User talk:Explicit

fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_leaders_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviators_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

I would be more convinced of your intentions if these 2 categories were treated in the same way, either all kept or all deleted. The best thing is to

1. keep all 3, including entertainers
2. delete all 3.
3. the worst is to delete only some.

Note that I am not suggesting unreasonable categories, like

Left handed people killed in aviation accidents in even numbered years.

Let's work together. I seek the fair, reasonable, and logical solution, not fighting. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the only reason I noticed Category:Entertainers killed in airplane crashes is because you added it to Aaliyah. I found it redundant Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the Bahamas, where she was already categorized. Only after reviewing the contents of the category you created did I nominate it for deletion. I wasn't going through Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents to notice the other two you listed even existed, let alone go through the contents and consider nominating them for merging or deletion of any kind. — ξ^xplicit 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you were to nominate state leaders and aviators to be deleted, I would consider that to be fair, not pointy. Those are occupations. However, in my opinion, people will look at the cat I created. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

help requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filmed_accidental_deaths

Please help with this. I am not trying to be pointy but just to identify one cat that I think should be deleted. I have never asked for a cat to be deleted. Note that I can be easily convinced to withdraw this nom because I lack experience in nomination. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the category was previously nominated for deletion, which resulted in no consensus. The discussion can be found here. — ξ^xplicit 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I withdraw it? I will not do anything for this but it is a funny category, Category:Finnish people of Nigerian descent

How about Togolese people of Swiss descent? How about Malaysian people of Austrian descent? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing the nomination is entirely up to you. As for Category:Finnish people of Nigerian descent, this category is part of two well-established category trees: Category:Finnish people by ethnic or national origin and Category:People of Nigerian descent. Category:Togolese people of Swiss descent and Category:Malaysian people of Austrian descent don't exist, but would be part of the even bigger category tree Category:People by ethnic or national descent. — ξ^xplicit 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of files

Hi. I noticed you just deleted the file Veronique_Chevalier.jpg. I created the Veronique Chevalier page, as well as a page for independent filmmaker John Soares. Each of them has sent in permission for their photographs to be used on their pages, over a month ago. John Soares sent his permission in three times now. Those images have still not been approved and keep getting taken down. I wrote to the permissions email addressed and asked why they had not been approved, and received no reply, not even a polite acknowledgment that they had received my inquiry. Do you have any idea what possible reason there could be for the delay? Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I remember, OTRS has been backlogged for several months now, so the processing goes by slower than usual. However, the file I deleted, File:Veronique Chevalier.jpg, was licensed under a non-free license, which was deleted after seven days of not being used in any article. Were the emails you sent verify the images under a free license? — ξ^xplicit 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

David Lehman photo

This conversation actually starts on my talk page, but with a different editor. So it is probably best to just continue here. This is regarding File:David Lehman photo 1996.jpg. I did do a search and there is no free photograph available. Also, there are actually a very limited number of photos available. Google images search here: [1] reveals no free images. (I think I knew this already).

Also, since this issue has come up, the policy stating that since a person is alive, non-free content is not to be used because obviously a free image will show up - is ludicrous. I don't see how this policy ever became accepted as consensus. My experience is that it is the exact opposite. Free photos show up much more often after the person has passed on, not the other way around. And it makes sense. If you don't know which policy statement I am refering to, I can search for it. It is a Wikipedia policy. Above is proof that there is no free image available. And that policy statement needs to be changed, and I will probably propose that it be changed, because it goes against the facts. (I just have to demonstrate it somehow). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy being the way it is, you should be more than aware that you should abide by it, especially such a strict and strongly enforced one. I don't exactly understand why you find it ludicrous to believe a free image of a living person is easier to come across than a free image of a dead one, as I view it in the exact opposite way. Flickr is much easier to utilize, as you're likely to find a free image there. Although there isn't one at the moment, you can always message the uploader and ask them to release one of their images under a free license. For example, these two would be worth trying. I'd applaud you if you're able to convince the community to make WP:NFCC less strict. — ξ^xplicit 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading the conversation after this one I wrote: Thank you. Now I understand. I think when I added the photograph to that article I was wondering if it would "fly". The original intent was to use this image only for this person's biography. Then I decided "what the heck", I will add it to the "book" article. In reality, the image of this person may have been off topic, although he was one of the notable editors of this book, and this series. I will look into this some more and see how much relevance this person has to this article. Thanks for your help in this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is ironic that I read and wrote that. In any case let me do more checking about this matter, because now I am confused as to what the issue is. It is interesting that your experience is the opposite of mine regarding pictures of living persons. At least, I will have to get off my soap box if I decide to gain consensus to change that policy :>) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, your original reply to the discussion below really had me confused after you moved comment to this section. I genuinely thought you were Skotywa (talk · contribs) for a good five minutes. Anywho, I'm sure finding a free alternative will prove to be easier than you think. — ξ^xplicit 07:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Files for deletion

I'm trying to understand why File:Brodeurbook.jpg was deleted while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. The articles that they appear in give a nearly identical level of treatment to the books they're covering (not super in depth critical commentary, but commentary nonetheless). I expected these to go together (either both keep, or both delete). The fact that they went differently surprises me. If anything, I would have expected the reverse since File:Brodeurbook.jpg was used in a featured article while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. I'm new this files for deletion process, and frankly can't believe how it can supercede successful FA image reviews (where WP:FAR would be the appropriate place to bring issues up). I'm crossposting this comment on User talk:Fastily so we can all compare notes. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the latter of the two files was deleted Fastily, I can't speak on his behalf. You may be aware that the non-free content criteria is extremely strict in order to minimalize the use of non-free content, as Wikipedia does strive for the use of as much free content as possible. As such, the NFCC policy trumps most uses of non-free items, except for cases as outlined here. This cover was deleted on the grounds of WP:NFC#UUI, point nine: A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Because the book cover wasn't being discussed here—only the book itself was—it simply did not hold up against the policy. — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I had thought that by discussing the book itself it qualified as appropriate use under WP:NFCI#8. The book is probably not notable on it's own to have a separate article, but it is discussed in moderate detail in the article covering the person who's autobiography it was. If I'm reading this correctly, it would seem that WP:NFC#UUI point nine only applies in the absence of critical commentary. Am I misunderstanding something, or is it possible that a mistake has been made in deleting this image? --SkotyWA^T_C 07:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the end I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion about what exactly qualifies as "cricital commentary." I guess your decision to delete the picture implies that your opinion is that it didn't qualify. As I posted, I felt that it did meet the bar as "critical commentary" albeit limited. You're the admin though so I guess you get final say. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Point eight of NFCI only applies to images with iconic status or historical importance. These types of images are usually licensed under {{Non-free historic image}}. This book cover was not and could not be tagged as such. As for point nine of NFC#UUI, the cover of the book must acquire sourced critical commentary in order to meet the criteria. The book is being discussed in the article, but not its covert art. I'm definitely not expressing my own opinion on the matter, otherwise I would not have been suitable for closing the discussion, I'm simply enforcing policy. If you believe I misinterpreted the discussion or the policy that led to the result of the discussion, you can initiate a discussion at deletion review. — ξ^xplicit 07:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I closed File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg as No Consensus simply because there was no consensus to delete the file. All the !votes were valid and in a 2/3 keep/delete ratio. That's my nonpartisan close of the discussion, nothing else. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Explicit, I'm terribly sorry, I pointed to the wrong place in WP:NFCI above. I didn't mean point 8, rather point 1 for the cover art. Specifically, it states Cover art... for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. Hopefully that makes my comments about "critical commentary" clearer. Do you believe that point 1 does not apply in this case? If so, I'd like to understand why? --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to explain it without sounding like a broken record. Simply put, if the image fails just one of the criteria of the non-free content policy, that alone is grounds for deletion. If the book itself had an article, then it would be no problem sticking the cover into the infobox of that article. — ξ^xplicit 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm making you repeat yourself. I think I understand your view now. So the line you're drawing is that in order for a non-free cover art image of a book to be used, the book must have it's own article. I also believe I understand all of the points of WP:NFCC. For most non-free images, the hardest point to satisfy (in the eyes of reviewing editors) is #8 where it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic". Unless I've missed something (entirely possible), this is the only criteria that File:Brodeurbook.jpg possibly did not satisfy. However, WP:NFCI seems to be a list of obvious acceptable examples of NFCC#8. In NFCI#1 it does not state that a book having it's own article is necessary to include non-free cover art, just that critical commentary be presented on the book. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Point eight of NFCC is definitely the most contentious criteria of them all, as it becomes a judgment call between individual editors and what they each see as contextual significance. From what I've seen and have been strictly enforcing for the past two years, non-free images like book covers, album covers, film posters, etc., need a significant reason to be included in an article which isn't about the book/album/film/whatever in order justify its use there. Editors need to demonstrate why the cover is significant when it's not the main or critical subject being discussed, and explain how the image illustrates what free text can't. The book itself can have all the critical commentary in the world, but if the book cover isn't being critically discussed, it isn't necessary in the article. — ξ^xplicit 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

I am enquiring why you deleted this file when there was no clear consensus. I am requesting a deletion review in the meantime. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

...No consensus? It was pretty clear that there was consensus to delete the file as it failed the non-free content criteria policy and there was a free alternative available. Without even an explanation—let alone a persuasive one—as to how the non-free file portrayed something the free image couldn't, the deleted file was a textbook violation of NFCC. — ξ^xplicit 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

YooHoo & Friends

Hello again -- I've been working with you in discussing the page I created, YooHoo & Friends. You had removed the article for further editing and moved to this spot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lambadical/YooHoo_%26_Friends. I've replaced some of the links you mentioned that caused notability issues (they were either dead, or links to press releases, not articles). Do you think the page is acceptable now since I'm linking to the industry feature articles that mention the facts contained within the wiki article? Thanks Lambadical (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)