User talk:Explicit
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Deleted articles
[edit]@Davidgoodheart: Disappearance of Gary Hayward and OCEAN Design Research Association. ✗plicit 06:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Improper article closing
[edit]There is a smelly fish somewhere. I contributed to the article discussion at List of tallest buildings in the European Union. In short order, the article, a 2nd nomination by Brian Kendig was closed by Anonymous 7:11 am, Today (UTC−5). There doesn't appear to be such a person or entity, and even if there were, this discussion needed Admin closing. The article still has the AFD tag on it. There is a notification on the talk page "This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep." Another notification: "This article was nominated for deletion on March 31, 2024. The result of the discussion was delete". Both notifications point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in the European Union. Would you please look at this? -- Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Otr500: The discussion closure was the result sockpuppets and IPs of the LTA BuickCenturyDriver, which can be viewed in the past history of the second AFD. I had the misfortune of running into this behavior yesterday around this time. There has been disruption across a number of deletion discussions by this user for at least the past two days. Regarding List of tallest buildings in the European Union, this article was deleted last year at AFD, and the notice on the talk page simply documents that. ✗plicit 14:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
-I am confused. I have been under the impression that a closer is supposed to use comments, based on policies and guidelines, to determine consensus. In my ignorance I "ass"umed blocks and bans, even possibly range blocks, would curtail the issue. I do know there was an issue with the "not a valid !vote" before mine and indicated this. I have been sorely misled, not knowing that our solution to socks and IPs targeting any Wikipedia action can derail the action. Like a young child learning, it took about one instant of the socks and IP's action with satisfactory results, to get a train ride of the same. So why the "not a name" closing, and the disception on listing the same result twice to bury the action? In my opinion this sort of blows transparency to hell. I know there is going to be the appearance of a logical rationale, but it will not convince me. This means my contributions can be somewhat worthless. Well, they say there are nearly 6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, so we can always find something else to do. Those who think notability is a waste of time, as well as those that think all articles belong on Wikipedia, regardless of notability, will be happier. Have a great day. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
I'm fairly sure you already have a goat, and it may appreciate this stylish hat...
I trust you're now picturing a goat wearing a kitten as a hat.
My work here is done.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Article Review
[edit]Hello administrator, I would like to ask if my sandbox page User:JuanHughery/sandbox or draft:Ali Azhar D can be moved to the English Wikipedia main page? JuanHughery (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
[edit]Hi Explicit! I think this discussion was closed prematurely. Can it be restored so that more people have time to comment? Only one person voted, and from what I see the related discussion on the talk page has reasons provided by a few editors for why the photo is public domain. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @NutmegCoffeeTea: Hi, sorry to say, but there is no evidence that this particular image is freely licensed. While the artwork itself is in the public domain, a photograph creates a second copyright by the photographer (c:COM:DW#What is a derivative work?). It was deleted on Commons twice for this very reason. The crop is a faithful 2D reproduction, which is fine to use. More information regarding the copyrights concerning public domain artwork can be found at c:COM:DW#Casebook, particularly the third bullet point. ✗plicit 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- The talk page has reasons for why it's public domain on the basis of a not creative photo of a public domain work not being eligible for copyright protection. Since the photo isn't creative it inherits the public domain status of the work itself. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- More specifically, photographs of 3D works don't get a blanket exemption like photographs of 2D, but those photographs must still pass the threshold of originality to considered a creative work and thus eligible for copyright protection. So a reproduction photograph of a 3D work that has been in public domain for 400 years isn't something that anyone would argue is intended to be derivative.
- You can see the artistic qualities in the derivative example you provided
- While the ink box photo has no such qualities because the lighting and camera positioning are not manipulated
- I could be totally wrong (not my field!) but I'd support allowing for a longer discussion as there was only one vote. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @NutmegCoffeeTea: File:Venus de Milo edited.jpg contains no issues because on top of the statue being in the public domain, the photographer also released their image under a Creative Commons license. If the uploader chose not to freely license their work, Commons would not be able to host that file. While some countries do have higher thresholds when it comes to the originality of photographic works (France comes to mind), most do not. If there is evidence that the deleted photograph was first published in one of those countries with laws similar to France, it's worth taking another look, but such evidence has not been forthcoming. ✗plicit 00:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Please undelete this. I am going to turn it into an article here. Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @FieldMarine: The deleted content only contains a redirect history. Is that something which is really needed? ✗plicit 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes please. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
_poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hi Explicit. I saw that you recently deleted the film poster used on the page Flow (2024 film). The file was deleted per NFCC #1, which is usually only done for files where free alternative are available. As the film poster is copyrighted and no non-copyrighted poster for the film exists, I'm a bit confused as to how that NFCC applied. Would you mind re-reviewing the decision? I assume that you deleted the file after it was incorrectly tagged, or something similar. Best regards, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
- The tagger pointed at c:File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png as a replacement. —Cryptic 02:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Hi, the user who tagged the file cited File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png as a freely licensed alternative; a related discussion can be at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png. I have now added to the article. ✗plicit 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. Cheers, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Explicit Hello, I tagged the file for this because c:File:Blender_4.4-splash_screen.png is the exact same scene as the poster, with higher quality. @Areaseven reuploaded the poster as File:Flow movie poster.jpg and they and @Jon698 keep re adding it to the article. I asked if there is any policy overriding NFCC that the infobox image must be a poster, but Jon undid it again without citing any policy.
- The rationale "As film poster art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the same artwork or poster would also be copyrighted" is clearly not correct in this case. 999real (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @999real Every single film page uses the poster in the infobox. No written policy is needed as it is the de facto way of doing this. Jon698 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- The theatrical trailer for 2001: A Space Odyssey and the entirety of Charade (1963 film) are in the public domain yet we still use the copyrighted posters for the infoboxes because that is what we do. Jon698 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Jon698 shouldn't you know better than to make Wikipedia:Other stuff exists arguments?
- For Charade (1963 film) the poster is also in the public domain, so that is not even true, and the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey is very different, the trailer and poster are not similar, unlike for Flow.
- Again, the non free use rationale is not valid. Being the "de facto way" is not going to make it pass NFCC. 999real (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @999real You have no right to lecture anybody about arguments. Find me a single example of a modern film using a screencap of the film, let alone something with a company watermark in it, in the infobox rather than a film poster. Jon698 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- You should also be able to read at the top that "nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Jon698 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Since this is a free image, we can crop the watermark out of it. Again, the non free use rationale "any other image that shows the same artwork or poster would also be copyrighted" is not true. 999real (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Your image is not similar to the film poster whatsoever. Its dimensions are different, the way it is framed is different, the font of the film's title is not used, and the rest of the poster information is not included. Also, once again, there is no precedent for what you want to do. Jon698 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is not "my image". Nothing in the poster is readable except the text "Flow". Again, since there is a free image, it can be edited. The precedent is right here: Wikipedia:NFCC 999real (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Once again you are fundamentally wrong. You have no precedent. Jon698 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- The fundamental fact is that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy and the usage rationale "any other image that shows the same artwork or poster would also be copyrighted" is simply not true, no matter how different this image looks to you, it is undeniably an image that shows the same artwork. 999real (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- If that's your attitude, then go tag every other film poster image on Wikipedia! Like @Jon698 mentioned, film posters are used in the infobox of film articles. But given your recent activities, you appear to have a personal agenda on Flow in particular. So do yourself a favor and drop the issue. - Areaseven (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have an agenda of using free images when they are available. Of course, we can only replace non free posters if there is a free representative image of the film, which there happens to be in this case.
- So far you two haven't cited any policy or even a discussed consensus that posters must be used in the infobox. So how is this de facto usage supposed to override Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? 999real (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- If that's your attitude, then go tag every other film poster image on Wikipedia! Like @Jon698 mentioned, film posters are used in the infobox of film articles. But given your recent activities, you appear to have a personal agenda on Flow in particular. So do yourself a favor and drop the issue. - Areaseven (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- The fundamental fact is that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy and the usage rationale "any other image that shows the same artwork or poster would also be copyrighted" is simply not true, no matter how different this image looks to you, it is undeniably an image that shows the same artwork. 999real (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Once again you are fundamentally wrong. You have no precedent. Jon698 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is not "my image". Nothing in the poster is readable except the text "Flow". Again, since there is a free image, it can be edited. The precedent is right here: Wikipedia:NFCC 999real (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @999real If you crop the Blender image, you automatically invalidate that image's CC license and you're left with the Flow cat, which is a copyrighted character. Now what license do you plan to use on an image of a copyrighted character that is clearly not a screenshot or a movie poster? - Areaseven (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, that is not how Creative Commons licenses work. All the CC licenses except NonDerivatives allow making modified works. See c:Template:Free depiction 999real (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Where does it say that you may alter the image while retaining the CC license? - Areaseven (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, that is not how Creative Commons licenses work. All the CC licenses except NonDerivatives allow making modified works. See c:Template:Free depiction 999real (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Your image is not similar to the film poster whatsoever. Its dimensions are different, the way it is framed is different, the font of the film's title is not used, and the rest of the poster information is not included. Also, once again, there is no precedent for what you want to do. Jon698 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @999real You have no right to lecture anybody about arguments. Find me a single example of a modern film using a screencap of the film, let alone something with a company watermark in it, in the infobox rather than a film poster. Jon698 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- The theatrical trailer for 2001: A Space Odyssey and the entirety of Charade (1963 film) are in the public domain yet we still use the copyrighted posters for the infoboxes because that is what we do. Jon698 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @999real Every single film page uses the poster in the infobox. No written policy is needed as it is the de facto way of doing this. Jon698 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Hi, the user who tagged the file cited File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png as a freely licensed alternative; a related discussion can be at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blender 4.4-splash screen.png. I have now added to the article. ✗plicit 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@999real: There's no administrative action I can take now that the file was reuploaded. The next step is to nominated the film poster for deletion at WP:FFD for wider community input. ✗plicit 13:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
Grand City Properties
[edit]Please read my comment on the talk before you undo my last action. tnx. Hightex (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Hightex: The discussion is closed and the article was deleted. There is no undoing it. ✗plicit 14:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you delete the article? There was no consensus for deletion. I agreed that the article needed some editing. The source I just cited from this week is a proof that the WP should not be deleted. Hightex (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Hightex: There was clear consensus to delete the article, even after being relisted for an additional seven days. There wasn't a single user advocating to keep the article on a policy-based argument. I don't plan to undo my closure, so you are free to take the matter to deletion review. ✗plicit 00:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Tnx, done. Hightex (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Hightex: There was clear consensus to delete the article, even after being relisted for an additional seven days. There wasn't a single user advocating to keep the article on a policy-based argument. I don't plan to undo my closure, so you are free to take the matter to deletion review. ✗plicit 00:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you delete the article? There was no consensus for deletion. I agreed that the article needed some editing. The source I just cited from this week is a proof that the WP should not be deleted. Hightex (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Directorate General of Health Services Logo
[edit]Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Directorate General of Health Services Logo.svg and File:Directorate General of Health Services(DGHS).svg? It's not clear why the same user uploaded a local non-free file and also a PD version to Commons within an hour of each other on the same day back in 2022. Not sure which license is correct, but only that they both can't be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- @Marchjuly: Hi, since the logo is based on the freely licensed File:Government Seal of Bangladesh.svg and a PD-simple rendition of the Rod of Asclepius, it seems safe to assume the Commons file is okay to keep. I have replaced and deleted the local version. ✗plicit 11:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Grand City Properties
[edit]An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grand City Properties. 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. Hightex (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
FFD close question
[edit]Hi Explicit. Although I can somewhat understand your "no consensus" close with respect to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 26#File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg, there was some related discussion regarding these files and some other similar files uploaded by this user at User talk:Wikiaddict8962#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TClaudeNelson-Williams.jpeg. It seems as if these should at least be verified by VRT, but it's not clear whether the uploader is willing to do so. The uploader is concerned that VRT verification might violatie their privacy. FWIW, the files actually were tagged with {{npd}} at first, but the uploader removed the tags. So, another user started the discussion about them at FFD. Are these, in your opinion, OK as licensed or do they need VRT verification? If it's a case of the latter, I'm not sure how to convince the uploader that VRT verification will not violate their privacy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: To be honest, I think that this is a case which can't be resolved because the uploader is unwilling to reveal their identity even to the VRT team. Unless there's actual evidence to suggest the files are infringing on someone else's rights, the discussion just kind of hits a dead end. ✗plicit 06:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- I sort of feel the same way too. At the same time, though, I'm not sure we should be keeping files just because the uploader is unwilling to resolve things by verifying their copyright ownership. File:Tolbertfamily1913.jpg is another file uploaded by the same user as own work, but it almost certainly is no longer eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:Liberia. The two files discussed at FFD might actually be PD per c:COM:Sierra Leone or c:Template:PD-heirs, but the uploader never really responded to those queries. FWIW, there are other files with similar issues uploaded by this user; for example, File:RAHenries.jpg, File:RomeoAHorton.jpg, File:JohnLCooper.jpg, File:ArthurStuart.jpg, File:WilliePriddy.jpg, File:Americo-Liberians.jpg and File:Tubmanfamily1917.jpg. The claims of "own work" and CC licensing seem questionable at best, but some probably can be converted to non-free and some might even be PD for some reason if more information was known about their provenance. These too should probably be moved to Commons if they're OK to keep, right? Would it be in appropriate to tag these for a move to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
