User talk:Explicit/Archive 9

Selena FAR
nominated Selena for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beloved Freak  20:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Account Deletion
Hi. I have created a new account and User: Lil-unique1 told me to contact you about getting my old one deleted. I no longer need this one, as I have created a new one to start over. Please reply to this message to my new account User talk: Ending-start.

Zacharee (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WHY THE ARTICLE DELETED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.141.66 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Sidenerm.jpg
A while back you deleted the talk page for this file with the reason "(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)".

I noticed recently that the file is back. Assuming I remember correctly, the file was deleted for copyvio. Should I mark it as a copyvio again? Or do you think there is any other action I should take. I ask because I think it will probably continue to be uploaded again and again. Thank you Zell Faze (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

fair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_leaders_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviators_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

I would be more convinced of your intentions if these 2 categories were treated in the same way, either all kept or all deleted. The best thing is to

1. keep all 3, including entertainers

2. delete all 3.

3. the worst is to delete only some.

Note that I am not suggesting unreasonable categories, like

Left handed people killed in aviation accidents in even numbered years.

Let's work together. I seek the fair, reasonable, and logical solution, not fighting. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the only reason I noticed is because you added it to Aaliyah. I found it redundant, where she was already categorized. Only after reviewing the contents of the category you created did I nominate it for deletion. I wasn't going through  to notice the other two you listed even existed, let alone go through the contents and consider nominating them for merging or deletion of any kind. —  ξ xplicit  22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were to nominate state leaders and aviators to be deleted, I would consider that to be fair, not pointy. Those are occupations.  However, in my opinion, people will look at the cat I created. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

help requested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filmed_accidental_deaths

Please help with this. I am not trying to be pointy but just to identify one cat that I think should be deleted. I have never asked for a cat to be deleted. Note that I can be easily convinced to withdraw this nom because I lack experience in nomination. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I should point out that the category was previously nominated for deletion, which resulted in no consensus. The discussion can be found here. — ξ xplicit  23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Should I withdraw it? I will not do anything for this but it is a funny category, Category:Finnish people of Nigerian descent


 * How about Togolese people of Swiss descent? How about Malaysian people of Austrian descent? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing the nomination is entirely up to you. As for, this category is part of two well-established category trees: and .  and  don't exist, but would be part of the even bigger category tree . —  ξ xplicit  00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of files
Hi. I noticed you just deleted the file Veronique_Chevalier.jpg. I created the Veronique Chevalier page, as well as a page for independent filmmaker John Soares. Each of them has sent in permission for their photographs to be used on their pages, over a month ago. John Soares sent his permission in three times now. Those images have still not been approved and keep getting taken down. I wrote to the permissions email addressed and asked why they had not been approved, and received no reply, not even a polite acknowledgment that they had received my inquiry. Do you have any idea what possible reason there could be for the delay? Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, OTRS has been backlogged for several months now, so the processing goes by slower than usual. However, the file I deleted, File:Veronique Chevalier.jpg, was licensed under a non-free license, which was deleted after seven days of not being used in any article. Were the emails you sent verify the images under a free license? — ξ xplicit  00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

David Lehman photo
This conversation actually starts on my talk page, but with a different editor. So it is probably best to just continue here. This is regarding File:David Lehman photo 1996.jpg. I did do a search and there is no free photograph available. Also, there are actually a very limited number of photos available. Google images search here: reveals no free images. (I think I knew this already).

Also, since this issue has come up, the policy stating that since a person is alive, non-free content is not to be used because obviously a free image will show up - is ludicrous. I don't see how this policy ever became accepted as consensus. My experience is that it is the exact opposite. Free photos show up much more often after the person has passed on, not the other way around. And it makes sense. If you don't know which policy statement I am refering to, I can search for it. It is a Wikipedia policy. Above is proof that there is no free image available. And that policy statement needs to be changed, and I will probably propose that it be changed, because it goes against the facts. (I just have to demonstrate it somehow). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy being the way it is, you should be more than aware that you should abide by it, especially such a strict and strongly enforced one. I don't exactly understand why you find it ludicrous to believe a free image of a living person is easier to come across than a free image of a dead one, as I view it in the exact opposite way. Flickr is much easier to utilize, as you're likely to find a free image there. Although there isn't one at the moment, you can always message the uploader and ask them to release one of their images under a free license. For example, these two would be worth trying. I'd applaud you if you're able to convince the community to make WP:NFCC less strict. — ξ xplicit  05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading the conversation after this one I wrote: Thank you. Now I understand. I think when I added the photograph to that article I was wondering if it would "fly". The original intent was to use this image only for this person's biography. Then I decided "what the heck", I will add it to the "book" article. In reality, the image of this person may have been off topic, although he was one of the notable editors of this book, and this series. I will look into this some more and see how much relevance this person has to this article. Thanks for your help in this matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it is ironic that I read and wrote that. In any case let me do more checking about this matter, because now I am confused as to what the issue is. It is interesting that your experience is the opposite of mine regarding pictures of living persons. At least, I will have to get off my soap box if I decide to gain consensus to change that policy :>)  Steve Quinn (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, your original reply to the discussion below really had me confused after you moved comment to this section. I genuinely thought you were for a good five minutes.  Anywho, I'm sure finding a free alternative will prove to be easier than you think. —  ξ xplicit  07:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Files for deletion
I'm trying to understand why File:Brodeurbook.jpg was deleted while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. The articles that they appear in give a nearly identical level of treatment to the books they're covering (not super in depth critical commentary, but commentary nonetheless). I expected these to go together (either both keep, or both delete). The fact that they went differently surprises me. If anything, I would have expected the reverse since File:Brodeurbook.jpg was used in a featured article while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. I'm new this files for deletion process, and frankly can't believe how it can supercede successful FA image reviews (where WP:FAR would be the appropriate place to bring issues up). I'm crossposting this comment on User talk:Fastily so we can all compare notes. --SkotyWATC 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as the latter of the two files was deleted Fastily, I can't speak on his behalf. You may be aware that the non-free content criteria is extremely strict in order to minimalize the use of non-free content, as Wikipedia does strive for the use of as much free content as possible. As such, the NFCC policy trumps most uses of non-free items, except for cases as outlined here. This cover was deleted on the grounds of WP:NFC, point nine: A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Because the book cover wasn't being discussed here—only the book itself was—it simply did not hold up against the policy. — ξ xplicit  06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I had thought that by discussing the book itself it qualified as appropriate use under WP:NFCI#8.  The book is probably not notable on it's own to have a separate article, but it is discussed in moderate detail in the article covering the person who's autobiography it was.  If I'm reading this correctly, it would seem that WP:NFC point nine only applies in the absence of critical commentary.  Am I misunderstanding something, or is it possible that a mistake has been made in deleting this image?  --SkotyWATC 07:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the end I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion about what exactly qualifies as "cricital commentary." I guess your decision to delete the picture implies that your opinion is that it didn't qualify.  As I posted, I felt that it did meet the bar as "critical commentary" albeit limited.  You're the admin though so I guess you get final say.  --SkotyWATC 07:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point eight of NFCI only applies to images with iconic status or historical importance. These types of images are usually licensed under Non-free historic image. This book cover was not and could not be tagged as such. As for point nine of NFC#UUI, the cover of the book must acquire sourced critical commentary in order to meet the criteria. The book is being discussed in the article, but not its covert art. I'm definitely not expressing my own opinion on the matter, otherwise I would not have been suitable for closing the discussion, I'm simply enforcing policy. If you believe I misinterpreted the discussion or the policy that led to the result of the discussion, you can initiate a discussion at deletion review. — ξ xplicit  07:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg as No Consensus simply because there was no consensus to delete the file. All the !votes were valid and in a 2/3 keep/delete ratio.  That's my nonpartisan close of the discussion, nothing else.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Explicit, I'm terribly sorry, I pointed to the wrong place in WP:NFCI above. I didn't mean point 8, rather point 1 for the cover art.  Specifically, it states Cover art... for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item.  Hopefully that makes my comments about "critical commentary" clearer.  Do you believe that point 1 does not apply in this case?  If so, I'd like to understand why? --SkotyWATC 04:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how to explain it without sounding like a broken record. Simply put, if the image fails just one of the criteria of the non-free content policy, that alone is grounds for deletion. If the book itself had an article, then it would be no problem sticking the cover into the infobox of that article. — ξ xplicit  05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it seems like I'm making you repeat yourself. I think I understand your view now.  So the line you're drawing is that in order for a non-free cover art image of a book to be used, the book must have it's own article.  I also believe I understand all of the points of WP:NFCC.  For most non-free images, the hardest point to satisfy (in the eyes of reviewing editors) is #8 where it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic".  Unless I've missed something (entirely possible), this is the only criteria that File:Brodeurbook.jpg possibly did not satisfy.  However, WP:NFCI seems to be a list of obvious acceptable examples of NFCC#8.  In NFCI#1 it does not state that a book having it's own article is necessary to include non-free cover art, just that critical commentary be presented on the book.  --SkotyWATC 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point eight of NFCC is definitely the most contentious criteria of them all, as it becomes a judgment call between individual editors and what they each see as contextual significance. From what I've seen and have been strictly enforcing for the past two years, non-free images like book covers, album covers, film posters, etc., need a significant reason to be included in an article which isn't about the book/album/film/whatever in order justify its use there. Editors need to demonstrate why the cover is significant when it's not the main or critical subject being discussed, and explain how the image illustrates what free text can't. The book itself can have all the critical commentary in the world, but if the book cover isn't being critically discussed, it isn't necessary in the article. — ξ xplicit  07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're possibly mistaken. The cover itself is not critically discussed in any of these articles, but the non-free image of the cover nevertheless is used: Duncan Edwards, Ian Chappell, Nancy Drew, Mario Vargas Llosa, James Robert Baker, and Bruno Maddox.  You could say that each of these are a violation of the policy (as you've interpreted it), but if that's the case, how did they all pass FAC review (yes, they're all currently FAs)?  Again, I think you're understanding of policies you're "strictly enforcing" might be incorrect.  Critical commentary of the book appears to be what's necessary for non-free cover art to be legitimately included, not commentary of the cover itself.  --SkotyWATC 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of articles that misuse book covers like the examples you've provided (holy crap, that Nancy Drew article is really overdoing it), but those articles are not the concern of the file I deleted. Anywho, to be fair, only one of the examples you listed was promoted to a featured article since 2009, while there is at least one that was promoted as early as 2006. Even if they did pass FAC, it doesn't necessarily mean the files are exempt from deletion, nor that they were review properly, if at all. The enforcement of NFCC is more aggressive today than it ever has been in the past. I can't say I enforce the policy when I don't come across these articles as I'm not aware how these files are being used, but I do if and when they cross my path. If you're wondering, I do plan to review these articles (possibly in several hours, it's 1 am here) and nominate the files necessary for deletion at WP:FFD. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you've begun to review and nominate for deletion the book covers that are used in these articles. I recognize that my bringing them up could be seen as a violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but since they are all featured articles (and not crap) I tend to believe that these don't apply (see the end of paragraph 3 of that policy also). I was bringing them up as an argument for consistency across the encyclopedia at the featured article level. Whether you were aware of that part of the policy or not, I am impressed that you are a man of your word and are following up on the examples I provided. For that I award you this barnstar:

I'll be very interested in the details around any of the examples I provided that you decide not to nominate. Also, obviously if it turns out that the images you nominate for deletion are actually in line with policy, I expect that you'll likely be the first to want to revert the deletion of File:Brodeurbook.jpg. I'm not saying that will happen (it probably won't it seems), but if it did, I think I've seen enough from you now to know that you wouldn't let a mistake (if that's what it turns out to be) like this go unaddressed. You are a man of your word and while I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with you, your consistent and honorable application of policy deserves recognition. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the barnstar and the kind recognition, I really appreciate it. I don't think I finished reviewing all the articles as there are several things to do around here, it's a never-ending job. I'll let you know if there are any images I don't take to FFD. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg
I am enquiring why you deleted this file when there was no clear consensus. I am requesting a deletion review in the meantime. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...No consensus? It was pretty clear that there was consensus to delete the file as it failed the non-free content criteria policy and there was a free alternative available. Without even an explanation—let alone a persuasive one—as to how the non-free file portrayed something the free image couldn't, the deleted file was a textbook violation of NFCC. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg. 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. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

YooHoo & Friends
Hello again -- I've been working with you in discussing the page I created, YooHoo & Friends. You had removed the article for further editing and moved to this spot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lambadical/YooHoo_%26_Friends. I've replaced some of the links you mentioned that caused notability issues (they were either dead, or links to press releases, not articles). Do you think the page is acceptable now since I'm linking to the industry feature articles that mention the facts contained within the wiki article? Thanks Lambadical (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It might be notable enough for inclusion, but the current wording of the subpage still needs some clean up, as it comes across as promotional; it seems more like it's trying to sell the product than it is trying to be a comprehensive article about the stuffed animals. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I see where you are headed with the promotional tone, which was unintentional so I tried to do some editing and make it sound more comprehensive. Hopefully on the right track. Can you let me know? Thanks as always for your continued assistance. Lambadical (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of copy-editing, but there are some issues that need to be dealt with before it can get moved backed into the article namespace. The most severe issue is copyright. When reading it and looking through the sources, I've seen bits and of pieces of sentence copies directly off the references. Please be careful with the text, as it could run afoul of copyright violations. Secondly, some of the paragraphs seem to be missing inline citations. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and all claims should be verifiable through these citations. The writing could use some clean up as well; there's some single-sentence paragraphs that could use some expansion or could be merged with other paragraphs of related contents. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I'll get on it and let you know when I've addressed your concerns.Lambadical (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Images
If your unhappy about a license I released an image under, please contact me before deletion so I can review the license. Someone nominated almost every image I uploaded in what appears to be retaliation for opposing them in an AFD. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, I only deleted two files uploaded by you recently, one which you requested deletion of. That leaves File:Kennedy 2066744754 1393912e04 b.jpg, where you indicated the source being Flickr. It was licensed under CC-NC-ND on Flickr, so the file was eligible for speedy deletion immediately. The sculpture itself may be under the public domain, but the photograph itself is not. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

True dat
You're right, but I had to correct my mistake. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. These type of attempts to add a spouse field come all to often with married musicians. IPs never learn... — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to add a spouse myself, but my wife objected... Drmies (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanian cities category
I've reopened the question of how to name the Romanian cities category here. Notifying you and other participants in the previous discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism in cuba
Should be deleted as indicated by the lenghty discussion on the talk page where everyone says it should be deleted. As well as the copious amounts of propaganda such as "sources" like newsmax. As well as the lack of context and relying on extreme POV articles such as the economist as well as OR. As well as the authors misguided ideas of race and race relations in Latin America and how they differ significantly from the cultural attitudes of the USA. I would consider this article to lack context, content, and be an attack on living persons and entities.

Since you think it's find and dandy then I will improve it on my own. Thanks for the 5 seconds you took to check out the horrendous article that, if you read the talk page, clearly has a consensus that it should be deleted. General Choomin (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who exactly is "everyone", and where is this consensus you speak of? There was hardly any discussion to begin with. Even if there was, the page simply does not meet any of the speedy deletion criterion you tagged the page with, regardless of your view of the article. The proper venue to nominate the article for deletion is articles for deletion. If you're going to improve the article, I fail to understand why you nominated it for speedy deletion to begin with; that's the first thing to attempt before considering deletion. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I simply do not have the time nor the energy to edit such information and get into edit wars with such users who write such slanted and irredeemable pieces. Edit wars are stressful and I tend to not enjoy them.  Seeing as how the people who expressed that it should be deleted span several years in how wrong the piece is.  I assume that it is a consensus since the author nor anyone else for that matter has tried to address anyone on the talk page.  The author, by his/her own choice to ignore the other wiki contributors to work out a compromise as well as an accurate article has thus forced a consensus by those members that are vocal on the subject.


 * I do not deny that their is forms of discrimination in Cuba nor any other country, but the author pointing out how Cuban identity contradicts race is absurd. Since identity determines those factors since they are all part of the same construct.  To leave out that race is viewed much differently in Latin America then the USA is absurd.  To judge such a society by the cultural lens of the United states and it's history on the topic is to warp Cuban society into something it is not.


 * The POV that is broken in that article would make any knowledgeable person dizzy. At least half of the sources can be seen as unreliable fringe POV such as the economist op-ed piece and newsmax.  As well as a subscribers only economist article and a "citizens journalism" website which is a fancy term for a community of blogs.  And for the rest... I guess you didn't check how much context they had when most of it was about Americans and how Americans apply their own perspective on Cuban society.


 * But I will only add those signs there. In which it declares how unfit the article is since editing one article that a person with an agenda wants to project as a reality to some sap gets me to much grief.  I tried to edit other articles and explain why before I did in talk pages before and all I got was revert wars from people who watch over the articles like hawks and use bots for their reverting.  Then getting suspended and/or threatened with a ban from other fellow admins.


 * Now I could trust you and I could make a decent (compared to the current one) article. Since I am the only one currently invested I would simply ask that you allow me to do so without the frustration of other users/bots/whatever trying to revert to this fantastically ignorant article.  I would also ask you to let me take a hatchet to it before I start.  That seems like a fair compromise to it's warranted deletion. General Choomin (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Alaska Pizza
Please allow the Great Alaska Pizza page to be posted. It cannot avoid the advertising bots, as it is designed to follow-up the list of franchises designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcwill85 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria for pages that are created solely for promotional or advertising purposes. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not vehicle for promotion and advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must receive significant coverage from reliable sources to assert notability and merit an article here. Please see the notability guideline for organizations and companies for further information. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you replace this please?
File:Hkcolonyprocess-EN.png, the licensing status clearly said CCSA as the same license type on commons even if it didn't have the proper en-wikipedia template. Any meaningful look at the file would have noticed this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * ✅, my bad. I went ahead and adjusted the license. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The Crossovers
Morning

Why did you delete this article ? You can find enought references on the web. 

Greetings --130.120.37.11 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the page was deleted because another user proposed the deletion of the article for lacking to assert notability. recently requested the contents to be moved into their userspace so he could work on the page, so I've restored the content here. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you very much.--130.120.37.11 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

About article Moon Letter
Hello,

First. Let me thank you for being so active in Wiki and correcting other contributers mistakes.

One article, you noticed, was unsuitable and got marked as "Non-notable newsletter" and deleted cause I did not have time to correct it. So now as you were the one who found it there is help needed. As I don't know where this article can retrieved so at least to post this to the organization webpage. You see, this article was made half-joke but all the info there was true. This link to Wiki was used on the newsletter, to show people who read this, as if the story of making it was more real. So now when writing another newsletter "Moon Letter" the link to Wiki cannot be used.

You probably know a lot more about Wiki, so perhaps you know those answers. Or you probably might even correct this article.

Please, if you have little time to help, just ignore this talk and continue what you consider important.

With humble respect,

Tarmo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanarebane (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm not entirely finding it clear what is being asked. Is it that you would like help attempting to establish notability with the article (though, after a quick search, I don't think that's possible at this time), or just have the text retrieved for you? If it's the latter, I can email you a copy of the article at any time. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:2001 CENTRIFUGE SET.jpg
This is nommed for deletion on Commons as non-free but should be kept here as it has a fair-use rationale, pending the Commons outcome. If it is kept at Commons, it can be deleted here, but their deletion requests are slooooow. Cheers. Rodhull andemu  21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. When I deleted, only a fair use rationale was present, while the actual description page was over at Commons. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:MCI equipped Studiod.jpg
Could you please undelete this image? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry (again)
is most certainly related to who in turn is a sock puppet of TremanShoe. Certainly the IPs edits and edit summaries show that he/she has a detailed understanding of wikipedia. Perhaps protection on such articles should be restored? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... this one's tough. The IP is geolocated in Singapore, while TrEeMaNsHoE's IPs have always been geolocated in Michigan. Isn't our little socker also king of uncited information and original research? This edit made by the IP shows the opposite. Drake&Ciara Fan was certainly TrEeMaNsHoE, but I'm not entirely convinced the IP is. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note about PuI
This is re: your recent closing of. I should have self closed the discussion, my bad. You suggested making a nomination at IfD, however the first "note" at the discussion indicates Twinkle placed the discussion Pui so the discussion was moved to. That discussion was closed on August 29/30. The image was tagged dfu on the same day/morning. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. When I see the note by AnomieBOT about the file being licensed as non-free, I automatically think "well, this file can no longer be deleted through this venue, time to close as procedural keep." Force of habit, I suppose. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to look into changing your closure due to the fact it is misleading - the images uploader is using your wording as a reference on how the image was not deleted (again) on the images talk page. See dif. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the wording my closure, hope it's better. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang's picture
I stated that the Big Bang picture was created by me because I cropped the original picture. To be honest, I was unsure of what to upload it under, so I chose this one. However, if you do feel that it violates the copyright issues, then by all means remove it. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you didn't take the picture, that means someone else did and they are the copyright holders. Unless the person released it under a free license, it is a copyright violation. Please see the copyrights page for further information. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miguel (singer)
-- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

F2 deletion of File:Porta Asinaria Facade from within the city walls.JPG
The file is on Commons. It looks perfect on my screen. I see no corruption. Why was it deleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The file was deleted under F2 because the actual file is on Commons. As such, these files should instead be categorized at Commons. The Commons cat template is in the category to direct users of the categorized images on Commons. This issue was discussed recently here, where consensus was to delete Commons files categorized here, as the effort is just being doubled otherwise. Hope this clears things up a bit. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Explicit, The Utahraptor's sock has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for deleting my hidden subpage challenge. The Utahraptor&#39;s sock (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Portlandia.jpg
Would you consider undeleting the file so we can use it as fair use? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored, go for it. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on Artists
How do I go about verifying information about an artist? I'm trying to identify that Curren$y is not signed to Roc-A-Fella Records for the album, Pilot Talk. I have all my sources and evidence on the Curren$y as well as the Pilot Talk page but a particular user keeps altering my information to say Curren$y is under that label for the album. Is there a way you can help me far as restricting edits? Choppercity (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider contacting the user who keeps changing the information and point to the sources that state that the rapper isn't signed to Roc-A-Fella Records. If he continues, consider initiating a thread at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

W.B. Keckler deletion
hi--i didn't see the warning on this one so i missed the reason for deletion. if it was for notability i'd like another chance at supporting that; keckler's a Yale Younger Poet, Guggenheim fellow, etc etc; he's a pretty big deal in the small world of poetry...thanks. Chip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Hi, I deleted W.B. Keckler as it was a redirect page that redirected to W. B. Keckler, which was deleted by under the speedy deletion criteria for individuals who do not indicate the importance or significance. If the article meets the guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people—which would require the subject to be notable if multiple reliable sources exists—you are free to recreate the article. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock alert!
Why u going green in your sign? Jealous of my credentials?? He he. Now, sock of banned User:Dance-pop is back, I mean literally. . — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ The cheek actually made me laugh. I mean common adding 'is back' to the end of you're old user name! --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  04:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At least the socks are easier to identify this way. What's that Legolas? I can't hear you over your use of the #F8F8FF hex code, which happens to be part of my old userpage design. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever film category recreation
Why exactly is DAD all of a sudden, the only James Bond movie out of how many there are so far to not have its own category!? I don't know whomever originally nominated the cat was thinking (by not taking that major tidbit into account). So save you're lecturing before taking the rest of the cats into account! Basically, it seemed like it was put up for deletion mainly for the sake of it including various locations like the Las Vegas Strip. TMC1982 (talk) 12:47 a.m., 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the nominator didn't see into the other categories, as editors (including myself) sometimes run into one category that's nominated for deletion when the entire category tree is the problem. Or maybe it was even a test nomination to see if it's would be worth the trouble in nominating the rest for deletion, completely plausible as well. I skimmed the other categories and they could all probably be nominated for deletion with the same rationale. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs
I am requesting that Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs be restored, and another cfd be formed if someone wants it deleted. I created it, and I was not informed at all that it was up for deletion. I had no idea of this discussion, and I would have supported keeping everything that was bundled in, as well as this one. This was unfair to me, the creator.

This category was previously up for cfd on its own, and it was unanimously kept.

Please DO NOT ask me to take it to deletion review. I have no faith in deletion review. If you do not agree to restore it, I plan to boldly recreate it. But I would prefer not to. I would prefer to have it administratively restored, then if someone doesn't like it, to propose it for deletion again. Shaliya waya (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you want me to overturn the unanimous consensus to delete the categories, even though consensus can change, and you plan to be pointy by recreating the category, despite the fact that it would meet the speedy deletion criteria G4? I fail to see how any of this is anywhere near constructive. Granted, I understand your frustration with not being notified of the discussion, but these solutions border disruptive editing. DRV pretty much is your last option. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:34, 8 September 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) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria Climbié.jpg
With due respect, please review our policy and guidelines. We do not accept images from photo agency or press agency via Fair Use. It has been discussed many times over and over. The template another admin removed even states Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Jimbo himself had the "final word" is deleting the press agency image File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg as a copyvio, despite having a FUR. You can read the deletion discussion as well:. Re-read what the CSD I placed is for - copyvios and This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. If you want a more direct wording than please read the Non-free content guideline, and specifically the unacceptable image use section - ''7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.'' Please restore the tag and/or delete the image. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm thoroughly confused on the subject, I just reverted myself to allow another admin to review. An image being deleted as a copyright violation despite F9 noting that fair use images are not deletable under that criteria truly, and I put this lightly, has my mind fucked. I'll have to revisit this issue later down the line. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you on that honest comment and reverting. FYIW I have had issues with the wording of that criteria in the past and have had discussions requesting the wording be clarified, some minor rewording was done but even in its current form it reads slightly funky. Yes, one of the the first things it does say is a copyvio can't be claimed on anything with a FUR - however the very next line says This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. I have maintained that line needs to go *before* the first line. Some read the wording as the opposite of what it means - that anything with a FUR *and* images from agency's are exempt. And others feel, because it only says Getty and Corbis, any other agency not named is exempt. Partly, I believe, that is why we have fair use templates that state things like image from press agency's can only be used "when the image itself is the subject of commentary" and specific "guidelines" that go one step further by adding "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP)..." in it. I am part of related conversation where this issue has come up here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline. (If you don't want to read it all skip to the last few comments by myself, Jheald and Sherool.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, I tagged it as rather than CSD9 because I couldn't understand the 9 template, but I thought the FUR was irretrievably bad as I know you can't use Press Agency photographs unless the photograph itself is the subject of the article (or at least of the section it was illustrating).  So yeah, anything that sorts that one out would be gratefully received. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Elin your CSD tag was fine, and valid. I just didn't know you had placed it before I placed mine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#F5FFFA; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hello Explicit, thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA! Don't worry that you didn't support it; your comments and advice were still appreciated. I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx
Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dated deletion categories
Hi Explicit. Hope all is well. I noticed that you deleted a number of Dated deletion categories at CAT:SD a little ahead of schedule. While you're probably thinking, bah, 20 minuets early is nothing, I just want to drop you a friendly reminder, no, it's not. There have been incidents in the past where admins have deleted files/PRODs ahead of time, subsequently winding up as the subjects of particularly nasty ANI threads. In all good faith, it's only fair to give users the full time guaranteed by the deletion tags to contest the deletion or resolve the issue with their uploads. Twenty minutes may not be a lot of time to you or me, but it is more than enough time to contest a prod or add fur to a file description page. While I know I delete many of these pages on a day-to-day basis, I want to stress that Wikipedia is not a race or a game. Strictly speaking, I'm glad there are other sysops who have the policy knowledge and willingness to tackle these daily backlogs. Otherwise, have a good day and keep up the hard work. All the best,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it comes across as problematic, I'll make sure to wait those twenty minutes. I didn't think it would be a big deal if there were that small of a difference, but I see that you may not view it the same way I do, so I'll respect that. I should point out that there are other admins who deal with prods, AFD and FFD discussion nearly 24 hours ahead of time. Take Files for deletion/2010 September 5, for example. I'm not complaining about this or I hope I don't come across as an ass about this, but if I'm receiving this notice, I only find it fair to drop these exact same notices to (who deals with AFDs),  (FFD),  (prods and AFD) and  (prods). There are probably more, but these are the ones that stick out in my head. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to inform me, I'm taking due notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way
Bitch won 8 MTV VMAs and already the fans started creating the album article. Could you please full-protect it now? — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eight wins? Holy crap. Looking over the awards, I can't say I'm surprised "Video Phone" didn't win a thing. Anywho, I might get shot in the face with any attempt to protect in the article... and let's face it, Born This Way (album), Born This Way (Lady Gaga album) and Born This Way (Lady GaGa album) will make their way shortly after. I'd start off with a merge discussion, at least. Or the incubator, whatever that is. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I would boldly say salt all of them. The info is not even worth for WP:AI. Maybe I'll rustle up some fairy dust in my sandbox — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this was protected an hour ago... I'm too slow. I'm multi-talking and Wikipedia is at the back of the bus at the moment. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

R2 Mess
Thanks for going in and cleaning up my mess for me. I really appreciate it man. <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It's no problem at all. I'm trying to douse the fire now before someone comes along and pours gasoline on it. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was fun. So, no harm done other than our three admin logs now contain a combined 1,000 extra entries. :) Courcelles 08:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was fun. Let's do it again! Thanks for the help, really saved me some time. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Corestates.jpg
Hi - I noticed you deleted the file File:Corestates.jpg because it was unused. It looks like there was an edit to the article that changed the link to the file from .jpg to .jpy making it unused. If you can restore the image that would be helpful. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * If you ever need anything in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. I owe you one.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I cleaned up after you had become unresponsive, I assumed you had logged off and could be off for several hours. That's when I decided to spring into action. I also meant to bring up List of hip hop groups, which you deleted under R2, despite it not being a redirect. The only favor I ask in return is a promise from you to slow down just a bit, or at least lay off the energy drinks!  —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm...Red Bull :) - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Madonna‎
Another one for you to full-protect for now, untill the concern uber fan develops a worthy article for namespace. Also, you might want to note on the 3RR going on by that user. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need at the moment, it seems that Headbomb has ceased reverting and it working on the article in their sandbox. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing that he has started working on it in sandbox, and yeah, the prophecy is never wrong. Tbhotch predicts more to the prophecy: Born This Way (album), Born this way, Born This way, Born this Way. I boldly predict BORN THIS WAY too, lest that Dance-pop creature comes back. Ohhh I miss those days. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mesa Verde Cactus
Like everyone else, you have missed it. Go read the distribution section of the article. The part about Antarctica. Aporocactus (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One problematic section does not merit the deletion of an entire article. Aside from that, the article didn't meet the criteria for G1 at all, so it was ineligible for speedy deletion in the first place. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!!
→  in re: deletion 

Thanks for your help with my recent CSD! -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC) <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> Wolfnix has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * No problem at all, thank you for the cookie and kitten! Which one do I eat again? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm notifying you to PETA. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think they like cookies, but you can always ask. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They secretly eat cookie covered kittens when noone is looking :p -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia Entry On AsiaWheeling
Dear Explicit,

I had posted a entry on AsiaWheeling which is a cycling expedition across Asia for exploration and research. It has been deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Asiawheeling is non-profit organization and there is no promotion or advertising intended through the Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps the entry was incomplete and it did not convey the appropriate message. Is there a way you can restore that article. I will move it to MyPage and move it to the article space when it is complete.

Thanks!

Nikhilnk1 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, I've moved the content to User:Nikhilnk1/AsiaWheeling, where you can work on the page. Please remember to use neutral wording and to cite your sources. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

-> Thanks a lot for the quick action. will keep your inputs in mind while developing the article. Nikhilnk1 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ultra Refined Follicular Unit Transplantation
Hello,

You recently deleted an article I posted on Ultra Refined Follicular Unit Transplantation and coded it as advertising. I am trying to post a legitimate article concerning an advanced surgical procedure. There is already an article on Follicular Unit Transplantation and I feel that there is a significant distinction between the two procedure and the ultra refined procedure deserves its own page.

I don't really understand why this is categorized as promotional or advertising because it doesn't mention any business, clinic or other entity other than the requisite reference which is a published book by hair transplant surgeons with whom I am not affiliated.

I'd be happy to rewrite this article if I had some idea of the offending content.

Please respond.

Kindly, David Beames David TTP (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The article—which happened to be a word for word copyright violation of this website (and, coincidentally, the sole external link provided in the article), which I hadn't noticed before—was written in a promotional tone. If this subject merits an article, please make sure to write the text in your own neutral words and and cite sources. I should note I'm well aware of an issue was brought up before with the article Hair Transplant Network. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre madonna
I found that there was a consensus to delete the article since it was a bootleg, Articles for deletion/Pre-Madonna. A personal search for the news archives did not return anything notable for this, except that it was released. Can you please delete it? 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the deleted content a look and it seems to be an entirely different topic. The text was: It is a common misconseption that the the phrase pre-madonna was a pun playing on the phrase prima donna. The phrase pre-madonna actually came first. It was used to describe the time before the birth of the Virgin Mary as people wanted a word to describe the time in the old testament. BC/BCE was not sufficient because it covered the periods leading up to christ's birth which. The only available solution was to use the birth of Madonna as the pinpointing moment in history. Naturally, that version and the current version aren't anywhere near identical, making it ineligible for deletion under G4. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You admins are so lucky that you can read deleted content.:) I have nominated it for deletion again. Lets hope so. PS, User:Headbomb is resorting to some aggressiveness and personal attacks, which is kinda dishevelling. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnutella Web Cache
Hi, you recently deleted the Gnutella Web Cache article. Would it be possible to restore it to my user space so that I may use part of its contents to create a new article, as GWCs are a quite important part of the bootstrapping to many file sharing networks, including gnutella and Gnutella2. mfg, OldDeath - 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, I've moved the page to User:Old Death/Gnutella Web Cache. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * mfg, OldDeath - 09:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Word Alive redirect
Hey, seeing as you're an admin involved with music you could understand this. An article for a band known as The Word Alive recently got created by me after many deletions and finally a sucessful revision came about with the help of me and a few others not too long ago. There is a page the word alive (all lowercase) that is protected from being created due to the same reasons as the main page was. I wanted to ask, can you unprotect it so it can serve as a redirect? Thanks. • GunMetal Angel  23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, and redirect has been created. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
re this Do we follow it anymore? The consensus is absolutely against the current version, reverting again so Reisio has 4 reversions (and violates 3rr) seems pointless when their edits are clearly against consensus and thus vandalism. I don't see any reason to endorse their copycat BS after they got called out for ignoring everything that had already been discussed.-- Terrillja talk  07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Making edits against consensus is no where near vandalism. The only problem occurring is the edit war going on at iPad, most notably Reisio and yourself. Plus, I only count three reverts by Reisio: one, two, three. The first attempt to remove the image does not count as a revert. Should the edit war continue, either report it to WP:3RRN or request full protection at WP:RFPP should more users engage is mindless reverting. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Three reversions today. I have no doubt that if I revert it for a third time, Reisio will violate 3rr, but I see no reason to do so when the discussion on the talkpage and on WP:VPP are both clearly against it. So I ask you, would you like to see another reversion against consensus by Reisio to violate 3rr explicitly, or can you agree that the various discussions are against consensus and violate the bit of WP:VAND that reads "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" as ignoring consensus would be violating a key policy and thus compromising wikipedia. I realize that we have rules for a reason, but a bit of IAR (for 3 reverts rather than 4) rather than bureaucracy makes more sense here. If you want to see them revert again, I'll bring the article back in line with consensus, but it seems like a pointless action to me.-- Terrillja talk  08:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Reisio would make a fourth revert is a guessing game, so I'm not going to take action on something that has yet to happen. I don't understand how removing a logo from the name field of the infobox and replacing it with text is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I should note that the use of images in fields not specifically designated for images are generally frowned upon due to accessibility issues. I gave the talk page a look, and I see one section regarding the matter, which only had two participants: Trev M and yourself. A more substantial discussion would help. Also, if you could link me to the discussion from the village pump, that would be appreciated. It's been archived, but the search for the section title doesn't bring it up yet. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wether or not a wordmark is used in an infobox does not compromise wikipedia, but there was a pretty extensive discussion of it here (the link was in my 3rr warning to Reisio), which basically said there is nothing policy-wise against it, when informed of the discussion there and on the talkpage, Reisio's only response was copycat junk trying to copy my edit summaries and warnings. I trust that you can compare our contribs, but yes, after trying to have a civil discussion with them and instead getting sarcasm and copycat responses, I took it to AIV as continuing to revert did not seem to be a productive measure to me. FWIW, the wordmark was used in the Logo= field, but per the talkpage it was moved to the top of the infobox. If it helps from an accessibility point of view, it could be moved to the logo field without a title field as the output would be quite similar.-- Terrillja talk  08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True, there's nothing policy-based restricting the use of the image in the name field, but one should take into consideration of the accessibility issue. In response to Cptnono below, regardless, AIV was not the proper venue to report this issue. I'm not sure if you noticed, but there is a considerable difference when using the image in the name field and the logo field . I run on Windows 7 using Firefox, so there may be a difference if you run on other software, I'm not really sure. Hopefully this can end the dispute. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a difference in size in either field on Chrome, but either way, Resio is back and edit warring again . Thought we were done with this but apparently not. -- Terrillja talk  11:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We were doing so well. I was going to fully protect the article as at least one other user has starting to revert as well, but I see you've initiated a report at WP:3RRN, so I'll wait on the result of that. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And now he's back to the copycat shit again on AN3. This is getting to be ridiculous.-- Terrillja talk  19:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware you had a twin. The copycat game Reisio is pulling truly is childish. For what it's worth, it's likely that both of you will be blocked for the extensive edit warring, though I'm not sure if it's proper to set the blocks myself at this point. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that I have never exceeded 3rr, used the talkpage and multiple users have reverted Reisio.-- Terrillja talk  19:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New section
Disruptive editing is still bad whether it is vandalism or not. Waiting to see if someone hits the revert button again does not do the project any favors. I often find myself not liking the way Terrillja goes about things but he does have a point.

Regardless of the dispute above, you never responded to User talk:Explicit/Archive 26. I assume it got passed over. Would you mind moving it over to a user subpage?Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I overlooked it as I mentioned in this edit summary. Anywho, I've moved the page to User:Cptnono/Alex Marquez. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of categories
You have just deleted a number of categories in the same hierarchy as Category:1858 in Norway. These should not have been empty, and if you take a look at 1858 in Norway, you will see that. What the error is I'm a little unsure of, except that it must be of a technical nature. Could you please restore these categories and their talk pages? __meco (talk)
 * Holy crap, how did that happen? The pages appear to have populated the categories for some time, but they disappeared for no reason, despite the categories not being removed at any time. I deleted quite a few, so it will take me a bit. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had some similar issues recently which I inquired about at WP:VPT, and I find it likely that this has something to do with this edit which I made four days ago to the template which places the categories on those articles. But the way this is currently playing out there is perhaps a need to alert some people more deeply involved in the technical aspect of running Wikipedia, perhaps someone at Wikimedia? This could cause a lot of unintended deletions and whatnot if this is more prevalent than just related to this particular template and this category structure. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. I'm thinking this has to do something with the job queue. This happens when the category parameter of a template is altered, it takes the pages a while to catch up with the new category. For example, was recently renamed to, and those pages are populated by the WPBiography template. I altered the category here, and as you can see from the old name of the category, there are still over 1,300 pages that need to be updated (either by the job queue or by an edit made after the template change). These pages show up in the old category, despite the fact that they aren't really there. What I'm doing with the Norway articles is hitting edit and save, which making a change; this forces the page to purge, allowing it to show up in the categories which I deleted as empty. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch! That's a fourteen days old edit still working its way through the job queue. I'd say this is a serious issue. Do you know if there's any discussion on this where the developers are involved? __meco (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the category is so large, it can possibly take a month or two, if not more. Special:Statistics shows that the job queue is backlogged up the... well, you know. I'm not aware of any type of discussion regarding the job queue, but I'm assuming it doesn't get a lot of attention as not many editors know of it and admins such as myself that work at WP:CFD just wait it out. There's even a nice little section dedicated to that at WP:CFDWM. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  09:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted account
Hi,

I would like to know the reason you deleted my wikipedia page Mark Heaney. I spent quite a bit of time getting that page together and don't understand why you deleted it.

I would like an explanation.

Yours Sincerely, Mark Heaney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh1970 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the article for Mark Heaney was deleted because another editor had proposed its deletion, with the concern that Mark Heaney—which I'm assuming is yourself—did not meet the notability criteria for musicians to merit an article on Wikipedia. Subjects, especially biographies of living people, should be accompanied with citations from secondary reliable sources in order for that person to assert notability and be included here. If that can be addressed, the article should be fine. Also, please take a look at the conflict of interest page, as creating an article for yourself may cloud your judgment. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, With regard to your answer as to why my page was deleted, It does not make sense.

Someone proposed it's deletion. I would like to know who.

All of the information on that page was correct and justified. I am a professional drummer of some standing and had my wikipedia page for quite some time.

It had links to all the bands I have played in sources, websites etc. Know your saying I have to justify why I should have a page. You have to be joking, I am regarded as one of the best players out there! I am not happy about this and want it sorted please. I want my page put back up and to know who decided to delete it.

Yours Sincerely, Mark Heaney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.78.184 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * tagged the page for deletion, so this user may have a better insight regarding its proposed deletion. As these proposed deletions are considered uncontroversial, they can be restored on request, which I have done. If you're as notable as you claim, I would expect that you'd have no trouble finding sources for the article. Please be aware that this does not save the article from deletion, as it may still be deleted at the articles for deletion venue. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaliyah
Hi, The user eo said that i cited falses references but, I mentioned the source, I did everything right, it's a slide show of the Univision, the picture 10 says  One In A Million sold 3.7 million. the text is on the right side of the page. If you can help me, I'll be grateful Thanks =) comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

Please acess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aaliyah_discography#One_In_A_Millio_Sales: , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ericorbit#Aaliyah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OneInAMillion96#Your_recent_edits and the source http://musica.univision.com/fotos/slideshow/2010-08-25/aaliyah-a-nueve-anos-de-su-muerte (photo 10)

ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Missed one
Quick note: File:Young Kalsh Boy.jpg should've also been deleted per. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. Deleted. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On another subject...
Univision-based photo gallery sales claims aside, I noticed this today and wondered what you thought of it? Obviously not a real article or work in progress. Lots of wikilinks to legit articles also. I see this as a violation of WP:UPNOT and a candidate for WP:MfD but don't want to dump too much on this guy at once; he seems to have a long-standing problem with sources and sales inflation — I don't know if its a lack of understanding or a lack of caring. A gentle reminder that this kind of thing is greatly discouraged, or a waste of time to even bring it up? - eo (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It definitely crosses into the WP:FAKEARTICLE territory, but it might be worth notifying OneInAMillion96 that it's not allowed, as he/she may not be aware that it's an issue. Album sales inflation isn't the only thing I've had to deal with, and their talk page full of warnings shows it's a recurring problem. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your note at User talk:WindowsNT4.0 and for your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards. User:Uchiha23/Awards was one of the pages tagged for deletion at the MfD, so would you delete it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I don't know how I missed the main page nominated! Thanks for letting me know. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu
Maybe I'm off-base here but this certainly reminds me of this... or maybe it's this? I'm *this close* to taking it to CheckUser. Opinion? - eo (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This one's tricky. TrEeMaNsHoE's and CiaraFan4Ever's edits are so similar and the articles they edit often overlap. Actually, I just noticed EastBay16 created their userpage, something TrEeMaNsHoE has never done, so I'm inclined to say this is CiaraFan4Ever. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)