User talk:Explicit/Archive 22

Orphaned non-free image File:TVXQ - Keep Your Head Down.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TVXQ - Keep Your Head Down.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Schellhorn
Can we restore the page about the above? His Messiaen disc as referred to included a World Premiere recording, which indicates notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFJ (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey HFJ. Explicit hasn't edited in just over a year. I see you've already made your way over to WP:REFUND and that's the best place to go. Good luck and cheers.  -- TLSuda (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing article on deleted article 'Silatech'
Hi Explicit, just wanted to let you know that I will be writing an article on Silatech, which you previously deleted: 00:29, 23 May 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Silatech (Expired PROD, concern was: Spam, no reliable sources)

I am writing this article as an assignment as part of a graduate school class, and have reliable sources to support it. It will go up in the month or so. Ya ameera (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems Explicit has left wikipedia. I would recommend you using Article_wizard and it will create the article in the WP:AFC namespace. Where you can submit it for review and that way it won't be deleted, it can only be declined until it is ready to be accepted into the main wikipedia namespace.    Sintaku  Talk 17:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 10:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Window Seat


The article Window Seat has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to fail WP:NFF. Release date of August 15, 2015 is a year and a half from now. WAY, WAY to early for this article. Note that I removed a fraudulently placed PROD just a moment ago. The date stamp on that PROD was March 23, 2014, however, it had just been placed by an IP user today, March 30, 2014.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Window Seat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Window Seat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Window Seat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you still look in here from time to time, you can safely ignore the two deletion notices just above this message
The two deletion notices (PROD & AfD) are not actually directed at you, because you did not create the content in question, but you had originally created the article as a redirect, so Twinkle fired the notifications to you. If you still look in here, you can safely ignore them. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Mingeri
Could you restore Bernard Mingeri? I'd like to contest the expired prod.--TM 11:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * is no longer active and hasn't been in over a year. As such he also does not have any admin tools if he were to become active today. You should make a request at WP:REFUND. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on May 23 and 31

 * You might want to remove Explicit from this list as he hasn't edited in well over a year now. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. For now I was keeping people on the list as long as they had edited in the last two years or so, unless there was some specific reason to think that they had permanently retired. Figure that keeping people in the loop is generally a good thing, even if they're not terribly recently active.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario - D.N.A.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mario - D.N.A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beenie Man - Dude Remix.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beenie Man - Dude Remix.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

L.A. events on June 21 and July 6

 * Explicit hasn't edited in over a year, so whatever list he is on, should probably be updated. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derelict_(2010_film)
Why did you delete this article? Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirkymovies (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurie_Pawlitza&action=edit&redlink=1
I would like to create a page for Laurie Pawlitza. I`m relatively new to wikipedia and find her notable, although I have never met her.

00:27, 30 September 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Laurie Pawlitza (Expired PROD, concern was: Not notable. Her election within the Society doesn't constitute notability by Wikipedia standards.) Martinscriminalcode (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) martinscriminalcode

Andrés Malango
Hello, please revert the erased article Andrés Malango. Reason: He played once for Equatorial Guinea on 8 June 2003, scoring the last in a 2-1 won against Gabon at the 2004 Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers. Source: http://www.rsssf.com/tables/04a.html#grp7 (he is referred as Andres Mangongo cause his fullname is Andrés Mbuamangongo Malango Dyombe). Greetings.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_International_School_of_Tunis&action=edit&redlink=1
You have previously deleted a page to this organisation, marking it as non-notable. I would like to re-create the page, since the school is one of only a few options for international schools in Tunisia, and merits a place on the List of Schools in Tunisia, and further expansion of the page by myself or other editors. Saternos (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of the Edgar Britton photo
I am going to repost the photo. Please do not delete it again. I live in the house, the house is in my family, the photo is posted for a specific purpose. Since it cannot be displayed outside of the house - as it is a fresco - this is the only way for others to enjoy the fresco. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:AD00:3F7:79F4:7642:F425:59C (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Brain Police page deletion
Hey. I'm in the band.

When you say you've googled the band to verify its notability you have to consider the fact that almost all articles about the band are in Icelandic, plus most of the sites that had articles about us are dead. We're talking about the years 2000 -> 2005.

All the radio stations that we had number one hits on are dead, and their websites too.

What would you consider to be trustworthy sources? Allmusic?

I think Wayback Machine would be better for you to verify this than google.

Is the page gone or can you retrieve it if you see proof of notability?

Also I've already gone through this, a while back - the page was deemed not notable, taken off Wikipedia if I remember correctly. I provided some proof and the page came back.

Laugurinn sjálfur (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

From my talk page.

"As you previously noticed, someone marked the Gunnlaugur Lárusson article for deletion. But we are able to keep this article because it passes our Notability and Music Guidelines. Brain Police, has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country.

However, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Many users here on Wikipedia feel strongly that you should not create or edit an article about yourself, your band, or your songs. Those that do write articles about themselves usually get into disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of material on subjects in which they are personally involved in. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 6 August 2005" (UTC)

Zzyzx11 verified the bands notability in 2005.

Laugurinn sjálfur (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Through Darkness
Hi!

You deleted Through Darkness, but this seems to be that very movie. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User right returned
Hi Explicit, I've returned your sysop user-right under the terms of WP:RESYSOP. Welcome back and happy editing. WormTT(talk) 07:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, both! Much appreciated. — ξ xplicit  01:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised to see you again. I hope all is well and let me know if you need any help,  SwisterTwister   talk  02:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All is well. Thank you! — ξ xplicit  04:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

File:106-9 CIBX-FM.svg
Hi Explicit. I see that you have tagged this file with di-disputed fair use rationale. Just want you to know that I agree with your assessment regarding WP:NFG. Just for reference, you might be interested in. It also involves a former logo being used in a gallery that I removed per WP:NFG, but which was almost immediately re-added by another editor who claims former non-free radio station logos can be used in galleries per WP:WPRS guidelines. For the record, File:106-9 CIBX-FM.svg was one of many other logos I removed for the same reason, but I decided to self-revert all of the removals until the aforementioned NFCR discussion could be resolved. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've also tagged File:DXWT 92.3 (logo).png. This was another one that I had removed, but decided to self-revert. I removed another former logo being used in a similar way from WMBX, but this was disputed at Talk:WVBX. Is tagging with "di-disputed fair use rationale" and better approach than simply removing from the article? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for linking that discussion. WP:WPRS's Logos section is pretty clearly written in defiance of WP:NFCC, and one WikiProject can not unilaterally make a sweeping decision across its articles like that. I understand their viewpoint that they want to conserve history, but fact of the matter is, most of these logos are entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. There is no critical significance being added when all these non-free logos are being utilized, and the history of radio states are not suddenly less understood in their absence.

Note how in the article for Starbucks, there is a subsection specifically dedicated to its logo, where each version is subject to critical commentary, but also notice how the logo that was used between 1987–92 is not in that gallery; that's because words alone easily described the changes from the original logo, so the inclusion of the logo from that era would have been in direct violation of NFCC. If these radio logos were subject to coverage like this, then those who seek to keep them would have a more solid foundation to their argument.

NFCC is inherently strict to use as little as non-free content as possible—we are a free encyclopedia, after all—and the policy is meant to be enforced, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not. As for your approach, tagging images like these with di-disputed fair use rationale is definitely a viable option. Alternatively, you can nominate files for deletion at WP:FFD. — ξ xplicit  20:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and thank you for the "Starbucks" example. It gives me another example to point to in discussions about former logos and NFCC#8 and NFG. For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment of non-free images in galleries/gallery-like use and the critical (contextual) significance required of former logos, but there are editors who consider the NFC to be unnecessary and unfairly restrictive. I understand there will always be disagreements as to when and how the NFC apply because some editors/Wikiprojects feel articles are "entitled" to have images and that adding such is a priority over NFC concerns. I'm not sure if such issues are ever going to be resolved as long as things are left up to "the community" to decide since there appears to be little interest among most editors in the NFC, and the positions of those interested on either side of the rfence seem to be hardened, thus making meaningful discussion hard to achieve. Maybe the WMF needs to get more directly involved in NFC/Copyvio disputes, so that it doesn't always appear as if the same small group of editors hanging out at WP:NFCR and WP:MCQ gets to decide things for the rest of the community? Not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think NFCC will just be one of those policies that will carry very strong opinions on both sides of the argument, and that will likely never change. It's best to handle things on a case-by-case basis and simply settle with the result. — ξ xplicit  00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding File:Steam Powered Giraffe members, June 2013.jpg
Hi there, and before you ask, yes, I've already visited your deletion clarification page. I was just wondering if there was a place that shows why the image file I uploaded (File:Steam Powered Giraffe members, June 2013.jpg) was deleted despite my argument against it. I'm curious as to why my reasoning wasn't valid enough to save the file. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 23:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The image you uploaded was deleted because it violated the first bullet in our non-free content criteria policy, which states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Wikipedia generally does not allow non-free images of living and active people to be used in articles because freely licensed photos exist or can be created. This is true for Steam Powered Giraffe, as I was able to find a suitably licensed image of the band here. Alternatively, you could sift through all these photos, contact the respective uploaders, and ask if they would be kind enough to change the restrictive license of one of their photos into one that's suitable for Wikipedia. — ξ xplicit  00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

deletion of Albert Folch_new.jpg
Hi Explicit,

I'm user rogerfpurcell. This is in reference to page "Albert Folch Folch", which I maintain from time to time.

I'm trying to learn how Wikipedia works, and I want to respect all the copyrights. Part of my frustration is this (I call it unnecessarily cryptic) user interface, where it's not clear where you have to enter things. The other part is that I'm just trying to upload an image for someone else that is on the web (I'm never sure about all those licensing options), so it's public domain for sure:

https://picasaweb.google.com/102864211467583145284/ProfilePhotos#6194942100760030018

Why doesn't Wikipedia have "free picture" as one of the categories, and be done with it? Anyways, in this case, what option should I have chosen? The author has opted for posting on the web out of frustration, after emailing it to me (which should also be a perfectly legal action for posting on Wikipedia, but apparently it is not). I referenced the URL (this second time) and explained I got it by email (the first time) and still, the image got deleted ... Very frustrating!

Please advise,

rogerfpurcell. (and what's up with this wiggle signatures?? really, they should update this Wikipedia system ...) Rogerfpurcell (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. In regards to licensing images, "free" is not sufficient information to evaluate if an image can be uploaded with a license like PD-self. The copyright holder of the photo (who is generally the person who took the picture, not necessarily the subject in the photo) must relinquish certain rights to their work; namely, they must allow their work to be used for commercial purposes, as well as allowing modifications to said work. If they agree to do so, it can be uploaded using perhaps one of the licenses listed here. If you will be uploading an image with permission of the author under the aforementioned conditions, there is a how-to guide on how to go about that here. — ξ xplicit  06:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kury image
Hi Explicit. You recently deleted an image File:Kury polovirus.jpg as it was unused. The article it had been used on was turned into a redirect resulting in that unused. I have since restored the article for the album P.O.L.O.V.I.R.U.S. providing evidence of it's notability. Can you please undelete the image to go with the article as it will no longer be unused. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I have restored the image. — ξ xplicit  00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Klikauer.jpg
Hi Explicit, I just saw that you deleted an image file ThomasKlikauer.jpg. I understand the reason was that I failed to provide proper credits. The image had been sent to me by Klikauer, the person in the pic, and he had endorsed me using it. As this is my first attempt at creating a wiki entry, I feel a bit clumsy. Could you advise me as to how I can retrieve the jpg and which level of detail re copyright I should enter in the 'Edit'-section of the jpg?

kind regards Sydburger [Ralf Itzwerth] Sydburger (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. If the copyright holder of the photo granted the use of his photo under the conditions that it can be used for commercial purposes and derivative works, please ask them to specify what license. There are several options, but the most common ones can be found here. After doing so, please follow the steps outlined here to confirm permission and have the file restored. — ξ xplicit  00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2gether (CNBLUE album), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daum and Mnet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ASUS Eee Keyboard
CSD declined, so please can you restore the talk? Widefox ; talk 09:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That talk page was deleted three years ago as a redirect to a non-existent talk page, which was the result of Asus Eee Keyboard being deleted. ASUS Eee Keyboard was created last December. Restoring it makes little sense since the talk page and the current article have no alignment. — ξ xplicit  19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Hubbell Water Heaters Round Logo.png
Hi Explicit,

On September 10, there was a file permission problem with an image I uploaded. An editor named Dianaaa posted this on my talk page. I took action and forwarded the email I received from the creator of the file giving their permission for me to use it (i forwarded it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org). I did this on September 11th and hadn't heard anything back about it. Then when I logged in I saw that you deleted it because there was no evidence of permission for over 7 days. I had sent this email over 10 days ago so I don't understand. What else should I do? Thanks for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrierc (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The department you sent the email to is currently experiencing quite a backlog—43 days worth of one, to be precise—so a response naturally can not be made in a timely manner. In any case, if you feel that there is a chance that your email may have fallen through the cracks, you can email them again and ask for a followup. You should have received a ticket number directly after your initial email, which you should include in the followup; if you didn't, simply reference the name of the file, which should have been included in the original email. — ξ xplicit  04:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:JordiFolchPi.jpg
Hi Explicit. I saw you added an OTRS pending to this file. That's fine, but I'm not sure if you are aware of or User talk:Rogerfpurcell. An OTRS volunteer has already tried looking into this, but was unable to find anything so far. Apparently they need a ticket number to do a more thorough search. FWIW, I did ask about removing the "di-no permission" tag, but was advised not to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I had come across the first discussion, but not the second. Since correspondence in ongoing, I felt that the OTRS pending seemed suitable for the situation. The uploader also hasn't edited in a few days—and based on his contributions, is not rare occasion to be a gone for a few days at a time—so it would be a little unfair to delete the file from under him in midst of all this. If the situation ultimately remains unresolved, deletion is just a click away. — ξ xplicit  04:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries Explicit. Thanks for the help. I'm wondering if File:AlbertFolch2.jpg should also be tagged as "OTRS pending" since the metadata for that file indicates somebody other than the uploader and Albert Folch Folch being the photographer and copyright holder. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It would seem so. — ξ xplicit  04:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:340x75 generic KPRF-FM.jpg
Hi Explicit. Since you changed File:Jackfmcklg.png from "non-free" to "PD-logo", I am wondering if the same can and should be done for File:340x75 generic KPRF-FM.jpg. It's basically the same image except for the different frequency number and the two small trademark symbols. I was gonna change it, but not sure if those trademark symbols make a difference. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The trademark symbols don't make a difference, the logo does not meet the threshold of originality regardless. Just make sure to include the Trademark template underneath the license. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK and will do. Thank you for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Edison_High_School_building_photo_(portland,_OR).jpg
Hi, we now have an OTRS permission statement for this image,. Would you undelete? Ping me with any questions or concerns. Thanks! KDS 4444 Talk  11:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:RawyaRageh.jpg
Same deal, different ticket,. Can you undelete? Thanks! KDS 4444 Talk  12:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now restored both images. Regards. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Jennifer Teege - My Grandfather (2015).jpg
Renaming the article is proposed at Talk:Jennifer Teege. If moved, then the book cover should be undeleted. Fair? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg you have deleted
Hi Explicit.

Please see

https://sites.google.com/site/yoavraz2/home/wikipedia-copyright-permission

regarding deleted file

File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg

you deleted on 10.2.15.

This is an explicit permission by the author Yoav Raz to use his material.

Pls reverse deletion and add the permission link if needed.

Thank you.

108.26.213.131 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the links. That helps resolve the issue brought up for the file. I've gone ahead and restored the file. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's ALIVE!!!!!!
Welcome back. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha, thanks. I don't know what I've gotten myself back into! —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!! --Efe (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that we have another capable admin helping out here. Welcome back. <b style="color:red">Chillum</b> 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness you are back! We've needed you badly! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Final Match RoboCup 2013.webm
Hi, Explicit,

Am processing an OTRS ticket on this one, which the gods say you deleted recently as lacking adequate permission. It looks (to me as an OTRS volunteer) like the file was originally located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMos2WG1OmY where it appears to be licensed under CC-BY-SA, which should mean (?) it requires no additional permission, yes? Here is the. Please ping me if I am not getting this story right. Thank you! KDS 4444 Talk  23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. It would seem that this is the case, so I've restored the file. It would be helpful if the uploader provided a time mark in the original video for this specific clip, though. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, and I shall mention it to the uploader. Thanks again!   KDS 4444  Talk  04:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep local
Hi Explicit! I know that you do a lot of underappreciated file work - I was wondering if you would like to comment at WT:CSD? I'm hoping to achieve some policy regarding use and maintenance of the template. Kelly hi! 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Whitehall RI Brochure.jpg
Hi, thank you for granting time for OTRS. This would be great in most cases. But in this case the OTRS conversation has ended unresolved, so feel free to delete the file right away. Jcb (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the notice. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

File:SCO-VS-SS2PL.jpg - Please return deleted file
File:SCO-VS-SS2PL.jpg

Pls return and add permission of Yoav Raz

https://sites.google.com/site/yoavraz2/home/wikipedia-copyright-permission

Thank you.

108.26.213.131 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Hassan Nasrallah.png
I was going to contest the deletion of the image while, to my surprise, I saw that it was deleted by you. Per WP:F7 "Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability," while you deleted the file within less than one day. Moreover, the criteria WP:F7 #1 does not apply here (why was the fair-use tag invalid?) By the way, the image is not replaceable by other existing drawings (not photos). Infact, the existing images which are claimed to be the free alternatives of the deleted image, are just drawings which have no encyclopedic value. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Please note that the speedy deletion criteria notes that this would apply if the image was tagged with Rfu, which it was not. It is a generally accepted practice to delete files under the rationale I used when freely licensed files already exist, as it is in this case. Aside from File:Nassralla by Ranan Lurie.jpg and the image of the subject's signature, there are two alternatives that are suitable replacements for the non-free image. How are these not encyclopedic? They reasonably depict the subject, do they not? Susan Boyle, who is difficult to photograph, was accompanied by File:SusanBoyle 2.jpg. It remained in the article until an actual photograph was obtained. So, your argument falls a little flat in that area, because an artist's work is suitable enough to be used in cases where opportunities to create a freely license photo are minimal. Do you have concerns with the drawings other than the fact that they are drawings? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at File:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.jpg. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''I asked that the file be restored. I Tagged it with keeplocal. While it had that tag, and long after I requested, "Please restore." you speedily deleted it while there was an active deletion discussion. The advice "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. " applies equally to admins. I haven't reverted your delete but I do ask that you perform the restore I requested.'' Elvey(t•c) 09:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Please don't come to my talk page and slap onto it such a contemptuous template from your misguided deduction of what occurred. I mistakenly deleted the image as I mistook it for a file description page for a Commons file, which does fall under F2. My views on the Keep local are the same as yours, so the least you could have done was assume good faith and inquire about my action and allow me to review it. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Poul Thorsen
Have a look at the very fast recreation of this BLP. As it stands now it's G10ish, but I'd like your opinion. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it quite meets G10, as the information presented is not libelous and done so from a neutral point-of-view. The best thing to do now is take it to WP:AFD and gather a consensus on whether or not it even meets notability guidelines. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion
You deleted an image of mine even though the. Can you please explain? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I actually didn't realize you tagged the file with Keep local, which I managed to confuse for Now Commons (there should be red, boldfaced text on the former or something...). I will restore the image shortly, apologies for the confusion. As a side-note, a 1:1 ratio does not automatically constitute 'no consensus'. Had you not added the aforementioned template, your argument to 'keep' would not have sufficed to conclude that the discussion would have ended in anything other than a result of 'delete'. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Sorry if I came off harsh, it was just a little frustrating. Thank you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rahmi Akçelik
Was this by chance a photo that I had uploaded? I'm asking because I think I once did upload a photo showing this person.  Schwede 66  06:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was uploaded by . — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have tracked down my photo, cropped it, and added it to the article.  Schwede 66  17:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Habesha name
Can you give me the code you deleted at this template? The intention of the discussion was to merge functionality, which has been lost here. SFB 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The code is as follows:


 * Regards. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:NormSartoriusHomage2.jpg
We now have an for this one. It's now CC-BY-SA 3.0. Can you undelete? Ping me with any questions or concerns. Thanks!!! KDS 4444 Talk  01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, restored and permission number added. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources to 3 x deleted pics
Here's the source for: File:George Treweek 1925.jpg; File:Harry Cavanough 1925.jpg; File:Eddie Root 1925.jpg. If you reinstate the pics I'll add the source to the file.- Sticks  66  10:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored the files for you. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done - Sticks  66  11:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a Deletion review of Unused local copies of files on Commons. 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. Kelly hi! 08:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

deleted page File:Ruff Loaderz Dynamite remix.jpg
The deleted page File:Ruff Loaderz Dynamite remix.jpg is a copyleft photo by its copyright owner. Therefore it is okay to upload and use in Wikipedia. See http://www.lizafoxmusic.com/images/photogallery.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusic2011 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Newmusic2011, the page you have linked is not specific enough to safely allow the cover art to be licensed under a copyleft license. As Stefan2 had pointed out in the discussion page, not all levels of copyleft are as free as they are required by Wikipedia; the copyright holder must specify the terms in which they release their work to ensure that it is compatible with this project. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of User:DerekStocker
Hey, Explicit! So you deleted User:DerekStocker following my CSD request on behalf of the user in question (who had contacted OTRS and generated a ticket on the matter). It turns out that what he really wanted was to have the word "User" removed, so that it would just turn up as "Derek Stocker" on Google searches, etc. I explained that removing "User" meant he wanted to have an article in the main namespace, and as he was not notable (by his own admission) that was a no-go. Now he has returned and asked to have the userpage undeleted, since he feels it was better advertising than nothing, even if it had the word "User" attached. I have told him that I would ask the deleting administrator to undelete the page, but am going to warn him that as the page had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia, it may not get undeleted. I don't want to punish him for mentioning his concern in the first place, but neither do I want to see him using his userpage on Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Anyhow, what are your [explicit] thoughts? (single brackets intended) KDS 4444  Talk  03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. After reviewing the userpage, I'm afraid I can't bring myself to undelete it, as it's a direct violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. In fact, most of what's on his website is what was on his userpage, as well as including two links to his personal websites. I'm afraid that it's simply not suitable for Wikipedia. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's what I thought, and I completely agree with you, and I will let him know. Thanks for this.  KDS 4444  Talk  04:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:George Osborne Bullingdon.png
Hi, you've just deleted this under WP:NFCC, presumably as "a free equivalent is available". Can you please let us know where this free equivalent is to be found?

There were at least two editors (I was one) who disputed the CSD on just this basis. Have you given any consideration to the fairly lengthy reasons why no equivalent can be had? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did give this image a review and ultimately decided to delete it under the aforementioned criterion. The fair use rationale on the description page stated that it was being used in order to "illustrate George Osborne at the Bullingdon Club, and the dress which was used"; I had noted that the uploader added the image to Bullingdon Club here and George Osborne here. As outlined by WP:FREER, which goes into depth about the first point in NFCC, it specifically failed to meet the consideration noted by 'b.', which reads: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" In the first case, it was being used to illustrate the dress code specifically, which is fully described in the section of its use. That was a rather obvious violation. In the second case, it was meant to illustrate the fact that the subject was previously a member of said club. A non-free image is not required to depict this. In your dispute, you mentioned that, in regards to being members of the Bullingdon Club, "...the politicians portrayed now consider it embarrassing". An interesting fact, and Osborne's membership is significant, but this is insufficient to justify the use of a non-free image of information which text can and does adequately present. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted files
Hello, I was wondering why you deleted the following files I uploaded: File:Los Angeles Clippers home uniform 2015–current.gif, File:Los Angeles Clippers road uniform 2015–current.gif and File:Vivint Smart Home Arena exterior.jpg? Also, what can I do to re-upload those files and make them so other editors don't feel like they have to tag them for deletion again? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Those three files were deleted because they violated out non-free content criteria. You uploaded copyrighted images to depict the uniform of the team; as we strive to provide as much free content as possible, we try to limit the use of copyrighted material as much as possible. Uniforms are generally replaceable by freely licensed work, which anyone can create in an image editing program like Adobe Photoshop. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Keith Sequeira.jpg
File:Keith Sequeira.jpg is a re-upload of File:Keith Sequeira.jpeg which you just deleted per WP:F7. Uploader seems to be fairly new to Wikipedia and has problems with images. I've tried to explain things on their user page (and "pinged" you) so perhaps you can provide further clarification as an administrator. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if there is much else I could add. You explained it to him pretty well! — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 26 October 2015
You deleted this maintenance category as being deleted, but File:Half-ShotCOLOR.jpg was still in the category and is now in limbo. If you could please delete this image as being orphaned for over a week, it would be appreciated. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The file didn't appear in the category on the day it was scheduled to be deleted. It's not appearing right now, either. Non-existent categories can still be populated. I'm not sure why it isn't here. In any case, I've deleted the image. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

‎File:Myopia-Hunt-Club-Scorecard.JPG
What are the chances you can retrieve this from the deleted picture bone pile?! It's just a scorecard, not really copyright material I don't think. Perhaps you, as the picture expert, can help me get it back.

Oh, and thanks for your other recent (and ongoing) work on the logos. I appreciate your editing on these. --♥Golf (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure that the image would be exempt from copyright... You can always recreate the table yourself using wiki markup, or use an editing program to recreate the table in a different manner. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert_Jolles.jpg
Hi there,

You deleted this file for non-fair use reasons, but: the copyright holder / photographer (1) sent in the creative license 3.0 and (2) that license was posted with the file itself. Can you please undo? DavidWestT (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

DavidWestT (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a copy of that copyright release:

From: Merrill Worthington <merrillwphoto@yahoo.com> Date: September 2, 2015 at 6:32:49 PM EDT To: photosubmission@wikimedia.org Cc: Rob Jolles <rob@jolles.com> Subject: Jolles photos from photographer

Dear Wikimedia,

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photo. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that - by doing so - I will grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that this work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Merrill Worthington Copyright holder

Merrill Worthington C&M Imaging Group, LLC merrillwphoto@yahoo.com703 408-0434

DavidWestT (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. As you have already sent the evidence of permission, you just have to wait until an OTRS volunteer gets back to you to confirm that everything checks out okay. The image you uploaded will be restored when that happens. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello - question about File:Donald Trump at the Hearing Innovation Expo.jpg
The file - File:Donald Trump at the Hearing Innovation Expo.jpg - was deleted due to it being "possibly unfree" or because it was taken off of a monitor... I'd like to clarify that I took this picture myself, with my cellphone in January 2014. I'd like you to reconsider the deletion, or please provide an explanation as to why it was deleted, and what I can do to have it restored.

Thank you for your time and efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shee20 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. The issue with the image was not doubting that you took the picture. It was deleted on the grounds that the monitors in the picture are a derivative work; the organization who own the rights to what's being displayed there are still with them, and claiming that you can freely license that content is a infringement therein. Think about it this way: you can't take a photo of an episode of The Simpsons on your TV screen and claim copyright to it, even if it is your picture. The underlying content is still protected by copyright. That same logic applies here. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file
Hi Explicit - you recently deleted some files as part of, looks like File:DKR Destinations within Africa, 06-2014.gif got missed in the sweep. My fault, malformed nomination. Ping me if you would like me to simply renominate. Kelly hi! 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and deleted the file. In the future, please also make sure to tag all images you nominated for deletion with the ffd tag. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

File:QuakeWorld.png
Can you undelete this image? The article QuakeWorld was improperly merged without discussion. I've unmerged it and added sources. Valoem  talk   contrib  21:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Unusual Undeletion Request
Hi. You were the admin who deleted File:BBAU2012logo.jpg. I'm fairly sure that it must have had a correct fair use rationale for use in Big Brother 9 (Australia). It became orphaned when an editor created Template:Big Brother 2012 (Australia) which simply used the usual BB template with all of the season 9 parameters filled in but had the image taken out. That template was a bad idea, and I'v e nominated it for deletion. I'm trying to get the article back to its original shape which includes the logo. Would you be able to undelete it?

Thanks. Whpq (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. The image has been restored. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Daniela Hantuchová picture
I don't understand what I did wrong because I thought I put the correct stuff for the picture and it uploaded successfully. So can you please tell me what I did wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryson483 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't speak on January's deletion, but the second upload of File:Daniela Hantuchová at the 2015 French Open.jpg was deleted due to the fact that you licensed the image under Non-free 2D art, which it clearly was not. It was deleted immediately on the basis of WP:F7, which is the first point it outlines. Even if it was properly licensed under a fair use license, it would still be in violation of the aforementioned policy under point three, which dictates that such images are not allowed when freely licensed images exist or can reasonably be created. Daniela Hantuchová contains 20 freely licensed images; the use of a non-free image is entirely unjustified. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of logo
Hi,

The file you deleted File talk:IPlum-logo.png ‎ was in use in the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nmwalsh/iPlum, Is it possible to retain the logo until the file has concluded the submission stage. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Under WP:NFCC, non-free images can not be used outside of articles, and any use outside of that still constitutes a file as being orphaned as a result. Unfortunately, articles in the draftspace are no exceptions, and the file can not be restored. Once the content is moved to a proper article, it can be undeleted at that time. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Nmwalsh (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

File:RHS Captain.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_November_5#File:RHS_Captain.png

I asked what needed to be done here, and waited, but received no response. Strange sort of "discussion"! Xanthoxyl &lt; 13:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you plan to add a non-free license and proper fair use rationale, I can restore the file for you. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Undelete logo?
Please would you consider undeleting File:Lb lambeth logo.svg, the logo of the London Borough of Lambeth? You deleted it on 20 Sep 2015 as an unused non-free media file. It had become unused because this edit to London Borough of Lambeth removed a parameter passed to Template:Infobox London Borough, which provides logos and various data to the infoboxes of 32 London boroughs. Suddenly, the article's infobox no longer showed the logo and I believe that was the only place it was used, so you found the file was unused and quite reasonably deleted it.

I've restored the parameter to London Borough of Lambeth, re-enabling the data, but leaving a redlink to the file name, which I've fixed temporarily by removing mention of the Lambeth logo from Template:Infobox London Borough. If you could undelete the file, I'd gladly restore the template and the article would show the logo again, just like other London boroughs such as London Borough of Southwark.

Sorry for being so longwinded! NebY (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted the file. Although this was originally uploaded as a non-free file—which wold make its use in an template invalid per WP:NFCC—I've changed the license to PD-ineligible-USonly, because it does not meet the threshold of originality in the United States only. I can go into further technical details regarding the matter... but if you're fine with just that explanation, that's okay, too. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you and yes, I'm fine with that explanation. I watch editors who understand the wonders of file licensing with awe. NebY (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

About a deleted photo
Hi Explicit,

My image was deleted by you recently. The file name was DennisPatrickCurran.jpg. I have sent the evidence to wikipedia a week ago. The ticket number is #2015110410020252. I am wondering why the image was still deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah247 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. This image happened to be tagged for deletion by OTSR member, so it appeared unclear whether permission has been confirmed yet. Has there been progress with the email you sent? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I sent the evidence to wikipedia and it replied me automatically with the ticket number(#2015110410020252) but I haven't received any mail from wiki yet nor do I know the progress of this evidence check. User:jah247


 * There is currently a one-month backlog at the permission department, so they currently can't respond to every email in a timely manner. You shouldn't worry, though, as your request will be processed and it can still be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you!User:jah247

CfD closure
About this CfD discussion, I noticed that Category:Swedish church history still exists while it is 4 days after closure of the discussion. Is it possible that the procedure to upmerge hasn't been fully implemented? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like that was taken care of! — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Request undeletion
Hello Explicit:

You have deleted a picture that I had attached to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attoor_Krishna_Pisharody. The photograph is from my personal family archive and this personality is my great grand father. I am really not familiar with the due process in wikipedia so pls advise how do I restore or appeal.

Thanks jayraghavan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayraghavan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Attor Krishna Pisharody.jpg: The uploader responded, they claim it's from a private family archive. I pointed them at WP:IOWN Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The image you uploaded was deleted because you cited someone else as the author, and by extension the holder to the copyright to said image. Please be aware that only the copyright holder has the ability to publish the image under a free license, like the one that accompanied your image; please see WP:DCM. If the rights to the image were transferred to you, please follow the instructions outlined at WP:CONSENT. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Explict: This picture has been donated by to many people/entities. There is one copy available at the Kerala Sahitya Academy ( a government entity in state of Kerala,India ) and this picture is also published in b/w as the cover in one of the authors quoted under the profile in wikipedia ( Attoor; by K. P. Nārāyaṇa Piṣāraṭi, 1965 (in Malayalam) ) http://www.keralasahityaakademi.org/sp/Writers/PROFILES/AttoorKrishnapisharodi/Html/Attoorpage.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayraghavan (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hussain and Prem Khan(Nephew) in 2015.jpg
Hi Explicit. According to the deletion log, you deleted a file with this exact same name per WP:F4 at 09:32, 22 November 2015 (Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Hussain and Prem Khan(Nephew) in 2015.jpg (F4: Lack of licensing information (TW))). I cannot see the deleted version, but it appears the uploader has simply re-uploaded it again. It also appears to be a exact duplicate of File:Hussain and Prem Khan(Nephew) in 2015.jpeg with the only difference being the spacing between some of the words in the file's name. Not sure what's going on, but neither file seems to have a proper copyright tag and there's no information provide which allows verification that the file has been freely licensed by the photgrapher/copyright holder. Are these OK or should one or both of these be tagged with something such as npd?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, all these uploads are of the same photo. One was deleted under F1, while the other is tagged for lacking evidence of permission. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice not given
I'm aware that you have been an administrator for a long time, and even with your recent return after a lengthy absence, I have to assume that you are still aware that community consensus has long required that the uploader of a file be notified when the file is tagged for deletion. That said, when I objected to the deletion of a particular image, and explicitly stated that I did not believe the uploader had been notified, you went ahead and deleted the image anyway. If my keep argument was not persuasive, then at a minimum, the image should have been relisted and the person who uploaded the file properly notified, rather than simply deciding that the nominator's rationale constituted consensus. For all you or I know, the uploader may have found a link somewhere else on the city's webpage that granted a license compatible with "CC BY SA" or he/she may have had a particular fair-use rationale that would have been persuasive. The uploader of the image was ViperFace, and the discussion that I am referring to is. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While notifying the uploader is courteous and is to be expected of the nominator, it is ultimately not required by any policy and can not be enforced. The nominator's rationale did not constitute consensus, he simply gave reasonable doubt to the claim that the file is not subject to any copyright restrictions and was released in the public domain; it is more likely than not that the license that accompanied this image was incorrect, and was infringing on the rights of the copyright owner as a result. If the uploader—or anyone else for that matter—can cite a source that verifies that this image was released under a suitable free license, it can easily be restored. I can provide the information that was available on the file's description and email a copy of the image itself, but the nominator was not required to notify the uploader, I can't enforce anyone into said action, and I was not required to relist the discussion for lack thereof. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see last year's RfC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header? The interpretation of Possibly unfree files/Header was that it was mandatory to notify the uploader and add pufc, but the RfC made it optional to add pufc. Using the logic from that RfC, the wording of Files for discussion/heading suggests that adding ffdc is optional but that notifying the uploader is not. Maybe this should be clarified somewhere.
 * Looking at other procedures, WP:F11 says that files tagged as missing evidence of permission can't be deleted until seven days after notification, implying that files can't be deleded under F11 unless the uploader has been notified. I can't find any similar statement for other speedy deletion criteria. F4, F5 and F7 seem to refer to the tagging date, not the notification date. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But are these headers based on policy, or just general practice? If it's the former, would that make editors subject to blocks if they repeatedly fail to abide by that policy? It would be a little ridiculous to see someone indefinitely blocked for having a history of failing to notify an uploader when nominating files for deletion. The policy itself would be more disruptive and detrimental than the issue itself.
 * The wording for F11 doesn't make such sense to me, now that you point it out, but I'm not sure if anyone has seen it in any other way other than "the file will be deleted after being tagged for seven days". — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some users interpreted Special:PermanentLink/588467937 to mean that it was mandatory to add the pufc template when listing files at PUF, although de facto no one used those tags. As a result of this, the RfC about pufc was started. However, I'm not sure if those headers are policy or not. I don't know if users who repeatedly fail to notify uploaders should be blocked or not. If policy requires notification, then maybe discussions are to be relisted if notification isn't given. I understand that we would waste a lot of administrator time if administrators are required to check if the uploader was notified before closing a discussion.
 * When requesting information (such as evidence of permission), it of course makes a lot of sense to notify the uploader that information is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that it is being interpreted as policy simply because it's worded that way in the header. I've never come across any policy or guideline even remotely mentioning notification being mandatory. WP:AFD states that notifications aren't required there, and I hardly think anyone agrees that notifying someone for a file is vastly more important than for an article. I'm curious where this requirement for FFD and PUF stems from, basically. My comment about blocks kind of makes the point that no one—as far as I'm aware—has ever been blocked for not sending out notifications when nominating a file for deletion.
 * Wouldn't that apply to some of the other criteria? F4 requires a license, which only the uploader may grant if they are the copyright holder, but there's no mention of a file being deleted in seven days after notification as in F11. This can be stretched out to F6, since the uploader can supply a fair use rationale that others wouldn't be able to, or more realistically, don't bother to. There's just... a huge presence of inconsistent conditions in terms of notifying authors of pages, backed by a policy no one can point to. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's essentially the same with F5 - it's easier for the uploader to tell if the file has become orphaned incorrectly. Last year, there were complaints (example) because more or less no one added pufc when files were listed at WP:PUF. I guess that all policies and rules were written by different people who included different requirements and then no one spotted the inconsistencies. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fall pr.jpg
{{subst:refund|1= Fall pr.jpg |2= i need to know what kind of additional information this file I have to provide to prove that I've taken this photo with my camera before 9 years with Sony DSC p72 camera with user Kelly and Explicit

Bx228 14:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bx228 (talk • contribs)

File:The Brilliant Mind of Edison Lee.jpg
Regarding the deleted file File:The Brilliant Mind of Edison Lee.jpg I have finally received permission from the author to giving his consent. Let me know if the procedure to restore the file. Also the I have received the consent e-mail, let me know where to forward it before image is to be restored.-- PremKudva    Talk   03:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The next step you will need to go through is outlined at WP:CONSENT. Follow the instructions there—you can provide a link to this deleted image in your email to have it restored—and things should be sorted not too long after the permission if confirmed by the OTRS team. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks You.-- PremKudva    Talk   09:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is regarding the above file, I had sent the e-mail to permissions as instructed by you and got Ticket#: 2015110210006861, on 2nd November. There after I have not got any communication on if the consent has been accepted or rejected. Another consent I had sent subsequently regarding another image was accepted. Would you be in a position to help me? -- PremKudva    Talk   12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is currently a one-month backlog with the permissions department, so they can't get to everything in a timely manner. I have as much power as you in the current situation, sorry. You may want to consider sending a followup email and ask about the status of your initial one, since it was towards the beginning of the month. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will do that. Meanwhile I was wondering if it would be wise to re-upload the image along with the author's consent letter to commons. Or would that not be wise? -- PremKudva    Talk   03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which is the better option, but I'd suggest to hang on for a little longer for OTRS to respond. The image can be transferred at a later time once permission is confirmed. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

File:The Brilliant Mind of Edison Lee.jpg
Dear Explicit,

Could you please undelete File:The Brilliant Mind of Edison Lee.jpg? There seems to be a valid release via OTRS (2015110210006861). Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done and done. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Romanov_orangetwist.jpeg
This post is regarding the above image deleted in October. I beleive the photo should be considered free as it is a photo that I clicked myself using a bottle I purchased. The white background was created using plain A4 paper and the photo was clicked using an MI4 phone camera. Is there any way the photo can be restored, since it is not packaging artwork?Suddhadeep (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the issue did not lie in any doubt that the photo was yours, but with the artwork on the bottle. The logo itself is copyrighted, and is a form of derivative work. Basically, although you took the photo, the copyright of the artwork is still in tact. As a result, you are technically infringing on the creator's right of their work by releasing your entire photograph under a free license. It was deleted on this basis, and unfortunately, can not be restored as a result. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

FSU Images
Hey can you please undelete File:Westcott 8445.jpg and File:Stadium 0279 (117).jpg. Can you please give the original authors more time to show their permissions? I will personally message them and see what's going on with the images. I really don't believe they should be deleted. Thank you once again--SeminoleNation (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the files were released under the free license the uploader claimed. As long as it lacks that evidence, Wikipedia could be infringing on the rights of the photographer. I'm afraid I can't undelete these files on this basis. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg
Your deletion of the map depicting the aircrafts' positions as claimed by Turkey seems erroneous, and the file is vital for the article 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Unless full position data is available under a free license, it is not possible to create a free equivalent per WP:NFCC. It would be really nice if you restored the file as soon as possible – if you prefer, with a tag, but not just a  tag – to avoid further disruption during the lengthy WP:Deletion review. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The deletion was not made in error. User:Stefan2 explained why it violated the WP:NFCC policy, and the argument to keep it did not stack up against it. If you plan to take it to WP:DRV, please list it there first. I will restore the file then. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By the same type of arguments made by User:Stefan2, all non-free direct quotes should also be removed from all articles, since they can be replaced by free paraphrases. Surely you can see that that is ridiculous? Thue (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that the WP:NFCC policy is deliberately more strict because it deals with non-free media. As it states there: Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media... Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. The parallel you tried to create makes no sense because non-free text and non-free media are dealt with differently. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which argument User:Stefan2 made, apart from the one you gave during your speedy deletion, which IMHO is clearly erroneous. So, as requested by you, I filed a DRV, see below. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Very well, let us continue out discussion at DRV. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)