User talk:Explicit

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_leaders_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviators_killed_in_aviation_accidents_or_incidents

I would be more convinced of your intentions if these 2 categories were treated in the same way, either all kept or all deleted. The best thing is to

1. keep all 3, including entertainers
2. delete all 3.
3. the worst is to delete only some.

Note that I am not suggesting unreasonable categories, like

Left handed people killed in aviation accidents in even numbered years.

Let's work together. I seek the fair, reasonable, and logical solution, not fighting. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the only reason I noticed Category:Entertainers killed in airplane crashes is because you added it to Aaliyah. I found it redundant Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the Bahamas, where she was already categorized. Only after reviewing the contents of the category you created did I nominate it for deletion. I wasn't going through Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents to notice the other two you listed even existed, let alone go through the contents and consider nominating them for merging or deletion of any kind. — ξ ^xplicit 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to nominate state leaders and aviators to be deleted, I would consider that to be fair, not pointy. Those are occupations. However, in my opinion, people will look at the cat I created. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filmed_accidental_deaths

Please help with this. I am not trying to be pointy but just to identify one cat that I think should be deleted. I have never asked for a cat to be deleted. Note that I can be easily convinced to withdraw this nom because I lack experience in nomination. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the category was previously nominated for deletion, which resulted in no consensus. The discussion can be found here. — ξ ^xplicit 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I withdraw it? I will not do anything for this but it is a funny category, Category:Finnish people of Nigerian descent

How about Togolese people of Swiss descent? How about Malaysian people of Austrian descent? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination is entirely up to you. As for Category:Finnish people of Nigerian descent, this category is part of two well-established category trees: Category:Finnish people by ethnic or national origin and Category:People of Nigerian descent. Category:Togolese people of Swiss descent and Category:Malaysian people of Austrian descent don't exist, but would be part of the even bigger category tree Category:People by ethnic or national descent. — ξ ^xplicit 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of files

Hi. I noticed you just deleted the file Veronique_Chevalier.jpg. I created the Veronique Chevalier page, as well as a page for independent filmmaker John Soares. Each of them has sent in permission for their photographs to be used on their pages, over a month ago. John Soares sent his permission in three times now. Those images have still not been approved and keep getting taken down. I wrote to the permissions email addressed and asked why they had not been approved, and received no reply, not even a polite acknowledgment that they had received my inquiry. Do you have any idea what possible reason there could be for the delay? Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, OTRS has been backlogged for several months now, so the processing goes by slower than usual. However, the file I deleted, File:Veronique Chevalier.jpg, was licensed under a non-free license, which was deleted after seven days of not being used in any article. Were the emails you sent verify the images under a free license? — ξ ^xplicit 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Lehman photo

This conversation actually starts on my talk page, but with a different editor. So it is probably best to just continue here. This is regarding File:David Lehman photo 1996.jpg. I did do a search and there is no free photograph available. Also, there are actually a very limited number of photos available. Google images search here: [1] reveals no free images. (I think I knew this already).

Also, since this issue has come up, the policy stating that since a person is alive, non-free content is not to be used because obviously a free image will show up - is ludicrous. I don't see how this policy ever became accepted as consensus. My experience is that it is the exact opposite. Free photos show up much more often after the person has passed on, not the other way around. And it makes sense. If you don't know which policy statement I am refering to, I can search for it. It is a Wikipedia policy. Above is proof that there is no free image available. And that policy statement needs to be changed, and I will probably propose that it be changed, because it goes against the facts. (I just have to demonstrate it somehow). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy being the way it is, you should be more than aware that you should abide by it, especially such a strict and strongly enforced one. I don't exactly understand why you find it ludicrous to believe a free image of a living person is easier to come across than a free image of a dead one, as I view it in the exact opposite way. Flickr is much easier to utilize, as you're likely to find a free image there. Although there isn't one at the moment, you can always message the uploader and ask them to release one of their images under a free license. For example, these two would be worth trying. I'd applaud you if you're able to convince the community to make WP:NFCC less strict. — ξ ^xplicit 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the conversation after this one I wrote: Thank you. Now I understand. I think when I added the photograph to that article I was wondering if it would "fly". The original intent was to use this image only for this person's biography. Then I decided "what the heck", I will add it to the "book" article. In reality, the image of this person may have been off topic, although he was one of the notable editors of this book, and this series. I will look into this some more and see how much relevance this person has to this article. Thanks for your help in this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is ironic that I read and wrote that. In any case let me do more checking about this matter, because now I am confused as to what the issue is. It is interesting that your experience is the opposite of mine regarding pictures of living persons. At least, I will have to get off my soap box if I decide to gain consensus to change that policy :>) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, your original reply to the discussion below really had me confused after you moved comment to this section. I genuinely thought you were Skotywa (talk · contribs) for a good five minutes.

Anywho, I'm sure finding a free alternative will prove to be easier than you think. — ξ ^xplicit 07:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files for deletion

I'm trying to understand why File:Brodeurbook.jpg was deleted while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. The articles that they appear in give a nearly identical level of treatment to the books they're covering (not super in depth critical commentary, but commentary nonetheless). I expected these to go together (either both keep, or both delete). The fact that they went differently surprises me. If anything, I would have expected the reverse since File:Brodeurbook.jpg was used in a featured article while File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg was not. I'm new this files for deletion process, and frankly can't believe how it can supercede successful FA image reviews (where WP:FAR would be the appropriate place to bring issues up). I'm crossposting this comment on User talk:Fastily so we can all compare notes. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the latter of the two files was deleted Fastily, I can't speak on his behalf. You may be aware that the non-free content criteria is extremely strict in order to minimalize the use of non-free content, as Wikipedia does strive for the use of as much free content as possible. As such, the NFCC policy trumps most uses of non-free items, except for cases as outlined here. This cover was deleted on the grounds of WP:NFC#UUI, point nine: A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Because the book cover wasn't being discussed here—only the book itself was—it simply did not hold up against the policy. — ξ ^xplicit 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I had thought that by discussing the book itself it qualified as appropriate use under WP:NFCI#8. The book is probably not notable on it's own to have a separate article, but it is discussed in moderate detail in the article covering the person who's autobiography it was. If I'm reading this correctly, it would seem that WP:NFC#UUI point nine only applies in the absence of critical commentary. Am I misunderstanding something, or is it possible that a mistake has been made in deleting this image? --SkotyWA^T_C 07:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the end I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion about what exactly qualifies as "cricital commentary." I guess your decision to delete the picture implies that your opinion is that it didn't qualify. As I posted, I felt that it did meet the bar as "critical commentary" albeit limited. You're the admin though so I guess you get final say. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point eight of NFCI only applies to images with iconic status or historical importance. These types of images are usually licensed under {{Non-free historic image}}. This book cover was not and could not be tagged as such. As for point nine of NFC#UUI, the cover of the book must acquire sourced critical commentary in order to meet the criteria. The book is being discussed in the article, but not its covert art. I'm definitely not expressing my own opinion on the matter, otherwise I would not have been suitable for closing the discussion, I'm simply enforcing policy. If you believe I misinterpreted the discussion or the policy that led to the result of the discussion, you can initiate a discussion at deletion review. — ξ ^xplicit 07:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg as No Consensus simply because there was no consensus to delete the file. All the !votes were valid and in a 2/3 keep/delete ratio. That's my nonpartisan close of the discussion, nothing else. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, I'm terribly sorry, I pointed to the wrong place in WP:NFCI above. I didn't mean point 8, rather point 1 for the cover art. Specifically, it states Cover art... for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. Hopefully that makes my comments about "critical commentary" clearer. Do you believe that point 1 does not apply in this case? If so, I'd like to understand why? --SkotyWA^T_C 04:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how to explain it without sounding like a broken record. Simply put, if the image fails just one of the criteria of the non-free content policy, that alone is grounds for deletion. If the book itself had an article, then it would be no problem sticking the cover into the infobox of that article. — ξ ^xplicit 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm making you repeat yourself. I think I understand your view now. So the line you're drawing is that in order for a non-free cover art image of a book to be used, the book must have it's own article. I also believe I understand all of the points of WP:NFCC. For most non-free images, the hardest point to satisfy (in the eyes of reviewing editors) is #8 where it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic". Unless I've missed something (entirely possible), this is the only criteria that File:Brodeurbook.jpg possibly did not satisfy. However, WP:NFCI seems to be a list of obvious acceptable examples of NFCC#8. In NFCI#1 it does not state that a book having it's own article is necessary to include non-free cover art, just that critical commentary be presented on the book. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point eight of NFCC is definitely the most contentious criteria of them all, as it becomes a judgment call between individual editors and what they each see as contextual significance. From what I've seen and have been strictly enforcing for the past two years, non-free images like book covers, album covers, film posters, etc., need a significant reason to be included in an article which isn't about the book/album/film/whatever in order justify its use there. Editors need to demonstrate why the cover is significant when it's not the main or critical subject being discussed, and explain how the image illustrates what free text can't. The book itself can have all the critical commentary in the world, but if the book cover isn't being critically discussed, it isn't necessary in the article. — ξ ^xplicit 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're possibly mistaken. The cover itself is not critically discussed in any of these articles, but the non-free image of the cover nevertheless is used: Duncan Edwards, Ian Chappell, Nancy Drew, Mario Vargas Llosa, James Robert Baker, and Bruno Maddox. You could say that each of these are a violation of the policy (as you've interpreted it), but if that's the case, how did they all pass FAC review (yes, they're all currently FAs)? Again, I think you're understanding of policies you're "strictly enforcing" might be incorrect. Critical commentary of the book appears to be what's necessary for non-free cover art to be legitimately included, not commentary of the cover itself. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of articles that misuse book covers like the examples you've provided (holy crap, that Nancy Drew article is really overdoing it), but those articles are not the concern of the file I deleted. Anywho, to be fair, only one of the examples you listed was promoted to a featured article since 2009, while there is at least one that was promoted as early as 2006. Even if they did pass FAC, it doesn't necessarily mean the files are exempt from deletion, nor that they were review properly, if at all. The enforcement of NFCC is more aggressive today than it ever has been in the past. I can't say I enforce the policy when I don't come across these articles as I'm not aware how these files are being used, but I do if and when they cross my path. If you're wondering, I do plan to review these articles (possibly in several hours, it's 1 am here) and nominate the files necessary for deletion at WP:FFD. — ξ ^xplicit 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've begun to review and nominate for deletion the book covers that are used in these articles. I recognize that my bringing them up could be seen as a violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but since they are all featured articles (and not crap) I tend to believe that these don't apply (see the end of paragraph 3 of that policy also). I was bringing them up as an argument for consistency across the encyclopedia at the featured article level. Whether you were aware of that part of the policy or not, I am impressed that you are a man of your word and are following up on the examples I provided. For that I award you this barnstar:

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your diligence to consistently apply the non-free image policies of Wikipedia I award you this barnstar. I disagreed with your execution of the policy in one case and provided counter examples. Then, rather than sitting on your laurels, you stuck with your explanation and nominated most (all) of them for deletion as well. Your consistency has impressed me and so has your civil manner of communication. SkotyWA^T_C 03:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very interested in the details around any of the examples I provided that you decide not to nominate. Also, obviously if it turns out that the images you nominate for deletion are actually in line with policy, I expect that you'll likely be the first to want to revert the deletion of File:Brodeurbook.jpg. I'm not saying that will happen (it probably won't it seems), but if it did, I think I've seen enough from you now to know that you wouldn't let a mistake (if that's what it turns out to be) like this go unaddressed. You are a man of your word and while I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with you, your consistent and honorable application of policy deserves recognition. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar and the kind recognition, I really appreciate it. I don't think I finished reviewing all the articles as there are several things to do around here, it's a never-ending job.

I'll let you know if there are any images I don't take to FFD. — ξ ^xplicit 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

I am enquiring why you deleted this file when there was no clear consensus. I am requesting a deletion review in the meantime. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...No consensus? It was pretty clear that there was consensus to delete the file as it failed the non-free content criteria policy and there was a free alternative available. Without even an explanation—let alone a persuasive one—as to how the non-free file portrayed something the free image couldn't, the deleted file was a textbook violation of NFCC. — ξ ^xplicit 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YooHoo & Friends

Hello again -- I've been working with you in discussing the page I created, YooHoo & Friends. You had removed the article for further editing and moved to this spot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lambadical/YooHoo_%26_Friends. I've replaced some of the links you mentioned that caused notability issues (they were either dead, or links to press releases, not articles). Do you think the page is acceptable now since I'm linking to the industry feature articles that mention the facts contained within the wiki article? Thanks Lambadical (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It might be notable enough for inclusion, but the current wording of the subpage still needs some clean up, as it comes across as promotional; it seems more like it's trying to sell the product than it is trying to be a comprehensive article about the stuffed animals. — ξ ^xplicit 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I see where you are headed with the promotional tone, which was unintentional so I tried to do some editing and make it sound more comprehensive. Hopefully on the right track. Can you let me know? Thanks as always for your continued assistance. Lambadical (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of copy-editing, but there are some issues that need to be dealt with before it can get moved backed into the article namespace. The most severe issue is copyright. When reading it and looking through the sources, I've seen bits and of pieces of sentence copies directly off the references. Please be careful with the text, as it could run afoul of copyright violations. Secondly, some of the paragraphs seem to be missing inline citations. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and all claims should be verifiable through these citations. The writing could use some clean up as well; there's some single-sentence paragraphs that could use some expansion or could be merged with other paragraphs of related contents. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I'll get on it and let you know when I've addressed your concerns.Lambadical (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

If your unhappy about a license I released an image under, please contact me before deletion so I can review the license. Someone nominated almost every image I uploaded in what appears to be retaliation for opposing them in an AFD. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, I only deleted two files uploaded by you recently, one which you requested deletion of. That leaves File:Kennedy 2066744754 1393912e04 b.jpg, where you indicated the source being Flickr. It was licensed under CC-NC-ND on Flickr, so the file was eligible for speedy deletion immediately. The sculpture itself may be under the public domain, but the photograph itself is not. — ξ ^xplicit 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True dat

You're right, but I had to correct my mistake. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. These type of attempts to add a spouse field come all to often with married musicians. IPs never learn... — ξ ^xplicit 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a spouse myself, but my wife objected... Drmies (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian cities category

I've reopened the question of how to name the Romanian cities category here. Notifying you and other participants in the previous discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in cuba

Should be deleted as indicated by the lenghty discussion on the talk page where everyone says it should be deleted. As well as the copious amounts of propaganda such as "sources" like newsmax. As well as the lack of context and relying on extreme POV articles such as the economist as well as OR. As well as the authors misguided ideas of race and race relations in Latin America and how they differ significantly from the cultural attitudes of the USA. I would consider this article to lack context, content, and be an attack on living persons and entities.

Since you think it's find and dandy then I will improve it on my own. Thanks for the 5 seconds you took to check out the horrendous article that, if you read the talk page, clearly has a consensus that it should be deleted. General Choomin (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is "everyone", and where is this consensus you speak of? There was hardly any discussion to begin with. Even if there was, the page simply does not meet any of the speedy deletion criterion you tagged the page with, regardless of your view of the article. The proper venue to nominate the article for deletion is articles for deletion. If you're going to improve the article, I fail to understand why you nominated it for speedy deletion to begin with; that's the first thing to attempt before considering deletion. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not have the time nor the energy to edit such information and get into edit wars with such users who write such slanted and irredeemable pieces. Edit wars are stressful and I tend to not enjoy them. Seeing as how the people who expressed that it should be deleted span several years in how wrong the piece is. I assume that it is a consensus since the author nor anyone else for that matter has tried to address anyone on the talk page. The author, by his/her own choice to ignore the other wiki contributors to work out a compromise as well as an accurate article has thus forced a consensus by those members that are vocal on the subject.

I do not deny that their is forms of discrimination in Cuba nor any other country, but the author pointing out how Cuban identity contradicts race is absurd. Since identity determines those factors since they are all part of the same construct. To leave out that race is viewed much differently in Latin America then the USA is absurd. To judge such a society by the cultural lens of the United states and it's history on the topic is to warp Cuban society into something it is not.

The POV that is broken in that article would make any knowledgeable person dizzy. At least half of the sources can be seen as unreliable fringe POV such as the economist op-ed piece and newsmax. As well as a subscribers only economist article and a "citizens journalism" website which is a fancy term for a community of blogs. And for the rest... I guess you didn't check how much context they had when most of it was about Americans and how Americans apply their own perspective on Cuban society.

But I will only add those signs there. In which it declares how unfit the article is since editing one article that a person with an agenda wants to project as a reality to some sap gets me to much grief. I tried to edit other articles and explain why before I did in talk pages before and all I got was revert wars from people who watch over the articles like hawks and use bots for their reverting. Then getting suspended and/or threatened with a ban from other fellow admins.

Now I could trust you and I could make a decent (compared to the current one) article. Since I am the only one currently invested I would simply ask that you allow me to do so without the frustration of other users/bots/whatever trying to revert to this fantastically ignorant article. I would also ask you to let me take a hatchet to it before I start. That seems like a fair compromise to it's warranted deletion. General Choomin (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Alaska Pizza

Please allow the Great Alaska Pizza page to be posted. It cannot avoid the advertising bots, as it is designed to follow-up the list of franchises designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcwill85 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria for pages that are created solely for promotional or advertising purposes. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not vehicle for promotion and advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must receive significant coverage from reliable sources to assert notability and merit an article here. Please see the notability guideline for organizations and companies for further information. — ξ ^xplicit 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you replace this please?

File:Hkcolonyprocess-EN.png, the licensing status clearly said CCSA as the same license type on commons even if it didn't have the proper en-wikipedia template. Any meaningful look at the file would have noticed this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Done, my bad. I went ahead and adjusted the license. — ξ ^xplicit 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The Crossovers

Morning

Why did you delete this article ? You can find enought references on the web. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Greetings --130.120.37.11 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the page was deleted because another user proposed the deletion of the article for lacking to assert notability. Cameron Scott (talk · contribs) recently requested the contents to be moved into their userspace so he could work on the page, so I've restored the content here. — ξ ^xplicit 18:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much.--130.120.37.11 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About article Moon Letter

Hello,

First. Let me thank you for being so active in Wiki and correcting other contributers mistakes.

One article, you noticed, was unsuitable and got marked as "Non-notable newsletter" and deleted cause I did not have time to correct it. So now as you were the one who found it there is help needed. As I don't know where this article can retrieved so at least to post this to the organization webpage. You see, this article was made half-joke but all the info there was true. This link to Wiki was used on the newsletter, to show people who read this, as if the story of making it was more real. So now when writing another newsletter "Moon Letter" the link to Wiki cannot be used.

You probably know a lot more about Wiki, so perhaps you know those answers. Or you probably might even correct this article.

Please, if you have little time to help, just ignore this talk and continue what you consider important.

With humble respect,

Tarmo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanarebane (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not entirely finding it clear what is being asked. Is it that you would like help attempting to establish notability with the article (though, after a quick search, I don't think that's possible at this time), or just have the text retrieved for you? If it's the latter, I can email you a copy of the article at any time. — ξ ^xplicit 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 CENTRIFUGE SET.jpg

This is nommed for deletion on Commons as non-free but should be kept here as it has a fair-use rationale, pending the Commons outcome. If it is kept at Commons, it can be deleted here, but their deletion requests are slooooow. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. When I deleted, only a fair use rationale was present, while the actual description page was over at Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCI equipped Studiod.jpg

Could you please undelete this image? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — ξ ^xplicit 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry (again)

155.69.193.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is most certainly related to Drake&Ciara Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who in turn is a sock puppet of TremanShoe. Certainly the IPs edits and edit summaries show that he/she has a detailed understanding of wikipedia. Perhaps protection on such articles should be restored? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this one's tough. The IP is geolocated in Singapore, while TrEeMaNsHoE's IPs have always been geolocated in Michigan. Isn't our little socker also king of uncited information and original research? This edit made by the IP shows the opposite. Drake&Ciara Fan was certainly TrEeMaNsHoE, but I'm not entirely convinced the IP is. — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about PuI

This is re: your recent closing of Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_22#File:Jim_In_Miami_w-Hat.jpg. I should have self closed the discussion, my bad. You suggested making a nomination at IfD, however the first "note" at the discussion indicates Twinkle placed the discussion Pui so the discussion was moved to IfD. That discussion was closed on August 29/30. The image was tagged {{dfu}} on the same day/morning. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. When I see the note by AnomieBOT about the file being licensed as non-free, I automatically think "well, this file can no longer be deleted through this venue, time to close as procedural keep." Force of habit, I suppose. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into changing your closure due to the fact it is misleading - the images uploader is using your wording as a reference on how the image was not deleted (again) on the images talk page. See dif. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the wording my closure, hope it's better. — ξ ^xplicit 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang's picture

I stated that the Big Bang picture was created by me because I cropped the original picture. To be honest, I was unsure of what to upload it under, so I chose this one. However, if you do feel that it violates the copyright issues, then by all means remove it. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't take the picture, that means someone else did and they are the copyright holders. Unless the person released it under a free license, it is a copyright violation. Please see the copyrights page for further information. — ξ ^xplicit 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Miguel (singer)

On 6 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miguel (singer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F2 deletion of File:Porta Asinaria Facade from within the city walls.JPG

The file is on Commons. It looks perfect on my screen. I see no corruption. Why was it deleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The file was deleted under F2 because the actual file is on Commons. As such, these files should instead be categorized at Commons. The Commons cat template is in the category Category:Gates of Rome to direct users of the categorized images on Commons. This issue was discussed recently here, where consensus was to delete Commons files categorized here, as the effort is just being doubled otherwise. Hope this clears things up a bit. — ξ ^xplicit 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Explicit, The Utahraptor's sock has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for deleting my hidden subpage challenge. The Utahraptor's sock (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all.

— ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portlandia.jpg

Would you consider undeleting the file so we can use it as fair use? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, go for it. — ξ ^xplicit 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Artists

How do I go about verifying information about an artist? I'm trying to identify that Curren$y is not signed to Roc-A-Fella Records for the album, Pilot Talk. I have all my sources and evidence on the Curren$y as well as the Pilot Talk page but a particular user keeps altering my information to say Curren$y is under that label for the album. Is there a way you can help me far as restricting edits? Choppercity (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider contacting the user who keeps changing the information and point to the sources that state that the rapper isn't signed to Roc-A-Fella Records. If he continues, consider initiating a thread at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. — ξ ^xplicit 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W.B. Keckler deletion

hi--i didn't see the warning on this one so i missed the reason for deletion. if it was for notability i'd like another chance at supporting that; keckler's a Yale Younger Poet, Guggenheim fellow, etc etc; he's a pretty big deal in the small world of poetry...thanks. Chip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I deleted W.B. Keckler as it was a redirect page that redirected to W. B. Keckler, which was deleted by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) under the speedy deletion criteria for individuals who do not indicate the importance or significance. If the article meets the guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people—which would require the subject to be notable if multiple reliable sources exists—you are free to recreate the article. — ξ ^xplicit 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock alert!

^ The cheek actually made me laugh. I mean common adding 'is back' to the end of you're old user name! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least the socks are easier to identify this way. What's that Legolas? I can't hear you over your use of the #F8F8FF hex code, which happens to be part of my old userpage design.

— ξ ^xplicit 05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever film category recreation

Why exactly is DAD all of a sudden, the only James Bond movie out of how many there are so far to not have its own category!? I don't know whomever originally nominated the cat was thinking (by not taking that major tidbit into account). So save you're lecturing before taking the rest of the cats into account! Basically, it seemed like it was put up for deletion mainly for the sake of it including various locations like the Las Vegas Strip. TMC1982 (talk) 12:47 a.m., 8 September 2010 (UTC)