User talk:Explicit

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 [1] (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)

{{has-NFUR}}

Much appreciated if someone else could review media tagged with this as well Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Venus Envy

I noticed the page was deleted, and I was wondering that if the webcomic itself updated, could the page be undeleted? I realize that the comic isn't particularly notable, but I am just wondering. I would have objected to the deletion during the prod period, but my internet was being less than cooperative. P.S. I noticed a disambuguation page linking to it, and it probably needs to be changed somewhat as only two of the eight results link to anything. --82.24.170.37 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In order for this webcomic to merit an article on Wikipedia, it should at least meet the general notability guideline. Solely being updated is insufficient for the subject to assert notability. As for the disambiguation page, red links are sometimes put in place to encourage editors to create these pages, so there isn't anything necessarily wrong with them. — ξ^xplicit 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy of deleted image

I don't know if that's at all possible, but could you e-mail me a copy (or a link to a copy) of File:Mariosizechart.jpg? Thanks. Salvidrim! 01:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I have sent you an email with a copy. — ξ^xplicit 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Salvidrim! 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you check this please?

Can you check if the image you deleted per this nomination Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 8#File:Jennyatbat.png is essentially the same as this new uploaded image File:Jennyatbat2.jpg. I don't remember the image. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The two images are completely different. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Annie Seel portrait Alexoch Martin.jpg

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_July_2#File:Annie_Seel_portrait_Alexoch_Martin.jpg

Would you please care to expand upon your rather terse, "The result of the debate was: Delete" Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll skip over the PD and CC license claims, as I think everyone in that discussion understood that neither were appropriate here. From the discussion, I see two arguments: 1) Remove the license and simply cite the original site's requirements; 2) this image meets WP:NFCC#8. As before, neither option was appropriate. All files require a license template, regardless if it's a freely licensed image or not. Citing the text on the source's website (this bit: Photos below are free to use for press and promotion of Annie Seel. Photo credit and photo byline "AnnieSeel.com/MaindruPhoto" is requested.) is insufficient. That strikes out point one. As for point two, all non-free files must meet all the points of WP:NFCC. You argued that this image met point eight, but this image easily fails points one in that a free image can be created. So, this wouldn't fit to be tagged as a non-free file either. As such, this image was simply not fit for use on Wikipedia. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbiotica Relaunch

Hi, I see that you were the deleting administrator for Symbiotica, and you cited "No evidence of meeting WP:GNG". I would like to recreate the page. I wish I had been actively editing when the PROD was taking place, as I would have been able to provide some additional reliable sources that offer significant coverage that would cover the general notability guidelines. I will do so now that I am actively editing. This page is within my area of domain knowledge and I wish to recreate it and bring it up to good wikipedia standards.

Some of the most recent reliable and notable sources I will use in the relaunch that should qualify for the GNG:

"Culture: Artists in the Lab." Martin Kemp. Nature. 477, 278–279 (15 September 2011) doi:10.1038/477278a

"Culture: Art That Touches a Nerve." Anthony King. Nature 470, 334 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/470334a

"When Artists Enter the Laboratory." Dixon, et al. Science 18 February 2011: 860. DOI:10.1126/science.1203549

Infoeco (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored the page, please make sure to address the issue it was originally deleted for. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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 [2] [3] 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 [4] 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)

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)

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)