User talk:Explicit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Closure of PR

Can you close this PR as the article is nominated for Good Topic? I would have closed it, only I don't know how. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The instructions are actually right below nomination procedure in WP:PR. But anyways, I don't think the review can be closed under your request, at least according to the request removal policy. You may want to contact the original nominator. — ξ^xplicit 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you Explicit boy! Btwn, how are you? I'm back to Wiki after a long break. Shuddering at the clean-ups that I'm going through. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Same old, same old. General editing and clean up, deleting stuff, blocking sockpuppets. It's a cycle I'm far too familiar with. I was actually from March 15 through April 4. Work around here is never done, and when you're gone for a while, it only piles up higher. Pfft. — ξ^xplicit 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I know how you feel. Everything seems to be disorganized once you leave and come back. It's really hell then. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tremanshoe

Hey Explicit (is this the best way for me to refer to you?), Thanks for the heads up. Yes im aware he was banned because i was one of the many editors who took an ANI out against him and requested him to be blocked for WP:3R. I did not act upon the IP's request because someone had tagged its page with concern that he was a sock of Tremanshoe. I will be more observant in future though. Once again thanks for the heads up. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out a Socket puppet investigation for TrEeMaNsHoE with the accused account User talk:68.248.73.190. He/she is showing classic behaviour which i have seen before.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the case. Also, an extra hint as to what IPs are TrEeMaNsHoE, they always start with 68.xxx.xxx.xxx. Easiest way to fish them out. And yes, calling me Explicit is just fine. — ξ^xplicit 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Erm did i do something wrong with the report? Its just that initially it was said "this is a bad form for checkuser to identify if a user is an ip" or something along those lines. But the IP was blocked anyway after the report was reclassified as a case for wikipedia administators. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that CheckUsers are not allowed to use their tools to check if TrEeMaNsHoE edits using those IPs. He was blocked as a duck, as it was concluded that behavioral evidence was enough to warrant a block. — ξ^xplicit 23:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In future then if was to report a similar IP would i be best to use a non-checkuser endorsed report?Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. MuZemike (talk · contribs) and I are usually on this case, so I'm sure these IPs will be blocked swiftly. — ξ^xplicit 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi explicit. i think we gace another sock. I discovered 68.219.138.43 making very subtle edits to articles like removing additional details or unnecessarily changing things. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this one appears to be a bit tougher. From what I can tell, all of TrEeMaNsHoE's past IPs were of Michigan, while this and other similar IPs appear to be from Georgia. Not entirely sure this is him, as TrEeMaNsHoE regularly uses edit summaries. I'm not going to take any action, but I'll keep an eye on it. — ξ^xplicit 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi explicit. i think i've encountered another sock today. Just take a look at this edit history for Ride (Ciara song), here. there's 5 swift edits including 4 reverts. Notice when i reverted his the edit with an edit summary here there was two mass reverts from here with no explaination. I then left this message on his talk page User talk: Rib Lover and the article was then reverted with a ridiculous fan comment here which i've heard from Tremanshoe before. im 75% sure that User:Rib Lover is a sock of tremanshoe? Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, typical TrEeMaNsHoE behavior; blocked and tagged. Nice catch. Now, we'll wait for the imminent unblock request, which will also point to his duckness. — ξ^xplicit 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Wiki Boustead Institutue.jpg

Hi, I have been granted permission by the owner to use the abovementioned image on Edward Boustead, please refer to Ticket#2010042010010782 and do not tag the image for deletion, thank you very much!

Athenak (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the OTRS permission has not been accepted yet. The e-mail sent was not sufficient. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the notice. — ξ^xplicit 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The-Delaware-Nation-Logo.jpg

I am authorized by Kerry Holton President of The Delaware Nation, an American Indian Tribe, located at Anadarko, OK to upload their logo in the wikicommons file. Please assist us to restore this image into the article ASAP. If you have any doubt you can call me at 678-755-8652.

Thanks in Advance

Carlos A. Torres Fletcher Ambassador-at-Large for Latin America The Delaware Nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartof (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The file you uploaded, File:The-Delaware-Nation-Logo.jpg, was deleted because it lacked licensing information. If the logo is copyrighted by your party and you would like it to be used on Wikipedia, you can upload the file again and license it under {{Non-free logo}}. However, if your party would like to donate it, you should consider read our donating copyrighted materials guide. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Lukek26/Sock?

Hello. Yesterday User:Lukek26 was banned following a detailed length ANI over long term abuse of changing sourced information etc. Today i discovered one of 'his' target articles Number Ones (Janet Jackson album) had the following edits made [1] by IP 189.32.253.82 which exactly mirror the information that User:Lukek26 was trying to add into the article previously and which coincidently i removed only yesterday [2]. Im wondering if this is an incident of sock puppetry especially since i've realised this ip is also editing Discipline (Janet Jackson album) in the same way? Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is more block evasion than anything. This user's IP situation is similar to that of TrEeMaNsHoE; it's far too wide for blocking any IP range and changes too frequently to block for a long length of time, so a sockpuppetry case won't result in any useful long-term effects. I actually protected Discipline (Janet Jackson album) earlier due to the history of falsifying sales and such, though I wasn't aware they were all probably Luke26. If it becomes a more persistent problem, it would be worth requesting page protection. — ξ^xplicit 04:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst Schools Logo

I was in the middle of updating this file and you deleted it. Can you please put it back and let me know what it is wrong before simply removing it? I do not think it is fair that you remove a file hours after it has been added. Please let me know what is wrong with it and i will fix it.

As it stands I was just about to add a License for "Non-free logo" to it but you removed it and now I am unable to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poccuo (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The file you uploaded, File:Catalyst Schools logo.gif, was deleted back on April 9; you received a deletion notice here on April 2. Hardly unfair when you had a span of a week to address the issue. What that file lacked was both a fair use rationale and licensing. You've already uploaded an exact copy under File:The Catalyst Schools.gif, so restoring the deleted one would be a bit redundant. — ξ^xplicit 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per~:Edit request from 68.248.73.190, 26 April 2010

Just because someone is banned doesn't mean they can't make an edit request. (as you did in Talk:Ride (Ciara song)) Spitfire19 (Talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Please see our banning policy (which is different from our blocking policy, I should add). Banned editors have had their privilege to edit Wikipedia revoked, whether directly through IPs or sockpuppets, or indirectly through edit requests. — ξ^xplicit 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Spitfire19

Do not feed the TrEeMaNsHoE.

I was not aware that users like the one above could put a message on their user page stating that i quote: "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't." I was under the impression that only administrators had the power to grant edit requests? Additionally this user appears to have been issuing lots of warnings (some unfounded) on his/her talk page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that userbox. Some users do act in an admin-like fashion, but aren't admins. Edit requests can be carried out by any auto-confirmed user, assuming a page is semi-protected, not fully protected, as only admins can edit those. As far as the warnings issued by the user to others, it appears that Spitfire19 should just review edits a little closer, as this one marked as vandalism was clearly constructive. — ξ^xplicit 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also he's gone ahead and added the information (well some of it) requested by the Tremanshoe sock into the article. is it ok to leave it on or should it be removed? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much point of reverting now that it has been added. I would prefer editors to strictly enforce the banning policy onto TrEeMaNsHoE, but what's done is done. — ξ^xplicit 00:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tweaked the edit because the source itself does not state the chart position. And the picture to my rate is slightly funny. :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Point is, I try do do the right thing, sometimes I make mistakes. But I do assume good faith by all editors, remember that. Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Piper Alpha 1988.png

File:Piper Alpha 1988.png May I ask what was wrong with the copyright?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. When you uploaded the file, you indicated on the upload form that the image was replaceable, making the image fail our first fair use criteria in that they can be replaced with a free-licensed image which could reasonably be found or created. Because of this, the file was tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} instead of actual licensing, which led to its deletion. — ξ^xplicit 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, about as replaceable as a 5 year old catalog. While other images may exist, which may be a free-licensed image, it's a difficult thing to replace/find. That rig sank in 1988. This means A. we can't go make our own photo. B. only people that could have taken that image would have been oil rig workers, that worked that rig at the latest 1988. I can tell you right now, the odds of finding a guy who managed to take a pre-disaster photo, of that rig, put it on the internet, under free-license. There crap. The image is not easily replicable. Plus that was the most info I could give, here's the image online: <blacklisted website redacted> --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should consider re-uploading the file under the {{Non-free fair use in}} license. — ξ^xplicit 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Bee Gees members

Thanks for the note on my talk page, I won't finish removing all from the category tonight, but I have a note of all the songs if you want to delete the category now. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The category can wait, there's no need to rush it to deletion. — ξ^xplicit 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now completely empty. Thanks for waiting for me. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for your hard work! — ξ^xplicit 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

=)

Thanks Man, I just read the rules now and got the reference, see the article =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.134.133 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped a lot, though I'm noticing an issue. Neither of the sources you provided verify the claim that the album sold 139,000 copies when it peaked at number 18. Is this found elsewhere, or am I missing something? — ξ^xplicit 01:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I need your help, blogs in the rules no are valid, the more I saw on a blog ... if u want to remove the 139 000 copies while we decided this is the will =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, blogs like those hosted on Blogspot are not acceptable sources. Removing the 139,000 would be the best option until this can be verified. On a side note, don't forget to sign your posts using the four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your signature and time stamp. — ξ^xplicit 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Aahhh...

Thanks Explic, for ridding me of some of those heavy subpages that I presently marked w/ {{db-self}}. Now I feel lighter! ;}. Hamamelis (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. — ξ^xplicit 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user ܥܝܪܐܩ

User ܥܝܪܐܩ appeared on wikipedia less than two months ago, yet he is since then busy pushing for his ideological "anti-assyrianist" agenda by igniting edit wars and vandalizing numerous Iraq- or Assyrian-related articles. Have a look at the edits history of e.g. Assyrian Evangelical Church‎, Assyrian Patriotic Party, Assyrian Socialist Party or any other "contribution" User ܥܝܪܐܩ.‎ I think an administrator should intervene not only on one or another edit, but more generally on the mala fide practices of User ܥܝܪܐܩ, one of which is deleting large parts of a stub, including its bibliography, then asking for the speedy deletion of the remaining one-sentence article. Such people make wikipedia a quite inhospitable place and put the whole project at risk of becoming a mere battleground for activists of various species. --Pylambert (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ܥܝܪܐܩ does appear to engage in a lot of POV-pushing and edit warring, even misusing Twinkle, as seen in the history of Talk:Assyrian Socialist Party (of which I will shortly be leaving a notice on that talk page of inappropriately removing comments of other users). I'll be keep an eye on this user for a while. On a side note, you really shouldn't edit war on with him either, as you did on the aforementioned talk page. In the future, please report the user to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. — ξ^xplicit 21:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he'll calm down if he becomes aware that his edits are monitored, but on the other hand I doubt it as he explained quite plainly his motivations on his user page. For my part, I refrained from writing on the Assyrian topics four years ago, I just "came back" for 48 hours, now this is a closed chapter. --Pylambert (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with applying rigorous scrutiny to nationalist articles. There is however something very wrong with making numerous personal attacks: [3] [4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], restoring abuse to peoples' talk pages: [20] [21] [22] [23], refusing to discuss anything on article talk pages, and canvassing for admins: [24] [25] [26] [27]. I believe users are allowed to remove personal attacks, which is what I have done at Talk:Assyrian Socialist Party. His response was not a reply to my discussion of the article but a personal attack on me. I would urge Explicit to take these facts into account, after having being spammed by Pylambert. For my part, I explained the edits I made, I used the talk pages to discuss matters where required, I didn't respond with personal attacks, and I then decided to leave the articles which had irked Pylambert alone, some of which; as a result of my scrutiny have motivated improvements by Pylambert. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This may interest those involved with ܥܝܪܐܩ: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izzedine. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Chrisjer.jpg

I really don't think the uploader is getting the message. He added File:Chrisjer.jpg to Slammy Award without an FUR and its use there was purely decorative so it breached WP:NFCC. He's been warned numerous times and was recently blocked at commons because he just won't get the message.[28] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at this later tonight, I'm currently making my way out of the house. Sorry for inconvenience. — ξ^xplicit 00:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems, it's good to see that somebody around here has a life away from Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, not too much of a life. But anywho, I've left a notice on Josephero's talk page. Hopefully it'll get through to him. — ξ^xplicit 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend you could just simply explain to me the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria like ξ^xplicit did ,as i clearly wasn't fully understood of the image/media policy here on Wikipedia considering the fact that i did mentioned a source and a license for the image but i didn't know of the "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, etc.." part ,so thanks for your Patience and warnings hopefully i wont violate any more rules here on Wikipedia , and about WikipediaCommons i didn't know how to upload locally so i guess commons was a wrong way for me but now i learned to --- TC --Joseþhero 10:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephero (talk • contribs)

I did explain it to you.[29][30][31] Another editor had done so before I did.[32] --AussieLegend (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A recent ffd closure

Howdy. With regards to this FFD, did you believe that the file was not a two dimensional work art? Or, did you concur it was a two dimensional work of art but did not fall under this, or was the deletion for a different reason?--Rockfang (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Freedom of panorama only applies, and I quote, to "works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public" (italicized for emphasis). This applies artwork like statues, sculptures, etc, not for print. — ξ^xplicit 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. So it appears the only issue is the text in the picture. I think this may be the case because the "drawing" could be considered artwork, and from the sound of the description, it appeared to be in a public place. If the text was removed from the image, would you let the image be restored on this issue?--Rockfang (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The artwork could be part of the issue, depending on whether it meets the requirements as seen on the {{PD-Ireland}} template. If the creator of the sign died before 1940, then it would be in the public domain; otherwise, it's non-free. — ξ^xplicit 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying again. I could be mistaken, but I think that if the picture without the text falls under this, then {{PD-Ireland}} is irrelevant because it pretty much ignores other determinations of free/non-free.--Rockfang (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, over at Commons, it also states, "Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical". Reading the section for the United Kingdom, it reads, "The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place." So even without the text, we still have to assume that this restriction also applies to the artwork. — ξ^xplicit 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I had not read the UK section.--Rockfang (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. — ξ^xplicit 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa

Thanks for protecting the Wiz Khalifa article. IMHO any BLP should be protected by default until flagged revisions are in place, but thanks nonetheless. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection is better than none. — ξ^xplicit 04:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Help on Mýa Discography

I need your help on page Mýa discography is there a conflict, his albums never sold more than 1 million copies, but got someone is littering and causing a mess, you could block the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There currently isn't enough disruption to require protection of the page at this time. If a user adds or changes album sales without a source, or changes the certifications even though the given sources don't back it up (in this case, the RIAA), just revert their edits using the undo button and consider warning the user of adding unsourced content or deliberately falsying facts. — ξ^xplicit 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Review

I'd love for you to review the article I wrote up on the band doublethink at the link below so it can properly go live! If you think it does not qualify please let me know what you think should be changed before putting it to deletion as I really want to make sure the page gets on there. Thanks!

Strippedman (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave the article a look and there seems to be some issues. The most evident is that the article largely relies on the band's own website. Articles should contain significant coverage from secondary reliable sources, independent of the subject. For example, this source reviews their EP, Dawn: Je Ne Crois, and this source gives some information on the band's background. These sources should replace the use of the band's own website, as the use of their own website does not assert notability. — ξ^xplicit 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I updated the page by not using the band's MySpace page at all, and didn't use the band's website where applicable. However, the only source to assert what organizations they support and what organizations support them is their own site obviously, so I left those references alone. Unless you might suggest a better way to cite those facts without using their website as the reference? Thanks for your help! Strippedman (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, there are a few facts that are only mentioned by the band's website. So until that gets coverage from other sources, the band's website will do for now. — ξ^xplicit 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks. I'll get some more reviews and get rid of that watermark thing at the top! Thanks again. Strippedman (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaga GA

Delete Talk:Lady Gaga/GA2 please. New user crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — ξ^xplicit 07:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete a redirect?

Quick question: is there a speedy delete criteria for useless redirects? I ask because Pens and White Lines is a redirect to a user page, created by said user. It serves no useful purpose. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that would fall under R2 and has been deleted as such. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action on that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

National subcategories of Category:Formula One people

Hi Explicit. Thanks for closing this CfD. Could you please ask Cydebot to merge Category:English Formula One people and Category:Scottish Formula One people into Category:Formula One people as well? The intent of the CfD was to include all national subcategories; I must have missed those two when I raised it. Thanks DH85868993 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Unfortunately, because the additional categories weren't included in the nomination and weren't tagged with {{Cfm}}, merging the leftover categories would be out of process. The best option at this point is to nominate them at today's CFD and use the same rationale, noting the outcome of the previous CFD. — ξ^xplicit 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question

221.206.103.59 has created a series of user accounts, all of which start with Mbt, and then fills the user page or user talk page with gibberish, the only commonality being imbedded links to mbt shoes. I blanked the first couple, but more have been created since. Is this a problem I should take to ANI or to AIV? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that is some odd behavior, but I'd say this is an attempt to spam. I'll shortly initiate a sockpuppet case with a CheckUser request to weed out all accounts, as their appears to be others laying around from earlier in the year, like Mbtshop (talk · contribs) (which is blocked) and Mbtsells (talk · contribs). — ξ^xplicit 03:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a few SPAs over the years, existing only to spam or push a POV, but I have never seen this particular pattern of behavior. The nonsense that is posted gives the impression that this is being done by a computer, simply combining words randomly. Is there a way of blocking that Mbt prefix to prevent any further accounts from being created with that sequence of letters? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The outcome of the sockpuppet case was quite revealing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbtshop/Archive. I don't think it would be a reasonable idea the disallow usernames to begin with the Mbt- prefix , as there are several that currently exist that aren't related to the website at all. However, the IP involved in all this has been for two weeks. — ξ^xplicit 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Doublethink. JPG

What do I have to do to get this photo to not be deleted? I have permission from the owner and everything, and labeled the photo as such with the owner's name and the site it was taken from. What am I missing? Strippedman (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It keeps being deleted because, at the upload form, you indicated 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 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^xplicit 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Album categories

Thanks You are correct that I have created a number of album categories (possibly a majority of them at this point, including over a dozen today) and I have an interest in this categorization scheme, but I'm not sure if I have anything to add to the discussion. Simply put, I think you're on the right track about (e.g.) Category:American albums being tricky. Where these recorded by American artists, recorded in America, or released to the American audience? Tough to say. It seems like Category:Albums by American musicians might be desirable (and the only one of those three options that is appropriate for categorization), but I don't know that I have more to add than that. Thanks again for the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_8#Category:Compilation_albums_by_country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. — ξ^xplicit 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bandals

Looks like this was aimed at you? Just thought I'd let you know.  Chzz  ►  22:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so he plans to vandalize pages until I apologize for deleting an "articule" [sic] which fell under WP:CSD#G4? This unique disruption... is interesting. I'll leave him a note explaining why the article was deleted. On a side note, I couldn't help but laugh at the title you gave this notice. Thanks for the laugh. — ξ^xplicit 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Riau logo.gif

Hi. This was on my watchlist and went red. All these official seals are PD per Indonesian Law. It would fall under Commons:Template:PD-IDGov (although this was here, I know). Anyway, it broke a lot of stuff and people will unlink it all and the structure will be lost. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, the file was licensed under {{PD-IDGov}}. However, the file page failed to consist of a source to verify that this image was a work of Indonesian government and that it had been released under the public domain. If you or any other user can provide the necessary source, I'll gladly restore the file and add it to the description. — ξ^xplicit 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about:

• http://www.riau.go.id/ ?

It's the official site of the province of Riau in Indonesia and is given on that page.

There's also w:id:Berkas:Lambang propinsi riau.gif which has the same sort of pd-tag on it (and is rather poorer quality)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that'll do. File restored and source added. — ξ^xplicit 08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added this, which is their page on the 'lambang' (seal). Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chief Yellow Horse

I think that file was probably uploaded by Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned nearly 3 years ago. That would account for why nothing was done about the sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Tecmobowl did upload that file. Since the file was tagged with {{PD-1923}}, a source is required to verify that the copyright has expired. My Google search didn't bring up anything useful, as this specific image was only here on Wikipedia and baseball-reference.com, which happens to be a Wiki. — ξ^xplicit 08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If he were wearing a Pirates uniform, it would be easy, as he only played during 1921-22. Unfortunately, he's wearing some obscure team uniform, and it's unclear which one or when, and he played in the minors both before and after his stint with the Pirates. One thing that's fairly certain is it would have been Tecmobowl that uploaded it (as "Baseball guy") since it was done around the time Tec was blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors of the article should considering using a non-free file? The subject is diseased and there doesn't seem to be many free images of him around from what I can tell, and the use of a non-free file wouldn't violate WP:NFCC in this case. — ξ^xplicit 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Notoforeigngames.jpg

How did this violate non free criteria. It was used as Fair use and a reference and is not replaceable Gnevin (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This specific image could be easily replaced by words. There was nothing in this image that text alone couldn't adequately explain. — ξ^xplicit 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

::Expect for the fact the image also served as a reference Gnevin (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry . Your correct Gnevin (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif

Hello, I took the picture File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif and added it to the Palago page. I later got a msg that it was going to be deleted because of improper permision. I thought I went in and added the correct permission but the pic was deleted anyway. Can you please tell me what I missed.

thanks, RexJacobus —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexJacobus (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There were to issues with the file File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif. The first I think is pretty evident, lack of licensing. Additionally, had you licensed it under {{GFDL-self}}, which I believe you attempted to do, the file could have been deleted under our speedy deletion criteria, as the cover art for the board game is copyrighted by the company that created the game and the graphic artist(s), even if you took the picture of the cover. The best option would be to upload the file under fair use, using the {{Non-free board game cover}} license, as well as using and filling out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. — ξ^xplicit 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Etherboy

Well sorry about the 3 revert thing but he needs to stop taking huge sections off the page for no good reason. And he has done another revert. His removing content is jepordising a correct AfD decision on the topic. STAT- Verse 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of reverting him, you should have instead contacted Str8cash and get a discussion going, while noting that he was removing sourced content at the AfD page, as those who stumble upon the AfD are likely to check the history of the article before commenting. Alternatively, you could have contacted another user for a third opinion or asked for an administrator's help; edit warring is not the route to solve any dispute. — ξ^xplicit 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I left a thing at WP:ANI and I have left a note at the AfD. STAT- Verse 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion at WP:ANI and warned you both for edit warring after reviewing the history of Etherboy. I would suggest asking Str8cash to restore the content (and not revert him if he declines to do so) to allow other users to assess the article's content in a more accessible fashion. — ξ^xplicit 03:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Eyes

As someone active on ANI and experienced with BLPs, please would you take a look at this (centred on this person)? Thank you. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will review the situation shortly. — ξ^xplicit 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Time of Angels.jpg

Thank you for using the template {{G8-exempt}} to preserve this Talk page. I was concerned that the discussion would disappear along with the image. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There was some pretty substantive discussion on that talk page, so I thought it best to keep that archived. — ξ^xplicit 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some even more substantive discussion here. HairyWombat (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll look it over shortly. — ξ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, I saw that you blocked JohnnyCalifornia4Life (talk · contribs), a new user has popped up MiamiFloridaBabii (talk · contribs), appears to be a sock. -Regancy42 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User blocked, that's so undeniably Tony254trill (talk · contribs). The fact that this user is picking different locations in their usernames fails to fool me. — ξ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

larbi tadlaoui article

Hi i am Larbi Tadlaoui and i would like to know why you have deleted the article over my racing career please clarify asap many thanks in advance ,kind regards Bilarone /Larbi Tadlaoui —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilarone (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article Larbi Tadlaoui was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, as this user created the it, MotorsportPete93 (talk · contribs), blanked the page and requested that the article be deleted. — ξ^xplicit 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg

Hi, Explicit—I wish to challenge the result of the deletion discussion of the said image, and WP:DRV requires that I chat to you about it first. I very broadly agree with your result of "no consensus" – but WP:FFD clearly states, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them."

The result of "no consensus" should, therefore, be an impossible result for an FfD discussion: or rather, where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image.

I would welcome your comments as soon as possible. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Files are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus, but the text is not binding. Both sides of the argument brought up good points as to why the image should be kept or deleted. However, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm more of a deletionist over an inclusionist, especially when it comes to non-free files and WP:NFCC, both HairyWombat (talk · contribs) and EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) brought up valid points concerning contextual significance—this, of course, is open to interpretation and difference in opinion. Users fell on both sides of the fence in that discussion, both brought forward valid points as far as the non-free content criteria policy is concerned, and I closed the discussion as no consensus, defaulting to keep.

I hope my explanation has given a clearly view of my decision. If not, feel free to take it to DRV. I'm actually on my way to bed, so it'll be about 12 hours before my next response, with school and all. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 07:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Conflict

Whoops! I'm not really sure how I missed that. You have my go-ahead to overturn, adjust, or leave the block as you see fit. Sorry about that. - Vianello (Talk) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. — ξ^xplicit 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by User

User STATicVerseatide keeps vandalizing the Murda-Man Flocka by reverting my constructive edits and replacing them with poorly sourced claims. I ask you to please warn this user since he clearly doesn't listen to the warnings of his peers and continues to vandalize pages such as the aforementioned album. Thank you. Str8cash (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to stay outta my shit. The source said the album was to be released April 20,2010 but it changes periodicoly. I don't vandalse pages your the one that always doesn't source his claims. Your the vandliser here I always have to go through your contribuations to find your bad edits and revert them. STAT -Verse 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A conversation that might interest you

Please see here Based on your feedback to my talk page, I thought this might be of interest to you. Please add any insight you have. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bio FA comments

Since you recently promoted Aaliyah to FA, would you like to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 and give some of your input? Thanks in advance, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, will give it a look when I have the time. — ξ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ping ping --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, I forgot all about this. I'll look it over now. — ξ^xplicit 05:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your querries and just one question. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. — ξ^xplicit 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and support of the article. Appreciated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Has hits daily double shot itself in the foot?

I would like your opinion about the following issue:

As im sure you're aware and encountered before many articles about albums cite Hits Daily Double as a source for sales. However the following error has occured.

• according to Hits Daily Double: Pulse (Toni Braxton album) sold 51,000+ landing itself at number 10 [33]
• however according to Billboard the album sold 54,000+ landing it at number nine. [34]

Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate. if so what do we do about it's massive use on here?.

Thanks –Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that depends. Where does Hits Daily Double get its information from? It could be an unreliable source, but it may haven gotten its information from Nielsen SoundScan before they gathered 100% their information (they usually gather about 90% by Sunday). For example, Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor was said to have debuted at number 12 on the Billboard 200, when it really debuted at number eight [35]. Obviously, the Billboard reference trumps HDD any day and should be used where possible. However, if HDD is the only option in some articles (which it may well be), queries should be posted at the reliable source noticeboard — ξ^xplicit 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

J Carter Marketing

Hi my page for J Carter marketing was deleted because of advertising promotions...But I wasn't finished. it was going to be an entire history on the company. They've been around for 10+ years. Is history mixed with what they do (pretty innovative stuff) not allowed on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.66.240 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article you created for J Carter Marketing 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. Even if the article was not written in a promotional tone, in order for corporation to merit an article here on Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. This means that J Carter Marketing 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 indiciates. — ξ^xplicit 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Steaua player, Florentin Matei

Please undo this player from Steaua II, he debut tonight for the first team in Liga I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.101 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but be aware that the article is still subject under deletion via articles for deletion. — ξ^xplicit 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the IP is absolutely right. As of about an hour ago, this person does meet the notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary categories

For all of these the talk page was tagged with the rename template. Does that count? I'm not sure if it does ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking the talk page didn't even cross my mind. Personally, I don't think it does. Deletion (or, in this case, rename templates) templates are placed for visibility on the category page, just like AFD templates are placed on the article, not its talk page. I'm not sure if any guideline or policy directly addresses this issue, but I to see any page deleted without any visible notice would be extremely unhelpful for other editors who view the page. — ξ^xplicit 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me—it's already been a while so I can wait the additional 48 hours for speedy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no rush for these categories. — ξ^xplicit 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up: new potential sockpuppet case

Hey Explict i don't know if you remember but not too long ago you blocked RyanG222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) thanks to an ANI i filed. Well it looks like he could possibly editing through an IP address now. Although the IP was active before we was blocked the editing pattern and overlap of editing the same articles in the same way is highly suspicious. I filed at SPI against the IP here but as the blocking admin i thought you'd want a heads up on it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this is RyanG222. The first thing that struck me as odd was the fact that the IP replied notice left to them [36]. The only talk page RyanG222 edited was his own, and that was only to remove notices or ask for unblock requests [37]. Unlike RyanG222, the IP is actually interacting with others and isn't blocked. Additionally, according to RyanG222's userpage, he was from Scotland [38]; the IP is geolocated in the Netherlands [39]. — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair play. I just thought it was odd how the editing appeared to overlap. Perhaps the SPI should then be closed as not likely?Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the SPI case pointing to this discussion for the reviewing administrator. — ξ^xplicit 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New TremanShoe?

Heads up again, i think we have another TremanShoe sock in the form of Leavemeforever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He made requests to edit on my talk page [40]. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The infamous ellipsis point to the sock being Brexx (talk · contribs). Blocked and tagged. — ξ^xplicit 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze! its kind of difficult to spot which is which. I'm not very good at this so its good that you and User:Kww are looking out for the to editors.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, both TrEeMaNsHoE and Brexx are somewhat similar to each other. One of the characteristics that sets them apart is that Brexx always uses an excessive amount of ellipses when using edit summaries, as seen here. Sometimes, they are difficult to tell apart, as seen during this case and this case. — ξ^xplicit 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

Unfortunately I've only noticed this CFD after CydeBot is going through eliminating all the members. I think it should have been closed as no consensus - default to keep, or perhaps renamed to "Video games with female main characters" (though protagonist works just as well). Thoughts? –xeno^talk 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I knew someone would come to me about this closure. I can't say I have much to add to my closing statement. The discussion would have closed as no consensus by simple headcount (5:4, majority delete), but let's not forget to consider the weight of the arguments. Most of those who favored keeping the category didn't even address the concern the nominator put forward, let alone the more persuasive argument made by Someone another (talk · contribs). Two of those in favor of keeping (the last two), both asserted WP:INTERESTING arguments for keeping the category, which held little weight to the discussion as a whole. No one had suggested Category:Video games with female main characters, let alone suggested a rename to begin with, so completely ignoring consensus and renaming to what I thought was best would be out of the question. At this point, I'd suggest that WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Categories attempt to find a better alternative for naming a category or perhaps a list as suggested by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), if members of the WikiProjects would like to attempt to address the concerns. — ξ^xplicit 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - I'll make a post at WT:VG. –xeno^talk 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

I've made some changes to Cydebot that should address the deletion summary issue (specifically, the lack of a correct link to the per-day discussion page in some instances). Please keep your eyes peeled for any remaining issues. More information is here. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tea Party Protestors.JPG

Hello Explicit,

I tracked you down in regards to a image you deleted[41]. The same person uploaded it[42] under different licensing. I was wondering if you remember it or have any insight of its origins. It looks like an obvious fake, probably a comical Christmas card going by the date. I know that wouldn't be a reason to delete it, but it could help me in removing it from the Tea Party article. I've searched forums where misspelled tea party signs are posted, there are lots of them. I could not find this image or anything half as ridiculous. I just don't think someones satire picture should be presented as a 'typical protester'. I would have gone to the author for answers, but his summaries while posting it leads me to believe he/she wouldn't be very sympathetic to my concerns[43][44]. I don't know how long it lasted the first time, but nearing two weeks is surprising. Thank you. (That is Fake (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Hmm, if anything, the copyright claim made by the uploader is false. This image returns three TinEye search results. Most notably, this website has the exact same image, but at a much higher resolution. I think it's a safe bet that the uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. I'll list File:Tea Party Protestors.JPG shortly at the possibly unfree files venue and should be deleted within two weeks. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:DEB-Lansbury-TVG.jpg

Hello, I am writing you to ask about the file that I uploaded. You have removed it citing Wikipedia policy. But I do not understand this. First of all, I should have been notified so that there could have been a dicussion on the rationale of the upload. I do not agree with the deletion for a number of important reasons: - The copyright holder does not object because he considers it a good example of his work, that is why it was presented there - It is original artwork that was used on a magazine cover. It is not in the magazine article bcause it is not a scan of the magazine cover. - The proper route I feel, should have been that we had a discussion about the licensing.

I realise that in the current Wikipedia safeguarding proper use is a difficult task. But I write in the Wikipedia to educate and inform. There is a certain deltionist attitude on the Wikipedia that seems to lack direction. This will drive serious contributors away. JHvW (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The reason the file you uploaded, File:DEB-Lansbury-TVG.jpg, was deleted is because, at the upload form, you indicated that the file was non-free and can be replaced by a free image or by text. This automatically tagged the file with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} instead of a proper license, which is why you didn't receive a notice of the file's deletion. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New sock puppet/sock master issues.

Ok im not sure whats going on but there is definately some sock puppetry going on here. It might be related to Brexx or Tremanshoe or both or a seperate sockpuppet issue but i believe there's a connection between the following users:

• CiaraFan4Ever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) made this edit [45] which i reverted only for a new account
• UltimateCiaraFan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to make a similar edit [46] which i reverted and warned them about [47] on for another new account
• Bangin' beats (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to try and re-add the info with a source [48] which i also reverted.

Now my thoughts are that CiaraFan4Ever might be the sock master here or alternatively the other two accounts are linked to Brexx or Tremanshoe. Or maybe neither... it just seems suspicious. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence does seem to point that UltimateCiaraFan is a sockpuppet of CiaraFan4Ever. I should point out that CiaraFan4Ever was previously blocked for sockpuppetry in the past. I'm not so sure about Bangin' beats, though, that accounts gives me a TrEeMaNsHoE vibe, as that account has edited a discography and redirect World Tour (song), an article he attempted to get deleted in the past with one of his sockpuppets, but I'm not 100% sure. I sockpuppet case requesting CheckUser may be in order for these accounts under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CiaraFan4Ever. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK should i file a sockpuppet case for CiaraFan4Ever with suspected account UltimateCiaraFan? And what to do about Bangin' beats? is it worth filing a tremanshoe report? Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. — ξ^xplicit 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, launched SPI for both. in both discussions i've linked this coversation and noted that there might be plausable cause for checkuser.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ecole-Odyssee.png

Some thing I don't like about Wikipedia is that it isn't very new-user-friendly. Just my opinion.

I still don't understand what qualifies as non-free content, even though I read through F7 at least three times. It's a government-owned building, so how could taking a picture of it not qualify as non-free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericleb01 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content is copyrighted material that is not released under a free license. The file you uploaded is an image which is copyrighted by the by the New Brunswick School District 01. At the upload form, you indicated that the image was not yours, but a copyrighted work of some other entity, which can be replaced be a free alternative. In other words, anyone can go take a picture of the building in question and release it under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much, that makes much more sense. I'll be uploading my own picture shortly. Ericleb01 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can something

Be done against the continuous addition of extra album covers, which do not have any rationale, except for decoration in The Remix? This user is keeping on adding the same album cover, even when the previous one was deleted. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You should consider warning the user of the WP:NFCC policy and its strict enforcement regarding non-free files. In this case, there should be emphasis on point three and point eight of the policy. If the user persists, admin intervention may be required. — ξ^xplicit 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Protection

I would like to thank you on the edit protection you imposed on Saudi Arabia. How long will the ban be? I am a frequent editor of Middle Easter related articles. Thank you for your time. Dhulfiqar 12:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

You're very welcome. The protection will only last three days, as it hasn't been semi-protected since October 2009. Should vandalism resume after protection, feel free to request page protection for a longer period of time. — ξ^xplicit 18:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I will do my best in keeping an eye out for any suspicious activity. --Dhulfiqar 11:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

American Baseball players by home state help

Hi there, Thanks for closing this AfD. Can you speedily move the connected categories, I.E. Category:Major League Baseball players from California to the broader categories discussed in the AfD Category:American baseball players from California? Thanks for your help.--TM 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the impression that the remaining 51 subcategories would be nominated to have the redundant "American" removed from the category name, which would naturally require a full CFD. Is that no longer the case? — ξ^xplicit 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct. That CFD will be forthcoming. Thanks.--TM 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Hayzlett, Kodak portrait.jpg

Unless I mistagged it, this had an OTRS permission attached. Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the right file? File:Jeff Hayzlett, Kodak portrait.jpg was uploaded and edited solely by Binksternet (talk · contribs); it had a fair use rationale and {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} tag. — ξ^xplicit 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, facepalm. It was authorised in an OTRS email which I didn't fully process since it had already been uploaded. Check out OTRS ticket 2009111310043544 for the permissions. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I'm unable to view the tickets. You should consider contacting a volunteer found in Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers and ask them review the ticket. Assuming they're an admin, they should restore the file after verifying the permission. — ξ^xplicit 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Darkside

I would like to ask. Do you have ANY guideline that says that bullets should not be used in singles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STATicVerseatide (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Article body: "Include a paragraph on each song, describing its critical reception and relevance to the article as a whole. [...] See The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars or Aquemini for examples." — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Paule White Photo

I Explicit. The picture of Paula White was taken during a church service. I don't know how else you want me to prove it. It's plan and simple at the time I didn't have a good camera and I did my best with what I had. I no longer have the picture on my laptop because it crashed and I lose everything. Can the picture be savaged?Mcelite (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as I would like to assume good faith, I have trouble doing so after the nominations I made at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 7, as well as your past blatant copyright violations, like File:Iriomote Cat Climbing.JPG and File:Flat-Headed Cat Resting.JPG. Why should I believe the image of Paula White was authentically yours, when you've claimed these other files were authentically yours, but turned out to be copyright violations? — ξ^xplicit 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Those two photos were given to me. So authentically no they are not mine but were given to me. Whenever I uploaded them which was a while ago. It was difficult to get the picture and I'm very frustrated that the decision was made in a day. I clearly stated where the picture was taken the only way you will find a picture that can match that is if someone was taking a picture at the same time as me or took if off of wikipedia when I uploaded it.Mcelite (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The decision wasn't made in a day; discussions at WP:PUF are kept open for two weeks, a week longer than any of the other processes like WP:AFD or WP:FFD. As far as "I clearly stated where the picture was taken" goes, several of the images you uploaded stated a location, but all of them were distorted images of copyrighted work of other people. One specific example that sticks out to me was an image of the Chinese Mountain Cat you had uploaded, which you claimed was your own work, turned out to be a distorted version of this copyrighted image. Most of the images you uploaded where you claimed copyright turned out to be copyright violations, while a small group were moved to Commons (most of which were also deleted as copyright violations as well). To believe you authentically own the copyright of one image, where the rest were deleted as copyright violations—which you claimed to own the copyright, which clearly wasn't the case—I find highly improbable. I see absolutely no reason to believe this claim of owning the copyright to this image when most of your other uploads claimed the same and resulted in being copyright violations, which is a serious legal matter; I have no plans to restore any of the deleted images you uploaded and would condemn any administrator who would do otherwise. — ξ^xplicit 09:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said I didn't do the full respondsible thing when I was given the images. I just posted them with good faith believing they were original. So with the cat photos yes they were incorrectly documented and all I can do is apologize because I trusted someone that didn't think it was a big deal. Well I guess I can't much big of a fuss right now about the Paula White photo even though I'm still pissed about because I doubt I'll be able to a picture of her soon. The article has a picture of her any way. Sorry for the past errors I'd just began being an editor so that's that.Mcelite (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just hope you understand how important copyright is and that you have learned from this. The best advice I could give you for finding a freely licensed image of Paula White is to search Flickr and try to find one, or contact an uploader and ask permission to use a copyrighted image under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

More album discussions

See here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. You beat me to the nominations. — ξ^xplicit 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help this Historic Article

Hi.. The photograph you deleted File:Mino Argento in 1977 is unique historic from 1977 from Catologo One man show in New York Betty Parsons Gallery... please can you tell me the reason is deleted. i will be happy Upload file:Mino Argento in 1977! Thank you(MA3ARG (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

I replied to your email earlier concerning this matter, hopefully you've received it. — ξ^xplicit 04:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

An editor has asked for a deletion review see Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Because you evidently 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. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for your input at DRV

Hi Explicit: There is now a DRV for 24 categories of Jews at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. You have recently speedy deleted Category:Romanian-American Jews [49], based on speedy delete nominations but an admin at DRV, User Stifle (talk · contribs) has requested [50], [51] more information and input from those involved in the deletions and what they based themselves on. Since you have been involved with deleting and discussing these, could you respond ASAP at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent and help us out tracing who nominated and supported the Jews' categories in question for speedy renaming and why it was done so that the monitoring and closing admins at the DRV can know the starting point of the DRV in question. Thanks for helping us out here. IZAK (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Dmitry Gayev

Missed this one. Was it, indeed, bad enough for a speedy? DG is quite a reasonable and charismatic chap, not the kind of man who easily provokes attack pages. East of Borschov (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

USAAF bases in USA

Hi Explicit: Wasn’t the intention following discussion (now archived) that all airfields in Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state should be moved to the category for the appropriate state and the category (which replaced "in New England" etc) could then be deleted (presumably moving each one needs to be done manually). If so, could I put a notice on this page to stop it being added to? These airfields will then all be in a subcat of Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States by state Hugo999 (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was the plan. Normally, Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state would be tagged with {{Category diffuse}}, but that wouldn't be too helpful in this case, as Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States by state isn't a subcategory of the former, but a subcategory of Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States. Maybe adding a custom {{Notice}} template would fit better here. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

All in Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state amended to state category so it can now be deleted! A number of the new State categories had previously been deleted, on 9 may I think. Hugo999 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the category as empty. Thanks for handling the contents. — ξ^xplicit 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts made into a "soft edit" redirect as title so obvious it may be repeated Hugo999 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That works just fine as well, thanks. — ξ^xplicit 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

Centralized discussion regarding my closure here, awaiting comments from Headbomb (talk · contribs), Black Falcon (talk · contribs) and Izno (talk · contribs). Just a note, I'll be heading to bed after posting this, so it may take me a while to respond. — ξ^xplicit 08:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is the correct conclusion of the discussion. Since this clueful, it does not require or warrant trouting. Thanks for taking the time to review that abomination. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I second Headbomb's comment: your close was complete and, in my opinion, correct. Thank you for handling such a lengthy and complex discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for reviewing my close. It took me an hour to review and close this and that discussion, so it was a bit past 1 am by the time I was done. Just wanted to make sure I didn't screw anything up, as I'm bound to do it so late. — ξ^xplicit 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I had been looking at that discussion for a while and was not able to get my hands around it. I'm glad you were able to make sense of this and have the apparent support from some who participated in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Headbomb and Black Falcon. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. This closure definitely ranks up there as one of the most complex ones I've ever closed. — ξ^xplicit 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Image questions....

File:Prominent.bugis.2.JPG

I'm having a really difficult conversation with User:Egard89 who believes he is the creator of the image here. He's removed the tag requiring evidence of permission. I'm tired of arguing with him about the images - in fact, copyright and permissions are not my forte. Is there somewhere or someone who can look into this? Many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've come to the right place. Skimming through the description page, the file does appear to be problematic. I'll drop Egard89 a note momentarily. — ξ^xplicit 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10