User talk:Explicit/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Speedy deletion F1

Hi you recently speedy deleted three images under CFD F1:

• File:Selket-big-resize.png
• File:Selket.png
• File:Selket-big.png

The nominator did not declare which images they were supposedly redundant to, yet you deleted them anyway. Moreover, F1 requires that the redundant image be an exact pixel for pixel duplicate. These three images are not the same, although they are similar. They were used to illustrate problems with rescaling raster images and thus one of them was designed to be grainy and out of focus. Please restore. -- Selket ^Talk 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The first image was deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs), so you'll have to take that one up to that user. File:Selket.png was deleted under F1 as redundant to File:Selket-big.png, which was deleted a week later. F1 does in fact allow lower quality/resolution duplicates to be deleted under the criteria. Is there a specific page these images will be added to? — ξ^xplicit 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

TT100

Hi.

can you show me or tell me anything about the deletion of File:Triton wearing Dunlop TT100 tyres.jpg as I missed it being flagged up or discussed. It must have looked something like these [1] [2] as I make a point of searching for only CC tagged photos on Flickr.

Thanks. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Triton wearing Dunlop TT100 tyres.jpg was deleted because the source indicates that the image can not be used for commercial purposes, which made this file a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. The image had the {{cc-by-sa}} tag, but there was no evidence that it was released under that license, hence its deletion. — ξ^xplicit 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if this file was in use anywhere & if it has been replaced? I like this picture [3] as it has a clear view of both the Triton & the TT100 Alanthehat (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the deleted file was used. As the original uploader of the image is now blocked, it may be unlikely to get an answer for that. As that image in the Flickr link you provided has an acceptable license, you are free to upload it over at Commons. — ξ^xplicit 00:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of I Am America EP file

This deletion seems inappropriate. J Milburn's fair-use dispute was based on an interpretation of the NFCC that is not supported by current practice on the basis that there was "no consensus" on the application of policy to this situation. Cover art has been repeatedly accepted under NFCC#8 if it is being used for visual identification in the event of sourced commentary of the work the cover represents, which is why album covers on album articles are consistently accepted even if the cover itself is not discussed. Nowhere is that same allowance denied to articles where the album is the subject of commentary, but is not the overall subject of the article. I changed the article and rationale to insure that there was sourced commentary of the album to clearly justify keeping the cover art under NFCC, so I am not clear why this was speedied on the basis of F7.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The use of non-free album covers in articles about the musician has been discouraged for several years now. WP:NFCC#8 requires that omitting the image be "detrimental to [the] understanding" of the topic. Without the image, readers will still understand the two notable songs mentioned in the text, and it was used purely for decorative purposes. What understanding would be lost without the presence of the album cover in an article about the singer? — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying it is "discouraged" is not the same as saying it meets the F7 speedy deletion criteria, which implies an invalid fair use rationale. I made a point in the file talk that she has an EP and single by the same name so removing the image of the EP is detrimental to understanding of the topic as it does not provide for clear differentiation between the single and EP. Being able to visually identify a subject of discussion inherently aids understanding of the topic. Additionally, I added the image in lieu of adding multiple fair use video and audio clips as was suggested during a peer review, which was in fact my primary reason for adding the image.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling argument. There are several cases where the title of a single and album are the same, but the cover of one of them isn't utilized to make that point, especially when they should be formatted differently in the text (song titles should be accompanied with quotes, while albums should be italicized, see WP:SONG#Formatting). The text in the article adequately differentiates the two, and I hardly see the case that readers would be unable to tell the difference in the way the single and EP are being discussed in the article. — ξ^xplicit 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Except, when the albums are actually shown to people, they are generally not given such helpful hints. The single and EP have distinctive covers, but their titles are very similar. Someone being able to visually recognize which one is the EP is significant. Visual identification of a work that is the subject of sourced commentary is sufficiently significant to understanding on its own, even without such consideration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OMAPI talk page deletion

I nominated the OMAPI article for deletion a couple of years ago, because I didn't think it was notable. However, it appears that there is some demand for the article, because User:Pratyeka undeleted it. I can't remember what was on the talk page, but if possible it might be good to undelete it as well. I don't see a way to do that, so I'm asking you to do it. This is not urgent, and if you don't ever get to it it won't be a tragedy—it's entirely possible that what's there is irrelevant anyway. It just seems like it would be better to start from what was there than to start over.

Thanks! Abhayakara (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, talk pages should usually be restored when a prod is contested. — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image Propaganda Dc.jpg

You deleted File:Propaganda Dc.jpg with the comment "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale". There should have been more time for people to add a rationale before it was speedily deleted. Please restore the image so I can put a rationale on it. Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged for full a week, not exactly something I'd call a speedy process. But I went ahead and restored the image. — ξ^xplicit 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

hello

Hi. Not sure what happened via Aaron Gwyn. AfD. Endorsed by another editor. Discussion on BLP. Then, prod removed because the subject of the article doesn't want his own article deleted? Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTESTED: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. The template should not have been restored, and the article should have sent to (and currently is at) WP:AFD. — ξ^xplicit 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete "List of life forms" article

Please undelete "List of life forms" article. I would have requested it there, but the Talk page no longer works. I didn't see a way to undeleted it myself. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 23:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg - my email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org may have been overlooked

Hi,

You recently deleted the image "File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg", which I originally posted. When this image was tagged for deletion because of inadequate proof of permission to post it, I obtained that permission from the author and emailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on July 9, 2012. I never received any notification that my email had been received or processed.

The permission email is copied below. May I re-post the image?

Thanks

Hugh Chipman

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Raghab Bandyopadhyay <raghabb@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM Subject: Re: request permission for your photo to be posted on Wikipedia To: Hugh Chipman <hugh.chipman@gmail.com>

To whom it may concern;

I hereby affirm that I, Raghab Bandyopadhyay, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of "Picture of Raghab Bandyopadhyay" [File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg]. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Raghab Bandyopadhyay

[Raghab Bandyopadhyay, Director, Charchapada Publication Pvt Ltd, 13 B Radhanath Mullick Lane, Kolkata - 700012, India] Copyright Holder [July 9, 2012] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh.chipman (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the volunteers over at Wikimedia permissions of this, you should receive a response and confirmation shortly. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard R. Murray

I saw awhile ago that you deleted the page for Richard R. Murray citing "Expired PROD, concern was: Subject of this (apparently autobiographical) article fails the notability tests of WP:BIO, in particular the absence of 3d party coverage of the individual". I was in the process of editing the article to address the concerns listed, and I did not finish my edits before the PROD expired. Is there any way you could restore that article provided I finish updating it? I was not the original author of the page (nor am I Richard Murray), but I would like to correct the language so that it no longer appears autobiographical and biased. Thanks for your time! Dudemanfelix (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was page titled Concerned United Birthparents deleted as non notable group

Hello, You deleted the Concerned United Birthparents page. Iis an important American group in the story of adoption. It still exists and has an active membership. The Boston Globe and other newspapers wrote about it. TV carried stories about it. How did you decide it was not notable? Why was it deleted? thank you 216.246.141.215 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerned United Birthparents was nominated by another user for deletion with that rationale, and the page was deleted as proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days. 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. You may considering reading over the related notability guideline for inclusion of articles concerning organizations. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Restore File:Movies es5-20030823.png?

Can you please restore the file File:Movies es5-20030823.png which you deleted a week ago? I'm the original uploader and was just taking a wikibreak during the one week period I had to respond to the issue after it was raised on my talk page.

The speedy deletion justification was that it is fairuse image that was orphaned. The reason it was orphaned is that the link in the article was removed automatically when the image was deleted (due to a misunderstanding about its content) and then restored earlier in the year. I'd appreciate if you restore it and then leave a message or {{talkback}} on my page so I can see it and make sure it is used again on the Earth Station 5 where it never should have been removed in the first place. Thanks! 01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Another admin restored it for me and re-added the link so that it's not orphaned any more. —mako๛ 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Windpower Monthly

Hi there

I put up a page for our magazine Windpower Monthly in 2010 and have just found out it was deleted in May. I'm not entirely sure why although I suspect it's because I didn't add enough external links. My apologies, as I my experience on Wikipedia is pretty limited. Just so you're aware, WPM is a real magazine and is the oldest English language publication in existence.

Is there any chance we can get the old page back and make the necessary changes, or at least create a new one that doesn't fall foul of any issues?

Many thanks

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooroha (talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to address the notability concerns, as the article may still be deleted through the articles for deletion venue. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring about a Korean admiral's trivia

Hi there, since I reverted some vandalism on your user page, could you do me a favor and take a look at the recent edit-warring at List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures? At first it appeared to me, anyway, that the person cited did not exist; then when I relaized that the name was wrongly transliterated, a newbie and his sockpuppets continued to insert trivia about Yi Sun-sin and nonsensical word salad into this list about haplotypes. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to see into the matter if I have time. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently notable" was incorrect on Commercial and Government Entity

Hi. Whoever thought that the subject of CAGE (Commercial and Government Entity) codes was not sufficiently notable to have a WP article simply happened to be someone who's ignorant of the defense contracting industry in the U.S. The subject is indeed notable enough to have an article, but they wouldn't know that if they don't work in that industry. I would have explained this at the proposed-deletion discussion, but apparently it was only available for 7 days and I was not aware at the time that it existed. Just letting you know, per the instructions given upon recreating, that I will be recreating the article. Thanks. — ¾-10 02:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the article for you, just to make things easier. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

lukas zpira's entry

I saw that you deleted the entry about "Lukas Zpira" ? why ? this page was really interesting and provided me a lot of useful informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourrierIT (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Lukas Zpira was deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) unambiguous advertising or promotion. You may want to contact that user for further details. — ξ^xplicit 00:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joeyfat

why did you delete this page? Dribblingscribe 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by another editor for not being notable; this proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as result. You may want to consider reading over the related notability guideline for inclusion of articles concerning musicians. — ξ^xplicit 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Logitech Harmony Remote - Deletion

Explicit,

I noticed the article Logitech Harmony Remote was deleted in April. The non-notability of the article did not clarify enough. I wanted to gather information before I created the article again and if within reason, create with information regarding the different remotes, history, etc. Please give insight to the reason for deletion and would it be possible for the article to be restarted as this is yet another mainstream product of Logitech. Thank you. CBassett1 01:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by Alan Liefting (talk · contribs), so that editor may give better insight on his rationale; this proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as result. I can restore the article in its entirety if you would like to allow you to work on it. — ξ^xplicit 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Saeme - Deletion

Hi Explicit,

I would like to appeal regarding the deletion of the article on Mohammed Saeme on the grounds of lacking references to attest notability and having almost no mention on Google books/News. A quick search on Google would show numerous international maritime conferences of which he is referred to as being an international expert. Also, webpages exist that verify that he is indeed a founding chairperson of internationally recognized body on maritime health. Should additional references be needed, I would gladly provide it.

Best Regards. Orphidian11 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I went ahead and restored the article for you, and now would be a perfect time to improve it from its current state. Please be aware that, if another editor still thinks this article merits deletion, it may be nominated at the articles for deletion venue. — ξ^xplicit 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Max I. Silber Photos

Your bot removed multiple files that I uploaded which were taken from photographs that I took on the article Max I. Silber. As the photographer, I own all the images, and I had right to donate them to Wikipedia. Please repair the blatant damage your bot has done to the page. RobHoitt (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't operate a bot. The images were deleted as a result of the discussions found at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 24 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 April 4. What was disputed was the copyright status of the object in the pictures, not the pictures themselves. Some derivative works are okay, but others aren't. Without any information regarding the copyright status of the objects in your pictures, these images being uploaded under a free license may have infringed on the rights of the people who created said objects. — ξ^xplicit 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image One Horizon Group Plc logo

Hi, The company logo I had uploaded for infobox of the One Horizon Group article was deleted due to unused non-free media file for more than 7 days. The One Horizon Group article is now alive. I was wondering if you could restore the image or if I will need to upload again? Thank you for your assistance.Yj123 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I have restored the image and re-added it to the article. Cheers. — ξ^xplicit 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Yj123 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about some recent submissions

I was just wondering why User talk:174.54.94.249 didn't meet the Speedy deletion criteria for test when it specifically says test on it? I'm not sure I agree with some of the others as well but this one had me curious for sure. Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I must have misread it, that was definitely a test edit. My bad on that one. However, I do believe my other declined speedies were appropriate. — ξ^xplicit 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries I was just wondering. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about deletion of File:Lady Gaga's meat dress.jpg

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and have tried to read up on Non-free media use. I thought the image of Lady Gaga accepting the Video Music Award for Video of the Year wearing the "meat dress" would be "fair use" because no non-copyrighted image can exist because the dress was worn during a copyrighted T.V. program. It was also worn for press photos after the award show, but from my research all those images are also copyrighted. It was again worn the same night on The Ellen Degeneres Show, copyrighted. The entire reason the article Meat dress of Lady Gaga exists is because of her winning the Video of the Year award that night wearing the dress. I can't imagine a free image of the dress existing and I've looked. Is there anyway to get an image for that article without violating Wikipedia's policies? Just to be clear, I'm not questioning your decision, I know you know what you're doing. I'm just curious. :) --CityMorgue (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading the discussion found at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 28#File:Lady-gaga-in-meat-dress.jpg. In short, the biggest issue in regards to all these images of Gaga's meat dress is that they are all copyrighted by Getty Images; this specific image is found here. Per WP:NFC#UUI, "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images)" is listed as an unacceptable form of use, and can be speedily deleted as a result. Hope that clears things up. — ξ^xplicit 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I couldn't find the discussion page or else I would've fought against it. I still think since the entire article is about the dress in the image that it is fair use, but I understand it a little better now. Thanks! --CityMorgue (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

why has the Inkey Jones page been deleted?

Hi,

We have had a problem with vandals in the past - which Rob Jones dealt with [from wiki]

I have all the emails regarding this.

Now you have taken down the page??????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkey_Jones

his page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

   00:25, 16 August 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Inkey Jones (Expired PROD, concern was: deletion requested by non-autoconfirmed user on talk page with rationale "uses self-published source, does not meet notability criteria")

I am Inkey's agent and as stated before I did not set up this page it was put up by fan/s

I have never written or edited anything on the entry other than to take out the made up stuff put in by the vandal

Why have you taken down the page?

Everything was 100% accurate - and yes there are lots of credit's not listed but I did not wish to add anything myself.

I find it frustrating that you have taken down the page.

Is this more issues from the previous vandal?

If so I have all the emails from us to rob jones - would you like a copy?

You can email me personally at cheekychappies2@hotmail.com

I am: popetman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.224.248 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry found the response from Rob earlier in the year:

You seem to have an IP that does not like Inkey Jones. I've given the last one a warning - probably never read it as they are probably on a dynamic IP system, and will change IP again. They certainly should not be adding "unsourced negative data to a living person". Since I cannot stop them - as they change address - I've semi protected the page - I've also confirmed popetman - so you can edit it (you were 4 edits short of being auto-confirmed). Don't worry that you are his agent - we always allow anyone to remove vandalism, even if they have a conflict of interest.

Yours sincerely, Ron Jones

My guess is it's the same person causing trouble again?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It may have been said individual. The page was proposed for deletion by a single-purpose account. I went ahead and restored it. — ξ^xplicit 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Permissions fro images were sent to Wikipedia and images were still deleted

Sarahcarnovale (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Explicit,

PLEASE HELP!

I have proof that permissions for use of images http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anthony_Di_Pietro_on_location_at_a_Premier_Fruits_farm.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anthony_Di_Pietro.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 were sent to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' by the image owners on the 14th of August, 2012.

As such I have reloaded these images with evidence of permission available at http://robertmasters.com.au/?page_id=135. In the meantime, is there any way to determine what happened with the images being deleted? The consents came through from the image owners email addresses as was requested. I would like this not not happen again, can you please help?

Thanking you, Sarah Sarahcarnovale (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The issue here is that, of course, permission for use of these images were claimed without evidence, and they were tagged as such. Usually, when the uploader of the images, in this case you, sends an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, they will add the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image description page. Without it, there was no way for me to know that email was sent to avoid the deletion of these files. Since you have already sent emailed the permissions team, at this point one can only wait for a response. When you receive a response, please make sure to reply to them and include the newly uploaded images to avoid them from being deleted. — ξ^xplicit 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New message from PD

Good afternoon, I am Political Dweeb, and I got your message here on a logo for a Japansese political party that I should try to put back in the Wikipedia article on that party. Its name in english however "Environmental Green Political Assembly" is in the colour of red to mean that for some reason or other this Wikipedia article on this party has been deleted so I can't decide if I want to add or not add this logo back to that article. Please contact my users talk page here with me on how to solve this concern if possible thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Dweeb (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Green Political Assembly was deleted because the article was proposed for deletion by another editor for not lacking sources, which failed to verify that the political party met our notability guideline; this proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as result. The page can be restored simply on request, if you'd like. — ξ^xplicit 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Please consider reverting your close of the XFD discussion on File:Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia.jpg. You closed it for F5, but the XFD was raised on NFC content grounds. The nominator removed it from the article after nominating for XFD and on the same NFC grounds. The XFD discussion should be allowed to be closed as an NFC debate, which will determine whether or not the image can be restored to the article. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I had actually deleted that image as it was in Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 9 August 2012. I wasn't aware that it was still under discussion, and a bot did that closure for me. I went ahead and undeleted the image and reopened the discussion. — ξ^xplicit 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've denied the page to Hazard-Bot until the XfD closes so it doesn't happen again. SpinningSpark 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Revising

Dear ξxplicit! I thank for Wikipedia and all wikipedians. Hereby I request revising AryoGen page deletion because of following reason. It was deleted with DP of non notable company. Actualy AryoGen is a new 250 million dollars company in biopharmaceutical field and is famous in persian language and recently is going international with having target patients in 25 contries in 5 continents. Please note that cancer and other patients need some preferal information and wikipedia can help them. Asemi (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The page seems to have already been restored by another administrator. — ξ^xplicit 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Inkey Jones update

Hi,

Just a quick one.

Someone has again decided that this page should be deleted.

They also put false info up in regards to his name and DOB

I think the person has also asked for citations even for things that have them already

I'm not sure how to link/do citations - could you explain to me how I am meant to put the citations in, so I can do this, and is there anyway to stop this harassment?

Thanks again for any help you can give me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkey_Jones#cite_note-Inkey_Jones_Website-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Explicit, you might be interested in the comments made by Petergionis (talk · contribs) on my talk page. On a related note, when I responded to Peter's request to add a prod tag to the page (which I assumed was in good faith) I saw no reason why the page should have been indefinitely semi-protected. Would you consider unprotecting the page, or at least adding an expiration date? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi popetman here again. The only reason the page was semi protected was to stop a vandal that was constantly changing the page and making things up. Petergionis also put inaccurate information up - not sure why. My guess is that Petergionis may be the same person who was involved previously? But that is purely a guess. If the page was to become unprotected would it not then just become a 'war' again? I don't want to spend all my time editing (restoring) the page. I have not added anything to the listing ever. I can add some citations - I just need to know how to. Also the link at the bottom to his website goes to an article the BBC did on Inkey and not to his website - but I don't know how to change links. Thanks for any help/advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kuyabribri, I protected the article due to the fact that, prior to its deletion, the article had been semi-protected indefinitely due to the disruptive IPs. I was simply reinstating what was previously there. Ronhjones (talk · contribs) seems to have a better idea of this whole situation, so it may be worth contacting that administrator regarding the article's protection.

Popetman, Petergionis is asking for additional citations to prove the subject's notability. You want to consider reading the identifying reliable sources general notability guidelines to further understand the concerns of this editor. Also, consider adding to the deletion discussion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkey Jones if you have additional references or help understanding his deletion rationale. — ξ^xplicit 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your help so far. Though I don't understand how this person can seek to delete the entry and say it needs citations - then spend the next few days vandalising it with things that make no sense???? But putting that crazyiness aside....

How do I sort out the citations? I'm sorry that I'm a bit clueless. I have read the page on citations and don't get what I am meant to do? I have sourced three or four of the citations asked for - I just don't know how to enter the links????? Thanks for any further help. I have contacted Ron Jones again and hope he can protect / stop this editing war. Anyway I was just asking about where/what to do with the links for the citations???? Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I would update this - my client has contact me that he is getting threatening emails from the person vandalising his wiki page. How do I stop this person. And is there anyway to trace the person for in case further action is needed. Also again I don't know how to put citations in - is there someone who I can email them to???? I have contacted Ron Jones too - but thought I better post here as I'm not sure if I will get a response. Sorry to have taken up so much of your rime already. Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to add a citation in the article is to surround the URL with ref tags, like this: <ref>http://www.example.com/</ref>

Just add the reference at the end of the sentence you're trying to cite. More information regarding citations can be found at inline citation page.

As for the threats your client is receiving from this user, is he sending them through Wikipedia via the "email this user" link? If I'm not mistaken, the email should say it was sent from here. — ξ^xplicit 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No it's been various emails directly to Inkey - threatening all kinds of things like putting his address, number, bank details up on his page unless I stop editing Inkey's page back from what this person has been putting up. I'm worried that he has Inkey's address. Thanks again for all your help Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't do anything that happens outside of this website. However, should the user post personal information of your client somewhere on Wikipedia, you can request for oversight, which will remove the content from the page's history. — ξ^xplicit 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Enterprise Zone Map

float

Hi there, I notice that you deleted the Enterprise Zone map from Baltimore. I think I explained pretty well why we weren't going to find other images to describe the whole Enterprise Zone, and why no one would be harmed by a fair use recreation of this map. The deletion process has been pretty frustrating because no explanation or response has been provided at any point. Perhaps if you're going to delete this image, you could find another image for this section...? Or take a look at my rationale for keeping and possibly restore it? Thanks. groupuscule (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps can be created by any Wikipedia user and uploaded here. This image violated WP:NFCC#1 in the fact that a free equivalent is entirely possible to create. In fact, you can even ask for a map to be created for you over at the Graphic Lab map workshop, all they need is the data. — ξ^xplicit 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful! groupuscule (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Inkey Jones update again

Hi

Sorry to bother you again - if I should be emailing someone else please give me their details.

I'm not sure how to do citations but I will try next week to work it out, but all the info was put up by fans and is easily sourced.

I just have an issue of somebody putting up a fake name and DOB. I don't know why they would do this? I'm not sure what they think they can gain?

I guess it's the same person that tried to delete the entry and vandalised it before??? But it's becoming a bit of an editing war. They put it up and I just put it back to how it was. I have not changed any details on this entry ever. But I won't allow misinformation to be put up.

Can you advise as to what I should do?

Thanks popetman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I keep taking stuff up that is just made up. Any advice would help. I'm not sure why he's being accused of being somebody else and running a venue he has never even played? But this is annoying having to keep editing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion thread above, there is no need to create a new thread every day. — ξ^xplicit 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Wow! I was impressed with your exorbant amount of article deletions and it is suprising you still haven't been awarded any barnstars as a result, so here you go! Jayemd (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — ξ^xplicit 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:TomislavSola.jpg

It says that you deleted this per WP:CSD#F11 today, yet the image is still there (although without a file information page). Do you know what's wrong? Maybe it's bugzilla:39221? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Undeleting it and re-deleting it seems to have done the trick. This usually happens when Twinkle only gets half the job done, though I'm not entirely sure why. — ξ^xplicit 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:ShawsStar.PNG

Hi. I noticed in my watchlist that you deleted File:ShawsStar.PNG. Could you please restore it? It is the logo for Shaw's and Star Market and apparently just needed a licensing tag fix. Grk1011 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Grk1011 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Misread contested deletion?

Just to spare a possible AfD on this; you rejected a prod because you saw the deletion as contested, but the article creator's comments on the talk page were in regard to the speedy deletion the page was given in the first ten minutes (when it was just an infobox). The editor raised no objection to the prod on the article's talk page (he said "but my brother's self-published novel is listed on Amazon!" on his own talk page, which the mechanisms of WP:PROD do not appear to care about), nor did he make any edits to the article subsequently.

If an editor giving any kind of rationale on his own talk page is enough to stave off a prod, though, that's fine, I'll stand corrected and put it up for full discussion as an AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I rejected the prod because another user had done it before you, and it was contested a short time later. Per WP:PROD, once the prod is removed, it shouldn't be restored, and articles can only be prod'd once. — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, and you even said that in your edit summary, looks like it was me doing the misreading. I'll raise an AfD. Thanks for the response. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kamal Passi

PROD contested? Really??? Some half-arsed misunderstanding of the levels of international cricket and a lame "28,000 google hits". If they were really making a serious effort to contest, the PROD would have been removed by them? Grrr, now the bureaucracy of an AfD when quite clearly the article failed a key inclusion guideline for cricketers, sportspeople and wikipedia as a whole. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File deletions from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11

Hi, Explicit. I noticed that you had deleted the remaining files listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11, all except Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11#File:Topological map of TFL rail systems.svg. I also noticed that you hadn't participated in the discussion, so I was wondering if you were planning on closing it or if you had chosen to leave it for someone else. It's been listed for two weeks now, 7 days longer than mandated at WP:PUF and as the author I'm particularly interested in seeing it being put to bed, whether it results in a deletion or not. If you don't feel comfortable closing, could you give another admin a nudge to do so, perhaps? Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'd like an explanation of how and why you deleted this despite it not being copyrighted at all. It isn't art. It's a photo taken at a public event. Welcome to Textopedia I guess. The-Pope (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@Matthewedwards, another administrator has taken care of that discussion.

@The-Pope, yes, it is. There were several holes the arguments presented at the discussion. You contradicted yourself by calling it a "temporary banner" that was "permanent display whilst it existed". It is either one or the other, not both. As the banner is created with the purpose of being destroyed, it's clearly temporary. Secondly, there was an argument that the banner was de minimis, which entirely incorrect. The main subject of the photograph was the banner, and the figure in the banner was well above the threshold of originality. The figure was certainly not a trivial aspect of the banner, and making this argument was simply off base. Overall, none of the keep arguments proved that this banner was not copyrightable, or that this image was not in violation of the freedom of panorama copyright laws. — ξ^xplicit 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, so not surprisingly I may not have presented a coherent and compelling argument, but I don't think the argument to delete was that compelling either. The argument that the logo causes the problem is laughable given the angle of the logo, and three small proportion of the image that is taken up by the logo. Do you delete every image with corporate logos on shirts or advertising on signs? So, where do I appeal this decision, DRV, a copyright noticeboard or straight to the WMF lawyer? And I'd like a real life copyright lawyer to review it, not amateurs who don't have a clue what the image was or how and where it's displayed. Finally the while system stinks in that you effectively super voted without any explanation given on the PUF page. Not a very collaborative or friendly way to behave, especially when there were at least three editors arguing for it to be kept. But then again PUF seems to be a little private world outside of the xFD world, but with equal powers. The-Pope (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who argue to keep the file are left with the burden to prove that the inclusion of the logo in this picture is appropriate. The only reason this image was a problem was because the focus was the banner, which is used to identify the entire logo. Had it simply happen that the banner was in the shot and the focus was on an entirely different subject, I would have closed this as keep, but that was not the case. The discussion was closed as it was based on the weight of the arguments, which were all entirely misinformed, and not the number of people who argued to keep the image. You are free to have my closure reviewed at WP:DRV. — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Political Dweebs new message

Hello again user:Explicit, I want to explain that I was considering if I would like to have the Wikipedia article on the Japanese political party called the Environmental Green Political Assembly restored, but I don't want to for the following reasons, which you can contact me again if you want on my users talk page. I found some years ago from maybe this following Google English translation of a Japanese Wikipedia article on this political party led me to one of its members as its representatives called Atsuo Nakamura who was a former writer and actor who is the reason I reject this party because I think the hugely flawed English Google translation of this Japanese Wikipedia article on him may have been saying he was a member of a South Korean cult called the Unification Church led By its leader called Sun Myung Moon. I had no idea this Japanese political party accepted this.

I think I tried to understand (maybe in relation to politics on parts of the right of the political spectrum) how members of the Unification Church & its leader could show evidence for the following belief which if you here to see my question about it, didn't give much evidence (physical or not) to explain how & why these two dictators have been morally reformed via the Unification Church's teachings. So for those reasons I reject this party but if there are any other concerns you have about this please contact me on my user talk page.

Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a file

Hello!
I suppose the File:Vicky Donor.jpg was deleted per this discussion Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_August_5#File:Vicky_Donor.jpg. I guess the reason for nomination was that the file had a wrong license and hence was deleted.
Film posters, even though non-free, can stay on Wikipedia as they satisfy WP:NFCI. (Being Admin i suppose you are aware of that.) But i don't see how deletion was necessary? Changing license and rationale would have allowed its retention. Can you now restore it back? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and I will go ahead and change the licensing for that. — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Masseto Wine

Hello, Explicit. You have new messages at Nathan2055's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elisabetta Nucci (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Hello, I've seen you deleted the Masseto Wine page. I do not agree with your decision because

it was a simple and technical description of how the vineyards is and work. Moreover that page was a translation of a similar text written both in Italian and German. I took a lot of time trying to write the article so that it was informative. Talk of a wine, its territory and how it is made. I do not think it is advertising, it seems to me information.Elisabetta Nucci (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Masseto wine was deleted because it lacked references, and without them in the article, it was not clear that the subject meet our notability guideline. If you have the intent of correcting this issue, I can restore the article for you. — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion policy - Shattaline

Hi Explicit, may I ask what is the policy for deletion of an article? Specifically, an article I created more than 5 years ago has recently been deleted by you. The article in question is Shattaline, deleted for the reason "(Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable company.)". I am disappointed that it was deleted without any direct notification to its originator (I believed it to be on my watch list but perhaps it isn't, as I received no notification). I was surprised that, having originally been accepted as being sufficiently notable, it has remained for more than 5 years without any previous concerns being expressed. What is the definition for a "notable" company? I consider this company (Shattaline) was notable because it created a unique and patented artistic process in the 1960s; products which Shattaline made by this process were popular during the company's existence and are now a significant collectors' item, as can be judge from the number of items offered for sale on sites such as ebay either under the company's name or misspelt as "shatterline". The founder of the company was a noted sculptor in his own right, having featured on British Pathe News films in the 1960s. I can provide additional reasons if needed and further information can be found at [4] (a dedicated site which has received in excess of 10,000 views). I would be grateful if you would give proper and full consideration to reinstaement of this page. Thank you Weydonian (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the article was proposed for deletion by another editor for not being notable, and he was likely referring to our notability guideline for companies. 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. From what I can see, the article didn't contain any sources, just two external links: the company's website, and one to britishpathe.com, where the page no longer exists. If you believe that the topic is notable and can cite references to verify that it is, I can undelete the page for you. — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted file

The file is my creation so I would like to add again please. Let me know how I can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliochori (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you please specify which file you're talking about? — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File : Frank Buglioni

hi, you want to delete the wikipedia article because there is not enough evidence. i have said before that me and Frank Buglioni, who the article is about, created the page together, therefore he put all of the information in there which is 100% accurate because it is coming from himself. I used 11 or so articles to get the background information in, and then Frank Buglioni added and edited the information to make it more reliable and accurate. i dont understand why you want to delete the page, if you want to contact him and ask if the information is reliable and accuarate, then so be it, i feel that it is not fair that you are going to delete the page. Thanks, Giordano Bishop — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiordanoBishop (talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I have not touched the Frank Buglioni article. What I did was delete the image File:Frank Buglioni.jpg, which you claimed to be the copyright owner of, when it was taken from this, or another similar article, where the image is copyrighted by someone else. Unless you took the picture and you own the copyright, or if the copyright holder released it under a free license—I highly doubt the latter—you can not upload this image. — ξ^xplicit 23:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fruit salad tree deletion

Hi. You deleted Fruit salad tree as a "Hoax, very little context and notability". While it is certainly not a hoax (various apple and pear cultivars in particular have been commercially available as family trees for decades), and I don't know what context was given, I am inclined to agree that it is insufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. I have added a section (references currently lacking) to Fruit Tree Propagation, but I have no idea how to create a redirect such that someone (like me) searching for Fruit Salad Tree would be redirected to the last section of Fruit Tree Propogation. Can you help? Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the article and redirected it to Fruit tree propagation for you. You can learn how to create redirects by reading the redirect editing guideline. — ξ^xplicit 23:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Justification for article restoration?

I have not edited wikipedia in several years and am not as knowledgeable about policy and structure here as I used to be. Sorry in advance if my question has an obvious answer I'm not seeing..

I came across this article and am a bit perplexed as to why it still exist. The sources are dubious and the article seems like original research. All of my searches on the subject bring me back to this article. One of the references for the article is a forum post from 2001. The other is a text document that has most of its sources as dead links. Searches for the "The Descendants of Theodora Comnena of Trebizond" also leads itself back to this article. The article has been in this state since 2006.

From the article's history it seems you were the one who restored the article. From what I understand the article was deleted for not following the notability guidelines. I can't find an AFD for the article or a request for restoration. I was hoping you could point me in their direction. --M8v2 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The request for undeletion took place here, where the user asserted that the subject was notable. I restored the article under the last line of WP:CONTESTED. Additionally, further discussion occurred on the article's talk page. The user who originally requested this article to be undeleted seems to have retired, based on their userpage, so I'm not sure if contacting them in regards to the state of the article will be of any use. From here, you can, of course, nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. — ξ^xplicit 00:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SEC Football Pages from 1933-2008

I've been told from the Wiki Help that you deleted pages for SEC football because they existed elsewhere. WHY? There is no link to other info on there and searches do not provide the info I got from 2009-2012 SEC football searches. Why would you delete these pages and not link to the original pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.173.228 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure out what you were referring to, but those articles were duplicates of existing templates, and they contained nothing more than the exact coding found of those. For example, one of the articles was deleted as a duplicate of Template:2008 SEC football standings, because that's all it contained, and nothing more. They didn't have any sort of content like 2012 Southeastern Conference football season has. — ξ^xplicit 18:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

423083main Shannahs 11-1600 1600-1200.jpg

Please restore File:423083main Shannahs 11-1600 1600-1200.jpg. The deletion discussion pointed to a lack of source for verification. Unfortunately Not all imagery from the early part of the space program has a URL that can be pointed to. Unfortunately, Kennedy Center Photo Archives is the best that can be done at this time. --RadioFan (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going ask the two users who took part of this discussion to share their opinion on this, as the consensus was to delete this image. As you didn't make any argument at the discussion page, it's worth seeing how this will be weighed by them. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please

The deletion log shows you deleted File:Safe house in Faisalabad where Abu Zubaydah was captured.jpg. Your entry in the deletion log says: "Deleted because "F7: Violates non-free content criteria". using TW".

It is my understanding that when an image has a correctly formed explanation as to why it fulfills the nfcc there is supposed to be a discussion as to whether it that explanation is or isn't satisfactory.

Could you please direct my attention to where the discussion of whether the explanation was satisfactory was discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

By "a correctly formed explanation as to why it fulfills the nfcc", do you mean the response of disputing the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag? If so, no response was made to that prior to the image's deletion. The several fair use rationales on the description page all had the same content written in them, except the article field, and I left an example of that under the spoiler.

Example of FUR

{{Non-free use rationale | Description = Safe house in Faisalabad where [[Abu Zubaydah]], [[Sufyian Barhoumi]], [[Ghassan al-Shirbi]], [[Jabran Al Qahtani]], [[Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo captive 753)|Abdul Zahir]], [[Noor Uthman Muhammaed]] and several other suspects were captured. US intelligence analysts report there was a protracted gunbattle during the capture. | Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all | Article = The Faisalabad Three | Portion = entire | Low_resolution = yes | Purpose = to illustrate a location of historic importance | Replaceability = none | other_information = }}

These rationales didn't address NFCC. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

US intelligence officials have named several dozen "safehouses", with various degrees of specificity. This particular safehouse is referred to in multiple independent third party reports, as well as multiple official documents. Merely being captured in this house was sufficient to trigger one teenage boy spending years in detention in the CIA's network of secret interrogation camps.

This particular safehouse is of particular importance as it was the only one we have any images of, whatsoever; (2) four, count-em four men apprehended there have been charged with war crimes; (3) it was one of just three raided safehouses where the raid triggered the exchange of gunfire.

So, could you please either clarify what you think would be necessary to address NFCC, or could you restore the image?

Could I ask who placed the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag? Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The tag was added by Hammersoft (talk · contribs), and he commented that "Freedom of panorama exists in Pakistan. No evidence supplied indicating the building has been destroyed. Another image can be made." This concern was also brought up two years prior to the image's deletion on its talk page, where Rklawton (talk · contribs) commented "Is the house now gone? If not, how is this image not replaceable?" That was the main concern from these editors, which deals directly to the first point WP:NFCC. If you can adequately address that concern, we can continue from there. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Sq3junkyard.JPG

Hi there. I only just now noticed that you deleted this file back in May. While your deletion was technically correct, the file wasn't being used due to a minor typo in some wiki markup in the article Space Quest III: The Pirates of Pestulon. You can see the error here in an accidental breaking of the image box. Is it possible to restore that file? I can immediately restore its proper usage and FUR information if necessary. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I have gone ahead and restored the file. Cheers. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate it! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mateo Bencun deletion.

Hi, I've noticed that you've killed this entry. The rationale/explanation was that he didn't play in a pro league, which simply is not true, as Bencun featured in the Bosnian Premier League, the top tier of that country, as can be verified here (among other places): http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/mateo-bencun/leistungsdaten/spieler_160667_2010.html

Obviously not THE most famous of players, but one can do far worse.

Zlopseto (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then, article restored. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dorfman

I noticed the page was deleted, and I was wondering could the page be undeleted? I realize that this author isn't particularly notable in English, but he is publishing author in Russian, his books is coming to print in Hebrew and he is working reporter in the US for the Russian media. I would have objected to the deletion during the prod period, but I just gave birth to my baby, and couldn’t give enough attention to the Wiki. Much appreciate your help User:Lamerkhav 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Congratulations on your newborn! — ξ^xplicit 01:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! User:Lamerkhav 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't now what to do. Help me please. I don't know what to do. This is the same guy, who marked User:Shrike the article to deletion for the first time. This is looks like personal, maybe some political Israeli thing. This article is written in the 2007, WIki folks contribute amount of work to do it. There are similar articles in Russian Ukrainian and Hebrew.

I don't have personal connection, but I was the student of Michael Dorfman. He was a coordinator of the NGO, who gave me tuition. I don't have time and kwolege to fight. So please help me. I added the sources and I'm going to add gallery, but I don't know what to doo

User:Lamerkhav 11:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's anything personal, the user probably thinks the subject is not notable, even with the content given in the article. If you haven't already, you should over the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for people, and base your keep arguments at the AFD off of that. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. The time isn't so good for me :( ~~User:Lamerkhav —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A copy of deleted images

Is it possible to e-mail me a copy (or a link to if a source was given) of the three following images:

• File:Puzzle Pirates Gunnery.png
• File:Puzzle Pirates Blacksmithing.png
• File:Puzzle Pirates Swordfighting.PNG

Or undo the deletions so I can add a proper FUR. Thanks in advance! Salvidrim! 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored the files, much easier on us both. — ξ^xplicit 02:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, all done. Salvidrim! 03:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted images

Please restore File:450 clayton 3.jpg so I can expand the FUR. all you had do was contact me, to save everyone time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored, and you did get a notice a week ago. — ξ^xplicit 02:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

please undelete File:TextMate screenshot.png ?

As far as can tell this was deleted with no warning (e.g. on the article’s talk page). It would be nice to have it back, since it directly illustrates the software described by the article it was used in. It’s hard to imagine anything that better qualifies as fair use. For what it’s worth, I’m sure Allan, the software’s author, could be convinced to release a screenshot of TextMate under some kind of permissive license; the application is now open source. –jacobolus (t) 02:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the file, please make sure to address the concerns described on the template that is on the image's description page. — ξ^xplicit 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of car photos

Please reconsider your deletion of the many car photos as unsourced. You'll notice they list the source as promotional material sent out by the agency - the uploader was a collector of said material. I believe they are sourced properly. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The uploader, Barnstarbob (talk · contribs), has been banned for nearly a year. According to a comment made in this discussion by Biker Biker (talk · contribs), this user has a history of faulty uploads, and the first two blocks in the user's block log seem to confirm this. The image in that discussion appears to be similar to these other images that have been deleted. Taking all this into account, reasonable doubt is surely merited here? — ξ^xplicit 03:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The photographs look very much like what he claimed they were. I had an extensive conversation with Bob about these images a while back, but for the life of me I can't find it. However, the source seems credible to me: they were press photographs that he collected, scanned, and uploaded. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to this discussion. I did a little research, and I'm not entirely sure that Barnstarbob did in fact scan these images as he claims. For example, this image at the GM photo store was uploaded under File:60 Bel Air.jpg. The main issue here is that the image needs to be purchased to obtain the image without the watermark, which was conveniently cropped out in the upload. Can commercial images up for sale like this be in the public domain at the same time? — ξ^xplicit 02:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Court Moor School

Hi Explicit,

Please restore the image File:Court Moor School Logo.jpg as this file meets the Fair Use criteria - in particular it meets the {{Non-free seal}} licencing criteria. Once the file has been restored, I will ensure that the licencing tag is in place.Martinvl (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is done! File restored. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I have updated the licensing information. Martinvl (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Question mark 1.png

Hello. I was wondering why you deleted the file so soon, as far as I was aware, the discussion was still on-going. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion went on for seven days and it could have been closed any time after that. The file was speaking of was File:Question Mark 1.svg. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate Page Please

May I request that our page be re-instated please.

00:24, 12 April 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page MicroPlanner X-Pert (Expired PROD, concern was: Does not establish notability through 3rd party sources.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafdua (talk • contribs)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fur

If you restore File:Squier 01.jpg, I will add FUR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you recognize that this image had a rationale? You deleted it for not having one, yet it had one ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How did "low res, no revenue loss, only pic" meet all the required components of a fair use rationale?. — ξ^xplicit 01:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate Steven Beattie professional footballer

You recently deleted Steven Beattie who is an Irish professional footballer. This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 00:16, 25 June 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Steven Beattie (Expired PROD, concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.)

The player in question got a season ending injury last year so never played a game with Puerto Rico Islanders, however he is back playing professionally with UMF Tindastoll in the Icelandic first division. Could you please reinstate the page please? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.95.76.179 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 01:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Stone Bond Wiki

Your comment - This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 00:25, 25 August 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Stone Bond Technologies (Expired PROD, concern was: Reads like a Spam article. No indication of notability. Company seems to have won a Fast Tech 50 award for growth in Houston Texas for 2006, but beyond that single event WP:EVENT, that's seems to be it.)

Stone Bond is a leading global provider of data integration services. In 2012 we were named by Forrester research as a Strong Performer for data virtualization and integration software. This recognition was bestowed to 8 solutions out of over 150.

Over the past 10 years our company, through our products have help cure Cancer with MD Anderson and Cornell School of Medicine, helped corporations eliminate mountains of paper waste and helped global oil companies reduce pollution.

For you to take down a site such as this is inconsolable. Please restore the site so we can update it appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.60.30 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please consider reading the notability guideline for organizations and companies to understand why the article was originally deleted, and what you can do to address the concerns. I also noticed you used the term "we", and reading the conflict of interest guideline may also be worthwhile. — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Geordie dialect words

Hi there. I saw that you deleted this for reason G8, but as far as I can tell its target still exists. Can you give me a link to where it was pointing and/or restore it? I moved it crosswiki to here, and I thought it was correct to leave a redirect from here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted that by mistake, sorry about that. I have restored it. This keeps showing up as a broken redirect for some reason, which explains why I accidentally deleted it. I've tried looking for a template similar to {{Wiktionary redirect}}, but for Wikibooks, with no success. — ξ^xplicit 23:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no one has been 100% sure how to handle it, as it's a bit of a strange situation. Let me know if you figure out a fix, and I'll do the same. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

GELLMU

You deleted the stub telling that you couldn't google anything about it.

I cannot make more than a stub of it, but references are:

• home page
• intro
• sample in various formats

Software and Documentation are available via the GELLMU page of CTAN.

GELLMU is one of many competing approaches to get some SGML from TeX. GELLMU is a "See also" in LaTeX2HTML. In some private notes of mine I am gathering such projects (the descriptions may improve next days).

The CTAN Page on TeX4ht says that the latter approaches GELLMU with respect to certain "robustness" characteristics. TeX4ht in turn seems to be so important that notable maintainers of TeX software (Karl Berry former TUG president and maintainer of TeX Live) have taken over maintenance, i.e., there are users who need it. I must confess that I don't know how many users GELLMU has.

The relevance could derive from the fact that when I sit together with professional TeX users, web designers, and uses of ebooks, these matters are often discussed.

Could this material make it worth reviving the article? I had actually looked for it when I tried to improve my notes about the subject, I had seen the article earlier. We might ask the author to fill out the form as in TeX4ht. --Lueckless (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this would not suffice. There is a general notability guideline which articles should meet to be considered notable and merit inclusion on Wikipedia. GELLMU does not appear to meet the points listed there, and it may very well be non-notable. — ξ^xplicit 01:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bump (internet) deleted

Bump (internet) was a useful article that I miss now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.30.192.187 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Chief Blue Horse, Pan American Exposition, 1901.jpg

Hi Explicit, The referenced photo is William Jennings Bryan with Sioux chiefs at Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, 1901, part of the Johnston (Frances Benjamin) Collection with the Library of Congress. Please see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fbj/item/2004665752/ for the details. I respectfully believe this photo to be in the public domain and hope that you will approve undeleting it. Thank you. Richlevine00 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How is this photo under the public domain? The link you provided states that it was published "between ca. 1864 and ca. 1947", which is pretty vague and is a rather huge gap. Since the author died in 1952, it could possibly still be copyrighted until 2022. — ξ^xplicit 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your position relies on the presumption of/or possibility of a copyright. The Rights Advisory on this image is: "No known restrictions on publication." The Library of Congress declares that the text "No known restrictions on publication" means that the Library is unaware of any restrictions on the use of the image. There are generally two cases where this phrase is used: 1. There was a copyright and it was not renewed. 2. The image is from a late 19th or early 20th century collection for which there is no evidence of any rights holder; and:

a. There are no copyright markings or other indications on the images to indicate that they were copyrighted or otherwise restricted, AND b. The records of the U.S. Copyright Office do not indicate any copyright registration, AND

c. The acquisition paperwork for the collection does not contain any evidence of any restrictions, AND

d. Images from the collection have been used and published extensively without anyone stepping forward to claim rights.

e. These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply.

Under these circumstances, this historic image of Chief Blue Horse should in good faith be available to the public on Wikipedia, and I hope you will reconsider your initial determination. Respectfully, Richlevine00 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well, you do bring forward a fairly solid argument. I have gone ahead and restored the image for you. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Richlevine00 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Levinsonproofoflife fmt1.ogv

I would like to appeal your decision to delete File:Levinsonproofoflife fmt1.ogv. This file is unfree, but was within the context of the Article Robert Levinson. Its removal harms reader's understanding of the subject. Phearson (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, that's pretty vague. Can you explain how? What does the reader gain, and what is lost without the video's presence? — ξ^xplicit 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions that the Levinson Family receieved a video from the the kidnappers. "On December 9, 2011, the family released the hostage video dated from November 2010" However, there is no details after that. Adding the video shows what went on in that communication with the kidnappers and the response made by the Levinson family. It's removal simply erases this history. Phearson (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't address the policy concerns brought up on the discussion page. Additionally, this source in the article pretty much summarizes what the video is about. Adding those details into the article should pretty much cover anything in the video. Not to mention that the video is far too long as a fair use candidate; it should pretty much be within the same range as the guideline for music samples. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File talk:ROCposts.gif

Under what criteria was this deleted rather quickly? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm, as the original user who tagged the image for deletion with {{di-replaceable fair use}}, did you feel persuaded by the arguments presented on the talk page that it no longer met that criterion? Your last comment on the talk page wasn't entirely clear. — ξ^xplicit 23:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There was an ongoing disscussion as to whether OS Opendata would constitute a 'reliable' alternate source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and restore the image and reopen the discussion on the talk page. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20