Shirt a Phobia

Sample Page

It is approximately 1:16 PM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Category:People from Fundy Isles

Hi there. I see you declined my deletion request at Category:People from Fundy Isles. The category appears to have been created in error. I emptied the category before asking it be deleted, but the names were added back. An explanation is here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RFD recreations

Hi, an editor apparently is very much against redlinks, and when he created redirects to a list article with no real content relevant to the redirect topic I nominated from at RFD. You closed the RFD as delete. A week later that same editor recreated the redirects. It’s been a while, but nothing has been made of the redirects they created, and no content exists at the target. Can you delete them again given the situation of being rapidly reproduced? Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You can probably tag the redirects as {{db-g4}}. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for reminding me of G4. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request discussion location

Hi Explicit, fyi, I started an undeletion request at the article at Talk:Lee_Weiner#Image_undeletion_request,_continued about an image you recently deleted, because we discussed the image years ago on your talk page, which resulted in undeletion; my hope is adding a new discussion to the article talk page can alert other editors to the issue in the future.

Also, I have since started a discussion at the Commons Admin noticeboard about the metadata in the current infobox image, because from my view, there appears to be a WP:BLP issue in the image description, and I have not figured out how to fix it.

Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: Hi, I have overwritten the original Commons file in order to remove the metadata, so I have alleviated your BLP concern. Regarding its copyright status, while photos hosted by Getty are generally copyrighted, it also hosts those are that in the public domain. The uploader is claiming that the original image is in the public domain by virtue of {{PD-US-no notice}}, so the Getty argument by itself is not a particular persuasive one in this case, as they don’t necessarily own the copyright to the image. If it can’t be proved that it was accompanied by copyright notice when it was first published, the argument to include File:Lee Weiner, outside Federal Building in Chicago during conspiracy trial, Feb 11 1970.jpeg fades away against WP:NFCC#1. ✗plicit 04:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Explicit, thank you for addressing that BLP concern; I also have concerns related to the use of the circa 1968 image, both per WP:BLPIMAGE and whether per WP:NFCC#1 the circa 1968 image serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the February 11, 1970 image, because File:Lee Weiner, outside Federal Building in Chicago during conspiracy trial, Feb 11 1970.jpeg has sources and commentary in the article (we previously discussed) supporting it. Beccaynr (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will try to clarify my thought on this after some sleep, but in the meantime, if you have any questions or further comments, please let me know. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a few related issues to the images, including whether the circa 1968 image (which has been captioned as a 1969 image) is appropriate per WP:BLPIMAGE, MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE, and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I think this inquiry raises some similar questions as WP:NFCC#1, and whether this circa-1968 image is a free equivalent “that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” As an initial matter, I think it could be helpful to review sources that display the images, e.g.
The circa-1968 image (Getty) is listed at Commons with links to a series of local newspaper articles published on November 6, 1969, which appear be the same or similar story about Bobby Seale being sentenced for contempt of court, e.g. “Black Panther Leader Sentenced For Contempt of Court at Trial,” The Orange Leader Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Orange, Texas Page 12 (newspapers.com), “Panther Sentenced for Court Contempt,” Sentinel Tribune Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Bowling Green, Ohio Page 1 (newspapers.com), “Bobby Seale guilty of 16 separate contempt acts,” Princeton Daily Clarion Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Princeton, Indiana Page 6 (newspapers.com).
However, the 1970 image appears in e.g. a Chicago Tribune collection of photos titled The Chicago 7 and the Days of Rage, published in 2018 and updated in 2020; the 2016 Chicago Tribune article Background: Chicago 7 trial, which appears to have been reprinted in the LA Times in 2016; also, a variation that appears to have been taken at the same time appears in Chicago Magazine’s 2020 Court of Chaos article (specifically discussing Lee Weiner’s memoir).
I have more to say about how these source differences apply to BLP, NPOV, and NFCC#1 issues, but first wanted to outline this initial overview of sources related to the two images. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLPIMAGE section of BLP policy begins, Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. The circa-1968 image is published in local newspaper articles about Bobby Seale’s contempt of court conviction at trial in November 1969. The use of the circa-1968 image to illustrate a story about a co-defendant’s November 1969 conviction is perhaps a disparaging light given the pending criminal trial context. The specific origin of the photo added to the compilation that this image is derived from is unclear (See Commons, Getty, crediting the NYT), so it seems difficult to assess Weiner’s expectation of being photographed, particularly given what seems like a blank, unsmiling expression.
By contrast, the 1970 image seems to clearly demonstrate an expectation of being photographed, based on the appearance of the subjects in the group photo in the Chicago Tribune (2016, 2018/2020) and Chicago Magazine (2020). So there seems to be an initial BLP issue related to potentially replicating how the trial was contemporaneously covered in local press (using a circa 1968 image for a Nov 1969 story, implicitly associating Weiner with a co-defendant’s contempt conviction, the lack of clarity of the origin of the photo and whether Weiner expected to be photographed, and the general appearance of Weiner in the circa 1968 photo, compared to examples where he seems to clearly have expected to be photographed.)
On a related note, MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE begins, Images should be selected with care and avoiding giving undue weight. With regard to undue weight, the WP:UNDUE section of NPOV policy begins, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Based on the initial outline of sources above, the 1970 image seems to be the more prominent representation, including because it seems to have endured in the sources noted above: the 2016 news articles, a 2018 collection of images published by the Chicago Tribune, and a variation in the 2020 Chicago Magazine article that specifically highlights Weiner. The blank, unsmiling circa 1968 image of Lee Weiner published as part of a compilation of defendant images to illustrate Nov 1969 news of Bobby Seale’s contempt conviction at trial therefore does not seem to be a fair representation.
As to selecting images with care, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE begins, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic’s context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. The illustrative purpose of the 1970 image was previously discussed at length in the September 2021 discussion which resulted in undeletion of the image; the purpose is supported by the content and sources in the article. From my view, there does not appear to be similiar support for the circa 1968 image, particularly when considered in the context of BLP and NPOV policies.
So from my view, the circa 1968 image does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:NFCC#1, because it seems problematic per BLP and NPOV policies, and unlike the 1970 image, there does not appear to be a clear and unique illustrative purpose that can serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:BLPIMAGE, he looks a bit glum, but that is about the only thing that wrong with it. BLPIMAGE is intended to targeted images where a reader may take the wrong conclusion from first impression: a typical example would be a police mug shot where a reader might infer (incorrectly) that the subject is primarily notable for illicit or illegal activities. There is nothing in File:Lee Weiner 1969.jpg to suggest that. A reader would not be aware of the context related to Bobby Seale unless they clicked through multiple times, at which point such a reader can reasonably be inferred to be intelligent enough to figure out the context themselves. There is no reason to believe that the press photographer was acting unethically in obtaining this photo, as there would have been plenty of press conferences and public appearances for a photographer to get this image.
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE concerns how we select the best image but does not trump NFCC. You are free to debate whether File:Lee Weiner 1969.jpg is the best image compared to, say a crop of File:Abbie Hoffman and Lee Weiner at protest for Jerry Rubin.jpg or File:Abbie Hoffman and Lee Weiner get haircut.webp, or some other free alternative (given the state of copyright protection on press photos in the 60s and 70s, there are almost certainly more), but you cannot select a non-free image solely on the grounds that it is more flattering or higher quality.
Your analysis related to NFCC is, to put it plainly, entirely misplaced. The free replacement is a photo of the same person at the time of events that are the reason he is notable. It is a reasonably high quality (if a bit tightly croppped) head shot showing his beard and general appearance. The primary purpose of an infobox image is to identify the subject. In this regard, the free replacement succeeds admirably.
On the caption, I’m fairly certain it is a 1969 photo given the timing of the trial and publication history, but you are free to weaken the caption to “c. 1969” if you wish. However, just plain removing the image instead of correcting the caption is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the context of the Lee Weiner article and the predominance of the reliable sources about Weiner writing and discussing political activism, an infobox image portraying him as “looks a bit glum” seems to be a false or disparaging light and contrary to the WP:BLPIMAGE section of WP:BLP policy, which cautions us to take particular care and get the article right.
Also, to clarify my point above, I was not suggesting that a reader might explore the links at the image file, but instead identifying the Nov. 6, 1969 local news sources as evidence of the context in which the image was produced; this relates to BLP policy and whether this portrayal is a fair representation in the infobox per NPOV policy, when the 1970 image appears to have more sustained support over time, including a 2020 source with a focus on Weiner.
As to the caption of the image Getty describes as “circa 1968,” this is credited to the New York Times, so perhaps additional research is needed to determine the origin and actual date of the image before assuming the local news sources were publishing a circa 1969 photo. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think Weiner looking “a bit glum” seems to be fairly reflective of his attitude towards the whole Chicago Seven issue. Per the article on Weiner, J. Anthony Lukas described Weiner as “a strangely remote figure who shunned most of the defendants’ extracurricular activities.” and According to Professor Douglas Linder at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law, “Weiner rarely attended defense strategy sessions, perhaps out of a belief that their cause was hopeless.”. Per a 2024 Politico article, he described himself as a “technician of the revolution,” grumbling that the case “blew his cover.” He seems to have been the least enthusiastic (apart from maybe Seale) at the fact that the trial turned into a media debacle. Either way, I fail to see how showing Weiner with a normal facial expression constitutes casting him in a false or disparaging light; even activists sometimes get tired of dealing with bullshit. The fact the image appeared alongside a story about Seale’s conviction does not change the fact that the image itself is non-disparaging.
I missed the Getty Images source identifying the photos as circa 1968. I’ll get around to fixing the images captions at Commons and such. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think original research such as “even activists sometimes get tired of dealing with bullshit” and speculation such as “He seems to have been the least enthusiastic (apart from maybe Seale) at the fact that the trial turned into a media debacle” is useful for this discussion; I think we need to rely on reliable, secondary sources, such as e.g. in the extensive discussion with Explicit in September 2021 to support the use of the 1970 image.
So overall, I think the WP:BLP concerns continue as to the portrayal of Weiner in a way that does not appear to be fair representation per WP:BLPBALANCE because the “glum” image is featured in a small minority of news sources, i.e. the Nov. 6 1969 news sources, compared with the sustained coverage over time of the 1970 image. This issue is the encyclopedic purpose of the image, which appears to be relevant to BLP, NPOV, and WP:NFCC#1 policies.
Also, as to the alternative images mentioned, I am unsure how the watermarked image you uploaded to Commons or the image you copied from a website selling photos and uploaded to Commons are non-free, but in any event, I also do not see how they could be adequately cropped for the infobox. The 1970 image of Weiner is also available on Getty and Alamy, and I am having difficulty understanding how such a wide array of watermarked etc images can be considered public domain but this one image is not. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are not dealing with OR but WP:Editorial discretion: just as we don’t need a reliable source to tell us that a mugshot may be unsuitable, we don’t need a reliable source to tell us that an image is suitable for use. You, by your own standard, would be engaging OR by supposing that the free image would cause harm to its subject.
I, again fail to see any BLP concerns in this free image. File:The Chicago Seven – 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts.pdf, a report by the federal government from 2008, uses the image. Getty continues to sell the image. This image was widely circulated at the time of the trial. The image is used on a Lithub article by Weiner himself. For the same reason, there are no neutrality concerns; by your logic, we would be required to use the images most commonly used in secondary sources, regardless of copyright status. The encyclopedic purpose of a biographical image is to depict its subject. If we want to be charitable, we can add the requirement that it was taken roughly at their time of the events which made them notable (otherwise, an fair use image on Lee Weiner trivially fails NFCC #1, as Weiner is still alive). Again, the suggested free use replacement is perfectly adequate in this regard: we put up with much, much worse.
The copyright status of the various images of the Chicago Seven/Eight is not contingent on whether Getty or Alamy sell them. To make a long story short, prior to 1989ish, copyright in the United States was an opt-in system, requiring publishers to affix a copyright notice on their work to retain copyright protection. Most newspapers and the two major wire services, AP and UPI, in general, did not do this, so AP and UPI photos are generally in the public domain in this time period. The Chicago Tribune, from which the 1970 image is sourced, was among the few newspapers which did affix a copyright notice and therefore retained copyright protection on their work (unless it was distributed via the AP or UPI without notice, but that did not happen for the 1970 photo). Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation of the copyright issue; a link to a source would also be appreciated. In the meantime, I think core policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NFCC#1 require us to consider reliable sources, so I think it is helpful to add sources with images to this discussion, i.e. a 2008 publication by Bruce Ragsdale at the Federal Judicial Center (at pdf 44), and a 2020 LitHub essay authored by Weiner with a small, tightly-cropped version at the end of the essay, which seems different than the larger, more prominent use proposed for the article infobox.
From my view, the meaning of encyclopedic purpose in WP:NFCC#1 seems to be a primary point of dispute, and I have tried to interpret this in the context of building the encyclopedia, and looked to reliable sources while considering the application of core policies.
I am also wondering if we can develop consensus on an alternative image; I do not find the use of “much, much worse” images to be persuasive support for inclusion, because I think we should be WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article request

Hallo, You deleted Girls Cutting Their Locks as part of a cleanup of LLM- generated stuff.

I had uploaded the book cover and I think I remember doing a bit more work on it, perhaps to improve the English. The book presumably seemed notable at the time. I plan to create a new stub within 7 days so that the cover image doesn’t get deleted as an unused non-free image. Would you be willing to let me see the content of the deleted article so I can mine it for sources? Either in my userspace or by email? Thanks. PamD 17:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD:  Done, sent via email. ✗plicit 00:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’ve already created a stub, but I can see some new sources from which to expand it when at my PC not on my phone. PamD 05:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete a nonfree file I plan to use

Hey! Could you undelete File:Overwolf vertical.svg? It is more accurate (the brand guidelines say the colors cannot be changed) and the version recently on the Overwolf page inverts it and has an incorrect license; I plan to use it in that article. (In other news, do you perchance know why bots hadn’t notified me of impending deletion?) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: Hi, I have restored the file as requested. A bot did notify you, but the notice was archived thirteen hours later. ✗plicit 00:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]