Talk:Sophia Di Martino

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sophia Di Martino.jpg

GONE. It would be great to get a replacement free use image for this article. I did a brief search through the Marvel publicity photos taken by Gage Skidmore but the images were older and Di Martino's role had not been revealed. Maybe there is a Creative Commons video of her that we could then extract a screenshot from that?

In the meantime I think a non-free image of her File:Sophia Di Martino as Sylvie.jpeg from her best known role in character as Sylvie/Loki is the best option. Of course that image might need to be deleted if any free image becomes available but until then something is better than nothing, and using a non-free image can be justified here. -- 109.79.172.210 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

On the page for the Sophie/Silvie image file in his edit summary User:IronManCap did manage to explain the disappointing reality of WP:NFCC, but still that means this article has no image which is unfortunate. My earlier comment above was not about Revirvlkodlaku but about reiterating the edit summary from User:IronManCap where others might see it, so that any other readers or editors wondering why this article does not have any image, might have a better understanding of why that was the case. If you can find a Free image to improve this article then we might have something to discuss. TLDR: To repeat it once more, this article has no image because WP:NFCC does not allow copyright images in this case, and no "free" image has been found yet. -- 109.79.172.210 (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Identifying the subject of the article would seem to be essential to enhance readers understanding of the person in the article but no. Apparently improving the article is not as important as following the rules to the letter,(according to comment in an edit summary on the image page) and in this case WP:NFCC says "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis added). The mere fact that a free alternative could possibly exist eventually that supposedly means the article must be left without any image at all until maybe that happens. Lame. -- 109.79.172.210 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of issues with your position, but also your attitude. First of all, you're an unregistered user, yet you think it's ok to revert other people's edits and to contravene the rules of this platform. Your comment here is not of the constructive type, on the contrary; just because you don't like the rules that the rest of the community abides by, even if your rationale makes sense, it's not ok for you to try and throw your weight around and have a negative attitude. Wikipedia welcomes debate among its users, but try to have a bit of humility. If your edit has been reverted, don't fight about it, discuss it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "I have a couple of issues" you are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to edit without logging in, that includes reverting, and I have the same rights and responsibilities to explain myself as anyone else. I wanted to make the article better, that's supposed to be the most important thing. You made the article worse, and did not even explain your delete. The WP:SIMPLE rules are simple, it isn't asking much to expect editors to explain themselves, with a meaningful edit summary. The belated explanation wasn't much help either. It's hypocritical of Revirvlkodlaku to expect other people to make the effort to discuss after having repeatedly failed to make the minimal effort to write a meaningful edit summary, which is to say I don't much like your lack of humility or self awareness, or attitude either.