Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Recently, you deleted the above file from Wikipedia, due to a lack of evidence that the copyright holder had given me permission to use it. But five days before deletion, I had obtained permission, and I forwarded it to the Volunteer Response Team. Unfortunately, at the time, I did not understand that I could have placed the {{OTRS pending}} tag on the image page to prevent premature deletion. I assumed that only an admin could do that, and I also assumed that the admins would have seen my evidence of permission by now. But now I've been told that it may take up to seven months for an admin to see the evidence of permission that I provided.

In light of all this, would it be possible to restore the image, so that I can place the {{OTRS pending}} tag on its homepage? Once the admins finally see my e-mail documenting the evidence of permission, they might need to access the link that I provided for verification. But if my image is still deleted, they might not have any way of verifying that this particular image can be used freely on Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding. Greggens (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Greggens:  Done, I have restored the file and added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to its description. ℯxplicit 08:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Greggens (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi I am the creator of this work and have added the appropriate license to the file please restore: File:David Carradine arrested for dagga in South Africa.jpeg --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@MickeyDangerez: It has been explained to you on your talk page that the license you selected was not acceptable. As it stood, it violated the rights of the newspaper the image is from. ℯxplicit 01:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is discussion related to this at User talk:MickeyDangerez#Image copyright problem with File:David Carradine arrested for dagga in South Africa.jpe. FWIW, I don't dispute MickeyDangerez's claim to being the copyright holder of the photo, but I'm not sure that claim applies to the underlying elements depicted in the photo. It might be argued that File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg is de minimis if the logo just happened to be in the background when the photo was taken; however, the clippings do seem to have been intentionally placed upon this particular background. Per c:COM:DM#Guidelines, it seems like this particular background could be replaced by another one without the logos and that doing so would not ruin the overall image. Another problem has to do with the copyright status of the individual clippings (and the photos contained therein). These are the focus of the image so de minimis cannot be claimed for them in my opinion. Also, they appear to from circa 1980 so it's unlikely they are eligible for public domain because of their age. All these things together seem to make this photo a WP:Derivative work of various copyrighted elements whose copyrights need to be taken into account. Pinging Stefan2 for input as well since he was the editor who tagged the file for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The original notice didn't make that clear. How does fair use not apply here? Historic newspapers clippings? --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Where was the file used? Without knowing where it was used, it's impossible to tell if the file would satisfy WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The file was being used in Daggafari ([1]), but that article has been redirected to another article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@MickeyDangerez: Fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy are not the same thing. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made intentionally more restrictive by the Wikipedia community. Also, just being old does not necessary mean historic per WP:ITSHISTORIC. Images are typically only historic/iconic when reliable sources treat them as such.

When dealing with (user-made) collages/montages such as this, you're typically going to have to show how each non-free element meets all ten non-free content criteria and provide a non-free use rationale for each. This, in my opinion, is going to be very hard to do for this particular file. The "DM" logo is not really needed so that's going to be hard to justify per WP:NFCC#8 and the text in the clippings themselves is just text, so that's going to be hard to justify per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:TEXTASIMAGES; you can, however, sumarize what the clippings say and then cite them as source if you feel they meet WP:RS. The photos in the clipping might possibly be OK to use, but you're going to have to provide a pretty strong justification for doing so: typically this is when the actual photo itself is the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Simply wanting to just show a photo of Carradine at the time of the incident is almost certainly not going to be considered NFCCP-compliant in and of itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is used to convey context from a South African perspective and how dagga is also used directly in the English language. Critical to the main subsection. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 15:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a collage of newspaper clippings on a background showing a magazine logo (which I think you created) is critical to understanding any of the content in Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State. If the newspaper articles contain relevnt information, they can be cited as sources. There's really no need to showing scans of them in my opinion. Anyway, I am not an admin so I can't undelete the file. If Explicit or another admin feels that more discussion is needed and wants to (temporarily) undelete the file, then that's fine with me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am aware that you deleted the former PNG image for Disney Junior. Well, now File:Disney Junior.svg has been tagged for deletion, and if possible, I would like the rationale that the PNG image had to save that logo. Thank you. JE98 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@JE98: I've gone ahead and added a fair use rationale. ℯxplicit 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

I've read your links and believe you deleted the Snatchbot logo after the original entry for that company was deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_company_Snatchbot.png&action=edit&redlink=1

I've recently written my own version of the page and explained why here:

If it is reviewed and accepted, can you please restore the logo?

Thanks,

Ornik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornik Senki (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ornik Senki: Unfortunately, the article you've linked has been deleted once again. ℯxplicit 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you recently deleted File:Honda MH02.gif, which had been tagged for deletion as a NFCC violation. I had challenged that assertion, but the file appears to have been routinely deleted upon expiration of the NFCC tag's time limit as if it were uncontested? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Well, no. I read your comment disputing the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag, and was simply not convinced by your argument. A freely licensed image, not in flight, exists: File:Honda MH02 Honda Fan Fun Lab.jpg. You disputed the tag because no freely licensed images of it in flight existed. This is a pretty standard textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1, which is further detailed at WP:FREER. A non-free image of the jet in flight in not justifiable in the presence of a freely licensed image of the same jet on ground. The jet was flown—this can be understood by the text alone. ℯxplicit 02:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The uploader claimed it was own work here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=802731535

Can you restore the file, so it can be re-examined?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The file incorporates five separate photos into one image, and lacks any sort of sourcing as to where each photo came from. In fact, the user went and re-uploaded it on Commons (File:Hull Montage.jpg), and I've tagged it there for deletion. ℯxplicit 06:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the uploaders edit pattern , it's reasonable that those five photos are photos from the uploader that they've incorporated into the work. I would strongly urge you to contact the uploader directly.

I've requested undeletion on the basis of a 'good-faith' claim of own work, given the uploaders edit pattern, and that they also claimed own work in respect of the article the now commons image apppeared in.

If you'd now endorse an F8 deletion I can't argue with that at all.

Yesterday I stopped doing images, because of the friction this whole "what constitutes adequate sourcing" issue is causing. Perhaps a little more assumption of good faith is in order? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The uploader never claimed it was his own work to begin with, first of all. The file's description read: "A montage of Kingston Upon Hull. Includes (left to right from top left) Hull City Hall, The Deep, BBC building, King Billy statue and the Marina." and it was tagged with {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. It lacked both a source and author information. And... I was going to write out a lot more, but I've decided that I will nominate the file for deletion at Commons. You will very much understand why it's so crucial to be cynical of montages without any sources. ℯxplicit 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite. but when an uploader belatedly responds, and provides additional information, with some degree of obvious frustration. I would hope you would agree that is not unwise to not consider they may have a point?

I removed the deletion tag at Commons, As I said on your talk page their, take it to DR if you feel strongly. I will of course oppose such a DR based on what I've said here.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hull Montage.jpg. Feel free to attempt to oppose it given the evidence. ℯxplicit 06:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. Let's see what Commons thinks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I haven't been around to bug you for awhile so I hope you're doing well. Anyway, you apparently already deleted File:LouiseLatham.jpg a few days ago, but "it" has been uploaded again by the same uploader under the same name. I say "it" because I'm not 100% sure it's the same file, but regardless it still fails NFCC#1. The uploader appears fairly new to editing, so they might not be very familiar with WP:IUP or WP:NFCCP. FWIW, they have uploaded some other non-free files of actresses who are deceased which appear at first glance to be fine, so maybe they just do quite get NFCC#1. I don't think a ton of bricks need to be dropped on them at this time, but maybe you can explain why this file cannot be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: File was deleted by Fastily, so not sure anything else needs to be done unless the same upoader uploads it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir, can you restore back the file? The file was actually removed from its main article by an irresponsible IP. Thank you. 1.32.76.27 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ℯxplicit 00:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Explicit...re:[2]....checking to see if you are attending. I may try to limp by (recent ACL tear) to mingle and take photos....--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: Ah, I was not aware this was taking place. I won't be able to make it. ℯxplicit 00:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

About the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19#Category:Black_British_DJs, it seems like there has been insufficient discussion about why the WP:EGRS guideline should be bypassed or ignored. Would you be willing to revert your closure and instead relist the discussion, in order to discuss more explicitly how this nomination relates to the guideline? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Very well, I've relisted it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Category:Black British DJs. ℯxplicit 01:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Belarusian_Scout_Association_Abroad.jpg was deleted at Commons, is there any way to upload a no-delete version of File:Belarusian Scout Association Abroad.png here on en:wp? Thanks and g'night.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Hi, File:Belarusian Scout Association Abroad.png still exists on Commons. Perhaps you meant to link a different file? ℯxplicit 00:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The skewed jpg version was deleted, so I figure the Graphics-Lab-fixed png version might be next.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Ah, I see. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a tool that allows files to be moved from Commons to the English Wikipedia. ℯxplicit 01:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. If it gets tagged, I will reupload it here. Thanks and g'night from Japan.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Well Go USA's wikipedia page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.182.150 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't? Well Go USA was deleted by Smartse. ℯxplicit 23:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for helping me with the Disney Junior logo last month. Unfortunately, File:Disney Channel 2014.svg has also been tagged for deletion for the same reason. Would you mind helping me write a fair use description for it? Thanks again. JE98 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@JE98: Sure. However, you did not specify a source for the logo. Can you provide a link to the webpage where you retreived this logo from? ℯxplicit 02:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, when I find the right link I will put it in the infobox for the image. JE98 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@JE98: All set now. ℯxplicit 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I substantially revised the Inovair page and requested that it be reviewed anew, yet it was deleted without explanation. I would like to have it restored and reviewed please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVespremi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@DVespremi: Draft:Inovair was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Inovair. The community viewed the page as promotional. As it was a community-based decision, I can not unilaterally restore the page. If you haven't already, please take at the general notability guideline, or more specifically, the notability guideline for companies to better understand what is required of an article. ℯxplicit 23:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw your response re: the deletion but you deleted it before the revised version had been reviewed. As I spent substantial time putting the page together, along with the revisions, I would appreciate a review of the revised page prior to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVespremi (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You closed the discussion on File:Sherurcij Profile.jpg

I need to know:

1. Who took it.
2. What license did they release it under.
3. Is the image actually said to be a picture of Sherurcij? A brown-haired guy in his mid-twenties, possibly with a beard?

The discussion says the image is "low resolution". I am wondering how low-resolution?

Could you email a copy to me, for me to examine?

I am trying to respect people's privacy here, but we may need this image, without regard to its resolution.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• You deleted File:Alleged Khadr 3.png, as {{db-f5}}. I see it was deleted in 2010, and I convinced an administrator to restore it.

I know there are a small group of contributors who have a view of NFCC that is extremely narrow, who simply remove images from the articles where they are being used, instead of going to the effort of explaining why they don't quality for NFCC. I suspect that is what happened here.

If this is an image related to Omar Khadr's capture there is a very good chance the image is really in the public domain, because the only people with cameras on that battlefield were US GIs and their CIA paramilitary colleagues.

Can you tell me what this was an image of? Can you email me the last set of templates I drafted to support keeping the image?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: In regards to File:Sherurcij Profile.jpg, it was licensed under {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}, but the author information was not provided. Its resolution is 160×120. Based on the lighting and shadows in the photo, he probably has brown hair. I couldn't tell you what his face looks like because of the resolution and the angle of the subject's head—its more or a less a side profile, taken from a slight distance, and he's looking downward into body of water.

File:Alleged Khadr 3.png is a screenshot of Omar Khadr handling explosives. It was licensed under {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}}, and you added the following fair use rationale:

ℯxplicit 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You moved this to Commons. How about also uploading the full-resolution file there and not only the bot reduction? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Ah, must have glazed over that. I've uploaded the higher resolution. ℯxplicit 00:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add File:Baku 2016 Olympic bid logo.svg to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 17#Non-free logos in Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. I tagged the file with {{FFD}} but simply forgot to add it to the main discussion with the others. I also forgot to add the file to User talk:Felipe Menegaz#Files listed for discussion. The non-free use of the file in Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics does not comply with WP:NFCCP for the same reasons given for the other files. Does it need a separate FFD to be removed or can it just be added retroactively to the FFD and removed per that discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: File:Baku 2016 Olympic bid logo.svg can be removed citing policy, and citing the FFD discussion as the precedent. I would hope no one would try to fight to keep that single logo in Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. ℯxplicit 01:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Silly mistake by me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page for Jon Lunceford? You stated it's because he's a retired pro gamer, but he's a current radio show host on one of the largest sports radio stations in the country and even more of a public figure than he was as a gamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvvskootz (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vvvskootz: Wow, that article was deleted over six and half years ago. Anyway, it was proposed for deletion by an IP editor with the rationale: "This Wikipedia page is about a retired gamer, and is no longer in professional gaming, and wishes to have this deleted. Thank you." It remained uncontested for seven days. Prior to that, you actually blanked the page. Would you like it restored? ℯxplicit 23:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You deleted this file. A user has now recreated a file information page without a file disputing your deletion. I'm not sure if you wish to respond to these statements. At the very least, we shouldn't keep file information pages without files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:ECA-Uniform-BUF.PNG? It appears to be a re-upload of a file you deleted about a week ago per WP:F6 under the same name. The licensing of the file also seems a bit contradictory since there are two copyright licenses for the file: {{Non-free sports uniform}} and {{cc-by-4.0}}. Maybe there's a reason for both of these licenses, but it's not clear. Moreover, the source credited for the file is another Wikipedia editor, which seems a bit strange as well for a non-free file. If this file was user created than there may be no need for a non-free one per WP:NFCC#1. If it's a WP:DERIVATIVE, then I think information about any non-free elements would be needed per WP:NFCC#10a. So, I'm not quite sure what to do here; take the file to FFD, tag it for speedy deletion or try to fix the licensing (if that's possible). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The timeline is a little muddy, but Silent Wind of Doom first uploaded the image in April 2009 (it's not in the upload log, but it is in the file's history). It was tagged with a fair use rationale and a non-free license, and the source was "Created by user: Silent Wind of Doom"; I'm assuming this was done due to the logo on the uniform. It was orphaned in September of last year, and I deleted it as such at the time. Rickyharder, instead of asking to have it restored, uploaded it again in January under the same file name as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, then changed the license to {{Non-free sports uniform}} the following day without adding a fair use rationale. This is the upload you marked for deletion, and which I deleted. This new upload was marked as non-free in addition to {{cc-by-4.0}}, probably under the assumption that it was the original uploader's (Silent Wind of Doom) intent, which can't be assumed or claimed. So, I simply restored all the history and cleaned up the file's description page and kept it under a non-free license. ℯxplicit 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and thanks for taking the time to sort all of that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Explicit. I think Rickyharder has done the same thing again with File:ECA-Uniform-FLA.png and perhaps with other files as well. If this kind of thing is going to end up creating the need for lots of after-the-fact cleanup, perhaps it might be a good idea to ask the uploader to slow down and explain what they should do instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reverse course on that. If the PNG on Commons isn't fair use, then the image that you deleted shouldn't be either. Of course, if the SVG you deleted is really fair use, then we have a situation of license-washing on Commons, and the PNG there needs to be deleted, and the SVG with the FUR should be restored and used selectively. Imzadi 1979 → 00:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The Commons file's licensing has been verified by OTRS apparently based upon the discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png. So, unless there's a new c:COM:DR which results in a different consensus, I think it's OK to assume that the png file's licensing is acceptable. The svg file is a bit trickier because svg files might be considered to be protected by copyright because of the way they are created. I am not too familiar with the process, but svg files are not always considered to be clear cut mechanical reproductions. So, even if the underlying imagery is "free", the svg file may still be a non-free derivative work. If that's the case, then it would fail WP:NFCC#1. I am going to ask Masem to comment on this because he is much more knowlegable about svg files and the copyright issues involving them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 and Marchjuly: Yes, according to the discussion on Commons, the Saskatchewan government released the sign under a free license, and it was confirmed through an email correspondence. File:Red Coat Trail (Alberta).svg is a vector graphic, which is a product that can be classified as a computer program. There has been a long-standing disagreement on the Wikimedia projects as to whether this is copyrightable or not; until proven that it is not, it must be treated as copyrighted. As a result, the vector version, being someone else's creation, can not be licensed freely, even if the original non-vectorized logo itself is free. ℯxplicit 01:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with the PNG.

• First, according to the file description page, the image is the work of SriMesh and released by him/her under CC-BY-SA3.0 and GFDL. So at a minimum, he/she can claim credit for creating the digital reproduction, but not the underlying image. This issue needs to be addressed because the general public who can't read the OTRS ticket are being misled.
• The second, and bigger, issue is that the reproduction is inaccurate, while the SVG was not. Take a look at http://www.routeslesstravelled.com/tag/red-coat-trail/ and compare the photograph to the PNG. The actual signs have a white background and a single black border set away from the edge of the sign. The PNG has a cream-colored background with a black border that is set against the edge of the sign, and also separates the Mountie image from the text legend. The SVG did not have those discrepancies. At a minimum, the PNG needs to be redone to accurately reflect the signs.

Based on the help page on Commons, yes, an SVG could attract an independent copyright, but the file creator would need to assert that claim. Are there any comments from the SVG's creator, in the SVG code or otherwise, asserting copyright on that reproduction? We've generally treated SVG reproductions of highway signs as equivalent to the underlying image. To wit: File:I-75.svg (public domain under the MUTCD, but trademarked by AASHTO), File:M-28.svg (public domain under the MMUTCD and no trademark), or File:183A Toll Road.svg (base image subject to copyright by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, SVG used under FUR). Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, we do not consider anything about trademarks on WP, outside of preventing their abuse. And images like the I-75 and M-28 signs are too simple to be copyrighted under the Threshold of Originality. Under that, a random WP user can create an SVG that recreates those, as long as they license that SVG image in a free (ideally, PD) format. The 183A Toll Road sign is non-free (complex enough) so having a user-made SVG of it is inappropriate and needs to be deleted. (We require an SVG made by the organization that owns that copyright to avoid any problems)

The Red Coat image (PNG), if the ORTS is correct, then we do have the right to remake such an image as an SVG as a derivative image (read: we need to reference to the PNG in the SVG), and we just require the uploader of the SVG to license the SVG with the same license or "freer" than the PNG (effectively, the SVG as PD, with the CC-BY still applied to the base image). --MASEM (t) 02:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: After receiving a response from the OTRS volunteer who handled the ticket, there is no problem with the license, and I have updated the file's description page to better reflect the author information.

In regards to the accuracy of the sign, I would like to point out that it is poorly edited from the original. How to proceed from here is really up to the interested parties. One option is simply to reupload the same cropped sign as it is (and not a product of Microsoft Paint); the other is for someone to create a vectorized version where File:RedCoatTrail.png is used for reference of the creation.

Lastly, the vector image File:Red Coat Trail (Alberta).svg still can not be licensed under a free license for the concerns aforementioned. Copyright for the computer code does not need to be asserted, it is automatically granted upon its creation unless the author releases it under a free license. ℯxplicit 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Wishing Explicit a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 05:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion only now, - too late. The German church music schools are no schools, but rather academic institution, compare Musikhochschule. Can we have a category for that. "Christian school" is too broad (and misleading). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: A category for Musikhochschule? It simply redirects to music school, which describes a school as an "educational institution specialized in the study, training and research of music". If Category:Christian schools in Germany is not appropriate, perhaps categorizing a page under the parent Category:Religious schools in Germany may be worth considering. ℯxplicit 00:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right, and it's the cause of the problems, that it is not a separate article, putting a university (that's what Hochschule is, not high school) in the same category as a school where children learn to play the recorder. de:Musikhochschule then: "universitärer Charakter". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: From what I'm seeing, it appears that the intent of Category:Music schools is meant to capture all levels, which is why it is categorized under Category:Universities and colleges by type and Category:Schools by type. I believe you're seeking to branch the category out and make a distinction between schools from universities and colleges, along the lines of Category:Music universities and colleges. This would make a fundamental change of the Category:Music schools's scope and it would be quite a task to go through all those subcategories. ℯxplicit 08:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not into categories much, sorry. I think we had a good one which captured institutions precisely, replaced by three which are all three too general. No improvement for the reader, but I'll keep spending my time writing articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Archa N G (Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada). This is to clarify a confusion regarding the deletion of a page. C.R Neelakandan (AAP convenor-Kerala, India, Environmental and Political activist, Kerala) had a Wikipedia page and that is no longer available. After reading the deletion policy, I strongly request to restore the page on C R Neelakandan as it is important both politically and academically. It is important to restore the page because he is still active and it is important to focus on various political aspects and uphold democracy in the intellectual arena as the wikipedia always did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.137.34 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 00:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Explicit, as you'll probably know, as a non-admin, in case I'm closing a CfD discussion as merge or delete, I empty the category manually and then have it deleted per WP:G6. The latter only seems to work when the category is really empty. Now, I'm confused after the merge closure of this discussion, because one user remains in the category who does not seem to have any reference to the category in the script of their userpage - but the category does show up at the bottom of the page. Also, the other way around, when I click "what links here" in the category, nothing pops up that relates to this user. Do you have any idea how this can happen? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: The category was included in the user's subpages User:凰兰时罗/wіx and User:凰兰时罗/wix. I've removed it from both and emptied the category. Cheers. ℯxplicit 23:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, in 2012 (00:11, 23 July 2012) you have deleted an article with the above name. He is a footballer, and back then, I would have agreed with you that he failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. However since then he has been called up by the Malta national under-17 football team, Malta national under-19 football team, Malta national under-21 football team, and recently, the Malta national football team, meaning that he is now an international footballer, (apart from being a recognised professional in his league). Therefore, he is by right notable enough and I shall be going ahead with restoring an article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Tsum60 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tsum60: Hi, if the subject is now notable, would you like me to restore the article so you can have access to the original content? ℯxplicit 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: I think that would be quite helpful, thanks a lot! Tsum60 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tsum60:  Done, Llywelyn Cremona is now available. ℯxplicit 00:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Max Greenhough was a huge part of the gay pride parade's founding in 2001 with his birth from the first transgender, lesbian and vegan couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.129.218 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay... Max Greenhough has never existed. Is there a specific article you need assistance with? ℯxplicit 02:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you deleted the image File:Natalya Murashkevich 1984.jpg , but i had put a fair-use dispute tag on there with an explanation but there was no reply to it before deleting the image? The image was a direct port from ru.wikipedia and It was being filed here on the same copyright that it had on that wiki for years.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Natasha_Guseva,_1984.jpg

tldr; Why was my image deleted without a reply to the fair-use dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sp00n exe: The deletion of the file was the response. I couldn't tell you how the Russian Wikipedia functions, but non-free photos of living people are almost never justified under the first point of the non-free content criteria policy here on the English Wikipedia. The actress is still alive and active, and a of her photo can be created and released under a free license. ℯxplicit 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that earlier you have deleted the article under the above caption.

I have recreated the article User:Uksharma3/Bhagyalakshmi (1961 film) and have submitted it for review.

Thank you in advance for reviewing it. ---UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You deleted the page Gaurav Sharma (politician) wrongly stating that it does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG.

As per WP:NPOL for Politicians and judges the person is in fact a "Major local political figures who has received significant press coverage" and "meets the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I would like to point out that the candidate received significant media coverage including 3 front page on national daily newspapers in addition to many non-front page features, radio and TV interviews.

As per WP:GNG for General notability guideline, the candidate did receive "Significant coverage" in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention in national and international media that the candidate was featured in around the world - New Zealand, USA and India. Many of these articles were referenced in the article that you deleted.

In addition to addressing your WP:NPOL or WP:GNG issues I would like to point out that the candidate was not just a politician. He was the top student in the country on high school graduation for which he received significant media attention in the largest daily newspaper. He is a medical doctor, was the Board Director of Auckland Refugee Council, received a Fulbright scholarship, had worked with the Hillary Clinton campaign and was nominated for the highest award in the country. The candidate also increases the party vote by 11% and received a significant proportion of the vote in one of the most important races in the country (see article on 12 elections/candidates to watch this election in NZ).

As such please reconsider the deletion of the said article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instanoodle (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Instanoodle: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 02:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I think implementing this result will be more complex than these three edits. Those changes stopped categorization by continent for all years, not just the ones included in the nomination. I think the solution will have to be some form of conditional logic based on year. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: Yikes, you're right. I've reverted my edits to those templates. I'm not particularly keen on template coding, unfortunately. Marcocapelle, any idea how this should be implemented? ℯxplicit 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If Marcocapelle is not a template wizard, then I can give it a try (I'm no wizard but know just enough to break stuff). We could also ask for assistance. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: I'm not a wizard at all but it looks like something similar is needed as two lines below in the template, where it says

#ifexpr: {{{1}}} < 100 | [[Category:Disestablishments in {{{3}}} by year|0{{{1}}}]] | [[Category:Disestablishments in {{{3}}} by year]]

I presume this is an if-then-else construction, and {{{1}}} refers to the decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a conditional expression (see definition). For {{DisestcatContinent}}, the code would be:

{{#ifexpr: {{{1}}} < 150 | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} disestablishments|{{{4|{{{3}}}}}}]] | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} disestablishments by continent|{{{4|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}

This should place pages in which the template is transcluded in "Category:XXXY disestablishments" for years pre-1500, and in "Category:XXXY disestablishments by continent" for years 1500 and later. For {{EstcatContinent}}, it would be:

{{#ifexpr: {{{1}}} < 150 | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} establishments|{{{4|{{{3}}}}}}]] | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} establishments by continent|{{{4|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}

For {{Year in continent category}}, it would be:

{{#ifexpr: {{{1}}}{{{2}}}{{{3}}} < 150 | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}}{{{3}}}{{{4}}}|{{{5}}}]] | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}}{{{3}}}{{{4}}} by continent|{{{5}}}]]}}

If you do not see any obvious errors, we can move forward with the changes or perhaps, just to be completely safe, add a protected edit request on each template's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've only just seen this discussion, after changing the 3 templates myself. I've done null edits on the estab and disestab categories for each continent to update the parents, but not yet on the "year in continent" categories. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks! The job queue is under 100,000, so the transclusions should update on their own within c. 24 hours. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello ℯxplicit. I've noticed that you've deleted the page for DJ Zeke and was wondering why since he's a relatively notable DJ who's worked with Meek Mill and more recently, on Nas' executively produced Netflix original series "The Get Down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlin8293 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jlin8293: Hi, DJ Zeke was deleted after another user proposed deletion of the article, with the summary left on the page. Please note that notability is not inherent; as in, the DJ working with notable acts does not necessarily make him notable himself. Please see the notability guideline for musicians and the general notability guideline to get a better understanding on when an individual merits an article. ℯxplicit 23:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to add a note to the page asking you to do this (that was lightning speed?) but can you please email me the contents of the deleted page - User:QEDK/ACE2016. With thanks. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@QEDK:  Done, email sent. It seems that I checked CAT:USD directly after you tagged your userpage. Talk about timing! ℯxplicit 05:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, yeahh, thanks again, btw! And happy holidays. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 09:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Explicit|<font color="4B0082">'''ℯ'''</font>]][[User talk:Explicit|<font color="483D8B">xplicit</font>]] → ℯxplicit

to

[[User:Explicit|<span style="color: 4B0082;">'''ℯ'''</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color: 483D8B;">xplicit</span>]] → ℯxplicit

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Explicit,

I am Anton Krotov, Executive Assistant of Insilico Medicine Inc., and I kindly would like you to help me to resolve the misunderstanding with the deleted page of Alex Zhavoronkov - CEO of Insilico Medicine and very famous scientist having more than 100 publications including articles in peer-reviewed journals. Today, 26th Nov 2017, my colleagues figured out the Wikipedia page about him was deleted and I strongly request to restore the page of Alex Zhavoronkov as it is important both for company and academical needs. Alex Zhavoronkov is a very active scientist and entrepreneur, besides the scientific articles he is also the author of 2 books - "The Ageless Generation: How Advances in Biomedicine Will Transform the Global Economy" and "Dating AI, A Guide to Falling In Love with Artificial Intelligence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Krotov (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Over the past several days there has been an attack on Dr. Zhavoronkov's pages and on the Amazon books profile. Most of these pages have been restored.

The Wikipedia page was deleted in lest than 24 hours after the notability claims. The Google search shows over 100,000 results and many are from Forbes, BBC, New Scientist and others. The "Ageless :Generation" book was published in four languages and the editor, residing in the Korean Standard Time can search the name in Korean. There are also about 20K results in Chinese.

A link from a keynote at the Korea Future Forum 2017: http://news1.kr/articles/?2996064

A link on the visit to Korea in English: http://www.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=445

Last week's news: https://singularityhub.com/2017/11/19/drug-discovery-ai-to-scour-a-universe-of-molecules-for-wonder-drugs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anton Krotov: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 00:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: The page has been mutilated with the requests for additional references and warnings. The editor requesting the deletion is likely jealous as a self-published author of a book on blockchain, whereas Alex Zhavoronkov published peer-reviewed research on the subject and his book was published by Macmillan (publisher of Nature) https://www.amazon.com/Ageless-Generation-Advances-Biomedicine-Transform/dp/0230342205/ .

The attack is not justified and should be at least reviewed briefly by a senior editor like yourself before allowing these mutilations to stay. The notability question was resolved in 2014.

It is easy to check the publication history with over 100 articles: https://scholar.google.ru/citations?user=8Icccp0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hi. I just wanted to say thanks. There is nothing specific. It is just that I have seen you at work a lot and never had a single complaint. (And believe me, that's rather unique.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You deleted this file under the rationale that it was an unused NF image. The file appears to have become unused because of this edit. I have undone the edit. Would you mind undeleting the file? Fry1989 ^eh? 17:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fry1989:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I do apologise, but it appears after I messaged you, another user uploaded the badge in PNG format. It is visually superior to the SVG file, and also the SVG file is not a true SVG image. Perhaps it should be deleted again. So sorry to have bothered you. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Majora#Vodafone logo question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's a contested deletion please restore it.Blazearon21 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Blazearon21: C Sivasankaran was deleted as a redirect leading to the deleted page Aiwo (health food chain), which was proposed for deletion and went uncontested for seven days. ℯxplicit 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the founder of an Indian Telecom company have to do with a Japanese food chain? How does that become a reason for deleting the page?Blazearon21 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kang In-soo 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) 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,
You removed the file:BSNL Logo.svg with the comment "F5: Unused non-free media file", but I think that it was unused due to incorrect edits (like this one) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Today, I undid the incorrect edits in the article so, could you restore the file?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@NicoScribe:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon, would you be willing to close a whole bunch of CfD discussions again? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am baffled by your closing of WP:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_7#File:Scihub_raven.png. How on earth having just two !votes: the original uploader saying "keep" and the nominator repeating "delete", you conclude that the result was "keep"? First, with just the two comments the file should certainly be relisted. Otherwise, the only other option is to close as "no consensus". Additionally, your calling my nomination a "ridiculous, baseless allegation" without further elaboration casts doubts on whether you are uninvolved. Thanks to revisit. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: To begin with, an image licensed under fair use is not a copyright violation. Second, you made a baseless, defamatory accusation about Sci-Hub itself infringing on the rights of an illustrator, on a foundation of an ill-conceived speculation based on an undated, non-authoritative Pinterest post. Third, the result of a deletion discussion is based on the weight of the arguments, not by the number of participants in favor of deletion or retention. The nomination was all-around ridiculous, and there no reasonable justification to allow that discussion to continue. On top of that, you're prepared to make another baseless assumption that I am somehow involved with the subject without a shred of evidence, much like the original nomination itself. ℯxplicit 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: First of all, I'd like you to tone down. Secondly, this image is not a logo for Sci-Hub but merely an ornament placed on the Sci-Hub website, which I already pointed out. Third, fair use is not free licence but requires that a set of conditions is fulfilled, including NFCCP#4: Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor. There is no proof to this; rather, opposite.

Anyhow, considering the rudeness of your response, please don't bother with responding. I am taking this to a review and might take your conduct further. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your decision on this page, my feelings where that the picture should be there but was going off what another user said and previous history with Ladies' Code page where apparently the image in infobox was changed to just the living members. So because of that and there was still images in the article that showed the four members, I was denying changes. There didn't seem to be any consensus on it, is there somewhere that has anything for situations like this? NZFC^(talk) 23:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@NZ Footballs Conscience: I'm not sure where they are getting that from, the page history of Ladies' Code shows that the infobox image showed all five members up until they began promoting as three. If Shinee decides to promote as four and we can get a freely licensed picture of them at that time, then that's fine. However, at this moment, we have zero information on the group's future, and the image should remain status quo, especially in light of the large opposition against the four-member picture. ℯxplicit 23:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you for that, I am always learning and agree until the groups future is decided that, that is the more appropriate picture. NZFC^(talk) 00:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I wasn't sure where I should go with this, so I thought I would come to an admin. On multiple occasions, this edit being the most recent, User:Duy Khoa Nguyen has removed reliable sources from articles - more specifically references to the filmography section. I've previously left four messages on their talk page regarding this and asking them to stop, explaining that articles need to be reliably sourced. Other users have also left messages regarding sources too. I don't think this user is reading any of these messages or taking any of it into consideration, what would you suggest I do about this? Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: I have left the user a final warning, and will keep an eye on him. Any further disruption will lead to the account being blocked. Feel free to notify me if he continues and I don't catch him. ℯxplicit 23:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I just thought I'd let you know that I recreated the article above that you deleted on October 9, 2010. I have provided reliable sources for the article. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to ask if it's possible to change the main image of Kim Jonghyun's article to avoid bad judgement for those seeking mental health support and to avoid stigmatization of depression with this gloomy, hopeless, stern dark connotation. Aside from this issue, the image is not portraying the job of the artist. Considering that many other news sources can use the wikipedia image for future news and articles, it could lead to bad judgement about Jonghyun's mental state from those who don't know about his personality or work. I can not post images on mobile version of wiki, but If possible, I'd like to ask for some image taken in the event: Healing Story by Jonghyun - that happened on 19th of september in 2015.

As a depressed person myself and a sincere fan, It would be good to count with your understanding and help. Thank you in advance. Have a nice day. AuraAcqua (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Explicit:

I am writing in regards to the proposed deletion (and your eventual deletion of) The Happiness Hack Wikipedia page, The Happiness Hack is a book by Ellen Petry Leanse. I had initially seen the proposed deletion and meant to remove the tag and address the concern with the page but got sidetracked by the holiday. Though I've had a Wikipedia account for some time I am fairly new to consistent active editing on Wikipedia. I'd like the opportunity to fix the concern and restore The Happiness Hack page. The concern stated by @NatGertler was: Unsourced article with no claim of notability. I have the material to include that would be satisfactory in resolving the concern. How should I best proceed? With you being a seasoned and notable Wikipedia editor, your assistance and guidance would be most welcomed and priceless. Most appreciated in advance!

DAyatollah (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@DAyatollah: Hi, for articles that are deleted as a resulted of a proposed deletion, you can simply request to have it restored. I've gone ahead and done that for you. ℯxplicit 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: Most appreciated! Will add the source info. for notability today. Will definitely follow and watch your activity to learn more as I embark on becoming consistent on Wikipedia and a better Wikipedia contributor and editor overall.

--DAyatollah (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit! Recently, the page 1926 Drexel Dragons football team was deleted for non-informational, however, this page is a work in progress that I am working on in conjunction with a series of other pages, and I feel that the page should not have been deleted. I was in the progress of gathering more sources and information for the page. Thanks. --Zachlp (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zachlp: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you restore the King George II Inn. It was deleted after a prod. I'd like to bulk it up. Thanks! --evrik ^(talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You deleted a piece of media before the 7 day window for me to come in and dispute the dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eduncan911#Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File%3ADell_XPS_730x_Software_AlienFX.jpg

According the rules posted, I had 7 days which would have been Jan 12th before an administrator could delete a page.

You violated these terms and I ask that you restore the page immediately, so that I can comply with the dispute and post the facts.

Eduncan911 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eduncan911: (a random butt-in because I saw this on my watchlist) the file hasn’t even been deleted Alexanderlee (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eduncan911: File:Dell XPS 730x Stealth Blue.jpg was tagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}}. Media tagged as such are deleted after two days, see the third point of WP:CSD#F7. ℯxplicit 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You deleted three files that as being orphaned when they were in use in articles and were no longer tagged as being orphaned. File:Michael Jackson Smile Single.jpg was used in Smile (Charlie Chaplin song) at 23:56, File:Septimus-slate.jpg was used at Septimus Heap (character) at 23:57 and File:Strictly Come Dancing It Takes Two titles.png was used in Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two at 23:58. The orphaned fair use template was removed from the images and they were no longer in the orphaned category when they were deleted at 24:00/0:00. The images should be restored since they were no longer eligible for speedy deletion. Aspects (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aspects: I've restored the files. The templates were removed two to three minutes prior to deletion, but two minutes after they were loaded and checked for usage, when they were still orphaned, hence the deletion. ℯxplicit 05:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded this image. It featured in the 1984 Australian patent case in which I personally participated as a witness and as a director of the co-plaintiff company.

This file has been removed due to "invalid fair-use" criteria.

I believe it is "fair use".

Unfortunately this image is one of few that shows the Newman Darby sailboard that featured as "prior art" in a number of leading patent cases around the world. The legal concept of "prior art" includes publication within the country in question. It is due to the worldwide distribution of the Popular Science magazine in the 1960s that the Darby sailboard was published in so many different countries. The content of the publication cannot be replicated and the various patent courts had to rely on the invention "as it was published" in their respective jurisdictions. The public should be familiarised with the Darby sailboard as it was published, so they can better comprehend the legal test of obviousness (controversially) applied to the Drake/Schweitzer windsurfer.

Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerDulhunty (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@RogerDulhunty: File:Darby sailboard, Published Popular Science, August 1965.gif was deleted because it was a copyrighted photo. Wikipedia typically does not allow fair use photos meant to depict content that can be replaced by freely licensed images, as we strive to create as much free content as possible. This is especially true for windsurfing, as there are currently hundreds of free photos of the activity. Further information can be found in our non-free content guideline page. ℯxplicit 08:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure if you understood my explanation. There is NO replacement for the image I posted. While there may by hundreds of photos of windsurfing, there is only ONE image that shows the Darby invention as published in many markets. It is this ONE image that is the "prior art" relied on by patent courts around the world! The image I posted is precisely content that CANNOT be replaced by any other image (freely licenced or not)RogerDulhunty (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@RogerDulhunty: Very well, at the very least, you've put forward a reasonable argument that the image is not immediately replaceable, so I've restored the file. Please note that the image may still be subject to deletion at the files for discussion venue should any user wish to proceed in doing so. ℯxplicit 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thanks for your help RogerDulhunty (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this category still alive, even though the discussion ended with the consensus to delete it? I've shifted all the articles listed in it to Category:Indian sequel films, the remaining ones are the original films which some user has wrongly added to the "sequels" category. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You deleted the above file a few months ago. An OTRS ticket was received at ticket:2017040410007241. Please could you undelete it so I can have a look at it? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, file moved to Commons. Please could you delete it here again. Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:PlumpWifeacp.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik ^(talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to ask if you check I had requested a file deletion properly. My laptop just died so I’m on my phone right now and can’t remember the file link directly, but it’s the current image on Yoo Seung-ho’s article and my most recent contributions. There was a message about it being added to incomplete listings (or something like that) which confused me.. any help or suggestions on what else I need to do is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: File:Yoo seung.jpg was not uploaded on the English Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, so it can't be deleted here. I've made the necessary adjustments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yoo seung.jpg, which you initiated. ℯxplicit 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. It confused me which was why I thought best to ask someone to check it. Thank you for your help and changes! Alexanderlee (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. You deleted this back in December because it was an orphan. I think I removed it from a draft per WP:NFCC#9, but the draft has just been accepted via AfC as Harvest Country Music Festival. I don't remember if the file had a non-free use rationale or whether it would've be a valid one if it did except for the NFCC#9 issues. Would you mind checking and restoring the file if it's non-free use appears to be OK? If it's the same wordmark like logo shown at www.harvestcountrymusicfestival.com, then it might not even need to be non-free. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  Done, image restored and license adjusted. ℯxplicit 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I thought it might be PD, but I didn't covert it back when I first came across because it was being used in a draft that I wasn't sure would eventually become an article. Converting it to PD and then tagging for a move to Commons seemed like a waste if the draft was going to keep being declined. I thought it could always be "undeleted" and further discussed if needed at a later date. So, sorry if I created a bit of extra work for you, but thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. You deleted per File:David-ostrowski-f-a-thing-is-a-thing-in-a-whole-which-its-not-paintings-zoom-2 391 500.jpg per WP:F5, but it looks like it has been reuploaded as File:David-ostrowski-f-a-thing-is-a-thing-in-a-whole-which-its-not-2013-acrylic-and-lacquer-on-canvas-240x190cm.jpg. The uploader seems to have done something similar for a number of files which were deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F7 because they had non-free content use issues. Not sure how this type of thing is typically handled, but I thought WP:REFUND or talking with the deleting admin was the way to go about getting deleted files restored, not just reuploading them under the same or different names. Most of the reuploads have the same issues as before and seem to be candidates for deletion. I've tried explaining this before on the uploader's user talk, but never got a response so not sure if they understand why the files were previously deleted. Any ideas on what to do in a case such as this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You once deleted Internet Computer Bureau, and it's back in mainspace. It's not my area of expertise how to handle that; maybe you know. Schwede66 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, we received an OTRS ticket (#2018010910010581) for this file that you deleted recently. Can you please undelete so that I can check it and, eventually, add the Permission OTRS template? Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ruthven:  Done, the file has been restored. ℯxplicit 00:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded a screenshot of a graph and was told I should produce my own graph using some template.

The graph was produced by a site using underlying data that they don't make available, just an image of the resulting graph covering a one year period.

How do I produce a graph without data?

The graph showed a large decrease in the last quarter of the year, that was the point. Without the data though how do I show that? The site rendering the graph is a respected 3rd party source of information and is trusted, whereas any graph I produce would be subject to doubt.

The graph changed every day. The one that got deleted was for December 31 and there's no way to get it back at this late date.

How am I supposed to graph this decline??????

You apparently deleted the image, and ignored my rationale on the so-called discussion page (there was none). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitterSweetHorror (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@BitterSweetHorror: The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 4#Non-free graphs images for Alexa rankings. Please see point 11 of the unacceptable use of non-free content page, as non-free charts and graphs are almost never acceptable. There is enough information in the screenshot you uploaded for a graph to be recreated using a photo editing program. The exact graph you mention was archived here, so there should be no problem with its authenticity if you cite it as your source. ℯxplicit 00:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Explicit|<font color="4B0082">'''ℯ'''</font>]][[User talk:Explicit|<font color="483D8B">xplicit</font>]] → ℯxplicit

to

[[User:Explicit|<b style="color: #4B0082;">ℯ</b>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color: #483D8B;">xplicit</span>]] → ℯxplicit

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please restore Judy Valentine to my userspace, please, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Herostratus:  Done, userfied at User:Herostratus/Judy Valentine. ℯxplicit 23:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Curious as to why this page was deleted. She founded the most important Art Fair in the USA (Design Miami) and was its director for awhile. She is huge in the design/art world and is now head of Christie's design department.Thanks Abonzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Abonzz The deletion log says: "Expired PROD, concern was: Promotional article that doesn't establish the subject's notability. My Google News search brought up various interviews, but no independent coverage beyond the trivial." So the concern was the article was promotional in nature (which is something that can be fixed), but there was also no evidence that WP:BIO was met (and that's crucial). Schwede66 02:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But Ambra Medda is still very important in the design world. Just letting you know. Thanks Abonzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The timestamp on this being 00:01 makes me suspicious. It was automatically tagged as potential CSD - by the upload wizard. It said, essentially, deletion at that precise time. You've cited criterion 1, but, while it is potentially plausible to go and take a photo of the person, it would potentially fall foul of UK law. As such, please reinstate the photo. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: This was a pretty textbook case of WP:NFCC#1. You indicated during the upload process that the image was non-free, but freely licensed alternatives exist or could be created. And for a living individual? Yeah, there's no reason to restore the file. ℯxplicit 00:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)