[[File:Admin T-shirt.svg|200px|thumb|right|↑ Here's your t-shirt, and welcome to the SoWhy Adminship Team (SWAT?). Cheers, [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]], team leader, 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)]]
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|administrators' how-to guide]]''' and the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]]''' if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the '''[[Wikipedia:New admin school|new admin school]]''' may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|administrators' how-to guide]]''' and the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]]''' if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the '''[[Wikipedia:New admin school|new admin school]]''' may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 12:26, 3 November 2009
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explicit.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Hi Diversity, As the IP User who recieved your complaint on an edit to an Annie Bolton article, I can say I am not the person that actually did the unnamed alterations to the Annie Bolton article. I've never edited Annie Bolton articles. I beleive that this misidentification issue with regards to IP Users is fairly common on Wiki. Cheers,121.217.228.11 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, that warning I left was well over a year ago (back when my username was DiverseMentality). The unconstructive edit was made here. Since then, the user originally behind your IP must have long been reassigned, which is why you received the warning. I wouldn't worry about it, though. Kind regards. — ξxplicit05:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"But" and such
Good gravy As a non-grammatician, I have to admit that I cannot say whether or not "but" is a coordinating conjunction in this title, nonetheless it is shorter than four letters (and it is not at the beginning or end of the phrase), so it should not be capitalized. Please explain on my talk if there is something I am missing here (which is entirely possible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Touché You are--obviously--correct that "it" is capitalized, as it is a noun. My recollection was that only nouns and verbs were exempt from the minimal-length rule, but I suppose I was mistaken on this matter as well. It is clearly more complicated than I first realized and I don't know that I have anything to add to the discussion. :-/ Thanks for educating me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
modification on article: business card
I'm trying to change the part on the article that says CMYK (cyan mangenta yellow and black) because the K stands for key and not black as it says in the article for CMYK. I'm not doing any act of vandalism. If you don't let me, please edit it yourself.
Seeing as I'm not too familiar with this topic, you may want to bring this up on the article's talk page. Googling the term "CMYK" seems to bring up both key and black and is best to start up a discussion. — ξxplicit03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the FA
Thank you for your support and help in promoting "4 Minutes" to FA. Thanks a lot. I believe there never has been a more complete article on songs than this one. --Legolas(talk2me)04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I've blocked the user for three months, considering their constant disruption despite my warning. Sorry I couldn't act sooner; I was at work. Anyway, hopefully everything works out now; give me a shout if they come back in IP form. And keep up the good work! Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Admins are lazy creatures; most will avoid the more-complicated cases because they involve more work. Just kidding, I'm assuming that a dramatic case buried your topic and nobody got to see it.
Hey there ξ, I am confused (partially because of the heteronyms of "read") by your statement at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#User:Kanye Swift that: I read that as articles can't be redirected to non-article space, not vice-versa, but correct me if I'm wrong. I read your comment as saying you understood (or understand) that rule not to apply to this case (as the page redirects from non-article space) but nominated it anyhow. What am I missing?
BTW, while I don't think this is eligible for RFD, I wouldn't think anything wrong with you blanking the page with an edit summary stating that such redirects can be confusing. Cheers! -- ToET23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back what I wrote, I honestly don't know what I was trying to get across. My bad. I generally don't like editing others' userpages unless I'm reverting vandalism, tagging it for deletion, removing non-free files or improper categories, which is why I hadn't touched this one. The redirect from userspace to article space still seems pretty improper, which is why I took it too RfD in the first place. It doesn't seem like a helpful redirect, as shown in this table. I suppose it doesn't matter what venue it goes through, but the redirect itself just doesn't sit right with me. — ξxplicit04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not all helpful, and is mildly disruptive -- a touch more so than myspace style user pages covered in hundreds of userboxen and a touch less so than "You have new messages" spoofs. I was certain that I saw mention somewhere about how such redirects need not be referred to RfD as they can simply be reverted (or blanked where there is no prior history) but I can't find it now. Perhaps it specifically dealt with inappropriate redirects from one user's page to another (or perhaps I was dreaming). -- ToET04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be it. It is ironic that the paragraph ends, "... or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page." (Of course that is addressing subpages, but the cross-namespace redirection recommendation still gave me a chuckle.) I you do blank it, the edit should be accompanied by a polite, explanatory note about how the redirect can be confusing for other editor expecting to see a main user page. Given the page name, the current note on the talk page could easily be misinterpreted by a new user as a nomination of the user account itself, not just the redirect. Then again, redirection is a fairly sophisticated first edit. -- ToET23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Low - Flo Rida.ogg
Hi,
In response to your proposed deletion of File:Low - Flo Rida.ogg
It looks like some edits to the page caused the Non-free usage rationale to be removed from the page, but it appears now. To reiterate the rationale for inclusion, the file is a music sample and as such it provides an audible sample of the style much better and clearer than words can describe - for example the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied. Many other music samples of similar length and quality already exist on Wikipedia, and I believe that it definitely improves readers' understanding of those who have not heard the song before.
The problem still is the fact that the musical style of the song is not mentioned anywhere in the article. As point eight of our WP:NFCC policy states, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The reason you stated is so that "the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied". If this file has true contextual significance, why is the musical style—singer's accent, background music, effects, etc.—not discussed in the article? — ξxplicit21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography
Hello explicit:
Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world????????? Why on earth are you against it??? It's a respectable category, and it's more accurate than some of the other biracial categories.(LonerXL (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I am not "against" anything. Please take a look at the category for discussion page for my rationale. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete mixed-ethnicity categories as overcategorization. If you believe that the category should remain, please make a keep argument there. Also, as far as I know, all other mixed ethnicity categories have been deleted. We have a People by ethnic or national origin category, but that's based on origin. — ξxplicit06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These alternate covers get a bit tricky. Because the covers are different from the original, some users would argue that they are need for identification of a different packaging (though others, including myself, disagree). There has been a long unsettled debate about this, where a large discussion took place here. I'm not sure if my intervention here would be welcomed by some, so I think it's best to bring it up on the talk page of the article. I'll gladly participate, because more than one cover without critical commentary seems in violation of WP:NFCC#3 as excessive non-free content is being used, at least in my opinion. One thing's for sure: at least one of the two additional images should to be removed. — ξxplicit05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can I get your input for why think the image should be deleted, since it adds significance and illustration to the article. It also seems as standard procedure that if there is a acceptable image capture of a music video, to add it to the section of the article. Thanks!! Candyo32 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I tagged this file for deletion because it seems that it fails point eight of our non-free content criteria policy, which states: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, this image doesn't do anything words alone can't describe. — ξxplicit18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was just wondering if that were the case, then would many captures of music videos on Wikipedia be on their respective articles then? Candyo32 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many screenshots of music videos don't meet our WP:NFCC policy, but because there are so many screenshots out there, it's understandable that there will be several that don't meet the criteria. In response to your question, probably not, but that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. — ξxplicit18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact SoWhy to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Explicit . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Take your time to answer the questions and don't forget to fix the timestamp after transcluding. If one of your talk page stalkers agrees with my proposal to nominate you, they now have the time to offer a co-nomination Regards SoWhy11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration Request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rcool35 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Congratulations. That was easier than you expected, wasn't it? Have fun with your new mop and if you have any problems, feel free to ask me. Regards SoWhy16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't think I'd get unanimous support. Didn't know what I was worried about. Thanks again for the nomination, SoWhy. I probably would've still been going back and forth about the whole RfA thing, ha. — ξxplicit21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that surprised me as well. I expected at least 1-2 people opposing over something or other, it happened with all people I nominated so far (except for Maedin but with her it might have been the girl-factor ;-)). That said, I never had any doubt that you would pass with flying colors and I am happy to be proven right. Regards SoWhy22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just want to know how I've broken 3RR by reverting vandalism by the user? He blanked two separate sections and continued to revert when I unblanked them. Does section blanking no longer qualify as vandalism? Frmatt (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(What I wrote before the other account appeared) You haven't breached 3RR as you've made only three reverts; it takes four to violate 3RR. This is definitely a content dispute, as the other user, S8m2s (talk·contribs), may not feel that those sections belong in the article. If you haven't, please try to communicate to the user before adding more warnings. (Addendum due to sockpuppetry) Well, the situation has changed. The user created sockpuppets to violate 3RR. I'll shortly start a case at WP:SPI as this in violation of both 3RR and WP:SOCK. I'll revert the edit shortly as well. — ξxplicit06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
