User talk:Explicit

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 10:41 PM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

For god's sake I'm not a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet who created these articles earlier is someone else. I can guarantee that, I am just a regular of the TV shows Baatein Kuch Ankahee Si and Udne Ki Aasha which is why I am creating articles of the actors of these shows. Please check my edit history if you have doubts but for god's sake please don't ignore my request and block me again. My request is that can you please shift the deleted articles of these actors into the draft space because according to my knowledge they have acting notability. I will make edits to the drafts and then submit it to the AFC. So as the admin who deleted these articles, can you please restore the articles to the draft space? Regards. 117.230.189.80 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to make your case with your original account if you're truly not a sockpuppet. Until then, the G5 deletions of Amma&Papa's pages will stand. ✗plicit 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this account as you have asked. This is going to be my account from now onwards. So, can you please shift the deleted articles of Neha Harsora and Sayli Salunkhe to draft space? Ilovetvshows (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetvshows: Uhh, I didn't ask you to create an account. I asked you to repeal the block using your original account Amma&Papa. Instructions to request an unblock are at User talk:Amma&Papa#Blocked as a sockpuppet. ✗plicit 06:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do that but will there be any problem because I created User:Ilovetvshows? 117.230.171.209 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Hi can you please restore the deleted articles of Neha Harsora and Sayli Salunkhe in the draftspace. I promise I will not create any issues, work on the drafts and submit them for review. Please? 117.249.210.219 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Explicit

Today you deleted File:KenyaGrace.jpg but I did respond in time with the reason why it should stay (see below). Please can you let me know your thought process? Should I reupload it from scratch, putting the following? Just let me know what's needed please :)

{{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|I looked online but the only other photos of her that I could find were on sale from Getty Images and Alamy. The photo that I used was taken directly from her own website where she is promoting her works. I would consider contacting the artist or her representatives to request copyright permission, however given that there appear to be no other free images of her available I would instead further the view that this image is not replaceable}}

Thanks Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 16:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Control-alt-delete: Hi, our non-free content criteria policy is incredibly strict in regards to using a non-free photo in an article about a living individual. Although a freely licensed image of the individual may not exist at the moment, it is possible that one can be created as long as the person is alive. As such, most non-free photos of living individuals fail WP:NFCC#1. ✗plicit 23:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's understood, thanks for your help @Explicit Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I hope you're doing well. Could you please tell me if this works the way i think it does? When we use a non-free album cover on Wikipedia where the album itself is the topic of the article, it is justified as fair use by WP:NFC#CS. Now, I thought that if permission from the copyright holder is obtained, it can be used freely, but apparently that is not the case, [1], [2]. Could you tell me what would happen if we obtained permission to use non-free cover art and then deliberately used a rescaled version, that is, 300x300 pixels? Wouldn't that satisfy both conditions? Neither is needed nor am i asking this for when albums themselves are the topic of the article, but for when we wish to use them in an article where they are not the topic, or much better for alternative covers that can be inserted using the template extra album cover.

A while back, we had this discussion about a cover art, right? So that day, i contacted the copyright holder, CoMix Wave, seeking permission. It took a while, but a few days ago they replied and have refused because the cover art is an excerpt of the film poster and was included as a bonus with the film, and they have stated that the article is already using a cover of the film. Additionally, they have also stated that they cannot provide permission because they should not be involved in editing the wiki's page. I believe this stems from them being aware of WP:COI. I have sent a follow-up message clarifying some things. So, if permission is obtained and verified by the steps listed in WP:PERMISSION, can a lower resolution of 300x300 be used? Because I'm sure obtaining permission rules out any copyright issues. Or is there something that i still fail to understand? Lunar-akaunto／talk 05:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar-akaunto: Hi, freely licensed album cover can be used in any article. There would be no limitations regarding its use in certain articles and there is not need to scale them down because the copyright holder would have granted the use of their work. The first link you provided specifically deals with files that do not allow commercial use, like {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}. Such files are subject to speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#F3. ✗plicit 01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. So, potentially, if the permission for cover art is granted and i add it to the soundtrack section of the article, that would be subject to deletion, right? Lunar-akaunto／talk 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) In general, non-free album cover art isn't allowed to be used in "Soundtrack" subsections of stand-alone articles about films per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:FILMSCORE, and any type of CC-by-NC or CC-by-ND type of license isn't free enough for Wikipedia's purposes and needs to be treated as non-free content. Freely licensed (e.g. CC-by-SA) or public domain album cover art isn't, on the other hand, subject to the same restrictions as non-free album covers are and can, in principle, be used in such sections from a WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files standpoint. It's important to understand, though, image use is much like text in that it's also subject WP:CONSENSUS; so, an image being free enough for Wikipedia's purposes from a copyright standpoint doesn't automatically mean it should be used from an encyclopedic standpoint. If, for example, there is a stand-alone article written about the soundtrack album, then using it a second time in the "Soundtrack" section of the film's artice might be seen as unncessary for encyclopedic reasons. Such a file won't necessary be deleted, but it might end up not being used because unless there's a consensus established to do so. When it comes to soundtrack cover art, WikiProject Film seems to have established a guideline stating that soundtrack cover art not be used in soundtrack sections for encyclopedic reasons even when the cover art isn't non-free content. If you want to know why that's the case, you'll probably need to ask at WT:FILM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I'll try asking at WT:FILM, but i was asking this in general context and not films exclusively. I understand that just being freely licensed or complying with WP:NFC#CS doesn't mean the image can be used in several articles. I encountered something similar at Vinland Saga (TV series); the image satisfied contextual significance because of adequate commentary, but my conscience was that it should be removed from there since a separate soundtrack was created using the cover. I respect the community-wide consensus, but i presume that the fundamental reason behind these consensuses is to prevent any legal trouble from the copyright holders and not infringe authors' rights—when appropriate, there exists WP:NFC#CS. Now, I'm sure that if Wikipedia just used full-resolution images, that would certainly satisfy the contextual claim, but essentially, we'd then become a host for piracy, which is precisely why we rescale those images to lower resolution, right? I thought that if permission were obtained, the imag would be free from the restrictions of point 1 and rescaling it would satisfy point 2. Do you understand? Lunar-akaunto／talk 10:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Where did you go? What do i make of this cover art situation now? Lunar-akaunto／talk 03:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't go anywhere. I just don't feel I need be like Lurch and respond everytime some rings the bell, particularly when I don't really understand what the question is. I wasn't around when Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was created; so, I don't really know how to answer abstract questions about why Wikipedia policy is what it is. Perhaps the answers you're looking for can be found buried in the archives of WT:NFCC or in the archives of WP:VPP. Given also that this is Explicit's user talk page, it's probably better to try and discuss more general policy related things on the relevant policy's talk page, which in this case is the aforementioned WT:NFCC. There are some people who were around when the policy was hammered out still actively editing, and perhaps one of them can provide you with the information you're looking for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Apologies, I only pinged you because you replied earlier, so i thought you'd continue the conversation. I'll try looking for an answer in the archives. I understand that it's not a very good thing to do to have discussions on someone else's talk page, as they'll get notifications every time i do so. Just a thing: I only came here because Explicit primarily works in the related area, and more importantly, because in the past i have posted some general doubts on Wikiprojects' talk pages, and till date there hasn't been any reply, so i prefer user talk pages over those. That is all. I'll be off then. Good day. Lunar-akaunto／talk 15:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you if my response was snarky. I just didn't know how to answer your questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. I understand. Lunar-akaunto／talk 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit:, Please close this deletion nomination. Hamwal (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where is this page man? WestNet_Wireless ? > 147.92.69.201 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joe Lonsdale. 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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it's a 2019 season, I really don't know why you redirected to 2009! Govvy (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, why haven't you fixed your erroneous close and the redirect. Govvy (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Since the target had already been adjusted, I didn't see much of a need for it. Nonetheless, I have done so now. Would you like to fix the malformed redirect target you provided in the deletion discussion or no? ✗plicit 12:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!! I have observed an article on Wikipedia named as Gupta–Kidarite conflict.This article is created by a sockpuppet so that it contains high amount of misinformation.Please take any step towards this article, either delete or move it to draftspace if possible.The user that made this article had been blocked several times for vandalising Wikipedia by making this kind of destructive edits. It will be good if you look into the gravity of the topic and take appropriate actions towards it. Thanks!! Masterliverwort (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit. Can you tell whether this file is the same as c:File:MDCL Building at McMaster University.jpg? You deleted the local file in August 2016, but a file with the same name was uploaded to Commons in January 2018. If they're actually the same image, then it's not clear why local file wasn't just relicensed or why the Commons file was never VRT verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the images are not the same. The deleted local file was a tiny (340 × 223) nighttime photo sourced to the university's website. ✗plicit 04:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What would be the proper delete template, and why didn't you apply it? Thanks Doug Saintrain (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saintrain: Hi, Joa does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. You are free to nominate it for discussion at WP:RFD. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Explicit, thanks for closing this redirect deletion request, and for deleting the originally listed redirects. Could you please also delete the three Cameron family redirects that were subsequently added to the same request by Omnis Scientia, or do we need to go round the loop again for those? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also the redirect for Wilfred Johnson. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: Hi, those redirects were not tagged for discussion and were brought up less than 48 hours before closure. Deleting them would have been out of process. They must be nominated separately. ✗plicit 11:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]