| Revision as of 04:39, 19 June 2024 editTonton12 (talk | contribs)5 edits →Koimoi← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:07, 20 January 2025 edit undoExplicit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators328,299 edits →Deleted articles: Reply. | ||
| (836 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 56 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == |
==Deleted articles== | ||
| Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I please see the deleted articles ] and ]. ] (]) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} and . ]] 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I please see the deleted articles ], ], and ]. ] (]) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} and . ] was just a redirect to ]. ]] 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Please can I see the deleted articles ] and ]. ] (]) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} and . ]] 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please can I see the deleted articles ], ], and ]. ] (]) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} , , . ]] 12:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Question and advice regarding Moe's Southwest Grill logo == | |||
| Hi Explicit, | |||
| Hi Explict. I recently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons a new logo of Moe's Southwest Grill (File:Moes Southwest Grill logo.png). On 21 November 2023, an IP user made an edit that removed that logo from the article. The edit summary, in part, stated, "Removed outdated logo." After I had uploaded the new logo, I noticed that you had deleted the Misplaced Pages-stored image of ] on 10 February 2024, with the rationale "F5: Unused non-free media file". Although I am unable to view it due to its deletion, the evidence above suggests that this was the previous logo of Moe's Southwest Grill. To me, the new logo does not qualify for copyright protection as it does not appear to meet the originality threshold required for copyright. The new logo appears to merely consist of text and geometric symbols (a box, three triangles, and a generic pepper symbol), although it appears certainly eligible for trademark protection. There seems to be some level of consensus that the pepper symbol (see the commons entry to File:Chili's Logo.svg) is not copyrightable. I could understand an argument the elements are combined in a way that would make it copyrightable, but for the reasons mentioned above, I don't find it particularly persuasive. Since you are the deleting administrator on the original logo and are an admin on Commons, I will defer to your judgment over whether the current logo is copyrightable or not. If you feel it does meet copyright protection and delete it from commons, I would like to upload the new logo to Misplaced Pages under fair use rational, unless you have any objections. Thanks! ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I hope all is well! | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I am contacting you (hopefully in the right way) to contest the deletion of my Misplaced Pages page "Can Man Dan". I'm not sure why it was deleted, but I happened to notice its removal today when I was speaking at a school and we were trying to pull up some information and relevant news stories. | |||
| When deleting files per ], please ensure that Commons has the high-resolution copy of the file, not just the bot-reduced ] version. --] (]) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Can_Man_Dan | |||
| :{{Reply to|Stefan2}} I have uploaded the higher resolution. ]] 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg == | |||
| Believe it or not, that article helps me fundraise for a variety of free community events in Alberta -- it's a nice way for people to see our (my team and I) history as do-gooders. I would love to have it back if possible? I may not be famous worldwide, but people know me up in Canada -- which I'm not sure counts lol | |||
| Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? I think it's a reupload of the same file you deleted back in November. The licensing is almost certainly incorrect and the file's not being used anywhere; so, I don't see a way to convert it to non-free (at least not at the moment). I tagged the file with "npd" per F11, but this probably meets to criteria for F9. -- ] (]) 11:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I saw that it was self-gratifying or whatever you posted, and I can tell you that I don't edit my own page lol. I barely know if this is the best way to get a hold of you to contest this deletion. | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, it is indeed the same image. The use of {{tl|npd}} works in this case. ]] 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for checking. -- ] (]) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Pop-weaver-22pack.jpg == | |||
| Anyway, thank you for your consideration and God bless. | |||
| Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? No source or license was provided, but I'm guessing the image comes from some website (same image can by found on several websites like ). This almost certainly wasn't taken by the uploader; so, that makes the photo non-free. The packaging imagery as well is also likely non-free. The non-free photo in and of itself would most likely fail ] since a free photo or 2D non-free image could be used instead; however, the way the file's currently being used in ] most likely even means that a free or 2D non-free image of the packaging only would also fail NFCC#8. Should this be tagged with F4 or should it be tagged per F9? -- ] (]) 08:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please let me know if you have any questions! | |||
| == File:Jay Estiquita.jpg == | |||
| "Can Man Dan" | |||
| Daniel Johnstone ] (]) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Could you also take a look at ]? It appears to be a reupload of a file you deleted per F4 yesterday, and it might be a selfie given how it's being used. The uploader has also uploaded several other files without licensing or source information too (some have already been deleted) that probably need to be assessed. ] looks like it might be OK to convert to non-free, but I'm not sure the same can be said about ]. -- ] (]) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I created this account if you need to get a hold of me! ] (]) 22:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply to|DanielJohnstone}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 03:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, Xplicit! You really helped a brother out -- thank you. God bless and much love. ] (]) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== A barnstar for you! == | ||
| Hi there. Since you extensively work in this field, I wanted to ask: is using a non-free album cover inappropriate when the topic of the article is not the album / soundtrack itself? Yes, it can be added after creating a separate article for it, but what if the album is not notable enough to have its own dedicated article and only exists as a sub-section of another? Can it be used after appending a valid rationale explicitly stating that it will be only used in a single article to illustrate the appearance of the said work? Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} Hi, in general, it's not appropriate to use a non-free album cover on any page other than in the infobox of the article about the album itself. ]] 12:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I'm bordering on the guidelines themselves, but it's just that I never gave this much thought before. Can there be exceptions to this, say, if a consensus is reached on the talk page of the said article? Contextual significance says to use it when it would increase the readers' understanding. That clearly justifies the use in an article where the album itself is the topic, but I don't understand how it does not apply to an article where the album is listed as a sub-section of another. The cover still remains very much inferior to the original and, in no way, is detrimental to the original work. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more important thing: the ] does not say anything about this, but I wanted to ask just how many extra covers can be used in an album's infobox. I see alternative covers being used left and right; can there be a second alternative cover added if it is substantially different from the previous two present? My conscience says going over 3 would be overkill, no matter how different the covers may be, but I think it's already not so wise to speak of adding a second alternative cover. What do you think of this? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} There have been several RFCs in the past about the subject, which is explained in detail at ]. Consensus has time and time again that the use of album covers anywhere outside of the album article generally do not meet the ]. | |||
| :::Regarding the use of a second extra album cover, I can't say that I'm aware of any examples off the top of my head. I do vaguely remember many years ago a discussion at FFD regarding ''seven'' very different additional album covers by a European singer, and I'm pretty sure all of them were deleted because none of them were critically discussed in the article. ]] 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand. One last thing, since this seems to depend on the context and significance of the cover on the section, do you suggest I try proposing adding the cover to the article's talk page? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seven covers?! That's not something I could think of. | |||
| ::::Anyhow, thank you for your help. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tpw}} Just going to add the following to what Explicit posted above. The first is that a ]; in other words, article talk page discussion can't take precendence over established community-wide policy or guidelines just because it's what those discussing on the talk page might want to do. The second one is that even though the people making templates like {{tl|extra album cover}} have really made some things easier, they sometimes either don't give much thought to or intentionally avoid going into too much detail in the template's documentation as to how policies related to image use might impact the use of the template. There are lots of templates that have an image-related parameter, but it's really the responsiblity of those wanting to use an image in a template (not the template's creator) to make sure doing so complies with relevant policies related to image use. -- ] (]) 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Yes, exactly; that's what I thought as well, which is why I asked here. Thank you for linking to the template; it was helpful. About the template creators specifying the use in the template, when i said ''the template does not say anything about this'', what i meant was not to imply that the template should mention it or question the creators' choice but just a query since it doesn't mention it. I totally understand that just because a parameter exists and is there does not mean that it should or can be used. Anyhow, my doubts regarding this are cleared now. | |||
| ::::::If you don't mind, see, I understand one exception to using cover art where the album itself is not the topic of the article is where adequate and properly sourced commentary is provided. Do you thin it is appropriate to add the cover art for ]? My reasoning for this is that the album is not very well known; it was never released as a standalone album and was released only bundled with the movie. To date, the album is digitally exclusive to Japan. I think it'd be helpful to readers in recognising the said album, as even the web doesn't filter many results. Not being well known, in turn, might raise concerns about piracy, but that's already countered by using a low resolution cover that is very inferior to the original. | |||
| ::::::One last thing: do you think there are any chances of this being approved if a consensus is appealed to the community? Is ] talk page the right place to propose it? thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 06:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'll answer your questions in reverse order since the second one is easier to answer. Proposals to change policy or general questions as to how it's applied should be made/asked at ], whereas discussion related to an individual file and how it's being used should be made a ].{{pb}} Regarding '']'', I think there's zero chance of such a non-free use being cosidered policy compliant; not only because of ] that Explicit mentioned above, but also because of ]. So, unless there's something about the cover art itself (i.e. some controversy or other reason) covered in some depth by reliable sources, none of the reasoning you posted above would (again in my opinion) rise above the level of ] non-free use. Even in that case, such content would be more appropriate for a stand-alone article about the album or perhaps a stand-alone article about the artist/creator/designer of the cover art. If you tried to add a non-free album cover to that section, the file would likely be ]ded for deletion as clear-cut violation of relevant policy. You could ] it, but I don't see a consensus being established for in favor of its inclusion at FFD. As for being {{tq|digitally exclusive to Japan}}, I'm not sure how that's even possible given today's technologies, but it might also not even be true because of , , and (assuming that's the same soundtrack). Finally, even the track list in that section probably shouldn't be there per "WP:FiLMSCORE". -- ] (]) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Mmm I see. But, well, it's fine. I just wanted a third opinion, and I can agree with what you said. It's not something major, so I'll drop the idea of adding the cover and get on the same boat as you and @{{u|Explicit}}. | |||
| ::::::::Okay, so I didn't originally add the listing here; it existed long before, but considering it is a good article, the reviewer or others probably considered it, right? i don't ever recall reading ]. This is the first time someone's pointed me to it. Though i must admit this doesn't excuse me from adding listings, I have done it very often. So, I'm genuinely confused now. Is it walking the thin line when adding the listing themselves? I mean, we're not streaming the audio, and we have already omitted the cover where possible, so how is it detrimental to the original work? | |||
| ::::::::About the release, what you listed in 3 of the links is {{nihongo|''Kotonoha''|言ノ葉}} by Motohiro Hata, who sang the theme song for the film (it is not the official soundttrack to the film but a single by Hata, which too was exclusive to Japan until recently; it only received a global release last year). What I was talking about was {{nihongo|''The Garden of Words Original Soundtrack''|言の葉の庭 サウンドトラック}}. To date, it is exclusive to Japan, for whatever reason the label knows. It is one of my favourites, but it's a shame the label never went for global release. (the 4th link is unofficial and was uploaded by some random user, but it still remains that sources like that are what allowed me to listen to the soundtrack in the first place, but it's fine because the profits still go to the label). {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);" | |||
| == ] == | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' | |||
| Hello Explicit, could you please explain to me how the former logo of NI Railways (Northern Irelands State Owned Railway company was not fair use). It was in the public domain. I am not saying you're wrong to remove it. It's just NI Railways had three logos throughout its life the original one on the page as we speak, the one you deleted that was used until 2021, and the current one presently used. If this version of the logo cannot be replaced, could you suggest another way to incorporate into the Wiki page "NI Railways". Many Thanks | |||
| |- | |||
| ] 13:47, 15 June 2024 (IST) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for noticing my unsigned opinion and adding a signature! ] (]) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|RooneyDonal21}} Hi, the file you linked was tagged as fair use; only the current infobox image is tagged as being in the public domain. ]] 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :O right, is there any way to get the image back in a different copyright or it is gone for good ] (]) 14:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD nomination at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}} == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>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 ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. –] (]]) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Softly deleted article == | |||
| Hi Explicit, The article I created was Softly deleted at ] by you. The article was deleted as per only one editor suggestion and I were not around to object for his nomination. The subject of the article is notable not only his political involvement but also he is business man and lots of media coverages which I can provide. ] (]) 06:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Koimoi == | |||
| Hi Team, | |||
| == File:Manmohanmisra.jpeg == | |||
| I have reviewed your comments regarding the deletion of Koimoi's Misplaced Pages page (]) and would like to share my observations and findings. | |||
| ] is another file you deleted that's been reuploaded. You deleted this or another file with the same name last August per F11. There's a claim of permission that this is a "family" photo received from photo subject's daughter, but there's nothing provided to verify that. This seems similar to what was claimed for the photo before. Do you think if this is the same photo that it's OK to tag with {{tlx|npd}} again or should it go to FFD this time around? FWIW, this is the same as ] uploaded to Commons by the same person; the Commons file, though, is being claimed as "own work", which is different from what's being claimned for the local file. -- ] (]) 00:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| From your comments, I understand that you were unable to find authoritative sources citing Koimoi, which is why there were concerns regarding the authenticity of their information. I did a little bit of digging on the web and found some information you might find interesting. | |||
| ==New message from DreamRimmer== | |||
| Here are a few of the major publishers that refer to Koimoi: | |||
| {{talkback|User talk:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts|ts=09:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| – ] <small>(])</small> 09:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/happy-new-year-box-office-report/photostory/45042696.cms | |||
| * https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insight-bollywood-broken-movie-moguls-003005441.html | |||
| * https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/photos/bollywoods-500-crore-club-113503404/ | |||
| * https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lokesh-kanagaraj-salary-rajinikanth-coolie-095406107.html | |||
| * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3726205/THE-PULP-PIT-Khiladi-s-twist-machismo.html | |||
| * https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/south/kantara-2-did-rishab-shetty-hike-the-budget-to-681-percent-after-first-part-1238097 | |||
| * https://www.news18.com/news/movies/better-written-roles-today-genelia-deshmukh-on-another-age-group-roles-6896563.html | |||
| * https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/dream-girl-2-advance-booking-ayushmann-khurrana-film-sells-26550-tickets-rs-9-10-cr-101692862619737.html | |||
| Basis the above links, I believe a re-evaluation of the Koimoi Wiki page is in order. Please do let me know if the above sources suffice or if there are any other concerns. | |||
| ==Marcus Younis== | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| *{{Ping|Explicit}}, Can you allow creation of ] now? He now plays for PSV and has new sources , , , and etc. Thanks, ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply to|Das osmnezz}} I have removed the page protection. ]] 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == You've got mail == | |||
| ] (]) 04:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 04: |
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=] (]) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:07, 20 January 2025
 Archives |
|
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
Please can I see the deleted article List of missing people from Nepal. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). ✗plicit 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Bennett Taylor, Daisy Taylor, and Peter Taylor (composer). Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Daisy Taylor and Peter Taylor (composer). Bennett Taylor was just a redirect to Prey (2022 film)#Cast. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted article Gold (2015 film). Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted articles Women's Extreme Wrestling and ACW American Joshi Championship. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Women's Extreme Wrestling and ACW American Joshi Championship. ✗plicit 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted articles Cindy Rogers, Anarchy Championship Wrestling, and Gottlieb Fluhmann. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Women's Extreme Wrestling and ACW American Joshi Championship. ✗plicit 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted articles Women's Extreme Wrestling and ACW American Joshi Championship. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted article Gold (2015 film). Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Daisy Taylor and Peter Taylor (composer). Bennett Taylor was just a redirect to Prey (2022 film)#Cast. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Bennett Taylor, Daisy Taylor, and Peter Taylor (composer). Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). ✗plicit 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Question and advice regarding Moe's Southwest Grill logo
Hi Explict. I recently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons a new logo of Moe's Southwest Grill (File:Moes Southwest Grill logo.png). On 21 November 2023, an IP user made an edit that removed that logo from the article. The edit summary, in part, stated, "Removed outdated logo." After I had uploaded the new logo, I noticed that you had deleted the Misplaced Pages-stored image of File:Moes logo.png on 10 February 2024, with the rationale "F5: Unused non-free media file". Although I am unable to view it due to its deletion, the evidence above suggests that this was the previous logo of Moe's Southwest Grill. To me, the new logo does not qualify for copyright protection as it does not appear to meet the originality threshold required for copyright. The new logo appears to merely consist of text and geometric symbols (a box, three triangles, and a generic pepper symbol), although it appears certainly eligible for trademark protection. There seems to be some level of consensus that the pepper symbol (see the commons entry to File:Chili's Logo.svg) is not copyrightable. I could understand an argument the elements are combined in a way that would make it copyrightable, but for the reasons mentioned above, I don't find it particularly persuasive. Since you are the deleting administrator on the original logo and are an admin on Commons, I will defer to your judgment over whether the current logo is copyrightable or not. If you feel it does meet copyright protection and delete it from commons, I would like to upload the new logo to Misplaced Pages under fair use rational, unless you have any objections. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Dumbdora3729.jpg
When deleting files per WP:F8, please ensure that Commons has the high-resolution copy of the file, not just the bot-reduced WP:NFCC#3b version. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: I have uploaded the higher resolution. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg
Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg? I think it's a reupload of the same file you deleted back in November. The licensing is almost certainly incorrect and the file's not being used anywhere; so, I don't see a way to convert it to non-free (at least not at the moment). I tagged the file with "npd" per F11, but this probably meets to criteria for F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, it is indeed the same image. The use of {{npd}} works in this case. ✗plicit 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Pop-weaver-22pack.jpg
Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:Pop-weaver-22pack.jpg? No source or license was provided, but I'm guessing the image comes from some website (same image can by found on several websites like here). This almost certainly wasn't taken by the uploader; so, that makes the photo non-free. The packaging imagery as well is also likely non-free. The non-free photo in and of itself would most likely fail WP:FREER since a free photo or 2D non-free image could be used instead; however, the way the file's currently being used in Weaver Popcorn Company#Pop Weaver most likely even means that a free or 2D non-free image of the packaging only would also fail NFCC#8. Should this be tagged with F4 or should it be tagged per F9? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Jay Estiquita.jpg
Could you also take a look at File:Jay Estiquita.jpg? It appears to be a reupload of a file you deleted per F4 yesterday, and it might be a selfie given how it's being used. The uploader has also uploaded several other files without licensing or source information too (some have already been deleted) that probably need to be assessed. File:OctoArtsFilms2017.jpg looks like it might be OK to convert to non-free, but I'm not sure the same can be said about File:MTRCBSPG2012.gif. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Thank you for noticing my unsigned opinion and adding a signature! gidonb (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
File:Manmohanmisra.jpeg
File:Manmohanmisra.jpeg is another file you deleted that's been reuploaded. You deleted this or another file with the same name last August per F11. There's a claim of permission that this is a "family" photo received from photo subject's daughter, but there's nothing provided to verify that. This seems similar to what was claimed for the photo before. Do you think if this is the same photo that it's OK to tag with {{npd}} again or should it go to FFD this time around? FWIW, this is the same as File:In Cuttack -- late '90s rev.jpg uploaded to Commons by the same person; the Commons file, though, is being claimed as "own work", which is different from what's being claimned for the local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
New message from DreamRimmer
Message added 09:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
– DreamRimmer (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Marcus Younis
- @Explicit:, Can you allow creation of Marcus Younis now? He now plays for PSV and has new sources , , , and etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Das osmnezz: I have removed the page protection. ✗plicit 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Thesazh (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)