User talk:Explicit

The image on bbc.com was published a day before the one on telecomasia.net. I think it's c:Commons:License laundering. — Ирука¹³ 17:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: After taking a second look, I see now that it's credited to Getty Images. I've deleted it as a copyright violation. ✗plicit 10:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Cats pic.jpg

Hi Explicit. You deleted a file named File:Bad Cats pic.jpg on January 27, 2024, but a file with that same name was uploaded byt he same uploader. Is this "new" file that same as the one you deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind also checking File:Barrie Youngfellow.jpg? A file with the same name was deleted by Fastily on January 24, 2024, and this "new" version was uploaded a few weeks later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russ Kingston.jpg is yet one more that has the same file name as one you deleted on February 4, 2023. I'm not sure what to do here since the uploader's user talk page has of image related notifications posted on it, including quite a lot related to replaceable non-free use issues, going back a couple of years. They also have issues providing good sourcing for non-free files (they provide lots of direct links to images) and using {{Non-free 2D art}} for pretty much everything they upload, but those things can be possibly addressed without anything needing to be deleted.

FWIW, they've been advised about FREER before at User talk:Eric Carpenter#Dylan Mulvaney image, User talk:Eric Carpenter#non-free media, User talk:Eric Carpenter#Fair use files, User talk:Eric Carpenter#Replaceable fair use File:Scott Covert.jpg (which included a final warning by C.Fred), User talk:Eric Carpenter##Replaceable non-free use File:Marian Mercer.jpg, User talk:Eric Carpenter#Replaceable non-free use File:Marian Mercer.jpeg, User talk:Eric Carpenter#Orphaned non-free image File:Veronica Vera.jpg, etc., but they haven't stopped uploading images with such issues; moreover, this attempt at disputing an image is replaceable non-free use seems to indicate that nothing that's been explained to them about FREER so far has been understood. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, File:Bad Cats pic.jpg and File:Russ Kingston.jpg are the same images that were previously deleted. File:Barrie Youngfellow.jpg is a different photo and the deleted version was from Getty Images. I have given the uploader a partial block, they are no longer able to upload files. ✗plicit 10:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on these. It's unfortunate a partial block needed to put in place, but additional warnings seem pointless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moog model 15

Can you please check the talk page? Talk:Moog Model 15#Focus of article Warmonger123 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FFD backlog

Hi, and thank you for your longstanding work in dealing with FFD nominations. Recently there have been a significant backlog in these nominations, with the oldest unresolved FFD nominations dating back to last year's 30 December.

I would be grateful if you can take a look and close some of these nominations. Thank you, and happy Lunar New Year!廣九直通車 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salt for HornBlasters?

Hello, I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/HornBlasters (3rd nomination) as "delete." Given the support expressed by all three participants in the discussion for salting, would you be willing to creation-protect that title? Thanks, I appreciate it! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971:

Done, title salted. ✗plicit 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mherj

This is not about Salt for HornBlasters.

I created a draft called "Mherj" as I was trying to inform the world of mine own culture and it seems you deleted it saying it was a "blatant hoax". I do not appreciate my culture being called a hoax and if you don't mind could I please get access to my deleted draft so I may finish it. If you do this I will be very grateful for your help, and I'd forgive your offense against my people. Thank and have a good day. Lýdia Ethreyllh (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi.png

Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi.png? The file was uploaded without a source and without a license; so, I tagged it with {{nsdnld}} and notified the uploader of such. The uploader did subsequently add both, but another editor then tagged the file with {{copyvio}}. This other editor is new and probably meant well, but just doesn't know that the template they used isn't for files. Whether the PD-Pakistan claim being made by the uploader is correct is unclear, but that probably should be discussed at FFD and not WP:CP, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

انقل الاصل المكان الطبيعي 176.29.173.86 (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Derek_Johnson_(conspiracy_theorist)

Hello Explicit, There is a person on Facebook using referring to Derek Johnson. I remembered reading the Wikipedia page about him and I am trying to find some articles that were on that page debunking Johnson's claims.

I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this isn't proper channels. I think that he is notable enough as a conspiracy theorist. I remember that the page I read had some content about him as a musician and I agree that he's not notable in the music domain.

He is discussed a little, though: [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/CountryMusicStuff/comments/y23wax/verifying_derek_johnsons_appearances_on_the/ Nhojil (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhojil:

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete non-free image used for Louis Althusser

Hello—someone drive-by changed the lead image on Louis Althusser for inexplicable reasons, which caused File:Althusser.jpg to be deleted as an unused non-free image. Would it be possible to undelete? Remsense ‥ 论 22:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense:

Done, file restored. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Remsense ‥ 论 23:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Remsense: It looks like whoever changed the file might've done so because they felt File:Louis Althusser line drawing (8421995478).jpg was an acceptable free equivalent per WP:FREER. That can be debated perhaps, and the person who did that most likely meant well; the problem, though, is the Commons file might actually be a unacceptable for Commons per c:COM:BASEDONPHOTO despite its Flickr licensing because it's a c:COM:DW. @Explicit: Would you consider the Commons image a case of c:COM:LL since the drawing seems really closely based on this particular non-free image? This is the kind of thing that the bot FlickreviewR is unable to assess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo has to be discarded, I would probably insist that there be no lead image on the article, as the sketch seems meritless, and frankly a bit embarrassing. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly and Remsense: I think a case regarding DW can be made either way as the style of File:Louis Althusser line drawing (8421995478).jpg is quite rudimentary when compared to the photograph; c:COM:BASEDONPHOTO states that a drawing can be inspired by the photos or the photos used to get to know the likeness of the subject without the drawing being a derived work (original emphasis). A c:COM:DR test would settle that.

I personally think that this particular artwork is not a reasonable replacement which satisfies WP:FREER. I have no intention in pursuing its deletion. Someone else might feel differently and nominate the non-free portrait for deletion, in which case consensus will sort that out. ✗plicit 02:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Thanks for clarifying with respect to BASEDONPHOTO. FWIW, I also wasn't arguing that FREER was being met by the drawing; only pointing out that could've been why the file was replaced. If the person who replaced the photo or anyone else feels that the photo is replaceable non-free use because of the drawing, they should start a discussion about it at FFD.

@Remsense: If this same thing happens again you should advise the other person not try to have to non-free file deleted again without discussion per WP:F5, but rather seek consensus at FFD. You might also consider adding a link to this discussion either somewhere in the file's non-free use rationale (perhaps the |other= parameter) or the file's talk page just for reference in case this comes up again. Whether the drawing could also be used in the article together with the photo is, however, a separate discussion for the article's talk page that's not really related to FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]