User talk:Explicit/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Deleted Northern Wrestling Federation
The Northern Wrestling Federation appears to have been deleted for notability. It is indeed a company that runs in the cincinnati, indiana, and kentucky regions and also has a training facility. Please un-delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NWFWrestlingAdmin (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξxplicit 23:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted file: KMBC Logo.png
I'm not sure why this file got deleted rather than discussed. The file was nominated for deletion before, until the fair-use rationale of its being a logo was added. We have logos of every other college on the planet; licensing for this one is no different. What else needs to be done to this file? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The file lacked a proper license tag. There was no discussion, because copyright tags are simply required. If one isn't provided in seven days, it gets deleted. — ξxplicit 06:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then. Can you then undelete the file and give it a proper license tag or help me figure out how to do so? Thanks. 75.195.247.128 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
An OTRS permission has been received for this deleted file. Can you please un-delete this file so that appropriate permissions can be added? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The same goes for the image File:Wynne LeGrow.jpg. Please restore the image temporarily so that the permissions can be verified. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Explicit
Please review your deletion of Speed Thinking, for reasons outlined in the email.
Best regards
Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Move fast (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Stale PROD
I'm not sure why you deleted the PROD tag from Keithley Instruments.[1] If the deadline for a proposed deletion has passed the normal procedure would be to delete the article. Was it your wish to keep the article? Will Beback talk 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I never got a response. I'm going to assume you made a simple mistake and restore the PROD, unusual though that is. Will Beback talk 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey since you work with NFC, can you check the non-free content of the above article and see that their rationale is strong enough that it wont be opposed at FAC? — Legolas (talk2me) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Lady Gaga - Bad Romance.ogg needs a more descriptive summary. If possible, be more specific in what exactly is being shown. I'm assuming the sample shows the "chorus is played, supported by the Rah-rah hook". Include that in the summary. The other two non-free files look fine to me. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Trying to post my pic of his self portrait for Rudi Bass an artist.. I've tried
several times to figure out the licensing and put it up? Could you tell me how to do this, I contacted the artist, now 96 and working away, and his wife who gave me permission to snap a pic and post it on Wiki or in the public domain for any purpose, do I need a permission slip of some sort? Thanks for any help you can offer, please don't send me links though, Cheers Davenru Davenru (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the two files you uploaded were deleted because they lacked a proper license tag. As for the images themselves, a little more information is needed. For example, who is the copyright holder? If it's that of the subject, that individual is the only person allowed to release these images under a free license, which would require permission and verification through the OTRS system. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Settlements in Kosovo
HI, if you delete Category:Settlements in Kosovo then please clean up the mess. remove links to it. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Categories are usually not linked within the article namespace, so I don't check for its incoming links. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In terms of licensing
What if I upload an image twice, to two differnt places with a different lisence in each place. Besides being frustrating for someone seeing the same image on flickr as all rights reserved and here as CC 3.0, is there an actual rule about doing that? Like is the All Rights Reserved license valid if an image that is clearly identical is found somewhere else as Creative Commons or lets say Public Domain? Would releasing an image in the public domain here in some way invalidate the license elseware if the image is clearly the same? And there would be no debate over weather or not it is truly the same because I have seen wikipedia recognize identical images if I accidently tried to double upload. I don't care about any images being used I was just wondering. Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not entirely sure I understand the situation. Scenario one: If you uploaded the image on Flickr under All Rights Reserved first, you can simply adjust the license there to reflect the terms you've chosen to release the image under. Scenario two: If the image was uploaded elsewhere on the internet by you or the photographer under a free license which predates the one posted on Flickr licensed as All Rights Reserved, that pretty much makes the Flickr source moot. Hope that clears things up. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Another photo
I thought I'd better bring [2] to your attention. Apparently taken from facebook. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Image deleted, thanks for pointing this out. Apologies for the extremely untimely response, I was away since December 2. — ξxplicit 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Christmas Card
Why did you delete this photo? The guy died over a century ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- The file was deleted because it lacked a proper source to verify that this specific image was published in the United States prior to 1923. The date of the subject's death shows insufficient information on the actual copyright status of the image. — ξxplicit 03:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should be a Swiss photo. Switzerland does not have copyright on simple photos. There is no reason to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would still require source to verify that. What do you mean by "simple photos"? When I think simple, I think {{PD-ineligible}}, which applies to things like simple text and shapes. — ξxplicit 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg is a simple photo, not protected by copyright, according to the Swiss supreme court. Walter Ritz was Swiss - it is natural to assume that Swiis law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. If you can provide a source that shows that it was first published in Switzerland, restoring it should be no problem. According to the article, Ritz died in Germany, so if the image was published there first, Swiss law would not apply. This is why a source is critical.
— ξxplicit 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does not matter. Unknown author published over 70 years ago is also free in Germany. What are you worried about? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Holy crap, Pieter, provide a source or stop blathering about restoring the photo. If you have to guess about the provenance of the thing, the appropriate thing for Explicit to do is to guess that there may be a copyright problem, in which case restoration would be inappropriate. You haven't provided any reliable information it wasn't first published by the Saturday Evening Post in the United States, either. What he's worried about is probably WP:COPYVIO. Does that clear things up for you? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is over a hundred years old! It seems quite paranoid to worry over copyright for something like that. And the photo would always be fair use in the Walter Ritz article anyway. Deleting it just diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Holy crap, Pieter, provide a source or stop blathering about restoring the photo. If you have to guess about the provenance of the thing, the appropriate thing for Explicit to do is to guess that there may be a copyright problem, in which case restoration would be inappropriate. You haven't provided any reliable information it wasn't first published by the Saturday Evening Post in the United States, either. What he's worried about is probably WP:COPYVIO. Does that clear things up for you? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does not matter. Unknown author published over 70 years ago is also free in Germany. What are you worried about? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. If you can provide a source that shows that it was first published in Switzerland, restoring it should be no problem. According to the article, Ritz died in Germany, so if the image was published there first, Swiss law would not apply. This is why a source is critical.
- File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg is a simple photo, not protected by copyright, according to the Swiss supreme court. Walter Ritz was Swiss - it is natural to assume that Swiis law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would still require source to verify that. What do you mean by "simple photos"? When I think simple, I think {{PD-ineligible}}, which applies to things like simple text and shapes. — ξxplicit 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should be a Swiss photo. Switzerland does not have copyright on simple photos. There is no reason to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I found here: http://www.archive.org/details/gesammeltewerkew003778mbp - published 1911. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Loren_legarda_10.jpg){kind=link}
HNY
Welcome back, where the hell had you been?? North Pole? :) — Legolas (talk2me) 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't have time to visit Santa. I just disappeared from the internet for no specific reason, really. It was a lovely break from here.
— ξxplicit 04:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Patricia Kneale Image
Hello,
Me and my mother were surprised to find an image of the actress Patricia Kneale, deleted off her Wikipedia page, after we uploaded it last night. I am the grandson of Patricia, and my mother is her daughter. We own the rights to the image, of which I have reuploaded since. I am therefore asking that it is not deleted again off the page. Here is a link to the page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Kneale
Thanks, Nat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natd1993 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"Feminist supremacy" etc. redirects
Hey there,
"Feminist supremacy" et al. actually are unnecessary redirects. Here's a summary of a somewhat convoluted sequence of events. 1. "Feminist superiority" is created, with "Feminist supremacy" et al. as redirects. 2. "Feminist superiority" is moved to "Women's superiority" after talkpage concerns that the title did not reflect the content of the article. 3. "Women's superiority" is nominated for deletion. Shortly before discussion closes, creator has "Gynocracy" (at the time, a redirect to "matriarchy") speedied and moves "women's superiority" there. 4. "Gynocracy" (former "Women's superiority") is deleted. 5. I re-create "Gynocracy" in its original form, as a redirect to "matriarchy."
So - seeing as they redirected to an article which was deleted, and that the article they now redirect to is not the same thing - the articles I nominated for speedy are actually redirects to an article that does not exist, besides being double redirects already. I've left "Women's supremacy" etc. because, although still double redirects, they're plausible searches for people looking for "matriarchy," but "feminist supremacy" at all were never really viable search terms to begin with, and they're even less valid now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- That all may be true, but the four redirects still didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as the redirect target does exist. If these four targets are not plausible search terms for matriarchy, you can nominated them at redirects for deletion. — ξxplicit 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Eins Zwo
Hi! I've just noted that you deleted the article on the German hip hop duo Eins Zwo some months ago. I don't know its content, but they're far from being non-notable, with two albums in the upper regions of the German longplay charts (10 and 11, respectively; see this database). Regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, the duo is definitely notable with two charting albums. I've gone ahead and restored the article. — ξxplicit 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks as well, I've added their charts positions to the article. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Turning Ten
On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" & "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle.Tinkermen (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that the file File:Teritoriul onomastic al elementului dava - Sorin Olteanu.jpg was removed as being corrupt. It also disappeared from Category:Maps of Dacia. There is a log here. Same thing happen other maps and images in the same category. Could you please clarify for me the situation? Thanks a lot!--Codrin.B (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey there, I'll gladly clarify. Because the file is being hosted at Commons, categorization of the file should take place there and not here on Wikipedia. Categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2. This is why some image categories or just regularly plain categories link to a category on Commons; in this case, that would be Category:Maps of Dacia. Naturally, there are exceptions, like images with featured images or featured sounds templates, but in most cases, these types of pages are eligible for deletion under the aforementioned criteria. Hope that clears things up. — ξxplicit 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying! Makes sense. But I find it very confusing that once you upload an image in commons, it gets a copy and page in Wikipedia as well, and there is nothing that prevents you to categorize it there. Also, since the two category systems/sites are not linked per se, I can't add commons:Category:Maps of Dacia to Category:Dacia in Wikipedia, which would be very elegant. They are disconnected, with the information in two places. That's why I was hopping to have a Category:Maps of Dacia in Wikipedia, falling under Dacia category, and pointing to commons as well using {{commonscat}}. Any suggestions on how to organize the images related to a project better? Thanks again! Codrin.B (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The best solution I can think of is that one could add {{Commons category|Maps of Dacia}} to Category:Dacia, I don't think there should be any problem by taking that route. What do you think? — ξxplicit 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had no idea you can do it. How can you do that? ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tada. Now Category:Dacia links to both of the categories on Commons Category:Dacia and Category:Maps of Dacia. — ξxplicit 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cool :-) I see, I knew that one. I was thinking about being able to see the commons Maps of Dacia tree when looking at Category:Dacia without leaving the site. What about this Category:United States history images. It has a LOT of stuff in it and seems to be left alone.
- Thanks again for all the help.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- In order to view the Commons category, you have to leave Wikipedia, so that's unavoidable. I went through the first couple of images in Category:United States history images and it seems most of them aren't being hosted at Commons, but here on Wikipedia. I usually don't go through categories to look for files eligible for deletion, I come across them when patrolling new pages. — ξxplicit 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tada. Now Category:Dacia links to both of the categories on Commons Category:Dacia and Category:Maps of Dacia. — ξxplicit 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had no idea you can do it. How can you do that? ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The best solution I can think of is that one could add {{Commons category|Maps of Dacia}} to Category:Dacia, I don't think there should be any problem by taking that route. What do you think? — ξxplicit 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying! Makes sense. But I find it very confusing that once you upload an image in commons, it gets a copy and page in Wikipedia as well, and there is nothing that prevents you to categorize it there. Also, since the two category systems/sites are not linked per se, I can't add commons:Category:Maps of Dacia to Category:Dacia in Wikipedia, which would be very elegant. They are disconnected, with the information in two places. That's why I was hopping to have a Category:Maps of Dacia in Wikipedia, falling under Dacia category, and pointing to commons as well using {{commonscat}}. Any suggestions on how to organize the images related to a project better? Thanks again! Codrin.B (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File: newcarrara.jpg
The image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Newcarrara.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 was deleted by yourself for the reason "(Deleted because "F7: Violates non-free content criteria". using TW). I had included a dispute on the replaceability of the image and stated that there was no free replacement as the image was an architectual graphic of a new stadium which is in the process of being built and hence it was impossible to get a photograph of the new stadium that doesn't yet exist. The old free image on the stadium's wikipedia page Carrara Stadium was out of date as all the old grandstands have been totally demolished. As of now the stadium's wikipedia page has no relevant image of the stadium.
Mtiges (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The file was deleted based on WP:NFCC#1, which states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." An image may not be available at this time, but according to the article, the construction will be completed later on this year. Note that I italicized the "or could be created" part of the policy. Since an image will be able to be created later on this year, the file violated the very first point of non-free content criteria policy, which is why I deleted it. — ξxplicit 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not how I'm aware it is interpreted by including a arbitary time frame into the future as you have done. In theory all copyrighted items will eventually become free of copyright in time once the period of copyright expires and so would violate the first point of non-free content by your reasoning. The "could be created" part as far as I'm aware refers to someone being able going out now and take a free of copyright photo where one doesn't exist.
Right at this point in time (i) no free equivalent image of Carrara stadium is available nor (ii) no free equivalent image that could be created. When a free image is eventually available upon completion of construction this year then yes obviously you would replace the non-free version with a free equivalent. But until then no free equivalent is available nor could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtiges (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Mtiges (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's one thing to wait a few months to take a picture of a structure on its way to being completed, and another to have to wait up to 100 years for a copyright to expire. The former is reasonable while the latter is not. Nothing bars the use of File:Carrara stadium.jpg to show what the stadium looked like before its redevelopment and I'm not seeing a compelling reason for the use of a non-free image. If construction of the stadium hadn't even begun, I'd probably have a different view, but that isn't the case here. — ξxplicit 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Miami Ballpark and Barclays Center are in the middle of construction and their wikipedia pages have the respective architectual design as their descriptive image. The image of Barclays Centre was added midway through construction just as I did. There's nothing wrong with using a non-free image under fair-use in any of these cases and there was no justification to delete the image of the architectual design of Carrara. Mtiges (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that other stuff exists, but those files aren't of concern regarding this image or the article in question. How about this: I restore the file and take it to WP:FFD to allow the community to assess the validity of the fair use rationale? Whatever the result, both of us abide with the consensus, regardless of whether or not we agree with it. How does that sound? — ξxplicit 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Those files demonstrate a precedence that these sort of files are allowed. Okay fair enough I'll be happy to go with your suggestion of the community accessing the validity of FUR Mtiges (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've noticed the file for deletion here. We'll see how it goes. — ξxplicit 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
iter site 2002.jpg deletion
hi, i noticed that you deleted the image file:iter site 2002.jpg. i do not oppose your deletion, but from the website that i posted as a source, was there any way to find our the copyright, and subsequently the license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackne (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- From taking a look at the home page, "Copyright(C) Japan Atomic Energy Agency, All rights reserved" would indicate that the image is fully copyrighted. It could possibly quality for fair use, though. — ξxplicit 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for speedily deleting this article, because I'm the only editor who contributed the substantial content to this article, but you declined my request, on the ground of there being "too many substantial editors" - as you claimed. However, note that I'm really the only editor who contributed the substantial content to the article (i.e contributed all of the article, except for some dashes), as I proved on the talk page of that article. I'm asking again for speedily deleting this article. thank you. Cohneli (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, alrighty then. Done. — ξxplicit 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. If you look at the history of the page, many, many contributors have participated. It is completely erroneous to state that just "some dashes" were the only other edits to the article bar those by the original contributor. This certainly does not fall under G7. It should be restored, and, if need be, taken to AFD. Explicit, please restore it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, this mostly-blanking of the talkpage was downright sneaky. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The talk page blanking... I didn't see that. I should have went with my gut and declined this second request. Apologies for that, I restored the article. Cohneli, if you think that the article really merits deletion based on a policy or guideline, please take it to WP:AFD. — ξxplicit 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Explicit. No harm done. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The talk page blanking... I didn't see that. I should have went with my gut and declined this second request. Apologies for that, I restored the article. Cohneli, if you think that the article really merits deletion based on a policy or guideline, please take it to WP:AFD. — ξxplicit 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Alfred Harth photos deleted
Sorry, I just do not understand what is going on here, that you, Explicit, have deleted so many photos of mine! They were all made by myself and I tried to give them a fair licence before. This is all very irritating. Harth23 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Harth23 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there Harth23. I've deleted many pages throughout my time here, so of you could link the files in question that I deleted, I could review them all and explain why these images were deleted. — ξxplicit 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Explicit, I think we have some serious EW and content dispute over the above file and its attached article. Would you mind stepping in? One of the user, User:Itsbydesign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is flat out refusing to discuss teh changes, even after warnings. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I have begun a discussion at the Administrators notice-board concerning mine and User:Itsbydesign's edit war, join the discussion if you would like. - Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 07:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Explicit. But these continuing reversions concern me. Has 3RR been grossly violated? The user's response below is scary. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- And Explicit, if you can, full-protect the article associated with this image, because once the image got full-protected, the EW moved there. I think both of them should remain FP, untill these two come to consensus or learn to respect each other. Itsbydesign has a habit of EWing, somehow Gabe19 got dragged into it. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Explicit. But these continuing reversions concern me. Has 3RR been grossly violated? The user's response below is scary. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Jj noucaptp.jpg edit warring
He asked my opinion on the subject matter and I gave him my opinion. He revert an image based upon the criteria I upload the original image. And his rationale was based upon language. This was explained to him twice by different editors. If I feel the image needs to be reverted then I will freely revert the image. Do as you please and I will do the same. Itsbydesign (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deletions of files without a license
Hi!
I noticed that you deleted a lot of files because they had no license. As you can see from the top of the category for January 6 there is a notice on the top asking admins to check files before they delete them and telling that there is a lot of old files that has been tagged so they should be carefull. Same note was on the category for January 5.
There is a discussion here that I hope you would like to comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG. This user has tagged hundreds of files and it has been said that many of them should not have been tagged with a CSD. You have deleted a lot of the files this user tagged so perhaps you could leave a note on the discussion telling if you found a lot of mistakes or if they all looked ok?
Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. I went ahead and left a comment on the RFC's talk page—hopefully that's where belongs. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. — ξxplicit 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I agree that the user makes to many mistakes. Therefore we should be careful before we delete files tagged by him. I spend about 4 hours yesterday checking 200 files without a license and I found 20 that was mistagged. I must say I'm a little surprised that it takes me 4 hours to check 200 files and you can check something like 50 in one minute!
- Are you sure that you remember to
- Check the text on the file page to see if there is a license?
- Check the file history to see if some vandal has removed a valid license?
- Check links to see if source mention a usable license?
- Check the file if you can add a valid license yourself (like a PD-ineligible or PD-US<whatever>)?
- Check if uploader was informed about the missing license?
- Not just for one file but for every single file before you delete it? --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It actually took my at least half an hour to check the files of just one category, every single one of them. This is probably why not many admins like working int he area, it's a daily tedious task. My edits to these files [3] [4] [5], where the license was written in text rather than utilizing a template, hopefully show that I do check every file. I also check to see the possibility of some sort of PD status, as seen here. I found that many these files were left unlicensed for over a year, even more in some cases. File:Dock background.png is an example of one. These edits [6] [7] [8] also show that I check if files are actually still orphaned. At the rate I delete files using batch deletion, I understand that it may seem like I just delete them on the spot, but I'm far more careful than that! I guess my speed has increased since I've been doing thing nearly everyday for over a year. — ξxplicit 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It actually took my at least half an hour to check the files of just one category, every single one of them. This is probably why not many admins like working int he area, it's a daily tedious task.
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chamaram.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407747188){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Paalangal.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407749075){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2FrequencyGeo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407752595){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:5e8a3364lewisblack.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407755293){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hellboy_The_Wolves_of_St_August.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407755560){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mosaic_of_The_Beauty_of_Durr%C3%ABs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=407755602){kind=link}
Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums
The nominator agreed to withdraw the CFD so I could depopulate the category and tag it for C1, which I've done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The category has been deleted by another administrator, though I fixed your closure, as the {{cfd top}} template goes below the header at CFD. — ξxplicit 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
With respect, it isn't complex at all. This is a user created montage of 9 different copyrighted images. This is discouraged by WP:NFC, and even if we did allow it it would require 9 rationales for every use. We routinely delete all sorts of user created montages like this one. This is the first I've ever seen such a deletion not honored. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... the montage statement at WP:NFC is only briefly mentioned on WP:NFLISTS: "such as a... montage... [is] strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly." I suppose this can be applied more broadly, and I think this may probably worth bringing up at NFC. — ξxplicit 23:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Patriarchal School
I am looking to create a short article on the subject and was hoping to get a look at the previous article to hope this one does not follow in it footsteps and get deleted as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. There actually wasn't any content created. Patriarchal School was originally created as a redirect to Halki seminary, but the author tagged it for speedy deletion a minute later. Nothing else, I'm afraid. — ξxplicit 00:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
OK good to know thanks. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add this graphic again to the page. The original hand graphic (author unknown) was placed on a public walkway and I took the photo. I though I had correctly labeled the file for publication. Please advise. Thank you.joeu (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
01:30, 8 August 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 25#File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg)
- Hey there. The file was deleted because you added a free license to the image. In this discussion, the conclusion was that, because the author was unknown, it could not be licensed freely. As such, the file was deleted as it likely infringed the copyright of the original artist. — ξxplicit 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops
I just heard Justin Bieber was dead. Sorry about that... Tnd900 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, he's still alive. If you've seen anything about "RIP Justin Bieber" lately (most likely from Twitter), it refers to his character in CSI. — ξxplicit 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I see this in the deletion log, (Deletion log); 22:51 . . Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Marakkar-Navy.JPG" (F2: Corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons)
But the pic is there and its not an empty/corrupt file. Can you clear my confusion? NMKuttiady (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "or a file description page for a file on Commons" explains this case. Files hosted on Commons should be categorized there and not here on Wikipedia. Otherwise, categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2 as a description page on Commons. This is why several image categories or just regularly plain categories link to a category on Commons; in this case, that would be Category:History of Kerala|. There are exceptions, like files with featured pictures or featured sounds templates, but in most cases, these types of pages are eligible for deletion under the aforementioned criteria. Hope that clears things up. — ξxplicit 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Assassinations inspired by relegion
Hi,
you deleted Category:Assassinations inspired by relegion earlier. I just wanted to let you know, that it is still listed under Subcategories in Category:Assassinations. Cheers, --78.53.32.190 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're referring to Category:Assassinations inspired by religion, right? There deleted category has a misspelling, while the other doesn't, which is why it's still listed as a subcategory. In any case, Category:Assassinations inspired by religion is currently nominated for deletion. — ξxplicit 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Musashi69 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
File:PMC logo.png
I can't make sense of your decline here. This is a non-free image (ie. it has a copyright not held by the uploader), yet your decline was "Declined speedy; non-free files can't be copyright violations." Can you clarify? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it's a non-free image. A non-free image indicates that the file is legally copyrighted, but is being used in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. A file is deleted as a copyright violation when the uploader claims that the image is available under a free license, but said image is fully copyrighted. Deletion of this file as a copyright violation simply does not make sense.
- On an unrelated note, there is a coding error in your signature; the red font bleeds onto everything else. Please add the closing
</font>tag to the very end of your signature preferences. Thank you. — ξxplicit 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)- I guess I see what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure the image doesn't follow our guidelines. They literally just downloaded the image from the company's website and uploaded it to Wikipedia, full resolution. So, maybe it's a different deletion rationale.
- As for the sig, it shouldn't have any red text at all. Not sure what caused that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Martin Hamrlik
I gave you the source of where I got it from and you still deleted it, Seriously, guys, you poke into everything. Jerks. --Nhlrules 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlrules (talk • contribs)
- To start things off, let's remember to remain civil. Jumping to conclusions and name-calling won't lead to anything productive. As for File:Martin Hamrlik.jpg, which I'm assuming you're talking about, yes, you provided a source. What you failed to provide was the license tag that must accompany each and every single file. My deletion rationale states this. — ξxplicit 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Rand Schulman
Hi, my name is Erik and I was told to see you by the folks on the live chat (Mr_R00t).
I am trying to reinstate a deletion that occurred of regarding an entry/article about Rand Schulman, a well-known web analytics and online marketing pioneer. Apparently the admin who deleted it (jos@wikipedia/fox) is no longer with Wikipedia.
Can you help? I am wondering if it can be reinstated with modifications, or if we should just start a new submission. There are plenty of references and material to back up Schulman's Wiki eligibility.
Thank you very much in advance, Erik Bratt.
Erikbratt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to update the article to reflect the modifications you made or will make to meet the notability guideline and verifiability policy. Thanks! — ξxplicit 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In response to this edit. File has no source, means a lack of the law act which makes it governmental symbol. File is a private reproduction of 16th century seal. Author is Adam Kromer and he didn't gave any permission to this file. Links in Description file. So should I give template Bad license or No source? I had chosen No source, but as I can see You have misunderstood my intention. JDavid (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. If the file is licensed as a free governmental symbol but the source doesn't back that up, possibly unfree files would be the route you should take. — ξxplicit 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This had a fair use rationale. I don't know why you deleted it. Just because it doesn't have a templated rationale doesn't mean it's not a rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- My bad. It's a very thin fair use rationale, I must have read it as a description of the image. I usually catch these things. — ξxplicit 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
please reinstate incorrectly deleted file Image:Kiki Kogelnik Early 1960s.jpg
Image:Kiki Kogelnik Early 1960s.jpg This file has been incorrectly deleted. Permissions were granted under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as requested. This is not a fair use issue. Please note the previous entries regarding copyright license back in June and reinstate the file. I own the copyright to this work and all necessary emails to permissions were sent. If you need to add something regarding fair use in addition to all the permissions I gave, then do so, but I don't see why it would be necessary after I gave common use license. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was no error in deletion, it was tagged with {{Non-free historic image}}, a non-free license, and lacked a fair use rationale. If you could, please forward the email or resend confirm to WP:OTRS by emailing them at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. — ξxplicit 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is such a unnecessary waste of time. The CC BY SA permissions were sent twice already. There is such a thing as a historical image whose license was given as well. The tag for fair use was from before the CC BY SA was given, you could simply have removed the old tag instead of the rash step of deleting the file. I will send the CC BY SA 3.0 to permissions again. Why don't you provide me with your email so that I can email the same to you and you can follow up with this yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The file history doesn't show that a free license was ever added. The file was uploaded by you with the summary "Image courtesy of Kiki Kogelnik Foundation" and the non-free license I stated above. The only other edit after that was the addition of the {{di-no fair use rationale}} template. There was no possible way I could have known about the Creative Commons license. When you sent those two emails in the past, did you receive a reply? If you didn't, I think that's the main problem, OTRS always follows up. My email is explicifromthewiki@gmail. — ξxplicit 21:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe I got mixed up and the emails were in regards to the other image on the Kiki Kogelnik page. Sorry about that. It's just that these deletions seem to come out of nowhere after spending time trying to conform to all the various rules - you seem very versed in how this works but I find it all a bit confusing. In any case, I did send the email to permissions@wiki, giving CC BY SA 3.0. I'll forward you a copy so you can see what was sent. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, so from here, the only option we have is to wait until you get a reply from OTRS. — ξxplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unreleased Madonna Songs
Hi there. Just writing because you have tried to delete the Unreleased Remixes on Madonna's Unreleased Songs Page. You implied that i had made up the fact that there was a discussion to keep this back in October. Not very polite of you. The whole page was marked for deletion back in October and I spent hours upon hours of my personal time to save it. I lobbied for it to be kept and I added over a hundred references myself and tidied up the page to the best of my abilities. At the end of the discussion on the Articles For Deletion Page, it was decided as "KEEP" for the WHOLE Unreleased Madonna Songs article - including the remixes. I breathed a sigh of relief that i was hopefully somewhat responsible for helping it be kept alive - and intact. Even though i KNOW a remix section is slightly wrong to be placed in an unreleased song article - i think it does have merit in being there as they ARE unreleased OFFICIAL Madonna recordings, and therefore should be included. Anyway, just wanted to clarify my position and why i took some personal offence at your dismissing my reason for it being kept, when i have invested a lot of my blood sweat and tears on that page with little or no thanks. Regards, (Spacedub (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
- I am thoroughly confused. Not once have I touched the article or the AFD. — ξxplicit 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Forgive Me!
Please forgive me! I posted the previous post on the wrong User page! I do apologise. Please ignore my previous post. Kind regards, Kevin (Spacedub (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
- Well, at least now I know you've contacted the wrong user! How did you happen to land here? — ξxplicit 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you made this edit to File:Mike_Morhaime_-_BlizzCon_2010.JPG saying that a license for the image was provided, but I believe the image was actually uploaded under an invalid fair use claim.
I've replaced its use with a free alternative instead, and I thought I'd let you know, just in case. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 11:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I must have missed what article it was used in. Thanks for the note. — ξxplicit 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Creating a new 5 Girls page
To Whom It May Concern,
I was interested in creating a new page for the 2001 documentary film, 5 Girls. I see the page previously existed and was removed. The info I received is below:
01:56, 15 June 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "5 Girls" (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable film)
Please let me know if I can re-start this page with new references, including awards won and other reviews of the film. Thank you.
R. Patrick Lile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdlile (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- What I can do is restore the article and move it into your userspace, which will allow you to work on the page where you can add references and expand the article. How does that sound? — ξxplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That sounds great to me. Sorry if this isn't the spot that I confirm, but I didn't see you on my 'talk' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdlile (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done, the page is now available at User:Rpdlile/5 Girls. — ξxplicit 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Please revert deletion of "A Silent Film" page
I believe you had previously deleted a page on a pretty popular new alt-rock band called "A Silent Film". The band is extremely popular in the alternative rock scene, and in fact had one of the most played singles ("You Will Leave a Mark") in 2010 on XM/Sirius's Alt Nation channel - earning a #4 on the most requested songs for 2010 list (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110101121602AAxrRfa). It was also part of their weekly Alt-18 countdown for many months, occasionally topping the chart and they won the "Best Studio Performance of 2010" award as well from Alt Nation as voted on by the listeners. Apparently, the UK band is extremely popular in Portugal as well.
I'm writing you in hopes of establishing enough notoriety to re-establish the Band's page.
Some references of notoriety -
http://www.last.fm/music/A+Silent+Film
http://www.myspace.com/asilentfilm
http://www.facebook.com/asilentfilm
http://twitter.com/asilentfilm
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/f0e5c9e5-b24f-4d84-8d2a-b166865d8678.html
Please let me know if this should suffice for re-establishing the page, or if more evidence needs to be provided. I'm simply a fan of the band, and was surprised to see that it was missing a wikipedia entry due to deletion. Thanks in Advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.82.180 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to add references in order for the subject to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning music. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. — ξxplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Nintendo3ds-final design.png speedy deletion
Hi - you recently stated in your edit summary in this edit that File:Nintendo3ds-final design.png is up for regular deletion, not speedy deletion. However, it is, technically, up for speedy deletion under F6 criteria. Or am I missing something? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Technically, it isn't. Otherwise, the file could be deleted on the spot, but we there's a required seven-day waiting period. I think this is called pseudo-speedy deletion (at least, that's what Twinkle calls it). Regardless, the {{hang on}} tag was inappropriately used in this case. — ξxplicit 23:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded image. (previous deletion)
I am a new user. . . I uploaded an image File:30thAnniversaryOfConstructionTroops.svg but I didn't know which license to apply. Can you look over my information. I uploaded the same image before but couldn't get it to display properly, and requested that it be deleted. The new image seems to display properly. The original image is in "Category:Emblem images that should be in SVG format." and File:30thAnniversaryOfConstructionTroops.jpg. I would like to work on more files, so any advice on the upload information would be appreciated. Niineta (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I gave the files and look and just have one suggestion. I would be better if the license of vectorized image correspond with that of the old image, in order to avoid any possible complications that may result due to the differing licenses (assuming they can occur). Other than that, everything looks perfect. — ξxplicit 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you and Yes I agree about the license but it was not on the drop-down menu. I've looked in the Edit page and saw some coding that may be the license. I'll test it in the sandbox and if it is the license I will use it on any original work where it appears. Niineta (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Qxz-ad225.gif
Hi, you deleted the image description page here on enwiki for the Commons image File:Qxz-ad225.gif. That image is one of the Wikipedia ads and image description pages for many of them (e.g. File:Qxz-ad114.png) contain the template {{Wikipedia-adnavbox}} that lists all the ads. Since that template is here, it can't be placed on the Commons description page. I know that having image description page for a Commons image is very rare, but I think it makes sense in this case. What do you think? Svick (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- D'oh! I didn't see the template, probably because it's collapsed. I've restored the revision. Sorry about that. — ξxplicit 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up - I noticed you removed the deletion tag from the above file because it was freely licensed...however, it does carry a non-free license tag. Not hassling you - I do appreciate all the crappy cleanup work you do. :) Kelly hi! 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added a fair use rationale, since free alternatives can not be reasonably created. — ξxplicit 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassadors
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
why is Danijela Dona Ilic deleted
HI,mu user name here is Siren 72 and I made a page about Danijela Dona Ilic,you deleted it and we still dont see the reason why. Let us know what all the papers and document we need to send so you can verify her,You can also check all about her only if you just Google Danijela Dona ilic or Dona International Production which is her company,She was first to be selected as Miss Yugoslavia for Hawaiian tropic and Miss American Dream of Yugoslavia which was held in Bahamas,She was also first in her home country Serbia to organize FIRST INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY PAGEANT and she brought many models from all over the world.She is famous TV host,screen writer ,TV show author and the owner of Miss Sirens of the Word beauty pageant.you can also all that check here www.dona-production.com www.youtube.com.donayu72 www.facebook.com/Danijela Dona Ilic official www.facebook.com/Danijela Dona Ilic we have many articles from magazines to send you where you can read about here and who she is,just let us who and how to send. Thanks siren72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siren72 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article Danijela Ilic Dona was deleted as another user proposed its deletion. The deletion summary states the rationale the user proposed the deletion of the article: "Unable to verify the content of the article. A former Miss Yugoslavia could meet notability requirements, however a search for sources came up empty - there is no evidence to support the contention." In general, Wikipedia considers an individual to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. That way. it would meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. — ξxplicit 00:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Puppeter template.png
Dear Explicit. While making another travel through WP's history, I discovered that you deleted File:Puppeter template.png, causing a gap in a number of historically significant pages.[9] Perhaps you could upload the image to commons? That wiki hosts a .gif version of the image which is, to the best of my knowledge, an exact duplicate of the .png version. Another option is not to restore the .png version, but to have the file name redirect to the .gif version on commons somehow. What do you think? - theFace 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Puppeter_template.png){kind=link}
- I went ahead and restored the file and added a license. I suppose it can be moved to Commons now. Thanks for letting me know of the issue. — ξxplicit 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I've moved the image to commons using Commons Helper, though the tool didn't prove that helpful really: it made a total mess of the description text (see the log of commons:File:Puppeter template.png). The local File:Puppeter template.png is now tagged with {{Now Commons}}. Cheers, theFace 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Help me with a file you deleted?
Hi - you deleted a photo which I uploaded, because of your F11 criteria. The picture is definitively MINE to use (and to upload as I see fit!) because I personally took the photo. However, apparently the information I put into the upload wasn't what you/Wikipedia needed to be sure use is authorized. Please tell me how I need to document the photo to keep it in Wikipedia, and also how to restore the file. I would just re-upload it but I'm pretty sure I'd still mess up whatever I have to document ...
Thanks, Lisa (Tigger-ibby) File:Chihuly Fiori di Como.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigger-ibby (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - forgot to sign last post although I included my name & username! Tigger-ibby (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I went ahead and restored the file. Please make sure to specify which license you would like to release the picture under, there is a comprehensive list here. — ξxplicit 09:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering why you recently removed a category from this page. The cat you removed certainly belonged on the page, as the NCUA is exactly equivalent to the FDIC in terms of financial regulation. I didn't want to just revert it in case you were seeing something I wasn't. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I actually deleted the category as it was created by a banned user and I went around removing the red-linked category. It was created shortly after by another user, so it now appears like I'm removing the category for no specific reason. Feel free to revert my edit, I don't mind. You can find the rest of the pages I removed the category from here and revert where necessary. — ξxplicit 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Please revert deletion of "Outsourcery" page
Can you please revert deletion of 'Outsourcery' page so that i can remove the PR related info or is there anyway you can revert it back to older verion.
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamjaslam (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done, I've restored history. Please make sure to write the content in a neutral point of view and back up claims through reliable sources independent of the subject. — ξxplicit 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of Comparative Anatomy band image?
Not sure why, as I indicated in the notes, I got permission from the band's label to use the image. It was copied from their website. I provided their email address for verification if it was necessary. Apparently you didn't check with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanSteps (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That wasn't the issue with the image. The file was deleted because, at the upload form, you indicated that the image was of a living subject, which resulted in the file being tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. It was deleted in correspondence with our non-free content criteria. If the image was released under a free license by the copyright holder, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. — ξxplicit 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, great, I just forwarded the email to the address you gave me. StanSteps (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)StanSteps
- Alright, for right now, we'll have to wait until they get back to you to confirm the license or ask for additional information. If it gets confirmed, then it will be restored on the spot. — ξxplicit 05:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Great, well I forwarded the complete form I was sent and then sent to the record label. They sent me back the form with the required information filled-in. Let me know if there are any problems, but that should be it. StanSteps (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)StanSteps
Hellooo: A question
Hey Explicit how are you? I have come with a silly querry. How can you find out the no. of words or readable prose for an article? For eg. if I wanna find out the amt of prose in User:Legolas2186/Sandbox, how can I do so? Is there any tool that I am not aware of? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not aware of any wiki tools that calculate word count. — ξxplicit 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh ok, lemme ask somebody else. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not to talk page stalk, but the tool you are looking for is at User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js. It adds a Page size link in the Toolbox section of the left bar. And that tool says your sandbox page is: Prose size (text only): 7171 B (1283 words) "readable prose size" Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh ok, lemme ask somebody else. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Let's Be Friends (Emily Osment song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 79.223.62.178 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Pongr
Hi,
The page for social media site Pongr was deleted by you for lack of verifiability/outside links. Since this deletion, Pongr has been featured in the Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1284286), Thats Great! Blog (http://blog.greattv.com/2010/12/whats-new-in-digital-marketing-mobile-social-gaming-mashup-meets-brands-agencies-and-traditional-media-move-over-foursquare-here-comes-pongr-and-you-heard-it-first-here/), Brand Channel (http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/11/29/Pongr-Tells-Brands-to-Take-Off-the-Goggles.aspx), Chubby Brain (http://www.chubbybrain.com/blog/pongr-investors-complete-a-seed-round-of-funding/), The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/09/pongr_invites_you_to_snap_pict.html), and We Love Mobile (http://www.welovemobile.co.uk/mobile-social-networks/pongr-the-new-visual-foursquare/), just to give you a few examples of it's media coverage. I think with these and the other press the company has gotten it would be valid to reinstate the page. Is this possible?
Thanks, Amber Garner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrgarnr (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξxplicit 05:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No non free use rationale for file: Berkman_Center_logo.png
Hello Explicit!
I saw that you deteted the image Berkman_Center_logo.png that I uploaded because it had no non free use rationale. I read the policy, but may have understood it wrong, so I decided to post you a message to better grasp the meaning of this policy... I indicated that the file was the logo of a research center at Harvard University and I used it in its Wikipedia article. So, what kind of "rationale" should I have provided in addition to that to make things right? Could you clarify that point for me please?
Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry for not being able to manage myself! ;) SalimJah (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. What constitutes as a full fair use rationale can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. There, lists the necessary necessary components that a non-free file must be accompanied with in order to satisfy the non-free content guideline. — ξxplicit 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please undo your deletion
Hi Explicit you deleted
- "File:Pete in garden chair 01.jpg"
- "File:Becky's Mirror.jpg"
- "File:Person-tree.jpg"
- "File:Tree person.jpg"
- "File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg" because "F11: No evidence of permission"
The first 4 are photos belong to me and are of things I own, I thought I give them a valid copyright licensing tag. What proof does wiki need to show that I give permission?
The File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg I have an email from the owner giving me permission to upload it to wiki. Please revert all the above deletions and I'll forward my email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Also what the rush? Between the time of the notice being put on my talk page and to you deleting the images has only be 9 days. I did send a quick email to Ronhjones stating I would clear this up on my normal editing day. I now see that he has used Twinkle, which seems to be an automatic reporting device. Which is fine but I believe the time between giving notice and doing the action should be longer. Most editors seem to be adding content here in good consciousness.
I mainly only edit fortnightly or less depending on my life. I'm guessing you don't know that I am Australian and live in one of the flood affected areas. I'm sure in any given month editors who don't edit every day have stuff happen in their lives and would appreciate some extra time to get the files or their edits right for wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. With the first four photos, you indicated that you obtained them though pooktre.com with permission from "Peter Cook and Becky Northey the owners". With the addition of your statement above, it seems that you are in possession of the photos, but not necessarily the copyright holder. A week to address concern isn't much of a rush, that's the standard time given for the deletion of most pages. It's unfortunate that you are victim of the floods that devastated Australia recently, but I personally feel uncomfortable restoring images that were deleted for lacking evidence of permission. Once OTRS receives and confirms the permissions, they can be restored at that time, the files will always be retrievable. — ξxplicit 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the quick reply, if you have a look on my user page you see that I am a co-founder Pooktre. I'm Becky Northey and would be happy to email you from my pooktre.com email. Blackash have a chat 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did also send an email from my pooktre.com account to wikipedia permissions. I can see what you mean about the wording, I forget that no-one really has a clue that I'm Becky Northey, so I'll add some more text to try and clear that up. Blackash have a chat 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Explicit, ticket:2011020310002137 contains permission for the use of File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg. Could you please restore the image. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done, file restored. — ξxplicit 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for sorting this out, the file File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg still has a notice to detele tag on the page. Does that stay? Blackash have a chat 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- All cleaned up, no more issues with the image. — ξxplicit 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Blackash have a chat 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- All cleaned up, no more issues with the image.
- Thanks for sorting this out, the file File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg still has a notice to detele tag on the page. Does that stay? Blackash have a chat 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Album covers by artist
I have nominated for renaming Category:Album covers by artist, which you created. I would welcome your thoughts on the proposal at the nomination. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Waterfall Berdan
Hi, Explicit, According to my watchlist, you have tagged the image waterfall Berdan.jpg in deletion log (F2). Well, I am a bit confused. It is not a corrupt or empty file. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. If a file is being hosted at Commons, it should be categorized there, not here on Wikipedia. Categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2 and was deleted as such. Hope that clears things up. — ξxplicit 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Request image restoration re: Zuckerberg and Eisenberg
I feel that File:Zuckerberg-Eisenberg.jpg should be restored for a number of reasons:
As per the discussions at File talk:Zuckerberg-Eisenberg.jpg and Talk:Mark Zuckerberg, the file should not have been tagged and cetainly not as a Speedy.
The reasons mentioned by those supporting the image removal were faulty, as stated in those discussions:
- That the the image was replaceable, but as it captured an irreplaceable one-time event on TV with a screen capture, it was clearly irreplaceable;
- That the image of the persons in the photo was freely available, which completely ignored the "event" aspect of the photo - that it was not meant to be another photo of a person;
- That the image was no more than "two persons shaking hands," and therefore meaningless, which again totally ignored the substance of the entire TV segment which was their "first meeting;"
- That it was not actually their first meeting, which only meant the original tagger never read or viewed the source in the article which proved the opposite;
- That the commentary and photo link was unsourced, which was shown to be untrue;
- That there was no commentary in the caption explaining the photo, which again meant the tagger did not read the article section relating to the photo. In any case, the caption was modified to clarify the photo even though it was redundant;
- That there was no commentary in the article about the photo, which was obviously wrong and mentioned in the discussion.
Hence, the image was unnecessarily tagged as violating rule #7 of NFCC and the discussion proved that to be wrong. Furthermore, it was tagged as a Speedy which would not allow all parties to review and comment if they wanted. Whether the tagger, User:Tbhotch, used a rapid-fire bot to tag the image I can't say, but he clearly uses them often. But the image was deleted by you without mentioning those discussions and any of the above factors. I therefore kindly request a careful review of the deleted image, its rationale, and related discussions, and hopefully a restoration of the screen capture. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since you've apparently been unable to respond for nearly a week, I re-uploaded the image as there is now extensive commentary in the article that supports the screen shot and covers all prior reasons for the deletion. Please review and reply when you're able. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Evan Lurie
Please Undelete Evan Lurie Actor Page. He wrote and Starred in Several Movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.239.186 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Umm, full-protect? — Legolas (talk2me) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
New sock?
I think we have a tremanshoe sock POV pushing at Talk:Like a Surgeon (Ciara song) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Outsourcery has been reverted to the older version
Outsourcery page has been reverted to older version which was approved in the past and I believe that it’s not written like an advertisement. Can you please advise me on what I should do to resolve it.
Restoration of Image File
Hello Explicit,
It seems as I did not input the copyright information for a photograph I took and uploaded. Since I am new to this, can you advise whether it can be restored with the proper copyright information or if I should re-upload?
Thanks! Shadow6934 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. The file that was deleted, File:Big 10 Inch - World Record Moab Shot.JPG, did not have a license tag that must accompany each and every single file. If you would like to release it under a free license, there is a full list of license tags you may choose from, which can be found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All. — ξxplicit 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Bristol Supertram Image deletions
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted the two GIFs, but you left the Bristol BRT.jpg when it had the same fair use rationale as the GIFs. Keep up the good work. Sorry if this question has been entered in the wrong part of your user page. Nostalgic34 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please link the two images in question so I may review my actions? Thank you. — ξxplicit 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please restore this image which you have deleted? We now has OTRS permission for its usage. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I was away and did not notice the image restoration. Even worse, now I am unable to find the ticket corresponding to this image in this system. And I forgot to mention that in this message as well. I think you should delete this image for now and I will leave you a note once I find the ticket. Sorry about this. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |