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, 54, 55, 56

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

It is approximately 4:11 PM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Deleted articles

Extended content

Please can I see the deleted article List of missing people from Nepal. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Bennett Taylor, Daisy Taylor, and Peter Taylor (composer). Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted article Gold (2015 film). Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted articles Women's Extreme Wrestling and ACW American Joshi Championship. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted articles Cindy Rogers, Anarchy Championship Wrestling, and Gottlieb Fluhmann. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 12:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Warworld (Transformers) and Sky Lynx. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 10:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Kimberly Anthony and Bludgeon (Transformers). Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Primus (Transformers), Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line), and Transformers: Universe. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 01:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted article Clicktag. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 01:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the re-derected Wreck-Gar article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: This one was actually a bad deletion, so I have restored the page history. ✗plicit 00:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the re-directed articles Omega Supreme and Shockwave (Transformers). Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted article Windcharger. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 02:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the re-directed article Sludge (Transformers). Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted and redirected articles the List of Transformers supporting characters, Ruckus, and Dinobots. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 01:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted and re-directed articles Thunderwing, Vector Sigma, Pretenders (Transformers), and Matrix of Leadership. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Matrix of Leadership. ✗plicit 00:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Rocky Johnson (mixed martial artist) and List of recurring Mario franchise enemies. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Natalia Starr, Aerialbots, and Fangry. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 23:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please the re-directed articles Firecons and Shy Guy (Mario). Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 11:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Cindersaur, Flamefeather and Sparkstalker. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 06:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please se the re-directed articles Alpha Trion, Combaticons, and Stunticons. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Alpha Trion and Combaticons contain no deleted history. Stunticons's deleted history is only a redirect created as a result of a page move. ✗plicit 23:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Wheelie (Transformers), Sweeps (Transformers), Gestalt (Transformers), and Seacons. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 07:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see deleted articles Transformers: Masterpiece, Doubledealer (Transformers), Transformers technology, and redirected articles Reflector (Transformers) and Octane (Transformers). Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Reflector (Transformers), and 01:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted article Powermasters. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 06:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see deleted articles Hoist (Transformers), Transformers: Alternators, Wheeljack, Demolishor, and List of prime ministers of Canada by longevity. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Demolishor, 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the re-directed articles Skids (Transformers), Jawa (Star Wars) and Galvatron's Air Attack and deleted articles Hunter (Indian beer), Michael Ulrich Hensel, and List of deceased professional wrestlers. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see deleted article Frank Atwood (disambiguation) and re-directed article Valerie Malone. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 00:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Disappearance of Gary Hayward and OCEAN Design Research Association. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: 06:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flow (2024 film) poster.jpg

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)[reply]

The tagger pointed at 02:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(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 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. Cheers, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Once again you are fundamentally wrong. You have no precedent. Jon698 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

No, that is not how Creative Commons licenses work. All the CC licenses except NonDerivatives allow making modified works. See 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that you may alter the image while retaining the CC license? - Areaseven (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Grand City Properties

Please read my comment on the talk before you undo my last action. tnx. Hightex (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hightex: The discussion is closed and the article was deleted. There is no undoing it. ✗plicit 14:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Tnx, done. Hightex (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Grand City Properties

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)[reply]

FFD close question

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 08:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page - Sardar_Ridha_Singh

Hello, I had added this page and I see it's deleted. I understand that there was a lack of citations for the information. Somehow, I've not been getting alerts for subscribed page changes from Wikipedia. Maybe landing in my spam folder... I request you to reinstate the page and I will add some news citations to comply with Wikipedia requirements. Thanks! Here's the link for the deleted page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardar_Ridha_Singh&action=edit&redlink=1

~ Pannu (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@J S Pannu: Hi, I restored the page in accordance with WP:DEPROD, but moved it to Draft:Sardar Ridha Singh because it is completely unsourced. ✗plicit 11:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request : Undeletion of Apna Jobs

I am reaching out regarding the deletion of the article Apna Jobs, which was removed following an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion concluding that it did not meet WP:NCORP and contained promotional content.

I respectfully request a reconsideration of this decision, or if possible, a temporary user-space restoration so that I can improve the article to better align with notability guidelines.

If permitted, I would like to address the concerns raised in the AfD discussion by revising the article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality standards. Please let me know if there is a possibility of restoring the content in my user sandbox for further improvements before reconsidering its status in the main namespace.

Looking forward to your guidance on the best way to proceed.

Apseudocode (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apseudocode: I have no interest in engaging with an AI-generated message. I'd like to hear from the human, please. ✗plicit 11:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intertropolis & Routeville.png

Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:Intertropolis & Routeville.png because looks identical to File:Intertropolis & Routeville logo.png. The Commons file most likely is PD per 07:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've deleted that user subpage in accordance with U5, and the Commons file in accordance with F10. The local file will likely end up in the abyss a week from now. ✗plicit 11:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Please restore the following outlines per G13 refund:

Draft:Outline of Chicago

Draft: Outline of San Diego

Draft: Outline of Victoria, Australia

Draft: Outline of the Crusades

Draft: Outline of the LGBT community

Draft: Outline of the World Wide Web

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 00:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist:

03:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 01:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I like your signature. --TT

Contribution to an AFD

Hey there, Id want you to contribute to the afd, if you don't mind and got some time. [1]. Thanks, have a great day. CaptShayan (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the page Sha with dot below

Thanks for deleting the page Sha with dot below! I think you will have a good edit! Glenn12347 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review request

Deletion review for Comstock's Magazine

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comstock's Magazine. 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. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might have honked the request up, not sure, but basically the gist is that the proposer was banned, originally for having an undeclared COI, before arbcomm eventually assumed it. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]