Jump to content

User talk:Explicit/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Iraq Football Federation logos

Hi again Explicit. You closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 27#File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg back in February as a keep in Iraq Football Federation and remove from all other instances. It looks a new version of basically the same file has been uploaded as File:Iraq Football Association logo.png and is being used in multiple team articles as before. The file seemed familiar, but I didn't remember the previous FFD discussion until the jpg version was tagged as an orphan. It seems to me that the consensus of the first FFD should still apply here even though the file may be of a different format. I pinged you to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Iraq Football Association logo.png for clarification, but am also letting you know here as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: In a case like this, a similar concept to WP:CSD#G4 would apply as it is a "sufficiently identical cop[y]" of the one originally discussed at FFD. The outcome of the discussion you've linked would still apply to this new file, as it's serving the same purpose as the JPG version. I'll go ahead and apply it as such. — ξxplicit 01:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. The jpg was technically not deleted; it was just removed from certain articles. Wouldn't be OK to upload a png version to replace the jpg? I just don't think doing so means that the non-free concerns of the jpg are now null and void, which seems to be the case based upon your post. How should does that affect the current ongoing FFD about the png's non-free use? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you've taken care of this and removed the logo from the articles in question. I just checked my notifications, not my watchilist, so I didn't notice that when I posted the above. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Explicit. Sorry for dumping this on your door step, but perhaps you can advise on how to best proceed. Based upon User talk:Marchjuly#Iraq football logo, Hashim-afc seems to have gone all WP:POINTy. He mass removing logos from soccer team article, with out even checking to see whether there's a rationale or the logo is freely licensed (1, 2, 3, 4) I understand it is just frustration, but I don't think this is really the best way to go about changing the NFCC if that is his ultimate goal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could comment at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#Iraq Football Association logos. Hashim-afc has been re-adding logos and rationales (here, here, here, here, here, here, here) because he believes your close was incorrect. I reverted once based upon this discussion, but I won't again to avoid edit warring. Again, I don't think this is the best way to challenge a close and this kind of things seems to be something which is not recommended per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I would like to ask why this discussion was closed without a proper consensus being decided on. Marchjuly proposed the logo be removed from the national team articles and only one other user contributed to the discussion - that user disagreed and said that the logo should be used on national team pages (or at least strongly implied that). After this, the discussion was closed by yourself saying that the result of the discussion was for the logo to be removed from the national team pages. In reality, no consensus had been reached whatsoever; the only editor who joined the discussion disagreed with removing it from the national team articles so why was the discussion closed so quickly without any time for it to be developed and a consensus to be reached? This discussion is now preventing a logo that I uploaded, File:Iraq Football Association logo.png, from being used on the national team pages, meaning that the Iraq national team page has no logo on it whereas 99% of other national team articles do which is not fair on the Iraq article or its editors at all. Seeing as I am not too familiar with Wiki's rules, I may have got this wrong, but even using common sense it becomes clear that a discussion in which the only other editor who contributed disagreed with the removal would suggest that the discussion was not ready to be closed, so I am requesting that the discussion be opened again and the logo be added back into national team pages for the time being until a consensus is properly reached. Thanks for reading, Hashim-afc (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Hi, that discussion was not closed quickly. It was open for at least a full seven days, which is the allotted time for discussions at that venue. Please note that consensus is not determined by the number of people who agree or disagree with a proposal, but in terms of strengths of the arguments. Marchjuly's nomination statement was founded in policy, while Faycal.09's failed to build much of an argument to begin with. It is true that other articles of national teams do contain logos, but that's simply a result of them not being subject to discussion yet. Additional, the existence of something else on another page is an "other stuff exists" argument, which again is not ingrained in policy.
The aforementioned file discussion is based on the WP:NFC#UUI guideline, which essentially acts as a guide to further the understanding of the application of the extraordinarily strict WP:NFCC policy. It might not be a result that is liked, but as far as policy is concerned, it is the correct outcome. — ξxplicit 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The problem I have is that the user who first started nominating national team logos for discussion (Marchjuly) only nominated a select few and I'm not quite sure why. For example, he nominated Iraq, Gabon, Lithuania, Brazil logos and some others. But he must have been aware of other logos which were also supposedly violating the rule but he did not nominate these ones, e.g. Netherlands, portugal, Belgium, (much bigger and more famous teams than the likes of Gabon and Iraq). As a result we are left with a few national team pages having no logos on them and most of them still having logos, which ruins the ones which don't have logos and makes them seem unimportant. Unfortunately the Iraq page, of which I am a frequent contributor on, is one of the victims of this and the page just looks much worse than almost all national team pages now and it's not really fair. Also, some logos e.g. the Gabon FA logo were allowed to stay on the Gabon page because the Gabon FA lacks notability - but I think the Iraq FA also lacks notability so it's not fair that the Gabon logo remains on the Gabon national team page and the Iraq logo gets removed from the Iraq national team page. Overall it is a great injustice in my opinion that is the result of lackadaisical editing, it has unfortunately ruined a lot of national team pages and is not being dealt with properly. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Explict. There is a discussion regarding the use of such logos and whether UUi#17 applies to them currently taking place at WT:NFCC#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. That's fine and perhaps it will lead to further clarification or a revision of this particular part of the NFC guideline. However, No. 17 was added almost two years ago and has been cited in various NFCR/FFD discussions (not only discussions regarding national soccer team logos) since that time by various editors (not only myself) and these discussions closed by administrators other than yourself. Most of these closes with respect to national team logos have been that usage is NFCC compliant in the federation/association article, but not in the individual team articles. The editors who participated in those discussions and the administrators who closed them all did so in good faith and a consensus to not allow the use of such logos in the individual team article has been established. Maybe the way the community handles these logos will change as a result of the ongoing NFCC discussion, but we have not reached this point yet. Hashim-afc, however, seems to see the fact that this is being discussed as justification of re-adding non-free use rationales to File:Iraq Football Association logo.png [1] and then re-adding the file to various national team articles [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] does not seem conducive to helping to resolve this matter. Those files were removed as a result of a FFD discussion, and you informed Hashim-afc that this was the correct outcome. Hashim-afc seems to be ignoring this because they do not agree with it or they do not like it. As stated above, Hashim-afc previously massed removed similar logos from similar articles. When it was pointed out that this seemed to be a bit pointy by not only me but also by Super Nintendo Chalmers with this edit. Hashiim-afc has stated that the logos were removed to save people time and not to make a point. Hashim-afc is participating in the discussion at NFCC and is aware that nothing has yet to be resolved, and is aware that you have re-confirmed your close of the FfD discussion as being proper. That is why these latest edits are a bit perplexing and are starting to press up against the boundary between assuming good faith and being disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. I added the logo back because to me, it seemed like we had reached a conclusion over at WP:NFC that national teams are not child entities, and I thought the only thing left to discuss was whether or not they were acceptable for youth teams. Therefore I thought this discussion meant that the logos could be used again. Truth is, a couple of hours later when I re-read the discussion at WP:NFC from top till the bottom, I realised that a consensus had not really been reached yet (although I think it is close to being reached) and realised that I shouldn't have actually added it back yet and I did it too soon; I should have re-read the discussion first before editing. I was going to revert my edits but then you ended reverted them anyway. I apologise for this impatient editing I did, and I ensure it won't happen again. However the way I see it, it won't be long before a consensus gets reached, and hopefully the logo will be able to be restored for good. Hashim-afc (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is a tricky matter which is probably going to take some time to resolve. The default duration for an WP:RfC is 30 days to reach a conclusion. The discussion is not officially an RFC yet, but it should be treated in the same way because it is something that will affect how the NFCC is being applied to other logos besides national soccer team logos. Feedback should be solicited from other parts of the community as well and sufficient time should be allowed for others to comment. Having said all of that, this particular logo was removed by Explicit per an FFD discussion and Explicit did reaffirm to you above that he believes his close was in accordance relevant policy. If the result of the NFCC discussion is to allow the use of such logos on national teams, then it is still necessary per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to consult with the closing administrator and inform them of the change in interpretation. If the closing admin is no longer active or non-responsive then a request can be made at WP:AN to re-assess the close based upon the change in the guideline. This may seem unnecessarily bureaucratic to you, but these procedures have been put into place for a reason and we should try to follow them as much as possible. Administrators like Explicit who removed logos from articles as the result of FFD discussions did so in good faith because they felt that doing so was in accordance with established consensus and the NFCC. We should, therefore, also assume in good faith that these administrators will "fix" things accordingly when there is a change in the NFCC or the consensus as to how it should be interpreted. Any editor who tries to circumvent the this process, even if their intentions are good, is not really helping to resolve things at all. Whatever clean-up is required as a result of the NFCC discussion will be taken care of accordingly by the admin who closes the discussion, so please be patient and let the process play itself out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your clear reply my friend. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:RoyGlennBentley.jpg

Is this the same file as the one you deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 2#File:RoyGlennBentley.jpg? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Nope, entirely different pictures. In the deleted version, the subject appears to be 20–30 years younger. — ξxplicit 05:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion File:MGM Cartoon Logo 60s.jpg

I tried to upload an image with this title but there's no picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marole3 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marole3:  Done, File:MGM Cartoon Logo 60s.jpg has been restored. — ξxplicit 05:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

request for undelation of image File:Paula Zima.jpg

Hello. This is a difficult time for me (details upon request) and I allowed this image to sort of slip away after getting the permission from the photographer, through the subject of the picture. To whom do I need to send the release form to have the picture reinstated? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Hi, it appears that, although you tagged the image with {{OTRS pending}}, the permission for this image was never received. There was a two-month period between you adding said tag and it automatically being nominated for deletion by a bot for exceeding the OTRS backlog at the time. Please see WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to rectify the issue. — ξxplicit 00:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
During this two month period, my mother, whom I have been living with and taking care of, died. It has not been an easy time. i will follow your link and see where it takes me. Carptrash (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Carptrash: I'm very sorry to hear that. Hopefully, things can get sorted out quickly. — ξxplicit 05:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have re-uploaded the image on Commons and sent an email with the form from the photographer with a creative commons copyright, but sent it from my email rather than from her's, so II am not sure what happens next. Wait and see, I guess. Thanks for peeking over my shoulder as this process marches on. Carptrash (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for James Dockery

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Dockery. 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. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Disney Junior Entrance.jpg

Out of curiosity, why did you delete File:Disney Junior Entrance.jpg? I raised an issue with the request for deletion, which was never answered. In my opinion, the file should not have been deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Hi, basically, the picture you took of the sign is a derivative work—although you are copyright holder of the photo, the copyright of the artwork on the sign (held by Disney) is still in effect. As a result, you aren't able to freely license the image because you would be infringing on the rights held by the creator of the artwork on the sign. I hope my explanation makes sense. There is further information in regards to how this works, which you can find here. — ξxplicit 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Small point of clarification first off:It wasn't my image, but another Wikipedia user's. Onto the main part, it was deleted from Commons, but then I uploaded it separately to Wikipedia, with the creative commons license and a non-free use license. That is the version that you deleted. So, once again, why did you delete the Wikipedia local image? Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: The only other tag I see on the description page is {{Trademark}}, which itself isn't a license to begin with, much less a non-free license. Perhaps you may be able to find something at WP:ICT/FU that fits this image? If you find a suitable license and plan to add a corresponding fair use rationale, I can restore the file for you. — ξxplicit 01:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit: must have missed that. I think Non-free 3D art should work. Elisfkc (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Very well, I've restored the image. — ξxplicit 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

File:The Gas Dynamic Trap, Structure and B-Fields.gif, Gas Dynamic Trap Overhead.jpg, The Gas Dynamic Trap Photo.png

Hello,

I worked on the Gas Dynamic Trap article on behalf of Dr. Peter Bagryansky who runs the Gas Dynamic Trap in Russia and Dr. Thomas Simonen who writes about the machine. Dr. Bagryansky took those photos that you marked for deletion and gave his personal consent with permissions-en@wikimedia.org on March 30th 2016. We cleared it with in March and February of 2016 over email and I also brought in my friend Maury Markowitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maury_Markowitz) who is also wikipedia administrator to settle any remaining issues and ensure everything was properly done.

I am going to upload those photos again and see if I filled out the permission incorrectly.

Thanks, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan WikiHelper2134 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHelper2134: It appears that the permission for these files remained unconfirmed for over two months, and were deleted as a result. Since you have provided the ticket number, I will inquire about this issue to hopefully get things settled as soon as possible. — ξxplicit 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@WikiHelper2134: I have received a response, which you can read here. An OTRS agent stated: "Other OTRS agent mentioned the permission on the ticket is insufficient and they need to be more specific (and I agree with his decision) and the requesting user has asked the copyright owner to grant specific permission — no response after that." — ξxplicit 01:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Hockey Canada.svg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind carifying your close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Hockey Canada.svg at User talk: Djsasso#File:Hockey Canada.svg. Djsasso has been re-adding the file to various team articles. Djsasso says he's not challenging the close, but feels enough time has past so that it no longer applies. My understanding is that there is no expiration date placed upon FFD closes, but they can be challenged via WP:DR or WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Perhaps you can help clear things up? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Just for reference, the file has been re-added to various team articles and corresponding rationales have been re-added to the file's page. This seems inappropriate to me and contrary to the consensus reached at FFD, but since you were the closing admin I'll defer to your lead on this. As for the question of "how long an FFD discussion" is valid, I agree with your post, but also feel this might be something worth further discussing in general. I can understand how certain closes may be need to be re-evaluated based upon changes in the NFCC or community consensus, but I think this kind of things is adequately covered by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I think this is indeed a "slippery slope" and sets a bad precedent because it allows a properly closed NFCR/FFD close to be superseded/circumvented by simply by a claim of "being bold". This approach significantly weakens the community's ability to enforce the NFCC in my opinion and seems to be just a euphemism for using "I don't like it" as a reason for undoing any FFD close. Non-free use is tricky and circumstances may change where something once considered OK is no longer acceptable and vice versa, but the NFCC says that the burden is on the editor wanting to use non-free content to establish that such use is compliant, not the other way around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I agree, I actually felt that the example you provided prior to your edit was a good way to counter the original the one provided by Djsasso. Let's just wait for his response. — ξxplicit 05:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. What are the options if a response does not come? I have no real desire to edit war, even though I believe No. 5 of WP:NOT3RR can be applied; however, if this kind of thing is considered OK, then the whole argument that non-free use is not automatic and that justification for such use is the burden of the the editor wanting to use a non-free file seems to get all twisted around into a default position of non-free use is automatic until somebody can prove it's not and keep proving it's not as long as someone wants to use the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not realize that Djsasso had resumed editing without responding to my comment. I will re-apply the result of the discussion to the file shortly. — ξxplicit 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw your edits. I am wondering if the same could also be done regarding the non-free use of File:USA Hockey.svg as explained in User talk:Djsasso/Archive 10#File:USA Hockey.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for File:Mario64dscourtyardlwm.jpg and File:Fattymariosm64ds.jpg

Could you undelete these 2 pictures from Super Mario 64 DS page? I want to work on them. Thanks. YoshiFan155 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@YoshiFan155: There are currently two other non-free files in. Per point five of WP:NFCI, additional screenshots require critical commentary for each use, where its omission would not be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the article. Additionally, per WP:NFCC#3, multiple non-free media files are not used when the use of one would suffice. How would File:Mario64dscourtyardlwm.jpg and File:Fattymariosm64ds.jpg meet both NFCI and NFCC? — ξxplicit 06:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Image removed from 'Hadean' page.

Hi Explicit,

You likely deleted the "Formation of the Earth’s continents, 1952.png “Reproduced courtesy of Bonestell LLC”.png" image for copyright reasons. However, I sought and received permission from the copyright owner to use the image. Further, the copyright owner was pleased that the image would be used for educational purposes.

The permission letter follows:

"BONESTELL LLC June 13, 2016 Andy Swanson, author/contributor Wikipedia Re: Limited Permission to Use Copyrighted Image(s) Dear Andy Swanson: This letter (or email) serves to confirm that Bonestell LLC (“Bonestell”) grants to Andy Swanson (“You”) the non-exclusive right and limited permission to use, display and transmit the following copyrighted Images (“Image(s)”) described in Exhibit A for illustrative and noncommercial purposes, such as identifying or commenting on works of Chesley Bonestell, on the following website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean This limited permission shall be royalty-free, non-transferable and perpetual. This permission is subject to You including the credit with the Image(s) as specified in Exhibit A. You acknowledge and understand that this permission prohibits the use of the Image(s) in any manner or form other than that which is authorized by this letter. You shall be responsible for the security and maintenance of the Images and shall not permit any unauthorized access to the Images. If you fail to comply with any of these terms, Bonestell has the right to terminate and withdraw the authorization it has granted. Bonestell makes no warranties, express or implied, regarding the Image(s) and Bonestell shall not be liable to You for any damages related to Your use of the Image(s). To the extent you seek any use of the Images outside the scope of this Letter, including for any commercial purpose such as the sale or promotion of any product or service, a separate paid license must be entered into with Bonestell, which license will be in Bonestell’s sole discretion. This limited permission expresses the complete understanding of Bonestell LLC and You with respect to the copyrighted Image(s). Please acknowledge receipt of this letter (email) by replying to this email. By acknowledging receipt of this letter (email), you hereby agree to the terms of this limited permission. Sincerely, Bonestell LLC Wikipedia June 13, 2016 Page 2 Exhibit A Credit: “Reproduced courtesy of Bonestell LLC” IMAGE(S) Descriptive Title: Formation of the Earth’s continents, 1952" ...................................................................... Note that the image was provided by the copyright holder, not obtained from an Internet source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrogeology (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Therefore, please reconsider your deletion and restore the image.

Thanks Andy Swanson (Hydrogeology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrogeology (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hydrogeology: File:Formation of the Earth’s continents, 1952.png “Reproduced courtesy of Bonestell LLC”.png was deleted after being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 23#File:Formation of the Earth’s continents, 1952.png “Reproduced courtesy of Bonestell LLC”.png. The issue was that the file was marked under fair use, but freely licensed images (like File:Hadean.png) already exist. Per the non-free content criteria policy, specifically its first point, fair use content is only used when a free equivalent does not exist and can not be reasonably created. The file you uploaded violated this aspect of policy.
As far as the permission is concerned, it is not sufficient enough for this image to be licensed under a free license. The copyright holder must allow commercial use of his work, which was strictly prohibited in the email: "...for illustrative and noncommercial purposes". — ξxplicit 06:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted image

Greetings, Explicit! I noticed that you deleted the image I uploaded for Oliver Stummvoll because it was a vio of WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent). From an overview of Google Image results, I thought that none of the images available would be any more appropriate for the article as they either didn't seem to have any identifiable copyright status, were clearly copyrighted in a way where they wouldn't meet NFCC, or wouldn't be of comparable educational value or encyclopedic enough. Is there a way for me to know for sure whether an image is usable or identify its copyright status? Thank you in advance. Linguist 111talk 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Well, generally, if you can't identify its copyright status, assume that the image is copyrighted. I did a quick search for freely licensed images of Stummvoll and found none. However, as the subject is alive and active, it is plausible for someone to take a photo of him and release it under a free license. Until then, the article will have to go on without a photo. — ξxplicit 06:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. :) Linguist 111talk 06:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion

Hi Explicit - I noticed that Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 23#File:County Carlow.png had some files deleted and some not. I think it's because I should probably have changed the section header so the section wasn't automatically closed by bot. Kelly hi! 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: The files were not deleted because they were never properly tagged with {{ffd}}, and were therefore not eligible. Their deletion would have been out of process. I have previously reminded you to do this. The deletion tag must be added to each and every file you nominate for deletion. — ξxplicit 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Sally Brampton.jpg

I see that you deleted File:Sally Brampton.jpg but you didn't close the FFD discussion nor did anything with File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. Can you close the discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I'll get to it in a bit. — ξxplicit 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You deleted an unused file that was used

You probably acted correctly, and I don't really know what the policy or guidelines are for this sort of thing. The file was File:Cat Stevens Buddha and the Chocolate Box.jpg, which was used on the article Oh Very Young under the heading "See also".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I contacted Paine Ellsworth and apparently the idea is the deleted file was replaced with another one. So whatever he wants to do, that's what will be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Hi, non-free files are considered orphaned if they are not used in the sense that they are displayed as they are in the infobox of Buddha and the Chocolate Box. However, it appears that the simple change of the link on Oh Very Young has rectified the issue. — ξxplicit 00:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

deleting gov doc

how many times do we have to go through this. there is no copyright on government documents!! your deletion of a manual cover (g104) and artwork from within. is uncalled for. List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog designation, -- Ok so now I see youv deleted numerous files. that were clearly sourced. I mean seriously how do you not recognize the front cover of an army manual that says it was published by the army? frankly if your to brain dead to recognize a picture out of an army manual, maybe you shouldn't be an editor. User:Brian in denver

I wold have properly responded to this, but appears I'm too* brain dead to do so. Pity. — ξxplicit 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

awww did the mean man hurt the little commies feelings? I'm done being nice especially when there is an obvious political agenda at work.

Done? Had you begun? I must have missed it. — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It looks like the deletion of these files was discussed at WP:Refund#Various files, so maybe there's a reason for undeleting some of them. Mistakes sometimes happen Brian in denver, and admins are more than happy to fix them when they can. Referring to other editors as you did above, however, is not really civil and is not really going to make them want to help you sort things out. Also, you probably should take a look at your user page because Wikipedia user pages are not really intended to look like articles. If this is a draft you're working on, then I suggest you move it to the article namespace, the draft namespace or to a user subpage so that it does not get deleted per WP:U5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Thai provincial flags

Hi, I noticed you recently deleted about 76 (I think) Thai provincial flag images. This added the country data templates using those flags to Category:Templates with missing files. I was wondering if you think any of these files could have been kept using {{PD-Thailand}}, perhaps specifying reason number 5. I can't see these files to determine if {{PD-Thailand}} would apply or not.

Breaking the images on those templates adds the articles using them to Category:Articles with missing files. I help keep down the backlog in both of these categories and I would appreciate any help you can provide.

- tucoxn\talk 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tucoxn: Unfortunately, the uploader did not present sufficient information regarding the copyright status, the original author, or date of publication of these images. Various sources were provided for these images; they either did not verify the image stemmed from it, or the webpage failed to load at all. Additionally, various of these flags appear on this site, not helping matters much. I'm not sure what the best approach to resolve this issue would be. — ξxplicit 00:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you have any ideas about determining whether these flags are public domaine images under Thailand's copyright laws for insignia? It looks like lots of insignia and a flag are within Commons:Category:PD-Thailand.
Regarding the webpage you listed, it's simply a collection of Wikipedia images. I took a look at the page's source code and all the images reference <img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/th/......">. So, that website doesn't hold a copyright for any of those images. Is the same editor the uploader of all the images and is that editor still active?
Although I agree these images should not be on EN.WP if they're copyright protected (I don't think there's a way to keep them with a non-free use rationale), I think the easiest way to deal with these broken templates would be to keep the images (of course, only if we're allowed to keep them). Maybe another way to handle this would be to migrate these flag images to Commons. Thanks again for your help. - tucoxn\talk 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like these are all fixed. Thanks for your consideration! - tucoxn\talk 14:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tucoxn: Apologies for not responding in a timely manner, I've been extremely busy lately. I'm glad to hear the issue has been resolved. Regards. — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Hartford Whalers Logo.svg

I see this logo was deleted. Can it be reinstated? WP:IUP#FORMAT is clear that if it is available then the logo should be in .svg format – Drawings, icons, logos, maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format. I don't know what that user was thinking, but he/she should have consulted with the project before taking such actions. Or is there a way to look at the logs and contact the original image's uploader? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I'll go ahead and restore the image for you. — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Let me know when it is restored. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sabbatino:  Done. — ξxplicit 08:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Kit body Sar2016Home.png and File:Kit right arm Sar2016HomeRight.png

Lack of licencing but you've completely messed up Sarawak FA kit. Could you help me by reuploading it with the right licensing. Use the same licensing File:Kit left arm Sar2016HomeLeft.png since I created it. I would do it myself but I no longer have the images. - Larcombe (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Larcombe: Very well, I'll adjust the licensing information on these files accordingly. If I'm not mistaken, you may have selected something along the lines of 'not knowing the license' at the upload form, which automatically tagged these files as lacking a license. — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Larcombe: I hadn't realized, but File:Kit left arm Sar2016HomeLeft.png doesn't have a license, either. Please adjust the description pages for all images accordingly. — ξxplicit 08:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Playdead logo.gif

Greetings, since I evidently have to say this in several places ... that file should not be deleted as F5 because it isn't clear at all whether it is indeed non-free. It is at FFD for this reason but there is no way to prevent the bot from mistagging it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone ahead and moved the file to Commons, as the threshold of originality for Denmark appears to be higher (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faroebadge.tif). In cases like this, you can be bold and adjust the license as you see fit. It (generally) doesn't hurt! — ξxplicit 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg

Hi. You recently deleted File:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg. Was this done under CSD#F8 or due to its listing at FFD? In any case, the deletion seemed premature, since the file's copyright status is still being discussed on Commons. If it's kept there, you might want to append the deletion log to reflect that it was F8 deleted; if Commons decides on deletion, I'll ask again for restoration here under the NFCC. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I deleted the image based on the FFD discussion. It'll be no problem to restore the image if you wish to license it under fair use in the case that it gets deleted on Commons. — ξxplicit 11:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Please restore the image. It should be used under the NFCC, with the rationale: "Image is used to depict a now-demolished historic building, aiding the reader's understanding of the subject; an alternative is impossible create." --Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Paul 012: Sorry for the delay, I've been swamped at worked lately. I've restored the file. Please make sure adjust the description page accordingly. — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm still not seeing the file at File:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg. Could you please check again? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I am seeing it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Screen grab of Cultural Marxism articles on Wikipedia and Metapedia.png

Hi Explicit. Regarding this, half of the screenshot comprises of content from Matapedia, potentially making the file a derivative of non-free content. -FASTILY 08:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Metapedia releases its content under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3. — ξxplicit 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Plant City seal

Are you sure that the F5 tag (which the bot keeps adding) is correct in light of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_July_10#File:Plant_City_City_Seal.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This file was replaced by a PNG version on Commons, likely in light of the FFD nomination. Unless there was a reason to keep the inferior JPG version, I don't see the point in being needlessly bureaucratic in the manner of which it was deleted, as it was going to be regardless. — ξxplicit 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sean Gannon (footballer)

Hi,

You deleted an article in relation to Sean Gannon back in 2013 due to him not fulfilling the notability criteria at the time. I would like to recreate his article now that he fulfils the WikiFootball notability criteria of playing for a fully professional club, Dundalk FC, against another fully professional club, BATE Borisov, in the Champions League qualifiers. Upon confirmation of this I would like to proceed and create articles for the other players who played in this fixture as per http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36960620.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishTennis (talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@IrishTennis: Yes, you are free to recreate the article. If you'd like, I can restore the deleted content as well. — ξxplicit 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: Ah I hadn't realised it was possible to restore the old content. Yes, that would be great as a starting point for the article. Will I let you recreate the page with that content then and I will perform further edits myself? Thanks for your help. --IrishTennis (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@IrishTennis:  Done, Sean Gannon (footballer) has been restored. — ξxplicit 10:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: Much appreciated. Thanks! --IrishTennis (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Image undeletion request

Hi. On 7 August 2016, you deleted the file File:ABC News Australia.png as it breached WP:F5. However, this was only due to the fact that a user removed the image from its only article with no clear reasoning, but it needs to be reinstated as it was used in the infobox to serve as primary means of visual identification for the article's subject. Could you please undelete the file so that the image can be put back on the article it originally appeared on? Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just saw the template you have at the top of your talk page, asking that undeletion requests go to WP:REFUND. I have gone there instead, sorry to bother you. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Luke-Treadwell close large.jpg

Hello. I am here to request an undeletion of a file for which I have found important sourced commentary for to place in it's caption. Once the file is undeleted, I will ensure that it is reduced in size and stays within that one section of the article as it did before deletion. The commentary is strictly about the subject and it's real-life applications.

Regards--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Very well, I've restored the image for you. — ξxplicit 01:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. I will also continue to ensure that it stays within the fair use restrictions.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

World Kickboxing Network

On 6th August 2012 you deleted the page World Kickboxing Network. Your stated concern was: no supported claims of notability. Please refer to the following references that are significantly opposite such statement in order to recover the deleted page. Thank you.

World Kickboxing Network official website
Stephane Cabrera Develops Kickboxing

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parviziskender (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Parviziskender: Are you asking for the article to be restored? — ξxplicit 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit: The term 'asking' may supposedly breach the Wikipedia policy regarding the question of interest, that I, presumably, might have in this particular subject.

Therefore, I belive, that I could only provide the recommendation with the references submitted earlier, alongside the suggestion that the article should be restored, as well as being topped-up with the considerable information, due to the role that the World Kickboxing Network plays for combat sports. Thank you. --Parviziskender (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2016 (AWST)

@Explicit: G'day mate, in addition please consider the following references from inside the Wikipedia.

Kickboxing weight classes

World Kickboxing Network in Russian Wikipedia Всемирная Сеть Кикбоксинга (WKN)

World Kickboxing Network in Polish Wikipedia World Kickboxing Network

Please advise when the article is restored. Thank you.

--Parviziskender (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (AWST)

@Parviziskender: The use of other Wikipedia articles as sources constitutes a circular source, which is not permitted. You may want to take a look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies. Additionally, as you previously mentioned that you are in conflict of interest with the subject, it's advised that you avoid editing such articles. — ξxplicit 02:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: I wasn't aware of Wiki articles prohibited as sources. In regards to notability guideline for organizations and companies please consider the following references as a few examples where the World Kickboxing Network made history.

WKN promoted world championship Jerome Le Banner vs. Espedito da Silva at Don King event Evander Holyfield vs. Vaughn Bean, consequently being the first to introduce a large audience in the USA with thai boxing.

WKN promoted the first ever K-1 event in Brazil.

WKN sanctioned the first ever kickboxing world championship in Romania

WKN is the first to take Romanian athlete to compete outside the country

1) WKN is the first to promote kickboxing world championship in Nigeria

2) WKN is the first to promote kickboxing world championship in Nigeria

WKN is the first to sanction a professional kickboxing event in Malta

Indeed, I may have a conflict of interest in this subject, therefore I provide you with the information to make a decision in restoring and editing the article.

I apprehend the statement of 'An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.' However, since the leading industry participants choose the World Kickboxing Network as the sanctioning body for their events, including the latest Superkombat Fighting Championship, as well as the eminent athletes compete in defense of their WKN titles, such as Yohan Lidon, Nathan Corbett just to name a couple, it is evident that such organization has its notable place in the industry.

In addition, I believe that the public may want to be able to read about the World Kickboxing Network on Wikipedia since the list of past and current prominent athletes constantly compete for the WKN titles as well as such athletes themselves. Thank you.

--Parviziskender (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2016 (AWST)

Sir,

The File -File:Bihar Kesari Sri Babu & Bihar Vibhuti Anugrah Babu.jpg is an image taken on 15th August 1947, i.e. 70 years ago!

As per Indian law, the image is absolutely in public domain and is free since its copyright ceased to exist and lapsed in 2007 itself. It seems due to some misunderstanding it is erroneously deleted

It is a historic and free image and should be restored as it displays an important historic occassion, i.e. swearing in of first govt. in 1947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.231.35.38 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe you have brought this up before, as can you can see at User talk:Explicit/Archive 24#query about a 69 years old deleted image. The explanation as to why the image is not freely licensed and why it was deleted was detailed there. — ξxplicit 02:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg

I was not notified about the deletion. The deletion rationale is invalid. The CD version of Love Takes Time was never released commercially. The cassette one, however, was released commercially. The FFD needs to be relisted, or the image should be undeleted. Smarty9108 should have notified me first. I would have voted "keep", but I didn't have a chance. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Pinging again. --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Just in case, I took this up to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 22. George Ho (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: You were not notified because you were not the original uploader. So... there's that. — ξxplicit 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The DRV wasn't successful. What else shall I do besides taking the dispute to Talk:Love Takes Time and WP:REFUND? --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Perhaps you can make your argument on the article's talk page and notify related WikiProjects of the issue, asking for others to opine on the issue? — ξxplicit 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you about this image. The guy who had it deleted (Smarty9108) says that he wants it undeleted, so then he would upload the remastered image. Can you undelete the pre-remastered cassette image? George Ho (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: AnomieBOT swamps me with notifications when it closes FFD discussions, so I do miss some. I've undeleted the file. — ξxplicit 04:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Kapsetaki duo.jpg

Thanks for deleting it. I knew there was a backlog, so was going to wait till Sept., but am happy to see the image go. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

PUF comment

Hi Explicit. A comment was just added to a PUF you closed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 15#Files uploaded by User:Henry Austen. I still had the page on my watchlist, but the thread's been long archived and PUF no longer exists. I'm not sure if whether the comment should be removed, or left as is.　Please advise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hm, I don't think it would make much of a difference either way. I would just leave it, but I wouldn't oppose its removal, either. — ξxplicit 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll just leave it since it seems to have been made in good faith and its possible someone else may be able to address the editors concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Teemo lantern.jpeg

I thought the fair use rationale was pretty clearly indicated. Anyways, even if it wasn't, this hardly even resembles the character its based on, so I don't even think it's fair use anyways.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: This file had a non-free license ({{Non-free fair use}}), but it did not contain a fair use rationale ({{Non-free use rationale}})). A derivative work of a copyrighted character is still considered non-free, so it would still require fair use. — ξxplicit 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The lantern isn't exactly a costume, but I think the costuming principle may apply. The photo of a guy in a Spiderman costume was allowed to be on commons, and it has a far closer resemblance to the original, copyrighted work than the Teemo lantern.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Prisencolin: That's quite a stretch, especially since that's not the conclusion reached in the discussion on Commons. — ξxplicit 05:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe this image doesn't belong on Commons, but it should on en.wiki. I need to brush up on my licensing knowledge, but there's no way that if that spiderman guy is allowed, that the teemo lantern isn't.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you temporarily restore the image for comparison purposes? I'd like to post it at Wikipedia:Files for discussion and/or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions--Prisencolin (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Prisencolin: Very well, I've gone ahead and restored the image. Please do take it one of the discussion venues. — ξxplicit 05:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg

Hi Explicit. I pinged you for reference, but I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting at User talk:Marchjuly#Your edit on Singapore football national team page regarding the non-free use of this file. I always end up bringing this kind of stuff to your user talk, but a comment from you might help clarify things. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The editor appears to have stopped for now, but I'll keep an eye on the situation. — ξxplicit 05:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia

Hi Explicit. I note that in November 2012 you deleted the article 'Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia'. I did look for some discussion on this, although could not locate any (my apologies if I've overlooked something). Anyways, Section 118 is quite a crucial section of the Australian Constitution, which in effect means that in Australia state laws, legal entities created under state legislation, and state court judgments, have nationwide validity. It is relevant that this clause in the Australian Constitution follows closely the wording of an equivalent clause in the United States Constitution, and there is indeed a specific Wikipedia page for the correspondence clause in the US Constitution - Full faith and credit clause. Just as there is a Wikipedia article for the US clause, so too I think it is arguable that there needs to be a similar clause for Section 118 of the Australian Constitution. The instructions for re-creating a deleted page indicate that I should contact the person who deleted this, and thus this message. I should add that, if you're agreeable to my re-creating the page, I can make sure that this is well referenced. Sue2016 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed a notation that the Explicit seems to be inactive at the moment. Therefore I will make a request for the article to bee restored. Sue2016 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sue2016: Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia did not contain any content, as it was a redirect page that led to Chapter V of the Constitution of Australia, which itself was proposed for deletion with the rationale: "unannotated (bar formatting) quotation of source document. WP:NOTMIRROR". This went uncontested for seven days, which resulted in its deletion. Is the latter a page you're also interested in having restored? — ξxplicit 02:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that feedback. What I will do, therefore, is to ahead and create the page, hopefully with meaningful content and with plenty of reliable sources. Sue2016 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Is a salt appropriate?

Hello Explicit,

I saw you responded to my PROD on Neel Madhav. I reviewed the prior page history and noticed this is the third deletion for BLP/Unsourced content. Is it appropriate to salt the page at this point to prevent further creation?

Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 03:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Prods are considered uncontroversial deletions, which rarely merit create protection. If it is created again, I would suggest taking it to WP:AFD for a more stringent result regarding is recreation. — ξxplicit 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Iraq national football team logo.png

Hi Explicit. Seems like we've done this before at User talk:Explicit/Archive 25#Iraq Football Federation logos, but the same logo has been uploaded again as File:Iraq national football team logo.png. I removed it from the article per your explanation you gave in the archived thread with this edit, but now I'm not sure what to do about the file. Does it need to be tagged as a orphan per WP:F5 or should it be tagged per WP:G4. Is it possible that this version would be preferred over File:Iraq Football Association logo.png?

FWIW, it's likely the uploader wasn't aware of the previous FFD discussion, etc. regarding this file's use, but their user talk page is filled with image use warning messages and resulting block notifications, so not sure how effective leaving another user talk message will be. Anyway, please advise on how best to proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: For now, I think tagging the file as orphaned is the route to take. If the user appears unaware of the FFD discussion and hasn't edit warred over it, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt. — ξxplicit 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I tagged the file with "orfud" as suggested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The file was re-added again after tweaking its rationale, so I removed it and left another talk page message about the FFD discussion. Hopefully, the editor will choose to discuss the matter this time and not simply re-add the file again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought we might be making some progress based upon User talk:Marchjuly#How I add National team logos ?, but perhaps my reply was too general. Anyway, the same editor re-added the file Special:diff/RKC Vakwai/737642164, and has also uploaded File:India nation football logo.png despite Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, re-added File:Bhutan_FA.png despite Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and has added some other logos to team articles where NFCCP is not met. Perhaps you will have better luck explaining things to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Explicit. Are you familiar with checkuser requests? Do you know whether it's acceptable to request a checkuser via email? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Per point two of WP:CHK#CheckUser and privacy policy, you may request CheckUser in private. — ξxplicit 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How are different of Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg and India nation football logo.png ?

I see nation logo examples that you allow to add in wiki pages. I see and copy this logo to create India nation football logo.png but you don't allow my creation logo. What's different ?. I am very stuned. If you explain it, you can explain to me and type instruction such as for me to create logo

explanation step
step 1. click this " Click here to start the Upload Wizard " massage.
step 2. choose picture file in step 1.
step 3. type picture name and describe picture in step 2.
step 4. click this " This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." massage in step 3.
step 5. type article with use this logo under " This file will be used in the following article:" in space box.
step 6. choose this " This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." massage.
step 7. add picture origin link in space box of " Source: "
step 8. check space box before " This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question."
step 9. explain How I use this logo ? under "In view of this, please explain how the use of this file will be minimal." massage
step 10. click upload button

You can explain instruction same me, Can't you ? RKC_Vakwai (talk) 2:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@RKC Vakwai: On Marchjuly's talkpage, I believe he explained the issue very well. The reason why File:Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg is still being used in the national teams articles is because that specific logo has not yet been subject to discussion at the files for discussion (FFD) venue. Due to the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, that image (regardless if it's File:India FA.svg or File:India nation football logo.png) can not be used on national teams articles because it has been concluded that its use in such articles violates the extremely rigid non-free content criteria. As mentioned before, other national team articles still use logos, but they are not used within policy. In due time, they will likely be sent to FFD to be discussed and ultimately removed. Additionally, the use of File:Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg in national teams articles to justify the use of File:India nation football logo.png in national teams articles is a "other stuff exists" argument which does not address the point of the original file being removed due to policy. I hope that clears things up. — ξxplicit 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit:, I clear now. I must know original file for my understand. Next question, May I bring national logo in Association file with you allowed to national team article ? It's because national team article is most popular use than Association article such as 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2019 AFC Asian Cup RKC_Vakwai (talk) 7:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@RKC Vakwai: In general, it is not acceptable per the WP:NFCC policy. — ξxplicit 01:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit: How I exchange 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2019 AFC Asian Cup to Association article ? I can't exchange the linking to Association article, which you most allow nation logo. RKC_Vakwai (talk) 5:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thibault Corbaz

Hallo Explicit, you have deleated Thibault Corbaz stating that he "has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability." This is not true. He has played six games in the Swiss Challenge League for FC Biel-Bienne. See transfermarkt.com. Please re-install. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huligan0: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξxplicit 01:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Explicit, thank you very much. Have made an infobox update, added external links, added cats, added ref and removed tag. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Ezhai padum padu.jpg

Sir, I kindly request you to undelete the file and add it to Ezhai Padum Padu as I am unable to re-upload it, since I don't have it on my PC. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I got this. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File:James-stanford-pr-photo.jpg

Hi Explicit,

Could you please undelete this file? ticket:2016072110025605 contains a valid release from the photographer. Thanks in advance! Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12:  Done, file restored. — ξxplicit 01:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Siswanto (serial killer)

G7 says the "author of the only substantial content". No one else added anything substantial. The seven edits by Sukijem resulted in this. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Explicit. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Saipa FC logo.png

Hi Explicit. Hope you are doing well. Would you mind taking a look at File:Saipa FC logo.png when you get some time. It seems to be basically the same file as what was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 11#File:SAIPA Corporation logo.svg and User talk:Explicit/Archive 24#File:Saipa F.C. logo.png. Uploader tried to upload file to Commons as "own work", but it was deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saipa FC logo.png. If you feel the non-free use OK here, then fine with me. The uploader, however, seems to be having problems with their file uploads given all of the warnings on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If it is the logo specifically used by Saipa F.C., then it appears to be fine. I an, however, having trouble verifying that it has previously been published outside of Wikipedia. — ξxplicit 00:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I have been unable to find this version at the source url, but it's possible it came from here. Moreover, it does seem to be quite similar if not exactly the same as the logo used by Saipa group. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Resnick and wright.jpg

Hi Explicit. I came accross this via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#My photos continued to be deleted and from the file name alone it appears to be the same as File:Resnick with Wright.jpeg which you previously deleted for not having proper permission. I've tagged File:Resnick wright and henken.jpg per WP:G4, but the other three photos in Aaron Resnick also appear to reuploads of the previously deleted File:Resnick floor plan.jpeg, File:Calabi House.jpg and c:File:Aaron Resnick (1).jpg. Some of these may be old enough for PD and the infobox photo may be acceptable as non-free, but the uploader seems to be totally misunderstading what "own work" means when it comes to image licensing. I was going to tag the reuploads with {{npd}}, but not sure if that should be done since they were all previously deleted files. Any ideas on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The files previously deleted via FFD are still subject to G4, so those have been deleted as such. The remaining files have been nominated for deletion by another user, and that's also a fine approach to take. — ξxplicit 00:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. The other files were added to FFD after I made the above post, so sorry for not updating you accordingly. I'm sure that things will be sorted out at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Afeeshost

Afeeshost (talk | contlribs | block) (Created on 2 October 2016 at 22:06) (blocked)

Hello

You blocked user:Afeeshost today for indefinite time. However, this blocked User:Jamie Tubers as well. The block ID is 6909493. It is not the first time that Jamie is blocked because of a block affecting another user. He asked me to help him get unblocked. He would like to request IP block exempt. However, to follow the process at Wikipedia:IP block exemption, he needs to be unblocked to make the request. What's the proper process you recommend following ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthere: Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've gone ahead and granted him the IP block exempt right, so the issue should hopefully be resolved now. — ξxplicit 00:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jamie Tubers: You're all set. Your account should no longer be affected by any underlying IP blocks from now on. — ξxplicit 02:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ! Anthere (talk)

deleted page

Hello,

I'm with Lieberman Software. We noticed that the Wikipedia page about our company was deleted. I am writing to request that it be restored. We can make edits if need be, but the page is very similar to the ones that our competitors have. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberArk

Thank you in advance.

Ksfranks (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ksfranks: Hi, in regards to the CyberArk page, a deletion discussion for the page concluded that, although the tone of the article is promotional, the company itself was deemed notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Due the the nature of the page of your company at the time of its deletion, which didn't assert notability and appeared entirely promotional, I'm afraid you'll have to start it from scratch since it was. I implore you to take look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies to not run the risk of having your work deleted again under the same circumstances, as well at the conflict of interest page as you are associated with the company. The articles for creation venue may be of help and can further guide you. — ξxplicit 23:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Silent Night.JPG

Hi Explicit! How do we, if at all, delete this image? On what basis is it eligible? Prima facie, it was uploaded by a user who is now inactive, plus the image is not used anywhere. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: The image can be nominated for deletion at the files for discussion venue. At the top of the page there, it lists possible reasons to nominated a file for deletion. — ξxplicit 01:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Nairspecht (talk)

Deleted cartoons

Was on vacation, was going to put sources for the page, but took week off Wikipedia, sorry. Can I add sources and recreate these page? SquishyZ1 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@SquishyZ1: I've restored the articles. Let me know if I missed anything. — ξxplicit 03:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Also, you missed Snowman's Land (1939 film) SquishyZ1 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Spiral Shades Page Deleted

Hello my friend the reason for your deletion of the Page "Spiral Shades" I created doesn't justify and I feel i have given enough credible resource to back it up. Inside wiki there are articles of band which are live and don't even have enough credible data to back their claim. Plus I am not sure which metal sites you are referring to. I have provided authoritative sites like teamrock which is one of the biggest metal news agency, metal underground, roadburn(biggest annual doom metal festival), theobelisk and metal-archives.com which is one of the biggest metal band. Not sure how would i recover this article and would request you to reconsider the submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverside1289 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Riverside1289: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξxplicit 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Multi Expression Programming page

Hi, I have noticed that you deleted the Multi_expression_programming page because of "Lack of notability". On Google Scholar there are 528 references to this method (papers or citations). Why it is not notable? How many papers/ citations must have a method for being included in the Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltean (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moltean: The page was proposed for deletion by another editor; this request remained uncontested for seven days, which resulted in its deletion. Would you like the page to be restored? — ξxplicit 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit: Please restore it. Also restore links to it from the other Wikipedia pages which also have been deleted. Who has proposed it for deletion? Thanks.
@Moltean: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. On the 'View History' tab on the article, you can see who proposed it for deletion. — ξxplicit 00:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Explicit:Thanks, but there were more things missing there. For instance it was a screenshot from a software. Now, that link is with red. Also, there were some links to this page from other Wikipedia pages. Please restore them. Also, I do not understand what do you mean by " by citing reliable secondary sources". There is a citation from a NASA conference. Is a NASA conference not a reliable source? I wrote a dozen of papers about this method. Also Google Scholar mentions 527 papers about this method, papers written by various authors. Should I put all papers at references?
@Moltean: I've restored the image and the links to the articles where I was able to find them. The sources currently included in the article are primary sources, which don't establish notability on the topic. You need to include references from publishers that are reliable sources—which are defined as "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that are independent from the subject itself. You may also find the general notability guideline helpful. — ξxplicit 23:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Explicit,

I'm with the company KLAS research. I saw that the Draft:KLAS Research page was deleted, marked as advertising or promotional only. The concern is that there are other companies who are within this industry, arguably less notable, who have live wiki pages. Citations from secondary independent sources were used within the page (just as many as are in other companies of this kind's pages), so what else needs to be done in order for the page to avoid deletion? I understand there are concerns - given I work for the company that the article is about - but I cannot make edits if I do not know what changes need be made before the page is deleted. I've read through the articles discussing these things, and thought that I had followed those criteria fairly well. It seems that was not the case, so: specific guidance on this particular article would be much appreciated.

Many thanks

JaredJeffery (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@JaredJeffery: Hi. Draft:KLAS Research was deleted because the nature of the page was largely promotional, even if that was not the intention. Its focus centered around company's products, services, and methodology; nothing on the page established the company's notability. Additionally, some of these sources were problematic: healthinformatics.wikispaces.com is a wiki, which does not constitute a reliable source; the Yahoo! Finance source is a press release; and two sources were directly to the company's website, a primary source. I implore you to take look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies for a better understanding of what is required of such articles, as well at the conflict of interest page as you are associated with the company. — ξxplicit 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Desa Muduru Audio CD.jpg

Can you re upload the file?PhysicsScientist (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@PhysicsScientist:  Done, file restored. — ξxplicit 08:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much.PhysicsScientist (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Xavier West Wiki Page

Hi there,

My page was recently deleted and I don't know why this has occurred:

The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_West

If you can please advise how I can have this page restored and what I need to do to fix this page should there be an issue that would be most helpful.

I'm a working actor and need to have a wikipedia page for people to refer to my credits.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierWest111 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@XavierWest111: Hi. Xavier West was proposed for deletion by another editor; this request remained uncontested for seven days, which resulted in its deletion. Since it was deleted through a process which is considered 'uncontroversial', you are allowed to simply request the page to be restored. However, I must suggest to you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest page, as you are the subject of the article. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. — ξxplicit 00:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with Paik Seung-ho

Hello, just noticed that you deleted the Paik Seung-ho page. Was interested in improving the page to meet requirements for inclusion but wasn't sure how to proceed so wanted to touch base with you. Do I restart a brand new page or can I have access to the deleted article so I can use that as starting point for revising? Any advice on next steps would be appreciated. Thanks. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Melonbarmonster2: Hi, I can restore the article for you if you plan to work on it. — ξxplicit 00:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a talk page

Hello! I'm here because it appears you deleted a talk page to the User talk:Hildestad page? I was uploading an important edit onto a friends wikipedia talk page for them to see. I was just wondering if it could be restored, or at least temporarily restored so I could at least copy down everything I had written on it! Thanks again! Fanfiction2010 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explicit/Archive_25&oldid=1187005995"