion because of the general confusion regarding the article's focus and Explicit's subsequent challenge to File:Cmopromoart2.jpg (with my subsequent explanation also being able to inform JJMC89 about the image's proper context, thus making it no longer eligible for speedy deletion by satisfying NFCC #8.) Furthermore, that historical precedent is cited under the NFCI and I mentioned it in one of my previous replies, according to it as long as the image is the first and only item of non-free content pertaining to the topic the image covers it's (with the appropriate context of course) completely fine to include and there is no mention of any case in regard to this specific situation. Tookatee (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89:, can you give this a look and consider Tookatee's interpretation WP:NFCC policy? You may wish to proceed to WP:FFD with this. Ə XPLICIT 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Masem on this one. NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. The main subject is the series, not CMO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Was pinged to look at this too, and no, this is not an appropriate use of a second image. If this is about the series, you get one image under NFCI#1 to cover the series in the infobox, and that's it. And the games themselves barely pass notability be appropriate to make as standout individually. --Masem (t) 06:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, there is obviously some sort of disconnect between what me and you guys believe is the subject of the article in question (and therefore the appropriate rights it has in regards to image use.) There is seemingly a persistent view among you guys that the focus of the Command (series) article is that of critical commentary on the series alone (which as far as I can tell is exclusively based on the article name), yet when you take a look at the actual content within said article you'll see that its focus is exclusively commentary on the two games in the series, with no significant attempts to give critical commentary on the Command series itself (as I've explained multiple times now within this message chain, in addition to the fact that said article is currently on Wikipedia and is therefore free to read at any time [after which I'd hope one would be able to see that the content of the article doesn't match the assumption you guys are putting forward].) So, Masem and JJMC89, in addition to reading the article I suggest you read my response chain above as they explain that very point about the subject of the article (which is also the reason why I linked you here in the first place JJMC89.) Sorry if this may seem a bit crass, but it's the simplest and most effective method I can think of at this point in the conversation to help you clearly understand what I'm saying with my line of reasoning (without simply retyping out everything that I've already said to Explicit and Marchjuly.)Tookatee (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The article appears to have been originally about a single game, but you moved the page to its current title here after merging content from Draft:Command: Modern Operations into the article here because the draft you were working on was declined by AFC. So, you changed the focus of the article from one about a single game to one about a series, but say that it’s not really about the series but is actually kind of two separate mini articles about two different games combined into one article whose subject is just about the series in name only. Is that an accurate description of the situation? If that’s really the case, then it could be argued that there’s no justification for using a non-free image for either game since neither game would seem notable enough on its own to warrant its own stand-alone article, but instead need to be combined together into the same article. —- Marchjuly (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just based on your initial wording Marchjuly (it utilizes incorrect reasoning that was already disproved and explained earlier in this thread) and the last sentence in that response that contradicts both yourself and other Wikipedia administrators (CMANO was determined to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines by the original administrator who approved the page in 2013, in addition to yourself referencing said fact about the original focus of said article [which I also explained earlier, in a response to you no less]) it's looking like you're not actually taking into consideration any of the points I've made above and have just been sticking to your initial viewpoint. So, if I'm not mistaken (and I profusely apologize if I am) then lets please not waste anymore time going in circles and just make your opinion clear so we can all avoid confusion. Based on the historical precedence, policies, and guidelines listed on Wikipedia (which I've, once again, already specified and explained in detail in my responses above), the use of this image is completely acceptable as it fulfills all tenants of the NFCC. If there is anything contrary to this that would put it in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines I would be glad to discuss it like I've just done, but at the moment it appears that File:Cmopromoart2.jpg satisfies NFCC #8 and therefore should not be eligible for deletion (as that is the only listed issue for said image.)Tookatee (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where or how my wording is incorrect. The diffs show you moved the page from one about a single game to one being about a (two-game) series. The diffs also show you incorporated/merged content into the article from a draft declined at AFC because the subject matter was considered by the AFC reviewer to be not notable. You then redirected the draft to the subsection in the series article. So, if article isn’t really about the series so to speak and it’s no longer only about the original (first game) in the series, then it’s about two separate but related games.

You’re correct that we (or maybe it’s just me) are going around in circles. I’m not an admin and I didn’t tag the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}; so, my opinion is really only just that. JJMC89, Explicit and Masem are admins who have lots of experience assessing non-free content use. If either of them is convinced by your argument, they can remove the CSD tag from the file. If they choose not do so for whatever reason, the file will eventually be reviewed by some other admin. You can, however, add a link to this discussion to the file’s talk page if you feel it will help clarify your reasoning to whichever admin does end up reviewing the file. I think right now it’s probably best to wait for the file to be reviewed since regardless of the outcome of that review turns out to be, there are options in place that those who disagree with the result can pursue if they want to do so.

Finally, articles don’t generally require admin approval to be created; they don’t even need to be submitted to AFC for review, though that may be a good idea in some cases. The original “Command” article appears to have been created from a userspace draft via AfC. Most likely the creator believed the subject to be Wikipedia notable and thus created an article about it; the AFC reviewer most likely felt the same way. Lots of articles created like this survive, but others end up deleted, sometimes years after they were created and sometimes despite the fact that they did pass through AfC. The only way to find out one way or the other for sure tends to be to seek wider community input via WP:AFD. Similarly, you can also seek wider community input about the use a file at WP:FFD if you feel your getting nowhere in this discussion. Perhaps that’s what the admin reviewing the file will suggest. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from restating everything that's been said up until this point, if you don't understand what's been said (without indicating what you exactly don't understand) there is no way for me to further explain my point in a manner in which you'll understand as it would use premises which, you apparently do not accept and/or grasp. Irregardless, as you stated, your understanding is irrelevant in this case as you have no power to affect anything; when I was referencing the other Wikipedia admins I merely meant the fact that their statements were contradictory to yours (I was not attempting to insinuate that you were in fact an administrator, however in re-reading my wording I may have done a poor job at conveying that) as drafts are submitted for review by administrators to determine if they meet the guidelines to be suitable for Wikipedia (which Command (series) did when it was first created.) Additionally, as the automatic deletion date for the following image is on the third, I would like to get a response by JJMC89(the admin who slated File:Cmopromoart2.jpg for deletion for not satisfying NFCC #8) based on the points I've specified here since, unless there is something else amiss, should show that the image does in fact satisfy NFCC #8 and is therefore no longer eligible for deletion.Tookatee (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Drafts submitted to AfC review are reviewed by AfC reviewers, but you don’t need to be an administrator to be an AfC reviewer, and most AfC reviewers aren’t administrators. You yourself could become an AfC reviewer if you meet the basic criteria. So, it was most likely just a coincidence that the original article was reviewed by an AfC reviewer who also happened to be an admin, not some type of “official” administrator approval. Moreover, submitting a draft to AfC for review is not mandatory; articles can be created either directly in the mainspace or as drafts and then moved to the mainspace by their creators without any AfC or other type of review as long as their account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED.

The three admins who commented in this discussion have stated that file’s current use doesn’t comply with relevant policy, which isn’t really a contradiction of what I’ve posted, and neither of the three has removed the template from the file which is something they could’ve done if they had been convinced by your argument. My opinion and your opinion is no more or less relevant than an admin’s opinion, and everyone’s opinion is given equal weight (at least at the beginning). An admin, however, has the ability to delete a page/file and do some other things that regular editors don’t have the tools to do, but they don’t have special voting rights or anything like that.

None of the three admins who have commented above are likely going to be the one who actually deletes the file at this point because they might feel WP:INVOLVED and leave the ultimate review to another admin instead. However, either of them or any other editor who agrees with your assessment, who is not an administrator and who didn’t create the page could remove the speedy deletion template from the file or even challenge the deletion by posting on the file’s talk page if they want. As the creator of the page, you cannot remove the deletion template, but you can challenge it by posting on the file’s talk page. That is where the administrator who reviews the template is going to look, which is why I suggested you post a link to this discussion on the file’s talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, no offense, but at this point your participation in this message thread is no longer required. I don't mean to come off as rude, it's just that I'm awaiting the response of JJMC89 (the standard written procedure is to contact the admin who posted the) on this topic or another admin, and your are flooding my alerts with information that's not relevant to me.Tookatee (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You've already posted about this at User talk:JJMC89#File:Cmopromoart2.jpg, but he hasn't responded there; so, if you want a specific response from him, then you can ask him there instead of pinging him here; even better would be to move further discussion about this to File talk:Cmopromoart2.jpg since that's what the reviewing admin is going more likely see and that's where others are going to be more easily able to participate in the discusison. If you don't want to reply to anything I post, you're not required to do so; however, if you address me in your posts, then it seems you're looking for a response. At the same time, if Explicit feels this thread is losing its focus or is being dragged off the rails by me in some way, then he's more than welcome to collapse my posts if he wants. I only pinged you once in this thread (my very first post) and just once in Talk:Command (series)#Page move (also my first post) and both times that was just done as a courtesy; so, I'm not sure how that's flooding you with alerts. I will, however, refrain from pinging you in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:NASCARfan0548/To do/2015

Could you please delete this page? Thank you. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 20:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks

the word gives me the beegees, thanks. JarrahTree 12:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Ashland University seal.png

Hi Explicit,

I know this is a couple months late, but would you undelete this file? It was improperly removed by an anonymous user and editors watching the page (including myself) did not initially notice they removed the non-free file. I will add it back into the article as soon as it is undeleted. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Etzedek24:

Done, file restored. Ə XPLICIT 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Lagoanflag (low res).jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Lagoanflag (low res).jpg? It was just moved from File:Lagoanflag.jpg to stop some shadowing, but there’s probably no need for a low-res non-free version of the file if the Commons one is OK. On the other hand, if the Commons one is not OK, then it may need to go depending upon whether the crown imagery is PD since the crown seems to be the only possible copyrightable element. I’m asking you since you’re an admin on both Commons and Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:di-disputed fair use rationale

When you use {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, please avoid embedding italics (''...''), because it does not work and causes [[Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting|Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4] lint errors. I just fixed this problem in File:Sechskies-Special Album.jpg by changing italics to underlining. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Tucc2.PNG

Hi. Could you please undelete File:Tucc2.PNG? It became an orphan, as a user inserted a false image into the article. --Soman (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Soman:

Done, file restored. Ə XPLICIT 00:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

File:David and Mary Thomson CI Logo.svg

You deleted this as unused. However, I suspect that it was meant to be used in David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute. Someone had uploaded the logo to Commons under a different file name (c:File:David and Mary Thomson Collegiate logo.svg), and the file has now been deleted on Commons. It seems that the file has also been uploaded as c:File:David and Mary Thomson CI Logo.svg a few times and then deleted. Could you check this? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I've restored the local file and added it back to the article. Ə XPLICIT 11:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested undelete of image for assessment

File:Sul Ross Statue.JPG was recently deleted. I did not see a notice on it, but I believe it would be useful still at the Sul Ross State University page. I don't know why it was orphaned, but appears to be still useful. Please restore. If I cannot find an appropriate use for it, I will personally nominate for speedy deletion. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs:

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the file has been restored upon request. Ə XPLICIT 00:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Added to the subject's page in lieu of a darker/less clear version of the statue. I would submit that this is probably a clear example of an image that should be moved to Commons. Buffs (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WAM 2019 Postcard: All postcards are postponed due to the postal system shut down

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

amBX

You (Explicit)shut down the page amBX after I requested you NOT do so. Unlike you, I'm not on here regularly. Your reason for deletion was spurious when every major product, business etc are on Wikipedia for information (See Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.) Please reinstate the amBX page. If you are unwilling to do so (it was due edits which is how I found out about the PROD), then as an administrator, explain how & who I can appeal this incorrect & arbitrary decision to. Steve. Stevenxlead (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Stevenxlead: AmBX UK LTD was proposed for deletion (PROD) by another editor for the reason you see in the deletion log, which went uncontested for seven days and resulted in its deletion. I did not see any evidence on the article's history page or talk page that you asked for the article to be kept. Based on my review of your edits now, I assume you're referring to your edit here on the PROD notification template, which was entirely off the mark. It seems like you've got a hang of where to make undeletion requests, so my assistance is not really required at this point. For future reference, you should consider approaching other editors in a civil manner. Perhaps you can give it a look when you log in next month. You are correct that, unlike me, you are not on here regularly. Sort of in the same sense that, unlike you, I'm capable of writing a decent article. Ə XPLICIT 13:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"unlike you, I'm capable of writing a decent article" Wow. So sorry I'm not as brilliant as you - I will try harder.Stevenxlead (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Red Ryder (software)

Hi, an expired prod, would it be possible to restore it (eg. to my user space)? I found several multiple-page reviews in Macworld and Mac User magazines of the 80s, I think I may be able to rewrite this poor article. I did not check date of the prod yesterday and thought I have plenty of time... sorry for inconvenience. Pavlor (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pavlor:

Done, the content is now available at User:Pavlor/Red Ryder (software). Ə XPLICIT 12:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Benjamin Florsheim page

Hello! Relatively new to Wikipedia apologies in advance. Saw that you deleted the Benjamin Florsheim page a month ago, I recreated it with much more information than it had before, thought the original was not my making. Wikipedia said to contact whoever the person who deleted a page last, so here I am. Should be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Benjamin_Florsheim. I believe it should be submitted for review, again not too sure (new). Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fau4u09 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fau4u09: Hi, if you feel that your draft is ready to be reviewed, you can add the {{AFC submission}} template atop of the page. Another user will come around and determine if the page is suitable to be moved to Benjamin Florsheim; if not, they can provide advice on how to proceed. I've become a bit busy these past few days upon returning to work, so apologies for not being able give it a look immediately. Ə XPLICIT 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fau4u09 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Can a CFD be closed ASAP?

There is a 2 year old ongoing on and it talks about a controversial subject known as ethnicity in fiction. I had fears that this CFD will become more of a drama than a discussion. Do you close them immediately? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Corona logo

Can you restore File:Corona Extra.svg. It was replaced with a logo at Commons but it is too complex to be PD and there is no evidence of CC licensing. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch:

Done, file restored. Ə XPLICIT 22:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Pakistan World

Hello, I am trying to re-create the page Mr. Pakistan World, which was deleted by you. There have been new findings with credible news articles about it. I have seen that you had deleted the page. Please advise how I can re-create the page with proper references and citations. --Salut65 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Salut65: Hi, if you feel that you have gathered sufficient sources to satisfy the general notability guideline, you are free to re-create the article. Ə XPLICIT 00:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will do so. Thanks --Salut65 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Meridith Valiando Rojas

Hi there! Just wondering if I can assist w/ userfy for this recently deleted page?

There are over 15 credible articles and sources that speak to the veracity and noteworthiness of the individual.

thank you!

2605:E000:1702:A8F:8405:CF65:E474:9095 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Rguaguanco

@Rguaguanco:

Done, the content is now available at User:Rguaguanco/Meridith Valiando Rojas. Ə XPLICIT 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action - how can I be of service in restoring this content?

2605:E000:1702:A8F:E9D1:E4:FECB:4D5D (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Rguaguanco

A good place to start is the WP:AFC process. Ə XPLICIT 00:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

KASNIA DEAD

Thank you for deleting Kasnia, the time I invested really paid off, why not merge it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephWC (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@JosephWC: I assume that the original user who nominated the article for deletion found it difficult to find a merge target, as the article mentions at least four different works where Kasnia is mentioned. In such cases where there is no single best target, deletion of an article is sometimes preferred. If you have a suggestion for a merge target, please feel free to propose it. Ə XPLICIT 00:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Friends Characters.png at DRV

Hey again. I decided to take File:Friends Characters.png to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 20 to review your deletion on it. --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, a page was deleted "Samantha Cook". I was hoping you could restore it as a draft so I can update with credible sources and fix incorrect information. Is this possible? Thank you so much in advance.

Deleted Page - Samantha Cook

Good morning, a page was deleted "Samantha Cook". I was hoping you could restore it as a draft so I can update with credible sources and fix incorrect information. Is this possible? Thank you so much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotTinaFey (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@NotTinaFey:

Done, the content is now available at User:NotTinaFey/Samantha Cook. Ə XPLICIT 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

2016–17 Ayr United F.C. season

Hello, a page was deleted "2016–17 Ayr United F.C. season". I was hoping you could restore it as a draft so that I can update it with credible sources and fix any incorrect information. Is this possible? Thank you so much in advance. Aidan Lynn 1998 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aidan Lynn 1998:

Done, the content is now available at User:Aidan Lynn 1998/2016–17 Ayr United F.C. season. Ə XPLICIT 23:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

2012–13 Scottish Junior Football Central Division Two

Hi, could you please explain why the 2012–13 Scottish Junior Football Central Division Two article proposed for deletion was declined? It is an orphaned, incomplete, non-notable, unsourced article from 8 years ago. You said it was "ineligible again" - what makes it ineligible? Thanks Boothy m (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Boothy m. An article can only be prodded for deletion once; so, if it’s deprodded for any reason at all, then it cannot be prodded again. In such cases, anyone still who feels that the article should be deleted needs to take it to WP:AFD instead. —- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, didn't realise that - thanks for letting me know Boothy m (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

File:The Greatest Showman (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).png

Hey again. I would like you to undelete the PNG version of the cover art of The Greatest Showman (soundtrack), so I will take both the PNG and JPEG versions to FFD. I requested the undeletion without luck, even after clarifying my reasons at WP:REFUND. --George Ho (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho:

Done, file restored. Ə XPLICIT 10:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

PROD file deletions

Please restore all the files you prod deleted on 4 May between 23:58 and 23:59 per WP:REFUND. I am challenging all 1000-odd files that were prodded with this rationale, but sadly I'm not deprodding them faster than they're getting deleted. SpinningSpark 23:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I will restore the files shortly. As an administrator, you are also free to restore the files if you contest their original deletions, I hope you're aware. Are you also challenging the file's up for deletion today? Ə XPLICIT 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If they all have the same rationale (unused, low-res, no obvious use), then yes I will challenge them. SpinningSpark 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:

Done, I have restored 23 files from the allotted date. Ə XPLICIT 23:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that SpinningSpark 23:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Alanna Kennedy playing again Japan WNT in 2012.jpg

Hi, this is about an old deletion, but I was hoping you could restore File:Alanna Kennedy playing again Japan WNT in 2012.jpg. My guess is that it was a part of a batch of uploads that includes these photos of Australian soccer players in 2012. If it was uploaded by User:Thewomensgame (a.k.a. Ann Odong) and originated from thewomensgame.com, the source and license information were likely correct. Please let me know if I can provide any more information. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: Yup, the information you provided matches the file information, so I have restored it. Ə XPLICIT 02:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

File:President John F. Kennedy at Rivier University, Nashua, 1960.jpg

Hi Explicit. I tagged this with rfu per F7, but the same file was then uploaded to Commons and is currently being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pres. Kennedy at Rivier in 1960.jpg. If kept, then perhaps this non-free one could be restored, though I'm not sure about the real provenance of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:2018 AMC (logo).png

Hi, the File:2018 AMC (logo).png page was removed because the page African Minifootball Cup was moved to a draft page. Now this page is restaured after my request of recreation. Hope to see this file page. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Faycal.09: Hi, I've gone ahead and restored the file. Ə XPLICIT 11:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your act. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Meridith Valiando Rojas

Hi there! Please tell me how I can fix this article so it can be resubmitted? If you can please point me in the right direction that would be so greatly appreciated. The subject of the article is indeed notable with an article being released on Forbes.com as recently as April 24th 2020 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreazarczynski/2020/04/24/columbia-records-jam-jr-promotes-youth-music-education-experiences/#15e651a03683).

Again any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

76.86.244.202 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)rguaguanco

As previously discussed, the content has been restored at User:Rguaguanco/Meridith Valiando Rojas. Ə XPLICIT 00:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much - once I edit, how do I resubmit for public view? 2605:E000:1702:A8F:C415:B5F8:E0AF:F60F (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)rguaguanco

You can submit the entry for review by adding the {{AFC submission}} template to the top of the page. Ə XPLICIT 02:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, submitted - thanks for your help! 172.250.51.145 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Rguaguanco

Undeletion request for "Transguinean Railways"

Since you deleted this article in early 2019, events reported in Nov 2019 indicated that this project has made some significant progress. This was reported in reputable magazines including "International Rail Journal" and "Global Construction Review". This is a multi-billion project.

Please advise. Wimbledon32 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimbledon32:

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I have also moved the sandbox page you created into your userspace here: User:Wimbledon32/Sandbox Transguinean Railways. Ə XPLICIT 00:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Hanan Tarik.jpg

Hello Explicit, a user (bot) has uploaded the newer version of a file, which the user posted: "The previous version of this file is not non-free, then it would no longer used in Wikipedia. Therefore the previous file would deleted on May 28. The current version will not be deleted." Why the current version of the file sustain from Wikipedia? The Supermind (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Supermind: Hi, the file went through two separate processes at the same time. Regarding the message you noted, this was a result of a bot tagging your original file for a size reduction request in accordance to WP:IMAGERES. The second bot uploaded a smaller version and tagged it with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}, which is the message you saw. However, before these two bots edited the page, another editor tagged the image for deletion for failing to comply with the non-free content criteria policy, specifically the no free equivalent criterion. Generally, Wikipedia does not accept fair use images of living individuals, even if one does not currently exist. This is because a freely licensed alternative can be created, and uploads like these are usually deleted two days after being tagged. Ə XPLICIT 12:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Hans Koning Bio.jpg

Hi Explicit. I'm not sure why this file was even added to List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust even if it wasn't covered under WP:NFCCP since Hans Wilhelm König and Hans Koning are completely different people (as least it seems they are). I get that the names are similar; so, I guess a good-faith mistake is understandable and I even didn't catch the difference at first. It is, however, kind of a big mistake to make even if done in a hurry given the subject matter of the list article; moreover, someone trying to re-add it to the list article even after it was deleted seems a tad bit reckless. Finally, there are quite a few other non-free files being used in that article whose use is also seems questionable per WP:NFLISTS and I'm wondering what your take on those particular uses is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

David Pearson image

Hello, I believe you deleted an image of myself which I posted on the Wikipedia page about David Pearson (librarian) - which I did not create, but which I try to keep up to date and accurate. The image was taken on an iPad by my wife, for the purposes of using like this - I have it on my page on Amazon, and I send it to people when they want a photo of me for publicity or other reasons. I tried to explain this when mounting the image but Wikipedia insisted on having explicit authorisation from the image creator. I sent an email from my wife, providing this, but that was not accepted. Instead we were sent a list of instructions about licensing arrangements to fill in, which I passed on to her, but which were so complicated and confusing that she was unable to complete them. Now, you have taken the picture down.

Will you please put it back? It's an informal photo taken within family circumstances with no commercial or intellectual property issues. It is already in the public domain (e.g. on Amazon).

Thanks, David Pearson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drspearson (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Drspearson. Unfortunately, I don't think there's not much that Explicit or any other administrator can probably due to help you here other than to suggest that your wife (assuming she's the copyright holder of the image) send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS so that her intent to release the file under a free license that Wikipedia accepts can be verified as explained in c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. The fact the a file may be publicly viewable somewhere online (even free of charge) is not the same concept as public domain; so, the photo being used on Amazon, etc. is of no real help here. Moreover, the fact you send to people you want for publicity, etc. isn't really sufficient for Wikipedia as well because Wikipedia's policy regarding image licensing means, in so many words, that the copyright holders of images uploaded to Wikipedia are essentially agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the images they've uploaded at anytime and reuse them for any purpose (including commercial use or derivative use). See c:Commons:Licensing for more details on this. So, for this reason, the explicit consent of the copyright holder needs to be verified in some formal way so as to not only protect Wikipedia, but also the rights of copyright holders and the interests of those who want to re-use Wikipedia content. Lots of well-meaning people upload files that they don't own the copyright on in the belief that it's OK because it's for Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's licensing is, in principle, set up to allow anyone anywhere to freely use any of the content contained in Wikipedia for any purpose as long as they attribute Wikipedia when they do so. Wikipedia choice of licensing is a pretty liberal one without many restrictions, as such things go, which is why Wikipedia strives to make sure all of the content it hosts is licensed in such a way.

If you've already emailed Wikimedia OTRS and found their response confusing, then there might be another option for you as explained in c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. Your wife could take another photo of you and directly upload it to Wikimedia Commons before publishing it anywhere else. All she would need to do is follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Upload Wizard, pick one of the licenses listed in c:Commons:Creative Commons and then use the c:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator to verify her copyright ownership. The process seems straightforward, and all she might have to do is create a create a Commons account.

Now for some other stuff that's more related to Wikipedia editing. Since you have a Wikipedia article written about you, you might want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference. Subject of Wikipedia articles don't really have any claim of ownership over article content and those that try to edit articles or content written about them on Wikipedia often find it hard to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For this reason, Wikipedia highly discourages conflict-of-interest editing, and instead requests that subjects of articles follow the advice given in WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. I've added a template to your user talk page which contains more information about this type of thing and links to various relevant policy and guideline pages for your reference. The more you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding COI editing, the less likely you're going to run into difficulties editing.

One last thing, Wikipedia has no real way of verifying you are who you say you are (see On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). That's OK and most editors are happy to take you at your word unless your account starts doing things that aren't really appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're concerned about this type of thing and want some sort of formal account verification, you can email Wikimedia OTRS and verify your identity. An OTRS volunteer will review your email and add Template:Verified account to your user page if everything is in order. This is optional and doesn't grant you any special editing privileges with respect to content about you on Wikipedia, but it will make it clear that you are David Pearson (librarian) and not someone pretending to be you. If you want to find out more specific details about this, you can ask at WP:OTRSN. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Content of deleted "List of entertainment events at the Fiserv Forum"

Hi Explicit! Hope you are well. I was wondering if you could paste the content of the deleted page "List of entertainment events at the Fiserv Forum" here so that it can be incorporated into the article "Fiserv Forum" -- currently, there is a section titled "Concerts and events," which reads "Main article: List of entertainment events at the Fiserv Forum." Because you deleted the page, this link now leads nowhere, which I hope you'll agree is a sub-optimal experience for the user. If you paste the content of the deleted article here (with the sources), I will work on pruning it (if it is overly-long and/or includes non-notable events) and adding it to the "Fiserv Forum" article. Thanks!

Waidawut (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Waidawut: Hi, I have made the content available here. Ə XPLICIT 00:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Waidawut (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy-paste

Hi, there are IPs are currently copying and pasting from IMDb directly to Wikipedia on this page The King: Eternal Monarch. Per WP:Copy-paste, they are not allowed to do that and the preview of previous history that contain the copyrighted material should be removed. I don't now how to report that, so I contacted you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: Hi, I've hidden 71 revisions that contained the text copied from IMDb. Contacting a particular administrator to look into the matter is fine. You can also report issues regarding copyright infringment at the administrators' noticeboard. Ə XPLICIT 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

user:RoxyHits

user:RoxyHits is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I have revoked the user's ability to edit their talk page. Ə XPLICIT 00:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tyson page you deleted

Hi Explicit,

I am trying to find out why the page I made 2 years ago about my father Christopher Tyson was taken off of Wikipedia. Is there a way to recover the page? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerg7932 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soccerg7932: Hi, Chris Tyson was proposed for deletion with the following rationale: "Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Only played in American Soccer League (1933–83) which isn't a fully-pro league." It went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as a result. You can find more information at WP:NFOOTY. Additionally, since the individual is your father, you should also become familiar with conflict of interest guideline. Ə XPLICIT 00:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay I understand, is there anything I change for this page to be put back up? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerg7932 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Giovanni Capellini.jpg

You deleted this under F5. Oddly, it had DI and FFD running simultaneously. The consensus at FFD was that it was free, but the closer didn't remove the DI or change the license and you deleted it the day after. I'd like to undelete and relicense as free, but I wanted to get your approval first, in case there's something I'm missing. Wikiacc (¶) 18:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiacc:

Done, the file has been restored. Everything seems to check out, so it just needs to be re-licensed. Ə XPLICIT 23:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Recently mass-deleted various Koda Kumi articles

I noticed you recently deleted the Koda Kumi singles that coincided with her album Re(cord). This would not be an issue, but you deleted the pages without incorporating the singles' information into the album's article or giving notice that you were deleting the pages to the page creator (aka: me).

I'm asking that you restore the multiple pages for a few days so I have the time to put the appropriate information into the articles (this includes your recent deletion of "Shhh!").

Thank you. Xenobia4 (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xenobia4: For clarification, I did not delete the articles, I redirected them to Re(cord). As such, the content for all the pages can be found and are accessible through the history tab. Not quite sure what there was to salvage before being redirecting them. The articles were poorly sourced to online music stores, the record label and its YouTube channel, and unreliable translation blogs. The vital information—release dates, songwriters, and so on—were already included in the album article. Ə XPLICIT 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSPAM#Wikipedia: User Elprime

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSPAM#Wikipedia: User Elprime. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I noticed the above-mentioned post because I had the page on my watchlist. It might be something posted on the wrong noticeboard, but I thought since you're also a Commons admin you might be a good person to ask about it since you can probably deal with any problems there might be on Wikipedia and Commons. Some of the files the account has uploaded to Commons might need a closer examination from a license standpoint, but there might be some WP:BLPCOI and WP:RGW issues as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)