User talk:Explicit

It is approximately 6:30 PM where this user lives (South Korea). []

File: Twink.jpg

Hi, you deleted File:Twink.jpg. I have managed to arrange for copyright holder permission to be sent to OTRS (Ticket#: 2017062010002382). Is it possible it could be restored with an {{OTRS pending}} tag? Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wwwhatsup: Hi, could you specify which free license is being asserted? Restoring it at this point in time would just bring back a fair use claim. ℯxplicit 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. I contacted the subject of the article. He confirmed he is the rightsholder of the image (a passport photo), and I nursed him into the OTRS process. He has sent an email agreeing to release it under CC BY-SA. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wwwhatsup: Ah, I see. The file has been restored. ℯxplicit 23:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. OTRS does seem to be a slow business these days! Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

G7 draft

Hi Explicit, I would create an article namedDamir Hadzovic and was instructed to contact you as the draft previously was deleted under G7 code. Please advise how to proceed. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi, I gave Draft:Damir Hadzovic a look and there isn't much content in the text. Just an infobox, and empty sections and tables. You may proceed with creating the article if you wish. ℯxplicit 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, Very much appreciate your reply and I will create the article. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chung-in Moon

Hi Explicit, I see you removed the prod from the above article, citing the fact their was an reference. On that reference, there is no mention of the person by name. Even though there is some text which is defined as a reference, the reference must resolve to some verifiable information about the subject, which this doesn't do. There is nothing there. scope_creep (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Following the source, under the 'Members of the APLN' table, clicking on 'Co-Convenor' displays the names of the subjects, with Chung-in Moon being the first listed. It leads to this. ℯxplicit 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! I missed it, and a distinguished professor. scope_creep (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Westfield Hurstville

Hi,

I was going through a list of pages requiring expansion and started to look at this page. I went to the talk page and noticed that it had a banner saying that it had been deleted by you. I am not an expert editor but it looks like you deleted the article and someone has come back and added it in again. On reflection your action was probably correct. This seems to be a very large article for such an unimportant thing - it is just a shopping arcade like any other. If you would like to delete it I would be supportive. I am not a supporter of using Wikipedia for business promotion. MarekJG (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarekJG: Hi, this article was proposed for deletion with the rationale: "Fails [[WP:GNG] and WP:ORG due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources." I deleted it quite a while ago, though—back in January 2013. You are free to nominate the article for deletion if that seems like an appropriate action. ℯxplicit 23:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Deleting Those Pages

I appreciate the deletion. – Batreeqah ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talk • contribs)

File:Simon James Philby Photo 1.jpg

Sorry for the poke, but in my watchlist it says you deleted File:Simon James Philby Photo 1.jpg, but I can still navigate to the file and see the image. Sorry for my ignorance, but I had to ask, why is that ? does it have something to do with the fact it's also on Commons ? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Yes. The local file was deleted, but since the Commons file shares the exact same name, it will display that one instead. ℯxplicit 00:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting catherine_templeton.jpg

Greetings,

I have an email appointing me as the representative of the author and the author releasing all rights to this photo. How would you suggest that I move forward in uploading the photo correctly? I am new to this process.

Thanks,

nplusone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nplusone (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nplusone: If the copyright holder of the photo has decided to release their work under an acceptable free license, please follow the instructions found on the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. ℯxplicit 23:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Darren Price

Could you clarify where the discussion took place prior to deletion of page Darren Price. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macs15 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Macs15: Darren Price was proposed for deletion and went uncontested for seven days. A discussion is not required under this circumstance. ℯxplicit 00:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at File talk:PDO-Logo.svg#Previously Deleted File

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:PDO-Logo.svg#Previously Deleted File. Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48 -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Landscapes (Camel album)

I just noticed you deleted Landscapes (Camel album). Please restore to my sandbox, I'll add sources. Trackinfo (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:  Done, I've restored the article under User:Trackinfo/Landscapes (Camel album). ℯxplicit 02:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm searching for an AfD discussion on this. I see nothing. Are you suggesting a seven year old article already with three sources should get nuked due to lack of sources? Bad policy. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention while watching the article. Its one out of almost 12,000 I watch, its hard to catch everything 24/7. But you should pay attention to what you are doing before damaging the encyclopedia. It shouldn't be so easy. I've added to it and will take it back to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: As you can see in the page history, it was proposed for deletion, so there is no AFD. I'm paying plenty of attention, thanks. ℯxplicit 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear, you did not violate any procedure. The procedure is at flaw. It requires human attention to the details. This article was poorly done, so it not to call attention to its sources. But the sources, thus the cause of the PROD, were there; meaning this did not fit the definition of the PROD. It was ill advised by the PRODing editor, an IP 68.151.25.115 who clearly was not paying attention. I can't guess to the diabolical motives of people who keep trying to delete valid content, but they do exist. Note: I have never edited this article, I just watch it as I do the entire lineage of this band. Poor editing is not an excuse for deletion. It does not invalidate the content. You as an experienced editor should, instead, have noticed the problem. You could have fixed the problem, thus saving the article. Instead, you reflexively deleted it because the time limit on the PROD expired. If you paid attention, if you were thinking, this deletion could, should have been prevented. Trackinfo (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: "Let me be clear, you did not violate any procedure." Okay, see ya. ℯxplicit 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hello! This show has recently concluded and IPs are flocking to remove sourced content. I hope you can help in avoiding the edit wars and vandalism. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.80.149 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Emma Jacobs

If she isn't notable enough to have her own page on Wikipedia, please unlink the page on the pages in the Article Namespace that link to the Emma Jacobs page. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Marco Lorenzi

Hello, could you give me the content of the Marco Lorenzi page, that you deleted on June 30, 2012? I would like to restore it since the athlete meets the criteria of encyclopedia, having won a national title and having been in the top 60 of the world's annual lists. From the date of his cancellation he also debuted in the senior Italian national team and he participated, at the individual level, at a Senior European Championship and always remain the two medals at U23 in relay race. He is also present in French and Polish Wikipedia and some thirty pages linking him. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: I've gone ahead and restored the article, you are free to improve it. ℯxplicit 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

many tnx ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg

Hi, Explicit. Per Template:G8-exempt, will you restore the talk page for this image, in the same vein that File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG File talk:RogerHowarthToddManning2011.jpg exist? I ask because I think there is important discussion on the talk page of File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg, although I can't remember if it's just a link to the debate that took place regarding the image. If there is nothing important on the talk page, then there is no need to restore it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The file talk page only contains the {{oldffdfull}} template. The discussion is still accessible from the page via the "What links here" tool. ℯxplicit 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Since that's all it contains, okay then. Thanks for taking a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted File:Young Ismail Agha, ten days after repatriation from Guantanamo.jpg as unused. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz routinely removes NFCC images from infoboxes, saying that, in addition to other restrictions on NFCC images, our guidelines bar them from being used in infoboxes. When they make these excisions they aren't challenging whether the image in question meets our criteria for copyright images, only that it shouldn't be used in an infobox.

I moved the image from the infobox, to the section of the article that discusses Ismail Agha's repatriation. Since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz concern was the image's placement, not whether it measured up to our criteria, I request restoration.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In general, nonfree images of living persons fail NFCC#1. There is no argument at this point refuting this presumption in this case. That presumption is reinforced in the case of infobox images, where any reasonable image of the article subject is adequate. I was concerned with the issue of replaceability; placement of a nonfree image in a BLP infobox is, aside from recognized special cases like prisoners serving life sentences, a virtually undisputable violation, and its use anywhere else in a BLP is still a presumptive violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Guantanamo held minors, children. The actual number of minors is in dispute. DoD spokesmen, trying to offuscate this issue, released multiple contradictory statements as to how many minors were held there.

Ismail Agha was a minor, when held in Guantanamo. A purist may argue that merely saying he was a minor is sufficient. But given the given the campaign of US spin doctors, trying to fix the USA's image, so it is not regarded as a nation that generally tortures children, I think an image is really necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I feel that having the file deleted as orphaned and then arguing to keep it deleted under a different criteria, without allowing room for rebuttal, is bad form. I have restored the image, and the merit of its use should be discussed at the appropriate discussion venue. ℯxplicit 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't cast groundless aspersions of impropriety, or any other mode of "bad form". I removed the image from the only article where it appeared on June 24, quite accurately noting that it was a nonfree image of a living person in their BLP. You originally deleted the image ten days later, on July 4. Images which fail NFCC are routinely deleted after being removed from articles where they are used improperly. To say that I am somehow shifting ground by arguing that the file has no legitimate use, for the same reason I advanced before, is a clear misrepresentation of my position and actions. There's nothing wrong or suspect about routine NFCC enforcement. When an image which fails NFCC requirements on its face is challenged, consensus must be achieved before it is restored, and it is inappropriate to use administrative authority to sidestep the normal process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Except Geo Swan made a case justifying the use of the image. This is not a straight-forward situation of it being a replaceable non-free image; the context of which it is used in the article matters here. Unless backed by a precedent in said context, I can not unilaterally decide to keep the image deleted. I'd rather not waste the community's time by having this file being sent to WP:DRV, which would only result in it being listed at WP:FFD, the latter of which is the approach you should have taken upon the restoration of the image.

If I have used my abused my administrative powers, I implore you to report me to WP:ANI. If your claim is true, surely I need at least to be reprimanded for my actions. Make your case there, please. ℯxplicit 11:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You're talking outright nonsense. There's nothing even resembling a valid NFCC use claim here. You seem more interested in defending your own bad decision than in implementing the applicable Wikipedia policy -- a policy which here was established by the WMF and can't be weakened or be subject to exceptions by local action. The person who'll be primarily responsible for wasting community time is you. Precedent is clear: nonfree images of living persons can't be used in their bio without consensus that the image meets NFCC requirements. The image, per Geo. Swan. doesn't even relate to the subject himself, but to an extraneous dispute over "US spin doctors, trying to fix the USA's image". There is no sourced content in the bio that is germane to this issue. You don't have the authority to unilaterally grant an exemption from NFCC requirements, and bu policy the burden of proof rests on the editor wishing to retain the image. If you won't do the job right, don't do it at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: And how does one determine consensus? By discussion, which you've taken no interest in facilitating. WP:FFD is there, but I don't see your initiative. It is the next reasonable step. ℯxplicit 00:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories ready for deletion

The Roman Empire year categories have been merged manually. They are all yours to get deleted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)