User talk:Explicit/Archive 7

File: Knight 3D Move2.jpg was deleted. F4 did not actually apply to that picture.
OK, random fact: some people are not as skilled with wiki syntax as you. When the article has the source, but it's not in an infobox, should it be deleted, or should someone with the know-how simply insert the appropriate infobox? In the meantime, should i re-upload it? Sorry if i sound angry, it's just that there have been so many people adding a delete tag when the info is right in front if them. KyuubiSeal (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, not everyone knows syntax, but license tags are still required for all files. So, let's see... the file you had uploaded was a derivative work of File:3D Chess Board.jpg, correct? I'm assuming so, since it's the blank board. So, since the original uploader licensed the file under PD-self, let's start off what should be done to re-upload the file correct. First, you should (but is not required) to use the Information template and fill out the description, source (the source is required to attribute to the original author; adding  should suffice), the date it was created and the author (which, in this case would be you). Next, as I mentioned above, would require a license tag—which you choose to license the file under is up to you. A list of free license tags can be found here and here. With all this information, all the concerns should be addressed. —  ξ xplicit  00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knight_3D_Move2.jpg Hehe, I never knew the curly braces made tags. So much to learn. KyuubiSeal (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. There seems to be never-ending things to learn around, even for those who have been around for a while, as new things come and old things go. It can be overwhelming for some, and it's understandable that some users get frustrated over certain things. —  ξ xplicit  01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to invite you
Forgot to invite you to WT:Record charts. I'm desperate to get people actually talking about what they want to see, and don't want to wind up changing things and then finding out that 90% of people still don't like the output.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give the discussion a read and chip in soon. WP:CFD-related issue are eating my brain up. — ξ xplicit  04:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with unfinished AE
Hello!

Can you please suggest me what can be done, if an AE (appeal) was archived by a bot, but it had not been finished yet? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a bit vague. Could specify which appeal you're referring to with a link? — ξ xplicit  04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course! Here it is Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63. Aregakn (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I can't say I'm well-experienced in that area—in fact, I have absolutely none. The instructions on that page don't really say anything about discussions being archived before they've concluded, like it does over at WP:ANI. This question may receive a better response at WT:RFARB. — ξ xplicit  06:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks. I have posted my question there. Hope this will help. To be true, I have already asked 3 Admins before you and there were no answers or suggestion like yours. Thank you! Aregakn (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. —  ξ xplicit  17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted photos
You deleted all those photo's and I had forwarded a confirmation email and no one bothered to check it out... Lazy. Zaps93 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you forwarded the email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org]? Anywho, sometimes it does take a few or more days to process these emails, so some files may get deleted in the process. To avoid—or at least, prolong the deletion of the files—you could have tagged them with OTRS pending, as reviewing administrators tend to extend the deletion of these files for another week. It didn't turn out that way, but it's not necessarily a problem. If and when the emails are process and verified to be released under a compatible free license, an OTRS member will most likely restore the images. — ξ xplicit  17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did forward it that that. Sorry for that. Thanks for the reply. Zaps93 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tesico.jpg


How does taking unique letters from a copyrighted logo, then reducing the size of them, put them in public domain?--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, as I mentioned in my edit summary, the image consists of simple text, which is simply ineligible for copyright. If the logo is copyrighted, perhaps PD-textlogo would be a better fit. — ξ xplicit  17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you identify the font it is from to confirm the letters are not original artwork?--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not immediately, no. If you can identify that the font type is copyrighted, feel free to take it to WP:PUF. — ξ xplicit  16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince Ea and the "Make 'SMART' Cool" movement
The article Prince Ea has been flagged for copy editing, but i'm not sure exactly how to work on it (i am a friend of the artist). If you are able to help clean the page, it would be really appreciated.

Besides that, I see you've mentioned you're a music producer (or practicing to be), if you have any samples or anything we would love to take a look! Check out the movement too, tell me if you're interested. Send me an email at if you are at all interested in any of the aforementioned :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.143.223 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to clean the article when I have the time. As far as music goes, I can't say I have too much, I lack the equipment at the moment. — ξ xplicit  17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Albums Barnstar award for renaming of categories

 * Thank you! It wasn't too much trouble, but I really appreciate the recognition. —  ξ xplicit  17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CFDS inquiry
See my question here. Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. — ξ xplicit  23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One In A Million -Help =D
I need your help, I found references that the album "One in a Million" sold 8 million copies. found on page "aaliyah" here in wikipedia, the reference belongs to a book and I do not know how to put on the page "aaliyah discography" page and "One in a Million (album)" you put to me?

data:

Simmonds, Jeremy (2008). The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 1556527543.

Please and thanx =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you got a hold of it. —  ξ xplicit  00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free-unsure
I just closed this. If you could replace the transclusions, I believe it can be safely deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. — ξ xplicit  03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture deletion (yes, I read your other page about this topic...)
I'm here about. I have emailed the permission-en[at]wikipedia twice about this and have not heard a response yet. I have received permission from the photographer (if I were lying, I would not be here to see what's going on, trust me if you can) in a message and have forwarded that message inside of a formal written email to the email address above. I guess I will have to wait another week or so until I try to post the picture back up. This is one thing that drives me insane about Wikipedia, especially when I listened and did exactly as the admin said. I still get punished in a way. I'm sure you get these messages all the time. I'm sorry for posting and wasting your time. Tamer of hope (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do get these kind of notices occasionally. In fact, there's one above from just yesterday. The only advice I could give you now is to wait it out. I'm not exactly sure if there's a lack of volunteers or a swamp of emails, but files often get deleted before the permission can be verified. When it does, it will be restored. Sorry for the inconvenience. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:PrimeNews.png
The file you deleted was a file was in use, incorrectly deleted as the author was not notified,  and closing, I'm requesting you undeleted the file as it is unreplaceable, didn't fail NFCC and the FfD was flawed. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored. Reviewing the image, it may very well be tagged with Trademark and PD-textlogo. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Madonna Ciccone.jpg
Hey Explicit boy, can you take a look at the file above and see whether the licensing is correct? If not, what can I do to make it correct as the subject is long deceased? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. I'm more experienced with non-free files than I am with other types. I think has far superior knowledge regarding such issues, so they may be the right user to get a hold of. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Vassula.jpg
Following your deletion of Vassula.jpg at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vassula.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

with tag "F7:Violates non-free use policy"

I would like to request the following information.

1) How is it a violation of the non free use policy?

2) Why was no proper explanation given as to WHY it violated non-free use policy given after it was deleted?

3) Is there a procedure to follow for uploading images of a living person?  If so what EXACTLY is that procedure?

I would like to also point out the following:

1) The wikipages of "why was my page deleted" are completely useless / irrelevant and do not contain the information I seek.

2) The person in the picture gave me permission to use that image; In fact she chose it.

3) Your prompt feedback is URGENTLY required;  A group of us are working very hard on this page and this kind of arbitrary action on your part without any forewarning or ANY personalized communication is a serious setback.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there. The image was a violation of the non-free policy because it failed to meet the first criteria of the policy, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. Basically, because the subject in the photo is a living person, one could still find or create a freely licensed photo.


 * As for the pages you find being unhelpful, would that be my subpage or another one here on Wikipedia? I should point out that I did not arbitrarily delete the file; at the upload form, you indicated that the file was non-free and could be replaced with a free image, which automatically tagged the file with AutoReplaceable fair use people. After two full days, these files are deleted. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:

1) I have been given permission by Vassula to use that image that I uploaded.  She is the one who chose it.  I simply do not know under what category I need to upload it.  It IS a free photo (there is no licensing).  The only reason I uploaded it under "non free" is coz its the only section that had an appropriate description of a "picture of a living person".

2) Is there a procedure to follow for uploading images of a living person? If so what EXACTLY is that procedure?  As requested in my previous communication to you, kindly give me a step by step procedure into where and how I can upload this image so it does not get automatically deleted.

When i stated that the wikipages of "why was my page deleted" are completely useless / irrelevant and do not contain the information I seek, I was not referring to any of your pages but the standard ones on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the copyright holder has given permission to upload the file under a free license (public domain, Creative Commons licenses cc-by/cc-by-sa, etc.), please forward the email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] and include the link of the file you wish to have restored. As for uploading images of other living people, there isn't really a procedure, the images would just need to be freely licensed. If permission to upload the images was received via email, the email would need to be forwarded as I explained above. In some cases, there are websites like Flickr where its users may upload their images under the free licenses cc-by or cc-by-sa. Those can be uploaded under the free license the copyright holders released them under, and the description should link back to the Flickr URL to verify the license. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New Picture of Mannie Fresh
I have a new picture of Mannie Fresh and I found it on Flickr. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the Flickr source says "page not found"... — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Currensyunder100.jpg
What would be the proper license for me to upload this file for this artist page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choppercity (talk • contribs)
 * I wouldn't upload it again. The file you had uploaded was copyrighted, therefore non-free. You should consider searching Flickr for a freely licensed image or wait until one is created. For further information, consider reading our non-free content criteria policy. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Barbara Hershey photo
As a novice editor, who would like to be more than an novice, I have to say that I thought I had 48 hours to complete the rationale for an image. Unless I blacked out, which I guess is a possibility, it has been less than 48 hours since I uploaded the file you deleted. Now, I have to admit, the process for uploading an acceptable image perplexes me. I have, to date, unloaded about a dozen images. The images I've uploaded are all pretty similar in nature, and used for similar purposes. Some have been deleted, and some have not. Every time I have sought help in trying to understand this overwhelming and perplexing procedure, I have obtained less than satisfactory assistance. I am angry and frustrated and see no reason why the process has to be so complex, diverse and controversial. I really do not understand why you did not first seek to contact me, advise, assist or inform me before deleting that file. On the one hand, there is a request for the image to be there, and on the other hand the wonderful world of Wikipedia makes the process just this side of impossible. I would just like to understand where I went wrong when my time and effort gets wasted like this. Maybe, just maybe, if you would take a little time to assist me, you or others won't waste your time deleting my efforts. And maybe I would not just give up and figure it just isn't worth my time to try to up grade lousy articles!---Ishtar456 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're speaking of File:BarbaraHersheyphoto.jpg. The image was a violation of the non-free policy because it failed to meet the first criteria of the policy, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. Basically, because the subject in the photo is a living person, one could still find or create a freely licensed photo. At the upload form, you indicated that the file was non-free and could be replaced with a free image, which automatically tagged the file with AutoReplaceable fair use people, which is why you received no notification—this tag was previewed and visible at the upload form, before you uploaded the file. The file was deleted two days, two hours and 13 minutes after it was uploaded (50 hours), just for specifics. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga revert
Hello, I believe you understand the discussion on the talk page, where such associated acts are not being allowed. I believe except Starlight and Space Cowboy, none other can stand upto being associated acts. If you feel that what I did was wrong, feel free to revert it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your revert re-added the associated acts, while your edit summary cited WP:SPAM, which is why I brought it to your attention. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I just checked it, my mistake. Pardonne moi? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 07:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're forgiven. For now. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you block these two

 * User:Girlwithoutlove
 * User:Girlsneedlove
 * Well you should first look at my last 20 edits to see why. I dont think they fit UAA anymore so...wiooiw (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both blocked indefinitely, just as had gotten the others. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images
Hi, I just found out that the following images are deleted: Can you please explain the specific reason why. e.g. Did I forgot to specify the rationel for fair use ore something like that?
 * File:John Bertrand (sailor).jpg
 * File:SDR Du Havre.png
 * File:Royal Marine Hotel.jpg
 * File:Bassin Olympique de Meulan.jpg

Regard NED33 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The files you uploaded were deleted because, at the upload form, you indicated that the file was non-free and could be replaced with a free image, which automatically tagged the file with AutoReplaceable fair use people or AutoReplaceable fair use buildings. The image was in violation of the non-free policy because it failed to meet the first criteria of the policy, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. Basically, because the subject of the photo is that of a living person, or a building that still exists, one could still find or create a freely licensed photo. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing this matter. NED33 (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Settlements CfD
Feel like closing this colossal nomination? You're about the only closer on CfD who hasn't weighed in on the nomination itself. If you do, and if you decide that the changes are warranted, please note User:Cyde's instructions in the middle of the discussion about what to do with this many categories. Or just ask Cyde to take care of it. Thanks! ("No" is also an acceptable answer.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I have a crap load to read up on. I've closed two abominations in the recent past (one, two), so I'll have no problem closing this one. I'll do it later in the evening, as 1 pm is far too early for me. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find this one anywhere near as complicated (at least now) as that first monstrosity you mentioned.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Time to get these processed. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat. Let me know if you need any help with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them all: Categories for discussion/Working/Large. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the "Cities, towns, and villages" that are heading to established "Populated places" categories have maps on them. Any idea whether those can be moved automatically, or does it have to be done manually?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those require need manual work, Cydebot doesn't copy any contents if the target category already exists. Looks like there's work ahead of us. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started the process. I'm through J at the moment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Got the rest. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Moon lay hidden beneath a Cloud
I would like the change of capitalisation from November 2009 undone. The artist website (See Archive.org) used the capitalisation as previous to your move and User:Aspects's edit. You can see this usage as well as album capitalisation undone by Aspects on other websites as well. For example, the now defunct Fluxeuropa is one of the few sites still up with contemporary reviews of MLH. (It's also on all the CDs I own.) - BalthCat (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure. A quick Google search shows that most websites use "The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud" over "The Moon lay hidden beneath a Cloud". I don't see why all these should be ignored over a form of stylization used by the musical group. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FluxEuropa is essentially the nearest to a reliable source in those results. I looked them over, and  most of them are the likes of Last.fm, Discogs (which has an in-house standard which prevents that showing up anyway), blogs, etc.  I found another one just shortly ago in which an interview with Alzbeth also uses the artist's format.  An interview with another (related genre) band at Heathen Harvest also shows the musician using the form "Moon lay hidden" mid-sentence.  It's also a proper noun, and the usage is clear from FE and the artist's site.  Does blog laziness really trump the artist here? - BalthCat (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also used consistently as far as I can tell. I have four of their albums, the first, second, third and last all use that format. - BalthCat (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, considering this wouldn't be an uncontroversial move, it may be best to place a full requested move to gain a consensus on the issue. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was uncontroversial to break it, and now it's controversial to fix it? This isn't Yahoo!, it's k.d. lang, and I'd really rather not invest more energy than I already have to undo the "uncontroversial request."  If anything, I'm pointing out that this was never an uncontroversial move. - BalthCat (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're the first and only user to bring up the capitalization issue over six months after the initial move, then yes, it was an uncontroversial and has been for the last six months. What would be controversial is moving it back using unconventional capitalization based on album covers. The two sources you mentioned above hardly hold any weight, especially when gothtronic.com capitalized the title "Moon Lay Hidden Beneath A Cloud (int)", while heathenharvest.com uses "Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud" and "The Moon lay hidden". Like I said, WP:RM would be the venue to pursue if you wish to go any further. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The time elapsed means essentially nothing, as there were only a handful of edits since, among which a fair number were automated. FluxEuropa was the only page I wanted to mention, and it uses the format consistently.  As does the artist website linked at the bottom of the article.  I only mentioned Gothtronic and Heathen Harvest as a response to your "Well I don't know, Google says X".  You didn't actually say whether you found any reliable sources using Google, you just said "Google says".  Both Gothtronic and Heathen Harvest have mixed usage because the pages have mixed content.  The Gothtronic header is the site itself while the text is presumably from Alzbeth.  The HH one is the interviewer versus the interviewee.  Only publications which force a MOS onto others would result in uniformity where there was none.  This sort of unnecessary rigamarole (having to work to prevent a MOS's arbitrary reformatting of an artist's *proper noun*) is the sort of thing which made me quit checking my Watchlist for months at a time.  If I hadn't had to wade through pointless bureaucracy, MOS-tyranny and deletionism all the time, I might be able to spend more time on this site as an editor without my blood pressure soaring, and I might have caught this six months ago.  Honestly?  If the artist website, along with ANY reviewer usage of the style, isn't enough, I can't FATHOM the RM process will result in anything but a cloud of MOS-focussed rules lawyers quashing the request.  I may have more satisfaction and less stress trying to edit the lead paragraph to show that it is officially "stylised" differently.  That or maybe you could just delete the redirect for me, and I'll do the move on my own. - BalthCat (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me direct you to Allmusic—one of the most reputable websites for music—uses "The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud". The manual of style usually does come out on top, especially when there's inconsistency in capitalization (see WP:CAPS). I really don't have much to add, I've stated why it won't be moved and where to go next if you disagree with the capitalization. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been specifically told Allmusic is not a reputable site for WP. - BalthCat (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest I edit the article to show that the proper style is different? - BalthCat (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is up there in reliability with Billboard and Rolling Stone magazine. Whoever said Allmusic is not reputable is misinformed. As for the article, you can write "The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud (stylised The Moon lay hidden beneath a Cloud), yada yada yada..." or "The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud (typeset The Moon lay hidden beneath a Cloud), yada yada yada..." — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told by multiple people in music discussions that it was not reliable. It's user-influenced like IMDB is.  Additionally, it's highly unlikely that it will be representative of outlier artists like MLH, so it shouldn't be used as a gauge in this case anyway.  (Which is precisely why I linked FluxEuropa which was a genre-specific source... but whatever.)  I'll go with the first option for now, until I see if fixing this is worth (more of) my stress and aggravation. - BalthCat (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can submit information, but Allmusic won't add the information unless they're able to verify it. I'm not sure how IMDb works as far as submitting content, but examples like this, where the contributor was "anonymous", shows they're not concerned whether or not the information is factually correct. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It also looks like Allmusic have their own MOS issues as well. ohGr vs. OhGr. - BalthCat (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That band appears to be all over the place. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that band's *press* is all over the place. (ps: Sorry for being more agitated than necessary.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for the love of... if I hadn't already calmed down, I would probably have burst into flames. Someone just moved cEvin Key to Cevin Key quoting WP:MOSTM.  I need to log off before I explode. - BalthCat (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What can ya do. I say don't worry so much about the capitalization, it's not too big of a deal. I don't agree with 100% of things around here, but you have to make with what you're given. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Chongqing grand hall at night.jpg
Hi. I saw you were active on WP:FfD and wondered if you could help. I want to rename a file, not delete it. Do you know if this is possible, or is it done as delete and then re-upload with the correct file name? File:Chongqing grand hall at night.jpg is in Beijing, not Chongqing, so the file name is confusing.

It's a good photo, and should be linked to Great Hall of the People, but I don't want to link it before the name is changed. Please can you assist? – <span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;color:#336699;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">RossJ81 Talk/Cont 06:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, moved to File:Beijing grand hall at night.jpg. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Subject of earlier deletion : new citations added
Hello, I am working on a project for London film premieres for a summer sponser and see Mark had a page before though it was deleted for notability.

I would like to add a new page for Mark Boardman and citiate many missing articles regarding his TV, radio and other work which make me positive he should have a permanent page here. He would be a big asset to Wikipedia and a great resource.

Having researched, I have used sources and the below is the draft I would like to submit.

Mark Boardman  (born 1980) in Essex is a entertainment & showbiz expert spending 6 years as a journalist. As a self and Since 2007 he has been most Notable for his numerous TV appearances and celeb based documentaries. His first experienced a major TV role as a chat show host on Homemade for which ran for 1 series where alongside his showbiz mate modestly claims "Mark; as a celebrity hunter is really the star of the show and we are on the same level". His appearance on lead to a big interview with & co presenters. Mark has appeared on over a dozen TV programmes including where he discussed ways to get A-listers on your side and the art of autograph collecting on " Collectors corner ". In 2003, he appeared on the where as a audience member was invited up on stage by a fellow vegetarian to talk about his weekly experience of attending the show and meeting stars including For the in 2007 he filmed a TV documentary regarding London film premieres and discussed why celebs are so in demand right now, he then went on to meet when filming for and shared experiences of his lifestyle.

Having met over 3500 celebrities in on the where only a is worthy of shaking his hand. Mark was hired Mark as the celebrity roving reporter for and his first broadcast was for the Brit awards 2007 Celebrity Quotes on Mark "one of Tv's rising stars" "Mark is gonna be a stars" quotes Mark as saying to "Can you record a answerphone message for me"

External links His official website Quotes Mark as saying to "Can you record a answerphone message for me"<p? A regular of Local radio and a celeb pundit and star blogger, Mark is regarded by many and listed as a minor UK celebrity Since 2004 Mark has run his own celebrity / London film premiere website and has nearly 3000 followers on The online wrote a piece "Mark Boardman is trying vainly to keep up appearances. He started going out of his way to meet celebrities 19 years ago, though he stretched the definition of celebrity somewhat with a snap of Russ Swift - the record holder for parking in narrow spaces, as if you didn't know. But Mark has now become a sage in the art and recently grabbed the autographs of Ewan McGregor - 'he's partial to a choc Magnum' and pop 'star' Lee Ryan - 'who I watched on the backstage bouncy castle with Jodie Marsh' at Popbeach. Classy." His blogging has earnt him status of a Minor celebrity on   & his insights in action on the red carpet in Leicester Square, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvstarlondon (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have tidied this up a bit and put it in a user page for him, and will give him some advice (including not to spam the same request across multiple talk pages). You are welcome to give him more advice, but I don't think this has much chance - it was deleted at AfD, recreated, G4-ed and salted, and there is nothing new here - main claimed celebrity seems to be as a celebrity-chaser. But Mr Boardman has a determined SPA fan-club -,   and now , and it may end up at DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you for the notice. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A.
Hi. I'd like to ask for your help in copyediting and making relevant the huge "Politics" section on the article M.I.A., as it is violating WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE among other policies. I don't think it's particularly well cited, or related to her politics. Alot of it seems to be written like an essay, with redundant quotes with the word politics in, repeats from what's in the main section, info that adds nothing to the bio, or is violating WP:Original research by assuming a political connect (free speech demands, bridges connecting first and third world) etc. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic at all. I've had a go at it. But whilst assuming good faith, the User:Exander2009 who I assume created the section seems highly possessive of the section, and reverts most changes immediately. Would like a third opinion on the matter. I've also asked User:ChrisTheDude for input. I've had a go at it myself, but I feel more editors involved would be helpful to make the article as a whole much better. Thank you. Lifebonzza (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I could give it a try. I found this edit summary by Lifebonzza a bit ironic. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL i don't know what you mean. :P I did say I had a go... anyway, thank you all the same.   Lifebonzza (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, after skimming through the politics section, it seems that it would be a good idea to transform it into a "Musical style" section, and perhaps create a subsection for political themes. Granted, there are some things in there completely unrelated to music (like M.I.A.'s Visa and censorship issue), but that can be moved to the upper end of the article body. Thoughts? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! A Musical style section, a Themes sub/section sound great. Yes, the visa/censorship issue could be moved into the main body - I guess they were included in here because there was alot of speculation that it was politically motivated, particularly the visa denial, homeland security list (the previous US administration was peeved at her after Arular). Her stylistic influence/fashion/new rave pioneering as well as the musical influence she has had across genres means I'm going to have to see what I can do for a Legacy section.  Lifebonzza (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Thought I would drop a line because I noticed you were into music. Just wondering if I could ask you for any guidelines on my userpage layout and wondered if you could assist me on making mine look somewhat similar to yours. Thanks in advance and I will watch your page. Mr little irish(talk) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the userpage design center which can get you started off. The code for my layout can be found on my subpage User:Explicit/Userpage. If you any more help, feel free to ask. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I got your user page, however I was wondering how I would setup my userboxes so they could be fixed on the right hand side. Could you help please? And also, how would I sort a re-direct out for my contributions page? Mr little irish(talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * fixed a bit here, while I fixed a bit here. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
After seeing this CfD discussion, I feel that it should be relisted and made public (like via AN or ANI) as any place could be considered a "populated place" at any time. For example, Stephens City, Virginia was founded in 1758, was "populated" in the early 1730 by German settlers, but probably had an Indian population long before that. So calling a town a "populated place" is very confusing. Having things being categorized previously as "Settlements" or "Cities" or "Villages" is MUCH better and less confusing. An area can be "populated" at anytime. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point you to this discussion regarding the whole naming scheme. If you have any concerns with how these categories were renamed, I would suggest raising your points at WT:CAT. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hello, I was wondering why you deleted the article "Discount tire company". You are well aware that the company is nationally stable and recognized throughout the U.S. and maybe you should think twice before deleting it. --Monterey Bay (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Discount Tire Company was deleted because another user proposed deletion of the article due to notability concerns: "tagged for a year still no third party references and no indication of notability". No one objected its deletion, and voila, it was deleted. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so serious? --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Prod removed from Cheng Hsin
You removed a prod tag with the comment "Removed prod; contested on talk page". I see no entry by you on the talk page - did you forget? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't contest the prod, it was contested by an IP editor here. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Help.
I have this book creator toolbar on the top of my screen, but I didn't create a book. How do I get rid of it without deleting someone else's work? Georgia Peachez (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what that looks like... Where exactly on the screen is it? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Earl Stanhope by Denner
Please expalin why you deleted this image?Rodolph (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're talking about File:JamesEarlStanhopeDennerdetail.jpg (correct me if I'm wrong)? The file was nominated for deletion here as an orphaned file. As Wikipedia is not an orphanage and no one contested the file's deletion, it was deleted one week after it was nominated. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs in A minor
RE: OK. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

deletion of jane aynscombe holding a peach.
hi. on 29 may I think you deleted the above image re discussion at

user Rodolph has asked for help re deletion of a number of images he has uploaded. I dont think he has quite got the hang of copyright tagging, but in this case I dont see why the image was deleted. User memphisto appears to be engaged in a vendetta with rodolpho over images and was in this case the only person requesting deletion. I gather this may apply to a whole swath of other images. It seems to me the proper course for a good faith editor would be  to assist Rodolpho in properly tagging his images, rather then trying to get them deleted. It is my understanding that being orphaned is only grounds for deletion of an image is it is 'fair use'. Perhaps you can cast some light on this, and indeed undelete the image if there was nothing wrong with it?Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I pretty much echo what Fastily's reply on his talk page. Free files can be deleted if they are outside of the scope of the encyclopedia. As for this specific file, only contested its deletion, but had no explanation as to how this file could be used in encyclopedic context where the full File:LadyoftheAynscombeFamily.jpg couldn't. Unless you have evidence of this "vendetta", I would suggest refraining from making baseless accusations that are borderline personal attacks towards Memphisto. Additionally, if Rodolph is the user who calls the deleting administrator a bully and accuses him vandalizing, it becomes that more difficult to assume good faith of that user. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion: Trio Clinical Research Article
Hello, I just wanted to address the issue of your deletion of my page by G11. The page itself was a work in progress, and definitely not a finished result. I had yet to post it to wikipedia (and if I had posted it, I am sorry, I did not realize it), and was still working on making it "unbaist." I was in the process of making it an informational page as more information about the company came to me. I had not yet recieved the full information required to continue the article. Is there any way to undo the delete and any way you would be willing to do so.

Thank you. HNewbold (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The subpage you created for Trio Clinical Research read in a promotional tone, which was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria as it appeared to have been created for promotional of advertising purposes. In order for the subject to merit an article here on Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. This means that Trio Clinical Research would need to receive significant coverage from reliable sources; if the company does not have such coverage, an article of it should not exist, as our notability guideline for organizations and companies indicates. If you're going to recreate your subpage, please make sure to review you may and what you may not have in your userspace. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note
A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion – <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Halp
I'm 12 years old and what is this???

~Beegee7730 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of File:Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board
Hi, you have deleted the file Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board, I believe your deletion was incorrect. This is an image of unique historic significance and is not replaceable. Historic Images released but the IDF Spokesperson's Unit are allowed per the Wikipedia fair use policy. This image has been released to the public by IDF Spokesperson's Unit. It is an image of unique historic significance and is not replaceable. Non-replaceable Historic Images released but the IDF Spokesperson's Unit are allowed per the Wikipedia fair use policy. According to IDF Spokesperson's Unit terms of use, user is specifically allowed to make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Notice that the article discusses this image/video frame itself. "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident.[97] One video shows how the first commandos to abseil down to the deck were attacked by a mob, and includes a soldier being thrown 30 feet (9.1 m) overboard as well as another being thrown to the lower deck." Thus this image is in full compliance of Wikipedia fair use policy. Marokwitz (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg was deleted because is lacked essential licensing information, not because it was tagged as replaceable. They are two distinct things. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I didn't upload the image, I can correct this easily. Is it possibly for you to undo the deletion? Marokwitz (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, go for it. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

YooHoo & Friends
Hi! You deleted a page I spent a lot of time working on called YooHoo & Friends and I was not aware that it was proposed for deletion until it was too late (apparently you get 7 days), otherwise I would have made efforts to edit accordingly and request that it not be deleted...in fact I would like to officially request it be undeleted. I'm not sure who tagged the page for proposed deletion either and would also contact them directly to seek help in the matter. Forgive me for not understanding this as I'm fairly new to the process. I've read a lot of info on wikipedia and still don't quite understand the "why" part of the page not meeting notability criteria. At the least, I would like to start the process of editing so it meets the standards (I assume there were some fairly simple fixes since it was only "proposed for deletion") and can get it back up on this wonderful resource Wikipedia! Or it'd be nice to at least get the code/content back since I spent so much time on it! Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Cheers, Lambadical (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that your request for undeletion was declined. The best option at this point is to move the content into your userspace. I went ahead and created subpage User:Lambadical/YooHoo & Friends with all of its contents, and you can work on it there. Regards. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. Lambadical (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious, once I think the page in question is again satisfactory, what would the next step be to have that once deleted page considered for restoration? I should have the edited version in the next couple days. Thanks! Lambadical (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I could give it a look and move it into the article namespace if the subject meets the notability guideline. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

is this nonsense?
This user page looks like unneccesary nonsense. Should I mark it for speedy deletion or are user pages allowed to be nonsense? Just wondering. Thanks. I like  pie  it  tastes  good  01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like a borderline case, to be honest. While it may seem like patent nonsense, how different would it be if it were a short and sweet "wee"? Personally, I don't feel this is deletable under G1, but other admins may differ in opinion. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

May I undelete some images?
Rovington has ignored the "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" statement at the bottom of the editing window and insists on placing a "This text is copied from my cc-by-sa-3.0 website" link, even though he's copied the text over himself. Because these links have been removed, he's placed a notice that the CC license has been revoked and has since been attempting to remove as much of his content as possible from Wikipedia. Some hours ago, you deleted a large number of his files for which he'd requested deletion; it's plain to me that he requested deletion in bad faith, so it's only right in my eyes that these images be restored. Would you mind if I restored them? I'm referring to all of Rovington's images that you've deleted since 00:00 on 15 June 2010. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. I wouldn't have had a problem if you just went ahead and restored the files if they were requested to be deleted under bad faith, as I wasn't aware of the situation beforehand. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of File:Juan negrin.gif
Hi Explicit, I've been off for some days and I didn't read the reply to my question in before you deleted the image. My understanding is that the image is valid as long as a proper fair-use rationale is provided and only for the Juan Negrín article. If my understanding is right, would you mind restoring the article? I commit to add the fair use rationale once you warn me about the restoration. Best regards and many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File restored. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. A fair use rationale has been. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion tag removal
I see you removed the deletion notice I had added to File:Derrimut distribution centre.png after an anon IP, presumably the uploader, added a PD-self tag to the image, however, you probably did not notice that this image was virtually a duplicate of File:Mitre10 Derrimut Regional Distribution Centre.png, which was deleted today, with the copyright notice cropped from the bottom of the image, so it is actually a copyvio but without an actual source and any, false or otherwise, I could not nominate it under WP:F9. I cannot find a source for this one, though it could be a Google Earth or Bing image, but if you view at the deleted image you will no doubt agree this should be deleted. What to do? ww2censor (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted the file under F9, as the uncropped file was watermarked by the Microsoft Corporation, so it was presumably from Bing. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I could not remember the copyright notice but you saw it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delteing Image
Hi,

I noticed you deleted the two image I did upload on the page.

The artist, that I contacted, gave me authorization to publish those.

Can you please restore them ?

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarkowi (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. The two files you uploaded were deleted, at the upload form, that the image may only be used here on Wikipedia and not commercial use. Files that are licensed freely must be licensed to be used here on Wikipedia, as well as for commercial purposes (see here and here). If the copyright holder of the image released it under those terms, you should forward the email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] and the link to the image. If verified that the file can be used on Wikipedia as well for commercial purposes, the file will be restored. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv
Does not turn out to add an user to the category "Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv". Already tried everything. It is needed, that automatically added to the category at presence of User Kyiv. — Sodmy (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, the job queue was too slow, so I went ahead and forced purging all the userpages in the category. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Text on Category Pages; Policy?
Hi Explicit, Quick question re policy on Categories. A new user, added several lines of unsourced text to category page Category:Senior Members of the IEEE— DIFF. To me this seems unnecessary, perhaps more suited to an article on the subject? Is there a policy on this? (s are welcome to comment/reply.) You may have to 'ping' me as I (a mere IP) don't have a watchlist. Regards, --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That definitely would fit better in the article, though it would require a source. There isn't a policy regarding category descriptions, but there is a guideline. Descriptions should generally explain what the category is and when an article should be added to it. For this case, it would make sense to explain what Senior Members of the IEEE are, but not the requirements to become one. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about what I thought! I've seen a few DaB pages that seem to be turning into article stubs. I'll look at the policy and remove the unecessary text. Thanks <font color="B22222">ξ . --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for deleted article on "StringBurn Live!" to be userfied
Hi Explicit, I had an article flagged for deletion and I noticed far to late, I was wondering if it would be possible to have this moved to a subpage on my userspace, so that I can continue to work on the article and make sure that it matches up to the credibility factor, thank you.

Toxigenicpoem (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, I've userfied the page at User:Toxigenicpoem/Stringburn live. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New Brexx or Tremanshoe?
Hi i just wondered if is Brexx or Tremanshoe sock puppet. Its the ... (elipses) that's tipping me off? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be Brexx. I'm out the door, but will look closely when I get back.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely Brexx; blocked and tagged as such. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Brexx?
I suspect that is another Brexx sleeper sock. Very argumentative with myself and User:L-l-CLK-l-l also editing a lot of Brexx targets. Seems suspicious since the last Brexx sock left a message about the song "Grown Woman" being released on July 13 here and now they are edit warring over it at Grown Woman. Other contributions match typical Brexx targets. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. That was an easy one. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nipped in the bud (almost). Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with a Page
I need help from an admin with a track list on this page, Pilot Talk. Someone is editing the page though I've provided sources that are viable. Can you help me with keeping this from being edited? Choppercity (talk) 30 June 2010 at 02:56 —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Have you considered contacting the users who are reverting your edits, or bringing it up on the article's talk page? You could point out to them that the official Island Def Jam website links to the track-by-track review done by Complex magazine, which spills the entire track listing. Clearly, these sources are adequate, so the other user(s) reverting you may have overlooked them and should be aware of this, which can be done by engaging in discussion with them. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete delete delete
Delete Talk:Hard Candy (Madonna album)/GA1, sockpuppet crap. Or you can review, ya know! --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Subpage deleted. Reviewing the article would require me to enjoy reviewing GANs again. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You cunning devil  --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Permissions department is non-existent
You have just prematurely deleted two files that had the correct permission obtained for CC by SA. These files are "File:Skipper Stowe.jpg" and "File:Schooner Anne.jpg".

I have already had problems with the Permissions department for confirming licenses for pictures I have uploaded. "File:KDAQ facilities.jpg" is a case in point where I recently obtained permission by email and sent this on to the proper dept. See the discussion at where it shows that even though I had sent the letter to --permissions-en@wikimedia.org-- they did nothing about it until an administrator stepped in on my behalf and notified them about the letter.

Has this happened again? I went to all the trouble to immediately comply with your stiff regulations on copyright, and the permissions dept. has been sitting on my letters for the files "File:Skipper Stowe.jpg" and "File:Schooner Anne.jpg" since June 8, 2010. Could you please check what they have done with my letter of permission from the owner of these photos? Have they even looked at it? Thank you.

P.S. If you would like, I can email you a copy of the permission letter that I received for both these photos in question. It explicitly states that I have permission under the CC by SA ver. 3.0 (Creative Commons License) for both these photos. What else do they want? --Skol fir (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for your files being deleted, they are routinely deleted if OTRS hasn't touched them for seven days. I get these type of messages somewhat regularly, as they isn't as quick as one would hope they'd be. As I am not a volunteer for OTRS, the permission would be to no use for me. I have just emailed them, so I'll post here once I get a reply. By then, one can hope that the permissions will be verified and the files be restored. Regards. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your courteous, informative and prompt reply! --Skol fir (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Skol fir, could you drop me an email? I've received a reply from a volunteer and they're currently backlogged quite a bit—they're still dealing with emails from April—and have requested your email address for an easier find. Thanks. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay (I was AFC for R&R). I dropped you the email you requested. --Skol fir (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we'll see what results from here. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the letter of permission was insufficient in detail to satisfy the Dept. of Permissions, so I resubmitted the request to the owners of the photos, following the exact guidelines of the Copyright dept. and using their template as a framework. Let's see if it flies this time! --Skol fir (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I received a new letter of permission, which was forwarded to the Permissions Dept. forthwith. --Skol fir (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reid Stowe
Hi, could you link me to the discussion about deleting this picture [Skipper Stowe.jpg] please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, there was no discussion that lead to the file's deletion. It was tagged with di-no permission and was deleted after seven days. In fact, this issue is actually being discussed in the section above. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks,these things seem to disappear with the file but where is the file history to be found? For example who tagged it and when and who uploaded it, where can I find those details when the file is deleted? Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All the information goes when the file is deleted, which can only be accessed by admins after the fact. Your best bet to tracking down the uploader is through the "what links here" option, as the file will be linked on their user talk page if they were notified (in this case, the uploader was only notified of the WP:PUF discussion in early June, but not notified when it was tagged with di-no permission). — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ozone Image Deletion
You recently deleted File:Ozone-@-Motown.jpg. Two things:
 * What happened to a seven-day warning?
 * The image was taken from Soulwalking. The page itself explicitly says that Joe Foxxworth, a member of the band, provided the picture. How is giving someone a picture and telling them to post it not permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atari2 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The file was tagged for deletion by on June 23, 2010. As deleting admin, I'm only responsible for deleting it, not notifying the uploader. Furthermore, you indicated that the image was released under the public domain by Joe Foxxworth. No where in the source you provided was it verified that this was the case; simply because someone took a photo or provided it to a website does not mean they released said photo under a free license. There was no evidence that the photo was released or permission given to release this image under the public domain. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it then qualify as promotional material, since Foxxworth released in on a site which promoted both soul music in general and devoted a specific page to Ozone's work? Atari2 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think so, yes. If you do plan to upload it in that manner, make sure to choose the Non-free promotional license tag and accompany it with a fair use rationale. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet addition
Can you protect The Girlie Show World Tour for a few days. IP of a banned user is continuously adding non-free images to the article although same free image exists. I have reverted thrice (in two days) and hence won't do it further. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I do, could you specify who the block evader is? Just to verify that it's sockpuppetry. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The omnipotent . Stifle got tired blocking his sockpuppets and told me to ignore him from now onwards. Lol. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Five days it is. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, can you revert the last edit to the free image version? Also, you might wanna keep an eye on . Seems like we might have another Petergriffin like case in hands. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First thing I did. As far as Gabe19 goes, I think it's more of a misunderstanding more than anything, as he may have missed that you specified the source over at Ray of Light. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops missed it under the protection log. For Gabe19, just keep an eye that he does not do a Petergriffin like thing, by deleting something while giving a false edit summary. Peter's initial edits were quite exhausting for Kww, and the numerous blocks were too much. Lets hope this one doesnot end up doing the same thing. Look after that image uploaded in Janet Jackson also. Cheers! --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it'll go down that road. A little push into the right direction should do the job. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RfB
I was considering nominating you for bureaucratship! Do you accept or decline - should I post the nomination or not? I like  pie  it  tastes  good  04:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * RFB, that's a suggestion never brought up to me. At the moment, I'll have to decline, as I don't have any interest to become a bureaucrat, at least for a while. Thanks for thought, though. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

deletion of .dia file
07:05, 2 July 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Cache,associative-read.dia" ‎ (F10: Useless media file (not an image, audio or video))

Hi. Please, reverse your deletion, because the .dia files is actually a better source file than .svg. Svgs exported from dia are almost no editable. It is no useless, it is like .tex and .dvi. Anyone can publish .dvi or even convert it to .pdf, viewable from any computer. But almost noone can correct a small typo (or translate the text on image to other language) in .pdf or in .dvi, the original .tex is needed (the same is true for metapost sources and images). With your deleteion I need to spend 2 hours with recreating this .dia from raster file (.png)!!

The same for File:Cache,basic.dia: 07:06, 2 July 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Cache,basic.dia" ‎ (F10: Useless media file (not an image, audio or video)) `a5b (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IF you (and midiawiki image converter) dont know that .DIA is an IMAGE, please, ask anybody who knows, but don't touch and delete this files. `a5b (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both restored. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

New Brexx
Do we think might be brexx again? Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked a few times for being Brexx, so it will a receive yet another. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps another?
Ok this one I'm not sure about but is tenditiously editing main Brexx targets. Notably it seems they have edited several wildcard articles long enough to be autoconfirmed to edit Brexx targets. Clasic Brexx behaviour includes not responding to talk messages, leaving things several hours to cool off then editing again. I've left messages about on-going project discussions as well as guidelines but to no help. Needs a second opinion. I'm not saying this is Brexx but it certainly fits the bill and there are enough similarities to warrant second opinion. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not Brexx, CloversMallRat has been around longer than I have! With all the CheckUsers done on many accounts, this would've been swept up long ago. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image
You deleted the file File:Lamont BlackWeds.jpg, which I had uploaded. I was not informed that it had been deleted: I was not aware of its deletion until I happened to come across an article in which it had been used and deleted. I recognise that the image is not in the public domain, but English-language wiki permits the uploading of fair-use images, and I went to some lengths to justify its fair use in the articles in question. It clearly did not fit the F7 criteria, such as obvious bad faith. Might I ask why it was deleted? If it was deleted mistakenly, might I ask if you kept a copy, since the original image is no longer accessible to me? The matter is further discussed at this talk page. Thanks, BartBassist (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the file was tagged by, who added the di-disputed fair use rationale template with the concern that: "This non-free image of Norman Lamont with his mouth slightly open is clearly not essential to readers' understanding of the Black Wednesday fiasco, and thus fails NFCC 8." As such, it was eligible for deletion under F7. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Small request.
Hi Explicit. I was using twinkle to nominate No Love (Eminem song) for deletion but its created two reports and created two AfD discussions. How can it be corrected? One of the nom's and discussions should be deleted. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind already fixed by Moonriddengirl. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Aaliyah and pp-pending
Yep, Aaliyah went off pending changes trial on the 30th. Because it was mixed in with so many other changes, I thought it got accidentally removed. I guess I'm also used to the bots patrolling the protection tags; one of them would've removed the tag sometime in the past week. Sorry about that. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I was also curious as to why a bot didn't get around to it, so I'm assuming it hasn't been coded to remove the new pp-pending template yet. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Coldfrosty.png
Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. 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. Frickeg (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AALIYAH 's sales (final)
this is my conclusion. I loved your idea of placing between 24 and 32 million albums (let's leave it at that?)

This case has consumed me long, and the article 'aaliyah' needs other 'improvements' (a natural evolution over time, and reliable sources)

I undid his review because you had taken my sources. I put them in the back and deizi 24000000-32000000 of albums (and more sources to download 32.)

is good?

=)

One in A Million, July 8. comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Why do you continue to unnecessarily add references to the lead section? As I explained on Talk:Aaliyah, references are not necessary in the lead if the content is sourced in the body. Every single claim in the lead in mentioned and sourced in the body of the article. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Selectively ignoring sources?
Regarding Alicia Keys, you called my source explanation a "story as believable as the tooth fairy" and yet when I offer to provide concrete support for it I am ignored. I guess that's a convenient way to keep my "story" unbelievable isn't it? Well done.Jcgordon7 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Or maybe I was away from the computer, returned and was just about to reply. I guess if I'm offline, that's a convenient way to assume that I'm ignoring you isn't it? Well done. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, it seemed like you were consistently present and were just choosing not to acknowledge what I was saying because it might contradict a number of other sources. So where can I submit the snippet?Jcgordon7 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not entirely sure. We have a biographies of living persons that states: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." As I mentioned on Talk:Alicia Keys, there are several reliable sources that verify Keys's birth year being 1981, while the claims for 1980 are shaky. Now, you may very well have gone through her contract as you've stated and Keys may have very well been born in 1980 (as I mentioned, age fabrication isn't rare at all), but our verifiability policy states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia verifies claims, it doesn't set out to find out whether or not they may be fact. Unless Keys herself explicitly states she was born 1980 or the information is somehow revealed, we'll have to stick to 1981. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. So, you're telling me as long as a lie can be verified by more sources than a truth, the lie is controlling fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned? That's unfortunate! I don't know how much stock I'll be putting into figures I find here going forward. This isn't my website by any means, and I'm more than happy to abide with Wikipedia's policies. I just didn't appreciate being effectively called a liar right off the bat; that wasn't necessary at all and I was expecting at slightly higher degree of professionalism and courtesy from an admin. I was going to submit the snippet if anything to rebut your presumption that I'm telling tall tales. Is it that hard to believe that there are people out there who work with recording contracts? They don't write and edit themselves, you know. "Job working with recording contracts" and "the tooth fairy" are on completely different levels of plausibility, but thank you for the kind comparison.Jcgordon7 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not allude to you being a liar, and I apologize if it came across that way. What I was alluding to is that a claim on the internet isn't going to hold any weight because, well, it's the internet. On the internet, especially on websites like this, we'll need more than just a claim to verify who you are or what position you hold, especially if it's challenging facts that are verified from outside sources. And no, it's perfectly plausible for you to be an individual who works with recording contracts, as I've come across a few in my near-three years here. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I regret that I can't provide any more verifiable or citable source for this date (it's very disheartening especially when it's staring me in the face in her own handwriting! hehe), but I understand why this source cannot be used to counterclaim the 1981 date that's out there. I guess Alicia stays in her 20's for one more year! I'm sure she's not disappointed. Jcgordon7 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this happens regularly. In fact, a similar situation had occurred last year with M.I.A.. All types of sources claimed she was born in 1977; then she gave birth to her son, her birth certificate was revealed to show her birth year as 1975 and everything went crazy. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)