User talk:J.avanzado

August 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Honorific nicknames in popular music. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tim Berners-Lee signature.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Tim Berners-Lee signature.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. MarcGarver (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Sonoya Mizuno.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sonoya Mizuno.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vlad the Impaler, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dates for birth and death as well as the death/birthplace were all sourced from the article's Wikidata, which in turn has references cited. Apologies for not including said citations. I will go ahead include them on the edit. Thanks for the advice. —J.avanzado (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding my concerns; happy editing! DonIago (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-upscaled and/or retouched images

Hi. I'm not sure if you manually edited a YouTube still of Liam Payne for this edit to sharpen details and change his gumline, or just asked an AI upscaler to generally improve the image for you, but per MOS:IMAGES, neither is appropriate, Wikipedia articles should use unedited images of people. Belbury (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For the record, the image was not enhanced through any use of artificial intelligence. I manually edited it through a photo editing software by tweaking every single editing parameters like brightness, contrast, saturation, shadows, de-noising, sharpness, etc. If what you claim about the use of unedited images of people is true, wouldn't it affect countless images in Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere in Wikipedia where a lot of images were enhanced and/or retouched through various means? I first uploaded the edited photo on the original submission after gaining permission to replace it from Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests#Allow overwriting of File:Liam Payne in April 2023 (cropped).png (I was granted permission to replace it), then I uploaded it as a separate file (on their recommendation) because someone on the original photo uploaded contested the same thing about my editing. I edited the YouTube screenshot in good faith, with the intention of giving Mr. Payne the best representation possible as it has already been debated on the article's talk page about the quality of the infobox portrait. To be honest, I'm getting tired of my edited photo getting reverted multiple times, and I don't wanna engage further in edit warring, so I hope there'll be a consensus made by several Wikipedians or powers that be about which portrait best represents Mr. Payne. For now, I'll just have it your way. Good day. —J.avanzado (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on the enhancement. To my eye it looked like detail had been added to the hair texture and teeth which wasn't present in the original, taking it beyond mere de-noising and sharpening.

Commons has its own policy about not overwriting files with significantly different versions; people and projects should be able to choose between the original YouTube still and your enhanced version of it. There's an open RfC about which image to use in the Wikipedia infobox - it's up to you whether you join that and suggest your enhanced version of one of the options, or wait for the RfC to close and (if they pick that base image) start a new thread suggesting using your version of it. Belbury (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free revisions

Hi J.avanzado. Please make sure that you're adding the template {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} only to files that are licensed as non-free content. For some reason, you've been adding this template to files which are not licensed as non-free content; for example, you've added this template to File:PhilRice logo.svg but the file isn't licensed as non-free. While it's true that many logos uploaded to Wikipedia are non-free, there are some which are licensed as public domain or an otherwise free license, and these files aren't subject to WP:F5 or WP:NFCC. I've found several such files you've recently mistakenly tagged with "Orphaned non-free revisions" and there might be more. It would be a big help if you could go back and check your recent use of this template to make sure you're using it correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apologies for this mistake, I wasn't aware about the specifics of the template. I'll go ahead revert some of the changes I made to free licensed files. Thank you for informing me. Good day. –J.avanzado (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's not necessarily wrong to use this template in all cases, but probably not appropriate in most cases. If, for example, you come across a file which has been updated from a non-free image to a free image (this does sometimes happen), and the before and after versions are so different (i.e. the older replaced version is clearly non-free and the newer updated version clearly is free), then the older version probably still needs to be deleted per WP:F5. Sometimes users update (i.e. overwrite) non-free files with new versions that are totally different even though they're not really supposed to do this. If you think you come across one of these, you can always ask for input at WP:MCQ or WP:AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly, I shall bear this in mind. Thank you :) –J.avanzado (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]