User talk:Explicit/Archive 31
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
My profile picture was deleted, even though I email a permission to use it
My profile picture: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=File:MarcLevoy-Dec14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 was deleted for lack of a license file. However, I emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with an email from the photographer giving me permission to use his photograph of me. I sent this email on Dec. 3. It is reproduced below. I thought this would suffice. What else is needed? If you need the photograph again, to restore it, please email me, levoy@cs.stanford.edu or levoy@google.com
Email:
Marc Levoy <levoy@google.com> Mon, Dec 3, 11:27 PM (5 days ago) to permissions-en
Marc Levoy Distinguished Engineer [Googler] Machine Intelligence levoy@google.com US-MTV-1875-1-1D1C levoy 2011-06 +1 650-253-6441 [Hide] I believe this should satisfy your licensing requirements for this picture, as explained to me in the "File permission problem" entry at the bottom of:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MarcLevoy?markasread=150498767&markasreadwiki=enwiki#File_permission_problem_with_File:MarcLevoy-Dec14.jpg
-Marc Levoy
Distinguished Engineer Google Research Forwarded message --------- From: Florian Kainz <fkainz@google.com> Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Permission to use your Xmas party photo of me To: Marc Levoy <levoy@google.com>
Sure, feel free to use the picture on Wikipedia.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:17 PM Marc Levoy <levoy@google.com> wrote: Florian,
I switched the photo on my "Marc Levoy" Wikipedia page (which BTW I did not create, but have kept up to date) to your photo of me from the 2014 Xmas party. The photo is attached for reference. Wikipedia is asking for an email proving that you allow me to use the photo for this purpose. Responding to this email with a Yes (assuming you allow it) would probably suffice for their purposes.
-Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcLevoy (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi MarcLevoy. After reading your post, it appears that the copyright holder is only agreeing "for use on Wikipedia only". If that's the case, then it's not going to be sufficient to release the file under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. The copyright holder has to agree to WP:CONSENT, which basically means that they have to agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose, including commercial and derivative use. If the copyright agreed to this in the email they sent to Wikimedia OTRS, then an OTRS volunteer verify the email, will cleanup the file by adding the appropriate file copyright license and add Template:OTRS permission to the file's page; if, however, the copyright owner didn't agree to WP:CONSENT, the file cannot be kept. If the email you posted above is the same one you sent to OTRS, then I'm afraid it's not going to be accepted.About keeping your page up-to-date, the first thing you need to understand is that it isn't "your page", but rather a Wikipedia article written about you and you have no claim of ownership or final editorial control over the article or any of it's content. In fact, you're considered by Wikipedia to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about you in any Wikipedia articles; so, you shouldn't really be directly editing such articles at all, except in some very certain specific cases. Please carefully take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for some more information on this.Finally, you can use your real name as your username if you wish, but you should be aware of WP:REALNAME. You might also wish to be careful about posting any personal information such as email addresses, etc. anywhere on Wikipedia simply because all Wikipedia pages can be pretty much seen by anyone with an Internet connection and there's no guarantee that someone might not use such information inappropriately. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi again MarcLevoy. Since you also posted pretty much the same question at User talk:Diannaa#Please reinstate my profile picture:, you should check the answer left there by Justlettersandnumbers (an OTRS volunteer) regarding the email you sent to OTRS. As I suspected, it's not going to be sufficient for verification purposes, but for a slightly different reason. OTRS doesn't accept forward permission emails; so, Florian Kanz (the photographer) is going to have to be the one who emails them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help on the page about Marc Levoy
The photographer (Florian Kainz) has uploaded his own copy of the picture he took of me. Hopefully he specified the right permissions. He also edited the page about me to use that photograph. You may now delete the version I uploaded without sufficient permissions. Sorry for the trouble.
Regarding editing my own profile article, I did not realize there were rules against this. I did not create this article. In my most recent edits I only added a few citations, to try to get the warning template removed about lack of citations, and I tried to update my profile picture. (I'm getting older, so my picture should too!) I think you'll find the article straightforward and factual, and the references I added straightforward as well. In the future I will not edit my own profile article. Thanks for the gentle warning.
Regarding using my real name as my username, I considered this when I created the account. TBH I didn't think of all the nasty potential use cases, like impersonation and harassment, but I don't contribute to controversial pages. My contributions are mainly to technical articles in areas where I am an expert, and where it is arguably helpful that people know I created the article, because it will make them think twice before editing it heavily. Examples are Light field, an article I initiated, based on a concept I introduced to computer graphics, or Computational Photography, another article I initiated, based on having invented the (most recent) incarnation of that phrase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcLevoy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- A couple of things MarcLevoy. You can use your username if you want. However, since there's no way for anyone to really be sure it's you, you're going to just going to have to assume people take you at your word if it matters to you that they realize it's really. You can have your identity verified if you want by emailing WP:Contact OTRS. An OTRS volunteer will then add Template:Verified account to your userpage. This might stop someone from claiming to be "TherealMarcLEvoy" of "GoogleMarcLevoy", etc.Please stop referring to the Wikipedia article written about you as your "profile". This seems like a minor thing, but it is something that can lead to problems with others. Articles are really only intended to reflect what reliable sources (independent and secondary) are saying/writing about the subject and "profile" is one of those words that often is seen a promoting a subject. Best to get out of the habit of using it as quickly as possible.Your expertise on varous subjects is most welcomed by Wikipedia, but you have to try and remember that your expertise will not place you on a higher level than other editors and you still will be expected to edited according to relevant policies and guidelines. Please see WP:EXPERT for a little more on this. You might also want to consider participating in one of Wikipedia's many Wikiprojects because that were you're going to find others who like working on articles that interest you.You can edit the article written about you as long as you do so in accordance with WP:COIADVICE. If someone requests a citation and you can provide one, then feel free to do so. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining what you did. You should, however, try to avoid citing yourself whenever possible as explained in WP:CITESELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB because doing so is often seen by many as being inappropriate.The new picture seems fine at first glance. If Mr. Kainz wants to make absolutely sure nobody ever challenges it, then he can use the "Interactive release generator" in c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries or send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS for further verification if he wants.Finally, please try to remember to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. Good luck with your editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Sexy Zone (song)
Hello! Your submission of Sexy Zone (song) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Article deleted
Please let me add references to the article you deleted. You didn't contact me, but the author the article is about has been interviewed in international publications. She's an essayist with tons of essays published in all the major newspapers in the country. Can you give me a chance to back up my work rather than just erasing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbailey99 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Sexy Zone (song)
On 16 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sexy Zone (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that with an average age of 14.4 years, Sexy Zone became the youngest music act to top the weekly Oricon Singles Chart with its eponymously named debut single? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sexy Zone (song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sexy Zone (song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
G7?
Hi Explicit. Would you interpret this as a request for deletion per WP:G7 or just something which was posted out of frustration. I've been looking for something which shows this to really be "PD-USGov-Military-Navy", but cannot find anything which shows that it is. So, I'm thinking that it did really come from the Colorado Journal and the uploader doesn't apparently seem to be in the mood to clarify where he got the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: WP:CSD#G7 requires the page to be requested for deletion under good faith. I wouldn't qualify this request as such. ℯxplicit 03:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for clarifying that. Do you think this can be tagged for CSD per WP:F9 or WP:F11 or would it better to bring it to FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I'd suggest FFD. ℯxplicit 07:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I started a FFD for the file, but the uploader basically reposted the same thing they posted at MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It still seems like the user has a chip on his shoulder and is requesting to have his uploads deleted with an WP:OWN attitude. Each upload should be reviewed individually, and it's probably best to not notify him of any further deletion discussions. ℯxplicit 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the uploader tagged the file with {{db-g7}} and it was subsequently deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: For this case, I think it should just be left alone, as the result of the discussion would have resulted in delete. No need to beat the dead horse. ℯxplicit 05:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's my intention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: For this case, I think it should just be left alone, as the result of the discussion would have resulted in delete. No need to beat the dead horse. ℯxplicit 05:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It still seems like the user has a chip on his shoulder and is requesting to have his uploads deleted with an WP:OWN attitude. Each upload should be reviewed individually, and it's probably best to not notify him of any further deletion discussions. ℯxplicit 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I started a FFD for the file, but the uploader basically reposted the same thing they posted at MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I'd suggest FFD. ℯxplicit 07:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for clarifying that. Do you think this can be tagged for CSD per WP:F9 or WP:F11 or would it better to bring it to FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Licence
Hi, sorry to bother you again, but could you see this licence;
- All material including images on the Manar al-Athar website is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England and Wales (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ . We realize that academic books, textbooks, and documentaries sometimes have a commercial component. Thus, you also have permission to use our images in them.
commercial use is allowed, so is it compatible with Wikipedia? Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nabataeus: Hi, media files cannot be uploaded on Wikipedia under {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}, as that would make such files subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. I'm not quite sure why the organization would specify a restrictive license and follow it up with a seemingly contradictory statement... if commercial use is allowed, they will need to amend the licensing terms. ℯxplicit 14:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I don't understand either, maybe they changed the license at a later date and permitted commercial use? Technically, permission of commercial use is granted (and derivative per the license), so is it okay? No copyright infringement to worry about. Nabataeus (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nabataeus: Upon reviewing the copyright page, it appears that it's not quite okay. The statement "For the avoidance of doubt, you cannot re-sell the images" would fall under noncommercial, and licenses must require all forms of commercial use, not just some. ℯxplicit 23:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I don't understand either, maybe they changed the license at a later date and permitted commercial use? Technically, permission of commercial use is granted (and derivative per the license), so is it okay? No copyright infringement to worry about. Nabataeus (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 postcard - info needed!
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Angelica di Silvestri
I am not sure if its too late to contest the Angelica di Silvestri PROD. There is significant coverage (albeit negative for the most part) of this individual, and she qualified to compete at the Olympics. Per [1] she is notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234:
Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 03:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
I didn't see your name on the Deletion Log, Explicit, so I thought you were taking a day off. But you're back! Have a great holiday season. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Liz: Merry Christmas! It's actually already December 26 here and I'm back at work. Korea isn't too big on Christmas breaks. ℯxplicit 23:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that makes sense. It's hard to know where editors are located. So, today (where you are) it's just Wednesday? Well, have a good week then! Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of article entitled "Voice Foundation"
I agree that the VOICE Foundation is non-notable and that the article (mis-titled "Voice Foundation") deserved to be deleted. There is, however, a potentially notable scientific organization called The Voice Foundation, which is not presently the subject of a Wikipedia article but probably should be. The two organizations are not related. (In other words, the one deleted has an acronym as its title, using all capital letters, while the more notable one is called The Voice Foundation because it promotes the study of the human voice.) If someone does create that article, I hope it will not be a problem that it may appear at first to be an attempt to restore the non-notable deletion. PDGPA (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @PDGPA: Hi, if someone were to create an article for The Voice Foundation, there would be no issue with the previously Voice Foundation because they are two different subjects. ℯxplicit 00:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
May you please undelete the image (File:Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh photo.PNG)? I would like to reinsert it into Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten. The other image is deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Elizabeth wedding 1947.jpg. -- George Ho (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Done, the file has been restored. ℯxplicit 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey there, thanks for fixing up a lot of JJMC89's automatic tagging and bringing it up at their RfA. I saw some of that back when it happened in September (and before, IIRC) and I thought it was excessive—JJMC89 literally went around systematically (automatically) removing the same files multiple times from articles because of simple errors in licensing. I really don't agree with what they did there. Ss112 15:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
CfD backlog
It has been quite a while ago since we had a serious backlog at CfD but currently we have some 25 discussions open which are older than a month. It would be great if you could close a number of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted images
Hello Explicit. I think File:Berryzjingisukancddvd.jpg and File:Berryzjingisukansinglev.jpg and File:Dschinghis Khan×Berryz Kobo Dschinghis Khan Tartar Mix Single V (PKBP-5104) cover.jpg have been deleted by you in good faith, but also in error. I'm unconnected with the article Dschinghis Khan (song) but as a side issue of cleaning up some template parameter errors, I spotted a separate problem. Two instances of the extra album cover template were not showing images, after checking the template I found that the reason the images were not displaying was because the template code had been changed in November so that it stopped supporting the old format of the field names, so the images then became unused. Obviously they were in use, but rendered unused through a remote change that should shouldn't have affected it, but did. Can you undelete the files please. - X201 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
_cover.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- @X201: Hi, you're right about the template issue that led to these images being orphaned and subsequently deleted as such. I was not able to catch this incident. If you'd like, I can restore them. However, I would like to point out that the use of multiple covers in an article about one body of work generally don't satisfy WP:NFCC. While use of the main cover of the single is allowed, the inclusion of additional covers must meet the contextual significance criterion, which require referenced critical commentary. In the particular case, the subject deals with Berryz Kobo. It's standard in Japan to issue physical CDs with multiple versions of the same single, all with different cover art. They generally don't satisfy the aforementioned NFCC policy, and justifying their use is pretty difficult. As these covers have already been deleted, it's probably best to keep them that way. But, if you feel they should be nominated at WP:FFD instead, I can restore them and proceed that way. What are your thoughts? ℯxplicit 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- If they fail NFCC then no problem, leave them as is. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. You deleted this file, but it seems to have been re-uploaded as File:Chico Heat Wordmark 2016.png. Are they the same file? For reference, see User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#File:Chico Heat Main Logo 2016.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It's slightly different, File:Chico Heat Script Logo.png does not have the baseball graphic or the word "Chico" on it. ℯxplicit 00:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. Just a question about this file. You previously deleted it per WP:PROD, but it has been re-uploaded again. Per Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/November#File:Jolanta Antas.jpg, this is probably too simple to be considered {{Non-free book cover}}, but it is also of such poor quality that it might not even be worth keeping as PD. My question is whether reuploading the file is treated as a WP:DEPROD. If it is, then in your opinion is this worth converting to PD or should it go to FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I would consider a re-upload of the same image as contesting the original deletion. Personally, I would just convert the license into PD. It ultimately does not do harm, even if the resolution is incredibly low. ℯxplicit 13:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The "Single Album" Discussion
Would you like to declare that a consensus has been reached at the "Single Album" discussion? -- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#"Single Album" -- I'm not sure about the next steps in altering the Album Infobox Template. Thanks! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Doomsdayer520: As an involved editor, I can not declare a consensus for the discussion. Only an uninvolved editor may do so. ℯxplicit 03:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of K-pop albums on the Billboard charts
Hi Explicit, there is a discussion taking place on the above list page about including "other language" chartings. In addition to hoping to hear your opinion on this and maybe also on the discussion about Pinkfong's listings or not (see link to that discussion on same page)....I have never led a discussion for page changes and it will need a moderator or administrator, at some point. If you have time. With the globalization of K-pop, this may be an ongoing topic for the future. Certainly the NCT page, itself, has caused endless confusion for editors. Thanks, as always.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Bonnielou2013: This discussion likely doesn't require an administrator's assistance. If there is consensus to add the content, it can be done by any editor. If not, no action is needed. ℯxplicit 03:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I'll wait then and see how the discussion goes.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
CfD backlog (2)
Good morning again! The CfD backlog is growing and lately there are very few closures by administrators. Currently there are some 50 CfD discussions older than a month. It would be great if you could close a number of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Hi, I'm currently traveling, so my time on Wikipedia is limited to a few minutes each day. You may want to post a notice over at WP:AN. ℯxplicit 00:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Arena Football League logos
Why were the Arena Football League logos deleted? They are a part of the leagues history. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @NostalgiaBuff97501: The logos were nominated for deletion for violating WP:NFCC. Particularly, "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 critical commentary about that historical logo." ℯxplicit 00:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Explicit: It seems that NostalgiaBuff97501 has just gone and reuploaded the logos as File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png, File:AFL Shield.png and File:Arena Football 1 (2009-2010).png. He's done this before for files which have been deleted. In this particular case, I'm not sure if these were deleted per WP:PROD, WP:FFD or for some other reason. If it was via FFD, however, then it seems these probably qualify for re-deletion per WP:G4. If they were prodded or otherwise speedied, then I guess the re-upload would be considered a WP:DEPROD or WP:REFUND, right? Regadless, the issue which led to the files' deletion don't appear to have been addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @NostalgiaBuff97501: If you find out that a file you have uploaded has been deleted, then there's nothing wrong with asking why if you're not sure. In some cases, it might be possible for the file to be restored per WP:REFUND depending upon the reason why it was deleted. Please just don't, however, re-upload the file again becuase you either don't agree with the deletion or just assume it was done in error. You've done this before and it's likely going to be seen as disruptive and as trying to circumvent policies and guidelines if you keep doing it. The link to a deleted file will be a red link; just click on the link and find out which administrator deleted it. Ask for clarification, and the administrator may restore the file for you or at least clarify why it was deleted and what (if anything) can be done to get the file restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
File:Zeppelin palestine.jpg
Hi, could you take a look at File:Zeppelin palestine.jpg? The photo was obviously not taken in 2019, and was probably not taken by the uploader as claimed. I have no real idea what to tag it as either. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW I was also curious about this; the identical image can be found on page 63 of this book and another view from the same date is in the Library of Congress here, in case this is helpful in determining copyright status. Ewulp (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI - you deleted this due to an expired PROD. I've undeleted and moved to draft space per the request of Valoem, who would like to add sources. Just wanted to let you know; it seemed uncontroversial to me. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Idols
Hey, I saw your rename proposal at Talk:Korean idol#Requested move 21 December 2018. Just letting you know if you decide to reopen the request, let me know because I fully agree with your reasonings. lullabying (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Myo Armband
Hello Explicit. I see the Myo Armband page was deleted (PROD), and your edit comment marked it as "non-notable discontinued product". I can't see the deleted page to view the content, but I think the product was quite notable. As far as I know, it was the first and only to-date commercial electrical muscle-sensing computer input device. While the product is discontinued, the vendor lives on (Amazon is an investor) and is building some kind of follow on product. In the early days of VR, I think new types of input devices are very notable. So, I think it should come back as more than the just namecheck on 2048 (video game) and Gesture recognition pages. Without seeing the content, I'd speculate it could be merged somewhere though. Slaurel (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Slaurel: Hi, I've copied the content and made it viewable here. This link will expire within a week's time. If you think an article could viably written, or if there a suitable target to redirect the page to, please let me know. ℯxplicit 09:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dana Plato image
Hi Explicit. I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at this edit again now that the Commons image has been re-cropped and enhanced a bit per c:COM:GL/P#Crop A Dana Plato image. I pinged you in my last post to that discussion, but am also posting here as a courtesy because it has to do with a Wikipedia file as well. If the file is no longer subject to speedy deletion, I think further discussing this at FFD might be a good idea. While I understood the uploader's concerns, relatively poor quality free images do generally seem to be deemed acceptable as free equivalents for higher quality non-free ones per WP:FREER for the most part. The older version might have been too small, etc. to meet that threshold, but the latest re-crop might just be close enough to be acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: As I have already declined the deletion under the circumstances at the time, this requires WP:FFD. ℯxplicit 09:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
File:Traceroute - poster.png
Concerning your deletion of this image. The official website of the movie clearly states that the poster is CC.
I quote:
- (Creative Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0; click images to enlarge; poster has same license)
What's the procedure for undeletion? Normosphere (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Normosphere: File:Traceroute - poster.png was uploaded as a non-free file and deleted for being orphaned. It was re-uploaded on Commons, so there is no need to restore the previous file. ℯxplicit 00:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
_-_movie_poster.png){kind=link}
Bring back File:Ninja Gaiden 3 RE box artwork.jpg
Also File:Ninja gaiden sigma 2 usa.PNG SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also File:Slayers SFC gameplay.png and File:Slayers Royal 2 gameplay.png (and File:Slayers Wonderful gameplay.png, and File:Slayers PC98 gameplay.png and fix it) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SNAAAAKE!!: Done, all files have been restored. However, File:Slayers Royal 2 gameplay.png, File:Slayers Wonderful gameplay.png, and File:Slayers PC98 gameplay.png do not have fair use rationales. Please add them or they will be re-deleted in seven days. ℯxplicit 00:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please fix it in the way you see fit, because I really don't know what to write - it's a standard for a game article to have 1 screenshot. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @SNAAAAKE!!: You can use {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}}. Regards SoWhy 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please restore
We have an OTRS ticket for File:Sherwood Convent School.jpg, so can you please restore it for me so I can close the ticket. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Ivy Courtney Grave.JPG
Can you please help me fix this situation. The above listed photo was deleted despite being a public domain image that is a work of the US Federal government. It was featured with a license tag and description/rationale with this information. Do works of the US Federal government normally require releases for publication? The photo that has been deleted was orginially provided by the US Federal Government as part of its Andrew's Project of the American Battle Monuments Commission. The information is outlined at this webiste: [ https://www.abmc.gov/about-us/our-services/order-lithograph]. Additionally, the tag used to warn of deletion is for copyrighted material. This image is not copyrighted. I'd like to request that this image be put up for discussion on one of the deletion discussions. Sf46 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Sf46: Hi, the image was deleted because it lacked a specific source to determine its copyright status. The file's description page read "Photo courtesy of American Battle Monuments Commission", but that is insufficient to verify the claim. Is there a specific URL you can point to? ℯxplicit 23:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The photo itself was only published in paper form. I provided a link above to the ABMC's page describing these photos that they provide. You guys seem to be hung up on an online link for verification when not all items are done online. Perhaps you guys should consider: [2]. What exactly are you guys going to require to fix this situation? I think this is a bit out of the ordinary to require proof of non-copyright from an item that was created by a division of the US Federal Government. Should I try to get a letter from the ABMC stating that the grave photos that they provide are indeed copyright free? I did find this disclaimer on the ABMC website: "Copyright Information:
We welcome links to this American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) web site. Unless a copyright is indicated information on this ABMC web site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the ABMC as source of the information is appreciated.
If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source." The link is: [3]. Sf46 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Sf46: An online source is not required, it must only be able to be verified by others. You mention that this image was only published in paper form. What paper? A magazine, a book, a newspaper? What authors, if any, are listed? When was it published? An image being hosted on a government website which allows its contents to be freely distributed does not indicate all content was created by said government. We have had various problems arising from copyrighted images hosted by NASA due to the aforementioned details that were provided. More information of this particular image would be helpful. ℯxplicit 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Explicit, The image was, as I stated previously sent to me in response to a request that I made to the ABMC as part of their Andrew's Project. There is no copyright listed on the photo. The only text listed states "Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial Romagne-sous-Montfaucon (Meuse), France". There is no other text on the front or back. Is there someplace that I can submit a screen shot of the front and back of the photo showing that there there is no copyright listed? Sf46 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sf46: Very well, I have restored the file. Please add this information to the file's description to help future editors when they come across the image. ℯxplicit 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Explicit, The image was, as I stated previously sent to me in response to a request that I made to the ABMC as part of their Andrew's Project. There is no copyright listed on the photo. The only text listed states "Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial Romagne-sous-Montfaucon (Meuse), France". There is no other text on the front or back. Is there someplace that I can submit a screen shot of the front and back of the photo showing that there there is no copyright listed? Sf46 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Restore Jill Alper article
Hey, just stumbled on the deletion of Jill Alper's bio while doing some research on major players in the 2016 primaries. I'd like to add some more sources regarding her influence in recent elections! Let's avoid deletion; still an important character in Democratic politics today.
Some edits I'd like to add: "Jill Alper served as a senior strategist for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004. [*]" *https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=218250&page=5
"In the <Presidential Primaries of 2016>, Jill Alper served as one of <Michigan>'s 17 <superdelegates>, pledging support to Democratic Presidential Candidate <Hilary Clinton>.[*]" *https://www.michiganradio.org/post/who-are-michigans-17-superdelegates-and-which-candidate-are-they-supporting
"Politico highlights Jill Alper as a "Featured Caucus Member" in their American politics blog, the Politico Caucus. [*]" *https://www.politico.com/caucus
I think the addition of this information will address any notability concerns. Moonstripe11 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonstripe11: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Explicit: Thanks! Added the links and info!
You've got mail!
Message added 01:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Bruce McArthur images
Hi! Thanks for sparing some attention to the files File:Bruce McArthur Niagara Rainbow.jpg and File:Bruce McArthur Court 11 April 2018.jpg. I've been an editor for a while but I haven't done much with images and honestly have trouble understanding the legalese. So I sincerely thank you for deleting them if they were improperly tagged or had copyvio problems (better safe than sorry). The notices on my watchlist say (F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1 (TW)). I followed the links but I don't really understand the specific problem(s).
The first of the two pictures was a specific image mentioned in the section of the article 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § Media use of photos. The second wasn't directly discussed but was representative (from the specific publication of the specific subject from the same time period) and used for comparison. I do not see how it would be possible to make a free equivalent of either.
If you have time to explain, I'd appreciate it. If they're no good, I don't especially mind having them out, it's just that GA reviewers want articles to have supporting media. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: Hi, WP:NFCC#1 is further elaborated at WP:FREER. In both cases, these two images failed the second question outlined there: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" The text adequately describes the media's use of photos of the perpetrator and the victims. ℯxplicit 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, excellent! That makes sense! I much prefer text to images anyways. Much thanks for your reply and especially for deleting the images! (I don't expect you get much thanks for that.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Recent image deletion.
File:God of War logo.png was recently deleted under the claim of F7, it had violated the non-free use policy. How? All of the images were checked when the parent article was up for FAC, and all images passed the check. --JDC808 ♫ 08:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JDC808: Hi, the file was tagged with the following: "Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." The article only had one logo when it was promoted to a featured article in 2016, File:God of War (Norse) logo.png was not uploaded until 2018. ℯxplicit 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
Your deletion - File:Vladimir Volegov, Russian visual artist.jpg
Hi Explicit, The above named file was deleted from Wikipedia despite an email was timely sent by the author authorizing its publication "under license Creative Commons 4.0 CC BY-NC-ND". Is this not an appropriate license for the image to be kept? What must the author state in his email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for the file to be kept ? Your advice on this will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuralia (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Neuralia. Explicit will correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons accept any Creative Commons licenses which place restrictions on commercial or derivative use. Basically, only the licenses shown at c:COM:CC or WP:CC-BY are going to be accepted. So, if the copyright holder is OK in releasing their work under one of those licenses, they should send a consent email to Wikipedia OTRS. They should also include the name of the file in their email. Once the email has been verified, Explicit or another administrator will restore the file and add agreed upon license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Can i use my paint?
i used my youtube channel "flag" as logo on my user site and this got removed and i dont know why, can you allow me to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OLEKMINECRAFT231 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi OLEKMINECRAFT231. I'll let Explicit explain what you need to do about the logo, but I think you'd be better off right now on focusing on ensuring that your user page is in accordance with Wikipedia:User pages. I posted more about this on your user talk page, but you appear to be misunderstanding the purpose of a user page and may be instead trying to use it as a free web host to post information about your YouTube channel. Such a thing is not going to be allowed and your user page is going end up being deleted if you don't bring it more inline with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @OLEKMINECRAFT231: File:Flaga olka minecrafta.png was deleted because you did not provide proper license information. Please see the file copyright tags page for more information. Additionally, I have deleted your userpage for violating Wikipedia userpage policy as described above by Marchjuly. ℯxplicit 03:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Explicit, can you refund Amar Sejdič? I created the article and was never notified of the AfD, and therefore was unable to make my statements as to why the article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:COLLATH. Thanks in advance. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Actually it was a PROD. It's already been recreated by another user. Explicit, is this permitted when an article has been prodded, or should we just AFD it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BilCat: - if someone feels compelled to do a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, I guess that's fine. Quidster4040 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Quidster4040: That wasn't the question, nor was it addressed to you. Not meeting GNG isn't an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BilCat: The recreation of an article that was deleted via PROD is considered contesting its deletion. It is allowed, but the recreated version is not eligible for PROD again. The next step is AFD. ℯxplicit 03:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Quidster4040: That wasn't the question, nor was it addressed to you. Not meeting GNG isn't an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre
Do you have any sense of where I might take this conversation next? I still feel strongly that a change needs to be made, but I'm not sure WikiProject Songs is the right space for getting anything done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: There are really only two possible options from this point. The first is a proper RFC. I saw that there was one attempted in the 2018 discussion, but it was initiated when the talks died down, as opposed to it being started as an entirely new thread. This facilitates discussion with users outside of WikiProject Songs. Second would be to send it to WP:CFD, as these issues are also dealt with there. This option requires all the affected categories to be tagged for discussion, but it allows users who deal with categories on a regular basis to opine. ℯxplicit 03:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've submitted an RfC on the WikiProject Music talk page. I plan to post invites at WikiProjects Albums and Songs, but I'm hoping to actually hear from non-WPSongs folks first, because I have a feeling everyone there will just want to say the same things they said before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of PRODed articles prior to 7 days
May I bring the following to your attention. In requesting a WP:REFUND of an article deleted by yourself at an expired PROD I cam to notice a series of articles deleted by yourself on 1 April 2019 as expired PROD for which I believe the PROD of 7 days / 168 hours had not quite expired. I have requested a refund for Fronimo (software) which was my primary interest but I am reasonably sure some or all of IBM Cross System Coupling Facility (XCF), Persistent Shared Object Model and Mozilla ActiveX Control were also affected, possibly others also. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Djm-leighpark: You are mistaken in your calculation. Fronimo (software) was nominated for deletion at 11:14 on March 25, 2019 (UTC) and I deleted the article at 23:33 on April 1, 2019 (UTC); that's about seven days and 12 hours, or 180 hours. The other articles follow similar patterns. ℯxplicit 04:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies and WP:TROUT me. I may have one less or extra digit on one of my fingers. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind watching this file a bit? I think it's pretty clearly a WP:NFCC#1 violation, but I'm not trying to speed up the process; an IP, however, has already removed the rfu template once and I think there's a good chance the same will happen again.
There's also something else I wonder if you know how to deal with: the COI/Paid declaration added to the non-free use rationale by the file's uploader. The IP also removed this which I think might indicate a connection between not only the IP and the subject of the article Azarias Ruberwa , but also between the IP and the uploader of the file. I've added link to a diff from the file's page to the article's talk page in the {{Connected contributor (paid)}}, but this diff will probably gone if the file does end up being deleted. Is there a way to preserve the diff so that editors reading the talk page who are not administrators can still see it if the file ends up being deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Yup, I'll keep an eye on it. ℯxplicit 03:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. FWIW, the uploader has stated there's no COI/PAID connection and that they only claim they were the article's subject's "social media manage" because of the concerns raised about the images they've been uploading. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
PROD
Hello Explict. In regards to this edit, I understand the rules regarding PROD. However, the user that removed it was the article creator violating their block with one of their many sockpuppets. Per WP:DENY I reverted their removal. StaticVapor message me! 02:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @STATicVapor: Hi, I was not aware that the user who removed the PROD was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so I have deleted article. For future reference, it would be more informative for reviewing admins to mention such an occurrence in your edit summary when reverting a sockpuppet. ℯxplicit 03:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry I did not foresee this issue coming about. I was using Rollback instead of Twinkie. Thanks giving your attention to this though! StaticVapor message me! 05:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's now used on NRB Teleghma, you can restore it if possible, please. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 21:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Woshiyiweizhongguoren: Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SNAAAAKE!!: Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please restore this image for which we now have an OTRS permission from the copyright holder. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 10:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
File:University of London.svg
Regarding this file, I wondered if this could be undeleted. I believe it was deleted under the WP:NFCC policy. While the File:University of London logo.svg depicts the crest, the logo is a separate entity featuring wordmark. It is common place in university articles to feature the historical crest and the university logo. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aloneinthewild: Hi, a freely licensed version of the seal exists on Commons: File:University of London arms.svg. Is the alternative somehow not adequate enough to justify the use of a non-free version? ℯxplicit 06:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me in that direction, I didn't know about that image. I think with a few minor corrections that would be adequate. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Cape to Cape
Hey, I saw you deleted the Cape to Cape page. Would you be willing to recreate it as a redirect to the Cape to Cape Track? When I googled the phrase, it was mostly used to refer to the walking trail. Thanks for reading! Safrolic (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Safrolic: Hi, you are free to create a redirect to the article you deem fit. The target link you provided is also a red link. ℯxplicit 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks! fixed the link also. Safrolic (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the policy is here, but BNC Bank became part of Pinnacle Financial Partners. In many cases Wikipedia allows the former logo of a company to be included in its article. There is one former logo of BNC Bank in the current article, but if it would be possible to restore the other one, please do so and I would return it to the BNC Bank article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to be a second former logo and I'm not sure what it looks like. If they are the same we just need one, but I think both logos should be available if possible, the one currently in the article and one of these two.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) In many cases former (non-free) logos are added to articles or moved from the main infobox of an article to another section in the same article, but that doesn't mean they are "allowed" or the non-free use complies with relevant policy; it could also mean that nobody has assessed the non-free use it. Generally, a non-free logo is OK when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about a company, etc.; non-free historical or former logos, however, tend to only be allowed when the logo itself (not the former company, etc.) is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4. So, if there is some discussion in the an article about how a bank has changed it's branding or image over the years, or how it has been merged into/with other banks, etc. that includes sourced commentary of the bank's various logos, then it might be OK to justify the non-free use of these logos. If, however, the content just says something like "Bank A and Bank B joined together to form Bank C", then simply adding logos for Banks A and B probably doesn't comply with WP:NFCCP. With respect to File:Bank of North Carolina logo, original design.jpg being used in BNC Bank#History, the latter more than the former is the case and this file as currently being used would likely be deleted if discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- There probably should be some mention of the bank changing its logo. I can look for sources. Meanwhile, it just doesn't seem right to imply it always had just one logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is implying that the bank only has had one logo, but non-free logos aren't needed per WP:FREER just to support a general sentence such as "the bank has had different logos over the years". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that is exactly what is implied by showing only one logo, which is why I intend to try to resolve that by looking for a source for the change to the other logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you can find sourced commentary about the bank's change in branding and add that to the article, then there will be a stronger case for keeping it per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Otherwise, simply arguing what the file's presence or lack thereof "implies" seems to me like a sort of like image OR that's most likely not going to be seen as meeting WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't found the details of the change in branding but I understand. In the process of looking I found some information about a trademark dispute which I really should have included more details about. I don't want to run into the paywall so I'm giving up for today. Also, I don't do Google searches at home.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you can find sourced commentary about the bank's change in branding and add that to the article, then there will be a stronger case for keeping it per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Otherwise, simply arguing what the file's presence or lack thereof "implies" seems to me like a sort of like image OR that's most likely not going to be seen as meeting WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that is exactly what is implied by showing only one logo, which is why I intend to try to resolve that by looking for a source for the change to the other logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is implying that the bank only has had one logo, but non-free logos aren't needed per WP:FREER just to support a general sentence such as "the bank has had different logos over the years". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- There probably should be some mention of the bank changing its logo. I can look for sources. Meanwhile, it just doesn't seem right to imply it always had just one logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) In many cases former (non-free) logos are added to articles or moved from the main infobox of an article to another section in the same article, but that doesn't mean they are "allowed" or the non-free use complies with relevant policy; it could also mean that nobody has assessed the non-free use it. Generally, a non-free logo is OK when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about a company, etc.; non-free historical or former logos, however, tend to only be allowed when the logo itself (not the former company, etc.) is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4. So, if there is some discussion in the an article about how a bank has changed it's branding or image over the years, or how it has been merged into/with other banks, etc. that includes sourced commentary of the bank's various logos, then it might be OK to justify the non-free use of these logos. If, however, the content just says something like "Bank A and Bank B joined together to form Bank C", then simply adding logos for Banks A and B probably doesn't comply with WP:NFCCP. With respect to File:Bank of North Carolina logo, original design.jpg being used in BNC Bank#History, the latter more than the former is the case and this file as currently being used would likely be deleted if discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I found what is needed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the other logo had to be deleted because I liked it better, but I'll keep looking for details about the logo's change in case I can find "critical commentary" about the logo or the change. I mentioned the trademark dispute above hoping someone would look at whether I added enough detail about it to the article, simply because that seems important. What I put in the article earlier about that didn't even make sense, and I should have expanded on that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
deleted page Doron Gazit (Expired PROD, concern was: Obvious self-promotion)
Hello! I'm still learning about deletions, and I did read your list but don't see anything on this topic.How do I find out what the issue specifically was? How can I get a draft back up so that I can fix the issue? I never receved an discussion or an email about it being PROD, so I'm a bit lost on what to do here. Appreciate it!
LindseyLeebee (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Lindseyleebee
- @LindseyLeebee: Hi, Doron Gazit was proposed for deletion by Kyuko and it went uncontested for seven days, leading to its deletion. A different user created the article, which is why you did not receive a notice about it. You can simply contest the deletion and request for its restoration, or you can have it restored and moved to draftspace. ℯxplicit 00:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Files marked for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries "I was at this concert and took the picture. I give permission for it to be used"
doesn't quite get it per that guideline However, we receive many unclear or ambiguous statements of permission (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos")
- FlightTime (open channel) 00:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Yeah, I'm not following. Prior to your tagging, I saw no issues with any of the images. Drbaseball95 claimed to be the author and released the photos under Creative Commons. Why exactly does this require OTRS? ℯxplicit 00:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Even the uploader notification template {{Di-no permission-notice}} states:
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Were these images previously published? My reverse Google image search didn't bring anything up and you did not specify a source for previous publication. ℯxplicit 00:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't upload them, I don't have a source. Talk to Drbaseball95 - FlightTime (open channel) 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Then your use of {{di-no permission}} doesn't add up. The template reads: "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader, or to an external site..." (emphasis mine). The attributed author is the uploader, who applied an appropriate Creative Commons license, and no external website was given. I still don't see how the tag applies. ℯxplicit 00:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: You are free to nominate the files at WP:FFD. After looking at the uploader's talk page, I'm guessing there are concerns about the authenticity of their claims. While valid, the use of the permission tag is not appropriate here and deleting these files as such would be an abuse of my administrative tools. ℯxplicit 00:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Then your use of {{di-no permission}} doesn't add up. The template reads: "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader, or to an external site..." (emphasis mine). The attributed author is the uploader, who applied an appropriate Creative Commons license, and no external website was given. I still don't see how the tag applies. ℯxplicit 00:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't upload them, I don't have a source. Talk to Drbaseball95 - FlightTime (open channel) 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you restore this, this was created through the AFC process. I passed it and did not notice this was a PROD nom so I actually think it was notable and hence why I passed it, a deletion discussion is probably more appropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hell in a Bucket: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is in the source but I can understand the concern of the nominator. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I generally try to notify AFC reviewers when I Prod or AfD an article they passed to avoid just this situation. Unfortunately, most of these reviewers have simply deleted my notice with either no comment or a rude comment that the notice was "irrelevant". They probably need to be made aware that they need to be notified, and they probably should participate in the AfDs in such cases. I've seen several articles deleted that had been passed by AfC reviewers. In most cases where I've AfDed AfC articles, the articles should never have been passed in the first place, and in another perhaps their support could have saved the article. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:BilCat I was wrong that this was AFC, it was a new page patrol review. I don't actually think an acceptable use of WP:BEFORE was actually done. The rationale was "This seems to me to not be notable because I can't find discussion of it in the literature." but the source clearly states " This was termed Dual Control (Anglo-French) over Egypt’s finances." They didn't look all that hard if they couldn't find that in the source. Additionally a simple google search would've shown [[4]] at Encyclopedia.com, [[5]] from Britannica.com, and there are many more examples. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I generally try to notify AFC reviewers when I Prod or AfD an article they passed to avoid just this situation. Unfortunately, most of these reviewers have simply deleted my notice with either no comment or a rude comment that the notice was "irrelevant". They probably need to be made aware that they need to be notified, and they probably should participate in the AfDs in such cases. I've seen several articles deleted that had been passed by AfC reviewers. In most cases where I've AfDed AfC articles, the articles should never have been passed in the first place, and in another perhaps their support could have saved the article. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
For protecting my page.★Trekker (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Could I get a copy of the deleted article? (Some years ago, I took at run at this topic, creating a draft but never putting it into mainspace. I'd like to see if the deleted article had any useful content that I could add to my draft.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @John Broughton: Hi, I have pasted the contents here. The link will expire in 24 hours. ℯxplicit 00:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like I missed that 24-hour window by a considerable amount. If I could beg your indulgence to post the file once again, I'll not miss it a second time. [Back in the day, there weren't websites that offered files with automatically-timed disappearances, so I've learned something.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @John Broughton: Here you are. This link will last a week. ℯxplicit 00:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Got it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @John Broughton: Here you are. This link will last a week. ℯxplicit 00:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like I missed that 24-hour window by a considerable amount. If I could beg your indulgence to post the file once again, I'll not miss it a second time. [Back in the day, there weren't websites that offered files with automatically-timed disappearances, so I've learned something.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
User talk:StanProg
Could you please unprotect user talk:StanProg for a moment. Thank you. 2600:1:92F8:5BD8:E826:FBB1:957C:52F1 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I please get a restoration after the PROD here, as I missed seeing it being added. I can't justify any of the concerns cited, "Non-notable term, not subject to significant coverage in any of the listed sources. Much of the article is original research." When the article itself cited two broadsheet newspapers discussing its use, and I certainly can't see any part of it counting as OR. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 03:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
About the "Puneri Paltan logo"
Hello,
You deleted File:Puneri-paltan logo.png on 12 March 2019 (because it was an unused non-free media files for more than 7 days). It was unused because, in the associated article Puneri Paltan, it has been replaced by a new file (from Commons) on 3 March 2019. But this new file has been deleted from Commons on 8 March 2019 due to Copyright violation.
Is it possible, for you, to restore the initial file on the English Wikipedia? Then this file could be used again in Puneri Paltan.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @NicoScribe: Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Explcit. This file as well as some other national team logos seem to have been recently replaced by svg files like File:Football Association of the Czech Republic logo.svg by S.A. Julio. In some cases the non-svg version was previously discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD with a template added either to the file's page or the file's talk page letting others know about the discussion. Since the older files are going to be eventually deleted per WP:F5, their talk pages are also going to end up deleted as well. What should be done about the NFCR/FFD notification templates added for these files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hmm, {{oldffdfull}} is meant to be used on the talk page of the particular file that was discussed, but WP:CSD#G4 would apply to the articles the logos were removed from, regardless of their format. WP:NFCR doesn't have a template for talk pages that serves the same purpose, does it? Should the logos be re-added to the articles where they were removed from as a result of an FFD nomination, I think citing the discussions in their re-removal should be fine. ℯxplicit 03:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be OK to move the {{Non-free reviewed}} and {{Oldffdfull}} (if any have been added for now orphaned files) templates to the file pages/file talk pages of the newly created svg files so that the links to the relevant discussions are preserved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That's tricky because the SVG files themselves were not discussed, and the templates would lead to discussions that link to a deleted file. There should at least be a note on the files' talk pages pointing to the discussion of the logos that were previously uploaded in different formats, as the outcome of those discussions still apply to these newly uploaded logos. ℯxplicit 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Is adding a file talk page note something that an admin typically does when deleting an non-free file which has been orphaned because it has been replaced by an otherwise identical svg version? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That's tricky because the SVG files themselves were not discussed, and the templates would lead to discussions that link to a deleted file. There should at least be a note on the files' talk pages pointing to the discussion of the logos that were previously uploaded in different formats, as the outcome of those discussions still apply to these newly uploaded logos. ℯxplicit 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be OK to move the {{Non-free reviewed}} and {{Oldffdfull}} (if any have been added for now orphaned files) templates to the file pages/file talk pages of the newly created svg files so that the links to the relevant discussions are preserved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
 |
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Inkigayo Separated Page For Wins
Hello. I would just like to ask why there was a need to separate the wins in Inkigayo (only some years) to separate pages? For someone who has very limited data, I enjoyed the old version where you just click [Show] and everything is located into one page instead of redirecting to another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kntx12 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kntx12: Please see WP:SIZERULE. Pages should generally be split when the article size gets too big. The Inkigayo article is still over 127 KB bytes after four separate splits. It takes time and effort to find references and translate them, as most other editors who edit the article can't read or understand Korean, so the task has basically fallen entirely on me. ℯxplicit 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
CfD closed as listify
After you closed this CfD discussio as listify, I have copied the contents of the category to Talk:Czech_Lion_Awards. I suppose the category can now be deleted, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: The category has been queued and deleted. ℯxplicit 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Hi there, I just noticed that you deleted Bill Carrick (footballer), an Australian footballer who clearly meets WP:NAFL. Please undelete, and if you disagree with the sports specific notability criteria, raise (yet another) RFC to change them. Someone who meets a sports specific criteria, but who may not meet GNG (in your or other's opinion), cannot under any sensible argument be considered an uncontroversial deletion. That alone should have been enough to reject the PROD. Other issues appear that the article creator (User:Terlob, who I admit hasn't been active for many months, but I do have his talk page on my watchlist), wasn't notified, nor any of the WikiProjects associated with the article. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @The-Pope: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
There was an ongoing FFD discussion for this file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 3#File:Who's a Rat screenshot.jpg. Would you mind restoring the file and re-open the discussion until it's closed according to normal procedure? A bit of a catch-22 here when it's a smart idea to temporarily remove a non-free file from an article if there are BLP concerns, but resolving those concerns at FFD takes more time than F5 allows. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: Done, and I've also added
{{bots|deny=B-bot}}to avoid the file from being tagged as orphaned by the bot again. ℯxplicit 23:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, would you please let me know why you decided to delete the image of Brady? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: Hi, File:Caroline Agnes Brady.jpg was nominated for deletion because it violated WP:NFCC#4. In particular, the nominator wrote: "No published source has been provided to satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#4: Previous publication." In the source field, you wrote both "Unpublished?" and "American Association of University Women". If you can provide a specific source (online or offline), I can restore the image. ℯxplicit 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. My understanding of NFCC#4, as I assume you read on the talk page, is that it is only at issue when there are concerns that the file has been leaked without permission from the copyright holder. The guidelines, after discussing the issue of leaking, state that "If, in this regard, an item of non-free content is questioned or is likely to be questioned, then details of an instance of prior publication with permission must be determined and recorded at the non-free media's description page." (emphasis added). Is there a reason you found this unconvincing? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: The guideline is a supplement for WP:NFCC; it is helpful in understanding the policy, but it should not be expected to cover every possible circumstance. What it boils to is requiring the evidence that the non-free image was lawfully published somewhere (online, in a book, a newspaper, a poster, a pamphlet, etc.) prior to being uploaded on Wikipedia. The evidence required is the proof of publication, not proof that the photo was leaked. ℯxplicit 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Explicit: I meant to tag the file's talk page with {{G8-exempt}}, but didn't do it in time. Do you think there's any value in having the talk page restored? Also, there is relevant discussion about this at Talk:Caroline Brady (philologist)#GA Review and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/April#Fair use image - reasonable or not where WP:FREER concerns were raised in addition to NFCC#4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: The guideline is a supplement for WP:NFCC; it is helpful in understanding the policy, but it should not be expected to cover every possible circumstance. What it boils to is requiring the evidence that the non-free image was lawfully published somewhere (online, in a book, a newspaper, a poster, a pamphlet, etc.) prior to being uploaded on Wikipedia. The evidence required is the proof of publication, not proof that the photo was leaked. ℯxplicit 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. My understanding of NFCC#4, as I assume you read on the talk page, is that it is only at issue when there are concerns that the file has been leaked without permission from the copyright holder. The guidelines, after discussing the issue of leaking, state that "If, in this regard, an item of non-free content is questioned or is likely to be questioned, then details of an instance of prior publication with permission must be determined and recorded at the non-free media's description page." (emphasis added). Is there a reason you found this unconvincing? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Deletion reversal request for page 'The Decent Rogues'
Morning - apologies if you've already received this but can I copy in correspondence below for completeness to see what you think...
"The Decent Rogues" - request for page deletion to be reversed. Good evening, The page entitled 'The Decent Rogues' has recently been deleted for reasons I fully understand looking through some of the protocols. However, I was just writing on the off-chance to see if it could be reinstated, for now at least. Typically, and the irony of the timing hasn't escaped my attention, it's just been picked-up for its first professional London performance. Obviously anything to help maintain its awareness in the public eye would be splendid, of which Wikipedia is a fine example (and especially since new British music theatre is such a rare and difficult thing to protect!) I'll leave it entirely to your discretion but it you're okay with that, I'll buy you a pint at its West End opening night! Regards and thanks, Jo sabine (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC) :I was the one who proposed deleting the article, but the deletion was carried out by User:Explicit, so it would be more appropriate for them to respond to your request. If they don't respond to my mention, you can ask at their user talk page. Since the deletion was done under the simple proposed deletion process, it shouldn't be a problem to restore the page. However, I would encourage you to add mention of any third-party news coverage about the London production as soon as possible. If there are not new third-party sources, then the next step would be an Articles for Deletion discussion, and that kind of deletion would be harder to come back from. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC) ::Thank you for your helpful reply. I’ll wait to hear from User:Explicit and we’ll go from there. ::Very best wishes. Jo sabine (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo sabine (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@Jo sabine: While I believe you mean well, stating something like
Obviously anything to help maintain its awareness in the public eye would be splendid, of which Wikipedia is a fine example (and especially since new British music theatre is such a rare and difficult thing to protect!)
probably is only going to lead to you being asked to carefully read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the subsection titled "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Wikipedia's role is not to promote anything or preserve anything, no matter how noble that anything may be. Perhaps it's simply WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia to have an article about the play, but maybe once it's had a bit of a run and has received some significant coverage in the media or other reliable sources, it will have a better chance of surviving as an article.Anyway, I'm not an administrator like Explicit and he may decide to restore the article, but unless the reasons the article was prodded for deletion can be addressed rather quickly, it's almost certainly going to end up being nominated and ultimately deleted once again, which would be a waste of the Wikipedia community's time and energy. So, maybe instead of asking Explicit to restore it as an article, you should consider having him restore it as a draft or a userspace draft instead. This will allow you to continue to work on it and if better sources are eventually found, you can submit the article for review to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Drafts aren't really subject to the same notability guidelines as articles; so, as long as you regularly work on improving it and avoid any major violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you'll probably be left alone by other editors to work on it at your own pace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)- Thank you Marchjuly - that's really helpful info. Still relatively new to this gig! Best, J.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo sabine (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo sabine: Hi, per WP:CONTESTED, unless the deleted page contains content that would have legal ramifications (copyright violations or serious WP:BLP issues), administrators should restore pages deleted through the WP:PROD process by request. However, as Marchjuly points out, the article would likely be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, which is more of a "permanent" deletion. The discretion here is actually on your part. ℯxplicit 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Marchjuly - that's really helpful info. Still relatively new to this gig! Best, J.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo sabine (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png
Hi Explicit. Thanks for restoring File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png. FWIW, if someone still feels the other file should be used in the Women's article, then I've got no problem with them starting a new discussion about it at FFD.
I'm not sure if you remember User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, but the things discussed in that thread are almost certainly related to this post. I think you closed many FFD discussions related to some of the files mentioned in that post. Anyway, I've also got no problem with anyone asking you for clarification or trying to establish a new consensus regarding any of those files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Yhprum's law
Please undelete Yhprum's law (and the redirect Yhprum's Law and their talk pages). I wish to challenge the prod. SpinningSpark 12:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)