This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Please consider using other venues such as WP:REFUND, where most of my deletions are considered uncontroversial and can be restored upon request. Alternatively, you can consult other experienced users and admins for any guidance or help, or simply await my response.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 5:37 AM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

 You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:India national football team(s) logo (all N teams).png#Not an orphaned image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi Explicit. Would you take a look at this as well since it is another upload of File:All India Football Federation 2016.png? This is basically is the same thing that happened at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, and the other times I've asked you about this User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg, User talk:Explicit/Archive 25#How are different of Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg and India nation football logo.png and User talk:Explicit/Archive 27#File:All India Football Federation 2016.png, but maybe there's something different that I'm missing this time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you deleted MW 18014 because of reliability / notability concerns. Because I have concerns that the original deletion request was not made under good faith, I wish to challenge that deletion. Are you able to undelete MW 18014 so that I can challenge the editor who requested deletion? TIA. Oshah (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshah: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted

ThebanTomb Where Joseph Smith Papyri Might have come from.jpg

with the reason "F3: File licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", "used with permission", or GFDL 1.2 only"

This file was used WITH permission. Can I please have it undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epachamo (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epachamo: Hi, at the upload form, you must have indicated that you were uploading the image "for use on Wikipedia only". As a result, your file was automatically tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. The licensing terms are too strict and not allowed on Wikipedia. If the copyright holder would like to release their image under a more specific license, please refer to the instructions at WP:CONSENT. ℯxplicit 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Ok, I have gone back and received an unconditional release from the copyright holder. Thanks for helping me do it the right way! Epachamo (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you deleted this article in-spite of my improving it and providing an updated external link and removing the intention of deletion notice? The article could quite easily be improved and that is exactly what I was about to do.

The article is indexed quite widely, so you have created an administrative burden which extends beyond Wikipedia. Gregorydavid (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregorydavid: Hi, I'm not quite sure what improvements you speak of. You changed the external link from a dead link to a working link, which is a primary source. Then, you adjusted the death date according to the primary source and added an exact date of birth without citing a reference and removed a ((citation needed)) tag without addressing the issue. Lastly, you never removed the proposed deletion template, all while failing to address the WP:BIO concerns that led to the page's deletion nomination to begin with. ℯxplicit 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the primary source is extensive and has been expanded since the original link went dead. Please advise how I can go about recreating the article. Gregorydavid (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregorydavid: You can simply request for the page to be restored here, but I highly suggest for you to read the aforementioned BIO link and the general notability guideline to determine if the subject is truly notable. Primary sources are not indicators of notability. The page can still be subject to a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

((Reply to|xplicit} Hi, remember Wikipedia was not built in a day. I read the guidelines with the intention to delete notice and elsewhere. Remember notability in context of Stellenbosch may not be the same as notability in Korea. If the "Notable entrepreneurs" in Stellenbosch article is the same as before Johannes Wolfgang Willy Friedlieb Heuer has become a red link. I will be in touch with Friedlieb's son Hans to see what secondary sources he may be aware of. Gregorydavid (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon,

Yesterday, you removed three copyrighted images of cryptomonads which I had uploaded a few weeks prior, per CSD F7 and NFCC #1. However, I believe this is mistaken in at least two cases,

File:Bjornbergiella hawaiiensis.png represents the only published depiction of the species. There is no free alternative.

Similarly, File:Hemiselmis rufescens.png represents the oldest available depiction of the species, with all other available images also being copyrighted, and with living copyright holders.

As Chroomonas is a much better documented species, I imagine that a free image is likely available, though I have yet to find one.

Thereppy (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thereppy: Hi, the editor who nominated these images for deletion specified his reason for doing so. He cited that "a free diagram/sketch could be created" of these species. Is there any particular reason why this alternative is not suitable? ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit. You removed File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg in this this edit Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The same logo had been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, but for a slightly different reason. The Brazilian team last won the World Cup in 2002, which means that most likely the fifth star was added long before either of these two discussions took place. The file wasn't removed because it was being used in both the men's and women's teams. It was removed because it was used in Brazilian Football Confederation and the team articles.Tvx1 disagrees with this application of UUI#17 and has requested clarification of a previous discussion about it at WP:AN/RFC#Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. This disagreement about UUI#17 has also recently come up in the now-archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 125#Bhutan national football team and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#User:Bring back Daz Sampson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as well. Although I've mentioned CLOSECHALLENGE before about this kind of thing with respect to another file removed per an XfD discussion, Tvx1 apparently doesn't seem to think it needs to be followed. They are aware of the previous FFD, but have decided to re-add the file here and the rationale here; so, I'm going to ask you about it. Is this current version of the file the same one which you removed per the FFD? Is your close of the FFD discussion still in effect if it is?I'm assuming here that previously established consensus for at least this particular file is still in effect until either the application of the NFCC to this type of non-free use is clarified to specifically allow it, or a new consensus for this file is established which allows it. If, however, that's not correct, then please clarify. At the same time, if you feel that enough time has passed and the file can now be used in the men's team article without at least a new FFD discussion, then that's fine as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the requested closure of the archived discussion revolving around UUI#17, I'd be surprised if any admin took any sort of action. That discussion naturally fell off the radar and there was no consensus to change the status quo, so the status quo remains in tact. Tvx1's attempt to rail against the status quo and to pick up the dead discussion is a classic example of beating the dead horse. Consensus can change, but through new discussions, not by ignoring the previous consensus based on an X amount of time that has passed.

The current version of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg is the same logo as the previous version in the upload log. ℯxplicit 10:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Marchjuly has given an inaccurate description with accusations of bad faith regarding my actions to this file. I'm not ignoring consensus here. The situation regarding the Brazil's team logo is different to other teams' Marhjuly mentioned. The crest that appears on the Brazil team's shirt, with five stars, is their own variant of the CFB's logo. The five stars are there because they won the World Cup five times. As I explained on the team's talk page, the CFB's general logo does not have stars and neither has the women's team's variant. I became aware of this while watching the Brazil vs Italy women's cup game yesterday evening because the commentator made a remark on the difference between the men's and women's crests. Strolling the CFB's site even more made me realize that the other team's (e.g. beach soccer and FUTSAL) use different crests as well. As a result, WP:NFC#UUI #17, using a parent't entity's logo for a child entity lacking their own branding simply doesn't apply here. The men's team does not lack their own branding, the crest with the five stars is their own branding. So I don't understand why it's use would be prohibited in the team's article and why I'm being dealt with so aggressively. This usage would be identical to the use of the crests in our articles on the german Men's and Women's teams, which also have a distinct crest.Tvx1 15:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure my description was inaccurate or in bad faith, but I will strike and apologize for anything that was. This is the same file which was discussed in the FFD discussion and removed as a result. It's also the same file which was discussed at Talk:Brazil national football team#Regarding the shirt badge missing from Brazil national football team. The file wasn't removed per that FFD because it was being used in team articles; the file was removed because it was being used in the confederation's article and the team articles. That's what the close says and what it also says at File talk:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The close was that the confederation is considered to be the "parent" of the individual teams, not that the men's team is considered to be the parent of the other teams. Anyway, the post I left at on the Brazil team's article's talk before when queried about this didn't make mention of the number of stars, but it did mention the reason why the file was removed, that consensus can change and CLOSECHALLENGE; which are all things which we've discussed before in other discussions. In these previous discussions, you've accused me of being POINTY or BLUDGEON whenever I've brought up this up. You also posted that the UUI#17 matter regarding parent/child entities and federation/national teams was resolved through WT:NFCC discussion (which means there's no need for CLOSECHALLENGE anyway), and that I'm the one ignoring and not allowing this "new" consensus to be implemented by trying to impose my own interpretation onto others. When I removed files or non-free use rationales you've re-added, files which had been initially removed by an administrator per one of these discussions, you accused me of edit warring in posts or edit summaries; even your request at AN/RFC accused me of edit warring and not recognizing this "new" consensus.

After seeing your post on the talk page of the Brazil team, I was going to respond that five-star file was the same file which was discussed, it was removed per FFD, and a consensus can change but you should discuss it with the closing administrator. However, I pretty much already posted that on the talk page and, based upon my previous interactions with you, I felt doing so would be met with the same responses as before and more claims of me repeating myself over and over, giving other orders and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. So, this time I didn't remove any files or rationales and I didn't try to tell others what they can or cannot do; instead, I followed CLOSECHALLENGE and asked the administrator who closed the discussion to clarify the close and left it up to him to decide whether the file or rationale should be removed. I explained why I was doing so, and provided diffs or links trying to show what the disagreement was and tried not misrepresent our respective positions. Your comment about the Bhutan NFCR and CLOSECHALLENGE is something you did post, not something I made up. I made reference to it because this FFD discussion like the Bhutan NFCR discussion is also from several years ago took place prior the WT:NFCC discussion about UUI#17. If it was bad faith to assume that you still re-added the file and the rationale even though you were aware of the Brazil FFD discussion and why the file had been removed, then my apologies. If it was bad faith to assume that you had read the posts on the Brazil team's talk page and then still decided that there was no need for to discuss things with the closing admin, then my apologies.

If you think that the five-stars means that this file's non-free use should be allowed on the team's article and is not something which was touched on in previous discussions, then that would seem to fall under item 3 of CLOSECHALLENGE as "significant new information"; however, the example you give about the German national teams might not be a good one because while it's true that the men's and women's teams (child entities) have "different" logos with different numbers of stars, the German Football Association (parent entity) does have its own distinct branding separate from the individual teams; moreover, the file used in the GFA's article is public domain which means that it's not subject to WP:NFCCP and could even be added to the national team articles if someone wanted to. All of these things combined might be one reason for arguing that UUI#17 would not apply to any of files used in German team articles. The German team (along with some other teams) was briefly mentioned in the discussion on the Brazil team's talk page and I mentioned WP:OTHERIMAGE and how other non-free uses might not be identical or even non-free in the first paragraph of my response to that post; so, I didn't feel it would be helpful repeating that once again in response to your post because (1) you didn't specifically ask about it and (2) your previous assertions of me just repeating stuff over and over again. Since you've specifically brought it up here, it seems OK to respond in some detail. If it was "bad faith" of me to assume that me "repeating myself" about "CLOSECHALLENGE", "UUI#17" or other things at the Brazil team's talk page would've just been met with the same responses as I previously received from you in other discussions, then my apologies for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possible way to resolve this (at least with respect to this file) might be to (re)assess the current file's non-free use in the article about the confederation. Are the stars more appropriately used to identify the team that won the World Cup five times or the confederation administrating the team. Would the confederation have a logo with even more stars if all of the teams falling under its administration won a combined number of World Cups that was more than the five that the men's team has won? Should the confederation simply use a star-less logo? These seem to be things which might be worth discussing and might also be considered "significant new information". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There, the usage of this file in Brazil national football team has now been "officially" endorsed through a new FFD discussion. I hope that this now settles this specific issue at least.Tvx1 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am here to talk about an article of mine u deleted, but only because I wanted the thanx to b personal, not just automated. I merely hoped for the possibility I was creating a meritorious article. I now intend to delete the dead link on the Wikipedia page from which I thought creating an article might be somehow helpful. No hard feelings, @ all.Slarty1 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a file I uploaded: File:Showdown title screen.JPG. The reason you gave for deleting the file was: (F4: File without a source (TW)). This was correct, I did not add a source to the file when I uploaded it. I do know the source, however. It was a screencapture from the animated short Showdown (1942 film). The image is needed for the related article's infobox. Please undelete. I will make sure I record the source and author this time. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tea and crumpets:  Done, file restored. Please add the source information to the description page. ℯxplicit 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please block user: 92.10.223.166. CLCStudent (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please undelete File:Detroit Free Press Mitch Albom 9-11 10th anniversary front page Sept 11, 2011.jpg? You deleted it for being orphaned, which requires it be tagged for seven days. If you look at the history of Detroit Free Press, User:MarcelTheHippie was edit warring to remove the file from the article and the file was in the article for the past three days. 19 minutes before it was deleted, MarcelTheHippie reverted and added back the orphaned tag from the 16th to be deleted on the 23rd, when it should have restarted the process with an orphaned fair use template from the 22nd. I started a discussion at MarcelTheHippie's talk page at talk:MarcelTheHippie#Detroit Free Press cover three days ago that instead of edit warring to remove the file, they needed to start a discussion at WP:FFD. Instead they reverted again trying to get around the orphaned fair use rules by replacing an incorrect template before the deadline. I would also appreciate it you could leave a note at their talk page discussion that they should start a discussion at WP:FFD for file removals that are contested. Aspects (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects: I urge you to stop going to such great lengths to keep just one newspaper cover on Wikipedia. If you haven't already, take a look at my latest edit summary on the Detroit Free Press article. The less non-free files there are on Wikipedia, the better. This whole edit war is pointless, so please stop. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, it is equally pointless to undelete that file. If you don't count Aspects' edits and thereby exclude them from the picture, that file was tagged and unused for seven days. No other person objected to the removal, so it's safe to assume no discussion is even needed in this case. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects and MarcelTheHippie: I have restored the file. Aspects is correct – once contested, it should be discussed at FFD. This is not clear-cut case. ƏXPLICIT 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure why you deleted the article on Hariakhan Baba on 11:48, 25 May 2019, in your notes you describe him as being a "crank" seems like a little prejudice and just a little offensive, He was a respected and historical personality and Hindu saint, I am sure thousands of people in northern India as well the western world will find your attitude a bit insulting,

I am wondering why you are not deleting articles about Christians saints and calling them "Cranks" as you delete them?

I am NOT the author of the article, But I am doing research on the historical person, I have traveled to India twice for research. If you are looking for cranks you should look in the mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:600:3520:95BC:B6B8:FC2E:53FB (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image that was previously in use at Arsenal W.F.C. was incorrect. The club no longer goes by Arsenal Ladies and indeed never used that image as their badge, only as an image on their Twitter account. That Twitter account and the corresponding image no longer exist, thus I have updated the page with the correct image - the normal Arsenal badge. Please reach out to User:Marchjuly and ensure that he stops mistakenly reverting the page based on an outdated and incorrect ruling. Eightball (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eightball: While I was posting on my user talk, we had an edit conflict, so you didn't see my post before you re-added the file. Hopefully, my post clears things up a bit. As I posted on my user talk, the Twitter file was restored and re-added to the article by Explicit; so, he'll figure out what to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: There is nothing to figure out here. I fixed the page with the objectively correct logo and you have repeatedly reverted it with the wrong logo. You need to stop doing that immediately. Eightball (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a second NFCC reason to Arsenal_FC.svg to cover Arsenal W.F.C. so that it's not deleted by a bot. This is literally all we ever had to do to fix this problem; instead we're out here lying to our readers for no reason. Absurd. Eightball (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file was removed per a consensus established via an FFD discussion. If something changed since then, then a new consensus can be established, but the first step in doing so is to discuss things with the administrator who closed the FFD discussion and explain why. Perhaps in this case, item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is something which could be applied. The re-branding was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit participated in that discussion and yet he still restored the other file and re-added to the article with this edit. I explained this in my response here on my user talk page, but we had an edit conflict so my post came after your second post. Explicit will figure out what to do here. Adding a rationale is not all that needs to be done per WP:JUSTONE. What needs to be done is to follow CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Explicit: This now being discussed at ANI. You’re mentioned so perhaps you can clarify this one way or the other. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this is another instance were Marchjuly got involved in a dispute over a football logo and I wasn't involved this time. So this insistence that I was being disruptive in that previous case was just misplaced. The red line through these disputes is Marchjuly. I appreciate that they want to ensure that the right thing is done, but this is just overdoing it. What has happened to "Wikpedia is not a bureaucracy"? There is no rule anywhere that Wikipedia must rigidly follow procedures for each and every change. In this case all of this could have been resolved through a simple discussion on the article talk page or the file's talk page. There is no need to drag a change that is so uncontroversial (evidenced by no one opposing it at WP:FFD). The user turning this into controversy was Marchjuly, not Eightball. Sometimes is just better to use our common sense instead of insisting on rigidly following on each and every possible procedure. The simple fact is that if Marchjuly had not decided to revert the edit would simply have been accepted and no one else would have made a fuss about it. Therefore it would kindly request you, explicit, if you were willing to partially reconsider your aforementioned close and allow this file being used on the women's team based on the newly presented evidence by Eightball and on the simple fact that Marchjuly made a mistake back then by claiming that the women's team is a child entity of the mean's team with the immensely thin evidence of an affiliation. On a side note, this is being discussed at WP:AN, not WP:ANI.Tvx1 23:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: The crux of the issue is that you and Eightball attempted to unilaterally overturn consensus of a discussion that resulted in an outcome you didn't agree with. Whether it's a matter of consensus changing or errors in the nominator's rationale that require reevaluating, a single editor does not have the authority to disregard the discussion, regardless if it's you, me, or a different admin. Proper procedure should be followed, and Marchjuly was reinstating the consensus of these discussions. WP:CCC adequately lays this out. Realistically, you're all at fault for your disruptive approaches instead of aiming to create a dialog to try to resolve the issue first.

On a side note, you're also mistaken about lacking the need to follow rules rigidly. Policies WP:NFCC and WP:BLP can both have legal ramifications on the project, which is why they are the so strictly applied. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "rules" regarding NFC were being properly followed here. My comments with regards to WP:NOTBURO were aimed at them forcing sometimes very old closes of discussions often involving the view of only one or two contributors through every possible step of a bureaucratic chain and their refusal to accept any other way of resolving the issue than following that exact bureaucratic chain. This case could have been easily resolved through a simple discussion on the article or file's talk page instead of being dragged over a handful of noticeboards. On a side note, Marchjuly was not simply reinstating the consensus in their reverts of Eightball's edits. The consensus you assessed for the old discussion was merely not to use the men's club's logo in the women's club's article. You never mentioned that the ladies logo must be used instead. Since the fair use of the latter is clearly questionable the correct thing to do would have been to removed the logo's altogether instead of repeatedly reinstating the questionable "ladies" logo.Tvx1 00:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter file was added per User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg. It was first added by me here. The file was removed by another editor in August 2017 and deleted per WP:F5. When that file was tagged for speedy deletion and I was notified here, I didn't try to force it back into the article. When it was deleted, I didn't re-upload it and re-add it to the article.

Someone then subsequently tried to re-add the FFD file to the article here, but it was removed by another editor here. Someone else then tried to re-add it here, but it was removed once again here. Another person then tried to add the file here, but it was removed once again here. Re-added once again here, removed again here. Re-added yet again here, removed again here. There was then some IP constantly re-adding the file and it was being removed each time by JJMC89 bot. I had nothing to do with those previous edits after the Twitter file was deleted. The file was then re-added again here and I did remove it here. When there was a discussion started about this on the article's talk page at Talk:Arsenal W.F.C.#Club Crest, I participated. When the use of the logo came up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., I posted this and Explicit responded here. Explicit is actually the one who restored the deleted Twitter file and then re-added it to the article. So, I added the file in February 2017, and made no other edits to the article until May 2019, and then only removed the FFD and re-added the Twitter file per Explicit. For some of that time after the Twitter file was first deleted, the article was actually without a badge file. So, if you feel that no file (at least until the current FFD is closed) is preferable to the Twitter one, then that's fine. The Twitter one will be deleted once again per F5 in a few days, unless someone else re-adds it to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: The age of a discussion is irrelevant to its application, as it is binding until a new consensus is reached. WP:FFD is a poorly attended venue in general, but that does not grant users the freedom to sidestep the result of a discussion as they please. That would render the entire process useless. You are correct that a simple discussion would have resolved the issue, but the burden is ultimately on those who seek to include non-free content on additional pages. Per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCCE:

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

As evidenced by three separate admins at WP:AN who looked into the matter and the three separate editors (not including Marchjuly or the bot) in the diffs above, it is incredibly clear that there has not been any support to disregard the previous FFD discussion. Why do you ignore that aspect? No one has denied the opportunity for a fresh discussion regarding these files, they have just denied the attempt to circumvent the process. You see bureaucracy, others see consensus. ƏXPLICIT 04:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the discussion is very much relevant in a case like this when the subject itself has changed their use of the copyrighted content and thus affected the claim of fair use since that discussion was held. This affected the consensus to the point of invalidating it and the evidence Eightball presented should have made this entirely controversial. Marchjuly created the disruption by repeatedly reverting to a file that is no long covered by fair use. They could've opted to leave the article be after Eightball's edit and just start a discussion to ease their concerns. And that brings me to my main question here which you haven't answered yet. Are you willing to reconsider your close of the aforementioned discussion in light of the changed real-life situation and newly presented evidence?Tvx1 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: And as policy clearly states: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. It is written is plain English. If circumstances have changed, editors should propose to make modifications the previously established consensus. Note how Fastily also agreed with Marchjuly and determined that Eightball's edits were disruptive at WP:AN. The involved parties are simply not following proper procedure. If that's still a bureaucracy issue to you, then I can't help you. The file in question is back at FFD—where this should have been discussed to begin with—so reconsideration of my previous closure is moot. ƏXPLICIT 00:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The crux of the issue is that you and Eightball attempted to unilaterally overturn consensus of a discussion that resulted in an outcome you didn't agree with. "

Explicit, I am going to ask nicely that you please retract the accusations you level above. Tvx1 and I are not attempting to "unilaterally overturn consensus," nor are we complaining about a discussion simply because we don't agree with it. We are removing an incorrect image and replacing it with a correct one. I understand that you are responsible for applying the incorrect image to begin with; that does not mean you need to force your decision to stand permanently, nor does it mean you need to make personal attacks against those attempting to fix your mistake. We all make mistakes all the time, myself absolutely included. It is not a big deal. Eightball (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eightball: I will not retract my factually correct statement, so I will politely decline your condescending request. ƏXPLICIT 00:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that you cite also states "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing" in plain English. And that is my issue all long. Marchjuly's stance that discussion is mandatory in order to deal with a previous consensus achieved through discussion is simply wrong. Policy simply denies that. User:Eightball making an edit with strong evidence to propose a new consensus was perfectly acceptable. Marchjuly, and not Eightball, then exacerbated the situation into all the subsequent mess. And my concerns is that this is not isolated. Marchjuly has engaged in repetitive reverting of football logo's with a wide group of users before. Now, if it is simple reverting of a user who is just ignoring consensus and has no justification whatsoever why said consensus would not longer apply, that is ok. But in case like this, where the editing user actually presented strong evidence of the changed situation than that could have been dealt with in a much better and constructive manner. They should simply have left the article alone while dealing with their concerns on a talk page. Also note that Cryptic also agreed with me and determined that Marchjuly's edits were disruptive as well at WP:AN. Now I really like to know why I received an aggressive warning and Eightball was blocked indefinitely over this discussion which is merely a constructive, civil attempt between the three of us to address one another's concern's.Tvx1 10:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: The sentence directly after that says: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. This was the case for both incidents and you were well aware of that. If the first attempt to re-add the file was in spirit of WP:BOLD, then that would have been fine. But once reverted, you and Eightball should have observed WP:BRD instead of incessantly edit warring about it. Machjuly has been editing for several years and has never received any blocks or sanctions for his behavior. Prior to this, you and Eightball have. Both for behavior you have previously exhibited.

I can not speak on behalf of Fastily, but the message he left on your talk page was not remotely aggressive. I assume his actions are in response to Eightball's antagonizing message above. ƏXPLICIT 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MotoGP 19 files should NOT be deleted because I even put in "It is under a fair rationale". 99721829Max (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@99721829Max: Hi, can you please link to the files you're referring to? The action you've taken issue with is not clear. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motogp19.png 99721829Max (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@99721829Max: For this particular file, you only wrote "Rogers, Maxwell, Google" in the description. It also looks like you indicated that you weren't sure about the image's copyright status at the upload form, which led to the file automatically being tagged with ((Somewebsite)) and ((No license needing editor assistance)). There is no other information on the file's page. ƏXPLICIT 04:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my edit because you claimed it was "Single-vendor/single-network charts"

The data I got was from the app store, I don't know why this is not suitable? That is the only information that was released thus far, and there is no reason to remove it.

"They should never be placed in discography tables or tables of charts"

Why?

Another question: If I had data from google play, then can I post it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygrhmn2 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ygrhmn2: Because there is no need to publish every little factoid. ƏXPLICIT 00:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]