User talk:Explicit

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)

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)

File:Highway code cover.jpg

Hi Explicit

Would you please reinstate File:Highway code cover.jpg. This file is permittred in Wikipedia for two different reasons:

1) The article where it is used is about the publication concerend. 2) The book "Highway Code" was published by the British Government ands as such is subjuect to Crown Copyright which means that it can be used in Wikipedia.

Once the file is restored, I will ensure that the copyright notices are correctly installed. BTW, the file in question has been part of Wikipedia for at least four years. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a freely licensed cover on Commons: File:The Highway Code 1931.djvu. Why do you need both covers, especially when the deleted file isn't a recent edition? — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Higway Code is a continually evolving document and there have been considerable changes over the last 80 years, both in terms of booklet size, contgent and looks. The 1931 copy was in black and white, the current copy is in colour. The current copy has a section on mototrway driving - in 1931 there were no motorways. BTW, the most recent paper version of the Highway Code on its own is the 2007 version - advertised here. Updates to this version are either bundled in with other booklet or are available on-line. Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Books are often reissued all the time with new covers, and we usually don't include more than one cover, which is usually the first edition cover (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images#Book covers). Take Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example. The first edition cover is being used in the infobox, and no other ones are in use, despite there being several of them in existence. The same rule can be applied to this document. The mention of motorways in the newest edition isn't entirely relevant, because unlike File:The Highway Code 1931.djvu, which showed the entire document, File:Highway code cover.jpg was merely the cover, which doesn't say much about motorways. At best, I can undelete the image, but because of the policies here on Wikipedia, I'd follow-up with it on WP:FFD. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

May I draw to attention two reasons for re-instatement of the image:

• The first edition of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four is essentially the same as the current version, the first edition of the Highway Code is very different to the current edition.
• The Highway Code' is Crown Copyright which generally means that it can be reproduced on Wikipedia with under a "Open Government License". Martinvl (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Partners

Now shows aired. Please, create List of episodes page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.192.199 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link the article you speak of? "Partners" alone is extremely vague. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

JHE Production Group

Hi,

I am the new admin for the JHE Production Group page and see it has been deleted. What do I need to do to get it re-instated? Can you please let me know what information you need to prove notability?

Thanks! Jessika09 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Samie

The relevant page is the notability guideline for organizations and 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. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested prod of Sayed Ihsanuddin Taheri

At the AfC helpdesk Kalimkarim, the author of Sayed Ihsanuddin Taheri (which was prodded a few weeks ago and which you consequently deleted), asked about the fate of his article. On the one hand, I doubt the subject is notable (I haven't looked for sources myself), but on the other hand, I believe contesting the deletion of a prodded article usually leads to undeletion if it comes after the fact. Could you have a look and undelete it if you consider it justified? I'll caution the author about the notability criteria and the possibility of just having it deleted again via AfD. Thanks, Huon (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that reads like a request for undeletion (specifically, the "I wish we could republish..." part), and the article has been restored as per WP:CONTESTED. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I suppose it has become a habit at this point. Three years of doing the same thing over and over, it just becomes a part of you, in a sense. It has become my primary manner of participation on Wikipedia, and it has been that way for quite some time; I don't have much time for much else, though I do try to create an article every now and then.

2. The biggest issue for me would be the response I sometimes receive from others users about my deletions. I understand their frustration when pages/files are deleted, but taking out their frustration on me and getting snappy isn't going to move things any faster. This is especially prevalent with images, as I'm one of the few administrators who strictly enforces WP:NFCC, while most of the community does not. I also get flack for not notifying the author of a page of an impending deletion, even though that isn't my job nor is a notification by the nominator required by policy. I actually disabled the email option quite some time ago, as I received most of the insults there.

The only thing that comes to mind where I would perform less deletions is inactivity on my part. I can't really think of any other reason.

3. I don't really much of a problem with the current system as it is. I think what may drive other administrators away from deletion work, and at the scale I do, is the type response one receives from so many deletions. Whether it be "restore my page/image!" or "hey, there's nothing wrong with your deletions—they're all within policy—but you're doing too many, so slow down". The latter did contribute to my first case of burnout, as one can see from the dates I received that comment and when I burned out, and I think that's why most avoid the deletion rate that the few of us other administrators dare to take on. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think your point on how we approach those who shoulder most of the admin burden is well taken. Realizing that if someone does 10x more work than everyone else, they may get at least 10x as many complaint is important. Also, realizing that those who do 10x as much work probably are more accurate than most people because of their specialization is important (I think of how poorly we handled Fastily and Rich Farmborough). I'll try to keep that in mind in my future ANI contributions and maybe try to write a proposal down the road. Thanks again. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Explicit, I may not have done as many deletions as you, but I've done over 12,000, and the complaints have been rare, about 1%. Of them, most are in good faith, and just need an explanation--and with an adequate explanation, even if they do not like the result, they are satisfied there has been proper consideration. A few have not been in good faith--so far from bothering me, i regard them as confirmations that I've been deleting what needed to be deleted. And I think in 5 years I have gotten maybe 2 bad faith emails. (Reasonable complaints by email, I don't mind, though I normally tell them I will deal with it on-wiki) If you get more, something is probably less than optimal with either what you are doing or the way you are doing it.

Perhaps your admitted refusal to notify editors might account for some of the reason you feel you are getting so many: not notifying people of negative actions concerning their work is guaranteed to cause bad feeling. I know I would immediately get angry at such treatment, and not be very likely to stay around and fix it. I hope that the consensus rapidly shifts about even permitting this. For I certainly cannot figure out why you think it's not your job--almost all other admins think just the opposite. Of course, it does take a little time to do it properly with personal messages, but even the form notices are better than nothing.

As for deletion rate, the reason I do not do more is that I know if I look at too many bad articles at one time, it warps my judgment,and I will start stretching the bounds of policy. Perhaps that also has something to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The types of emails I would receive would usually say something along the lines of "you deleted my article, you <explicative>, get a life/couldn't you be doing something more useful with your life?", and I usually received these emails from single-purpose accounts who more than likely didn't understand the deletion process, or what constitutes as a notable subject. If my deletion work was problematic, I would have been sent at least to ANI at least once, and to my memory, that hasn't happened.

Perhaps I may have written my view on notifications vaguely; I meant that I'm not required to send out deletion notices of pages tagged by other users. I always leave notifications when I tag something for deletion, and surely my contributions show that. Other users are not required to do the same when they tag pages for deletion, and there's no way to enforce something like this when it isn't even a requirement to begin with. It's simply a courtesy notice.

And again, as I stated in my first paragraph, if my judgement was faulty when it came to my deletion decisions, this would have been raised at ANI at least once. I'm not very hard to persuade when it comes to undeleting pages that were deletion under noncontroversial circumstances, like WP:PROD, and I certainly have given expanded rationales when it deals with deletion discussions. I always suggest the user take the result of the deletion discussion to DRV, and I can't recall when any of my closures were overturned, either. Taking all of this into account, I really wouldn't consider my actions a problem. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the notices. I did misunderstand. I don't know any of us who leaves a second notice when we delete an article that is already tagged, nor do I see any reason why anyone should (except when we need to do something like a warning or a block). I seem to have over-reacted upon hearing that as I understood it. Perhaps you should clarify above, so we see you're a good example, as you are. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for reinstatement

Hello Explicit,

May I request that you restore File:AVachss honey.jpg, which I see was deleted per WP:NFCC criterion #1. However, the fair-use rationale for the file (a promotional photo of author Andrew Vachss with his then-puppy Honey) did include the specifics regarding why it could not be replaced with free content. Below I quote the rationale's details relevant to criterion #1 (for brevity I have snipped out the rationale addressing the other criteria):

==

This image is not replaceable with a free use image for the following reasons:

• It shows the author in what he has described in many interviews as his favorite promotional photograph: posed with his pit bull, Honey.
• No free photographs exist of Honey (who died in 2005), or of Andrew Vachss with Honey.
• Its inclusion in the article is a significant addition because the photo is relevant to the author, who is a passionate advocate of pit bulls and an opponent of breed-specific dog bans. The author includes pit bulls as central characters in his books '(examples at http://www.vachss.com/dogs/dog_stories/index.html).'
• The photo is significant because it has been the object of critical commentary in numerous news articles, because of Vachss' views on 'nature vs. nurture' as it touches on both raising animals and preventing anti-social behavior.
• Vachss' own description of the significance of the photo is contained in a news article in the 'San Francisco Enquirer:'

"There's a very specific formula for creating a monster," Vachss says. "It starts with chronic, unrelenting abuse. There's got to be societal notification and then passing on. The child eventually believes that what's being done is societally sanctioned. And after a while, empathy -- which we have to learn, we're not born with it -- cracks and dies. He feels only his own pain. There's your predatory sociopath." That's why Vachss posed for a recent publicity photo cradling his pit bull puppy. "You know what pit bulls are capable of, right?" he asks, referring to the animal's notorious killer reputation. "But they're also capable of being the most wonderful, sweet pets in the world depending on how you raise them. That's all our children."

"Unleashing the Criminal Mind", by Dave Ford, San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 1990. [This quotation from the San Francisco Examiner newspaper is included in the Wikipedia article on Vachss that AVachsshoney.jpg illustrated. -Golemarch]

• Andrew Vachss' fame and reputation is built upon his expertise in child protection. His statement about the roots of adult violence in childhood abuse and neglect, and its explicit connection with animal abuse and later viciousness, shows conclusively that the image in question is highly relevant in illustrating Andrew Vachss' mission and message, and its consequent irreplaceability.
• The specific image under has been circulated by Vachss as part of his press kit since 1992. No free-use pictures of Vachss and Honey (or any other dog) exist, and the great majority of images of Vachss by himself are themselves promotional photos. Indeed, non-promotional candid photos, if any exist, would be much less appropriate than the image at issue, since those (A) would not include the significant image of Vachss cradling his pit bull Honey, and (B) would still have to include a license or a fair use rationale under U.S. copyright laws in order to become available for use.

In contrast, this image is available for this use under well-settled U.S. law; it is in fact used regularly by both print and online media; and it serves to depict Vachss, the significance he places in his relationship with Honey the pitbull, and metaphorically his protective mission with regard to abused children.

==

Once the file has been restored, I will make sure that the listed fair use rationale includes any further points necessary to conform it to WP standards. Thanks very much for your help. Golemarch (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that the image was being used to identify a living person. This easily violates the first point of WP:NFCC, as a freely licensed image can still be created. You don't need a non-free image of Vachss with his puppy to understand his stance, the text alone surely says it all. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't really agree that the text alone says it all. The quotation from the newspaper does not offer a replacement for the photo; rather, the newspaper story is quoted to draw the relationship between animal abuse (which leads to violent animal behavior) and child protection (which can ameliorate abuse, and thus insulate society against future violent behavior), These points are central to the child protection work for which Vachss is known. The photo is described in the quotation, and the inclusion of the photo in the Wikipedia article provides contextual significance (Policy criterion #8), particularly for those with a mental image of pitbulls as constantly menacing. As this photograph has been commented upon in other news stories commenting on Vachss' philosophy regarding child protection.

That the photo "depicts a living person," in addition to both its contextual significance and its importance as an object of critical commentary, does not in itself a violation of WP:NFCC. If that were the case, no promotional or historical or critically important images of a living person would ever pass muster, which of course is not the case, as stated by WP:NFCI.

NFCC Policy criterion #1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." is no unqualified bar. As noted in my first post, no free equivalent is available of this combination of Vachss and his pitbull (now deceased). Further, no photograph created in the future "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose," which is that of providing contextual significance, as well as providing an "image that is itself the subject of commentary" (NFCI criterion #9). Please do reconsider this request; thank you very much for your attention. Golemarch (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Treasure Box, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chorus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:LOTG,week1,2012.jpeg

You deleted this as "no permission". A Google Images search suggests that File:LOTG,drjohncrowd.jpg is the same file. Could you check if there are any copyright problems so that the new file also needs to be deleted? There are several copies on the Internet, but all in lower resolutions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed the same image, the deleted version being of a much large resolution. Both are credited to Will Cameron, and there's no indication that the uploader is that same person. As this is a duplicate upload, I'll go ahead and delete it now. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Stefan2 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Blues_Clues_logo.svg

Can you restore this file? The logo can be obtained from Nick Jr. website, as well as the TV series. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ripple monetary system

00:32, 30 September 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Ripple monetary system (Expired PROD, concern was: lack of WP:N. After cleaning up irrelevant references, only one survived, with mere two and rather transitory paragraphs about 'Ripple')

This is about the deleted Ripple monetary system article, your "deleted article" topics did not match the WP:N motivation, so I post this here :)

Why did you delete the article? 'Ripple' is an important projects that develops better monetary systems protocols, it´s an open-source software project for developing and implementing a protocol for an open decentralized payment network. It is discussed by senior researcher David Hales, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, in this video, and described in detail on these domains, which are verifiable third party sources  : http://ripplepay.com and http://ripple-project.org/

Those three sources above are all verifiable third party sources according to WP:N, Ripple is a topic "worthy of notice",

David Hales, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, in this video discusses Ripple enthusiastically, beginning at 3:21 Ripple actually has potential to change our economic systems for the better, you should check it out!

I understand that the references were insufficient, I was just about to improve the article, now, if you would reinstate our article, we can get on improving the references, starting with adding senior researcher David Hales as a reference/peer of trust :)

Cheers! Johan

bipedaljoe@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BipedalJoe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate Febian Nurrahman Saktinegara

This article was deleted. I too also agree that there was improvements required. I understand that the references were insufficient, I was waiting on the results of the 2012 SBM Golden Lens awards to improve the article.

Refer to the non-english article in PedomanNEWS (30 September 2012) http://pedomannews.com/music-movie/16519--erasmus-huis-dan-sbm-umumkan-pemenang-kompetisi-film-dokumenter

"Sementara untuk kategori pelajar, Fabian Nurrahman Saktinegara dari ITB meraih penghargaan untuk ketegori pelajar dalam film documenternya yang bertajuk Epic Java mengangkat tentang keindahan dan eksotiknya tempat-tempat di Pulau Jawa."

The source PedomanNEWS, was originally established by renowned Indonesian journalist and author Rosihan Anwar It is proposed that update reference to SBM Golden Lens which is supported by The Erasmus Huis, Dutch Cultural Centre in Jakarta Indonesia http://www.sbmgoldenlens.com

The Erasmus Huis is not only a showcase for Dutch culture, but is also a home for Indonesian art & culture. http://erasmushuis.nlmission.org/erasmus-huis

Equally the event is cited in the JakartaGlobe. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/lifeandtimes/documentary-fest-to-return-to-erasmus-huis/545320

The JakartaGlobe has been used for a number of cited references including 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi

The International Documentary Film Festival (IDFF) and SBM Golden Lens is discussed in the article "Festival Film Dokumenter Terbesar Dunia Digelar di Jakarta" in SUARAMERDEKA.com http://www.suaramerdeka.com/v1/index.php/read/entertainmen/2012/09/21/7181/Festival-Film-Dokumenter-Terbesar-Dunia-Digelar-di-Jakarta

SUARAMERDEKA is a cited reference for films such as ? (film) and living people such as Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

SBM Golden Lens is also covered in the article "Pasang Rikajang Raih 'Golden Lens Awards II'" http://kampus.okezone.com/read/2012/09/08/373/687083/pasang-rikajang-raih-golden-lens-awards-ii

It is suggested that a page be created for International Documentary Film Festival (IDFF) & SBM Golden Lens Awards.

Suggestions on how to improve the page can be done through the talk page.

Singkatan (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)