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, 53

On another subject...

Univision-based photo gallery sales claims aside, I noticed this today and wondered what you thought of it? Obviously not a real article or work in progress. Lots of wikilinks to legit articles also. I see this as a violation of WP:UPNOT and a candidate for WP:MfD but don't want to dump too much on this guy at once; he seems to have a long-standing problem with sources and sales inflation — I don't know if its a lack of understanding or a lack of caring. A gentle reminder that this kind of thing is greatly discouraged, or a waste of time to even bring it up? - eo (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely crosses into the WP:FAKEARTICLE territory, but it might be worth notifying OneInAMillion96 that it's not allowed, as he/she may not be aware that it's an issue. Album sales inflation isn't the only thing I've had to deal with [1], and their talk page full of warnings shows it's a recurring problem. — ξ ^xplicit 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your note at User talk:WindowsNT4.0#Your user subpages and for your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards. User:Uchiha23/Awards was one of the pages tagged for deletion at the MfD, so would you delete it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I don't know how I missed the main page nominated! Thanks for letting me know. — ξ ^xplicit 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu

Maybe I'm off-base here but this certainly reminds me of this... or maybe it's this? I'm *this close* to taking it to CheckUser. Opinion? - eo (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one's tricky. TrEeMaNsHoE's and CiaraFan4Ever's edits are so similar and the articles they edit often overlap. Actually, I just noticed EastBay16 created their userpage, something TrEeMaNsHoE has never done, so I'm inclined to say this is CiaraFan4Ever. — ξ ^xplicit 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly 5.0

The MTV sources in the article describe Suit and Sweat as different versions of the same album and clearly state that Nelly 5.0 is his fifth album hence the title. Do we not count that as important? or is it because Suit and Sweat had different track listings that we count them as seperate releases? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd. I changed it to sixth studio album due to Brass Knuckles being labeled his fifth. From what I remember, Sweat and Suit were completely different albums—which Nelly emphasized this at the time of its release—and the track listings show that. I don't understand why MTV would call it different versions of the same album, as that's not the case. — ξ ^xplicit 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the MTV articles it says: Both songs were recently serviced to radio and will appear on the St. Louis rapper's forthcoming LP, 5.0, due to arrive November 16. Dropping dual singles is similar to the way Nelly introduced one of his past projects, 2004's Sweat and Suit. Of course, 5.0 is just one album, the rapper's fifth overall and his first since 2008's Brass Knuckles. [2]. Also rap-up and Mtv referr to the album as simple 5.0. I've been trying to find reliable sources but being hip-hop there is always some degree of ambiguity. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the while, Billboard refers to it as his sixth: While Nelly was disappointed by the "Brass" outcome, he used it as motivation for his upcoming sixth album. [3]. The MTV article refers Sweat and Suit two different albums : The two albums were released on the same day, but with different themes... If anything, the writer of the MTV article needs to learn some basic counting. — ξ ^xplicit 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Guess so. Although I guess Nelly deciding to call his sixth album 5.0 doesn't help LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't even cross my mind! Maybe he's foretelling the ratings of his album. Out of ten, of course.

— ξ ^xplicit 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! It sounds like it might be a decent record *smiles*. LOL Btw... I cant believe the latest TremanShoe sock denounced the results of the check user.... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's TMS for you, always denying the obvious. He's not very good at it, either. "Yes, It was confirmed by a check user, but I am asking for my request reason to be reviewed. Again: I was recently accused of sockpuppeting for user TrEeMaNsHoE. However, I am not him." That's not going to get him very far. — ξ ^xplicit 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you change the identity of the maker of an edit in the history? In other words, my account apparently logged out without my realization and now I have an IP edit immediately preceding my edit changing it back to my username. CycloneGU (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible, I'm afraid. However, I can hide the IP address from the revision if you would like your IP to remain unknown, just point me to the diff. — ξ ^xplicit 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a good idea? It's Jimbo's talk page, I just edited right before messaging you. And besides, will having my IP on there be a cause for danger? Never been IP hacked before. (I should know these things, I claim to be a computeraholic. *LOL*) CycloneGU (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose not to have your IP revealed, it can be hidden from the public view at your choice. I, personally, don't have anything to worry about should I edit while logged out, but everyone sees in differently. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is because multiple computers use the Internet here. *LOL* And it's a single IP thing. I expect to move sometime in the near future, so it probably won't matter. How would the edit show in the history if you hide the IP? CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would look a little something like this, third diff down. The IP you edited from has only made that single edit, so it shouldn't be a problem. — ξ ^xplicit 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a little blatant, and it would suggest I have something to hide.

Further, I am seen in the following edit editing the IP and replacing with my username, so not much point to hiding it. *LOL* I guess we'll leave it alone, it'll disappear down the edit history soon enough. CycloneGU (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajona1992

Can you personally deal with the matter, you got my support, and SandyGeorgia's support as well for a block (I prefer indef) Secret ^account 03:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a strong warning, so I'll work with Ajona if anything I'll just go back to AN/I and let an uninvolved adminstrator do a block. Secret ^account 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking him myself isn't the greatest idea. I've been engaged with too often with this user to not claim a huge WP:COI on my part as I'd see it more fit to ban him across all projects, as the problems stem into other Wikis and Commons. Good luck with trying to work with him, though I personally see it as a waste of time. — ξ ^xplicit 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illayaraja Photo Deleted

Hi,

I went your reasons for deleting the photo. I accept it. Firstly I am new to wiki. What I beleive is especially for articles thats been rated as good, should have a photo there.

Since Ilaiyaraaja article is rated as good, it should have one at introduction. I know wiki policy. This I am saying as a consideration that guys like you,administraters,reviewer etc., who have power can see and discuss.

Till the time you guys receive a Licensed free,copyrighted image you can actually allow anyone who submits the file with meeting other image media policy, like: rationale use - Fair image use as- news paper, articles, magazine etc., This makes more sense.

I am not totally against your decision in deleting the image file, but again it would be more proper to let the image stay there until someone uploads a image with full license free copyrighted image as you expect.

Example : You allow 2 full days for the image to stay there checking the replaceability. Instead you can allow till you receive a copyrighted license free image from anyone. Once you receive those you can immediately delete as you wish.

Because articles of such importance should not be like: a bread without a jam. Photo brings a more life into an article in wiki

Please do re-consider in this. I do repect all wiki rules and policies.

Many thanks,

Keyan20 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the policy works. As the individual is still a living person, a picture can be created, which makes all non-free images of him fail WP:NFCC#1. There's no way around it at this time. — ξ ^xplicit 07:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Harry Brown

Thanks for fixing the C&P. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all.

— ξ ^xplicit 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI: AJona1992

Hi, I've made a proposal (and comments) on [[User:AJona1992|AJona1992's] ANI. If you have time and wish to revisit the ANI to help with it, I'd appreciate it; regardless of whether you support my proposal or not (your feedback is greatly appreciated either way). Best, Robert (ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of Spitznagel_in_WSJ.JPG

Why did you delete "Spitznagel_in_WSJ.JPG"?? I sent an email on 9/16 to permissions-en@wikimedia.org clearly stating that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image file and that I agree to publish this 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). (FYI, it was photographed by Susan Hall, whom The Wall Street Journal repeatedly credits for the photo, and from whom I acquired the copyright for my rather large library.) I further acknowledged 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 following the rules to the letter. So what happened? Please verify my email and statement, and then please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lprideux (talk • contribs) 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like th efile has been restored and OTRS is currently reviewing the ticket. — ξ ^xplicit 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Animal (Kesha album)/GA2

Delete please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — ξ ^xplicit 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Broussard Photo

Hello,

The photo of Tess Broussard was removed yesterday. the file was initially posted with incorrect copyright and license information. I corrected this and sent a proper email to the permissions link yet the photo was removed anyway. is there a way to retrieve the photo. i'd be happy to resend the email with the necessary copyright and license info. Please let me know.

thanks.

Dk4wiki (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it seems that OTRS still hasn't gotten to your email, I suppose. At this point, it's best to wait until they receive the confirmation in order to restore the file. — ξ ^xplicit 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you. How will I know when they've gotten to it? will they notify you to restore the file?

I appreciate your help.

Dk4wiki (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it about a week. If you haven't heard back from them, then shooting them another email never hurt. — ξ ^xplicit 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena

I didn't break 3rr, I thought I originally broke it but I too busy reverting and doing classwork at the same time so I forgot the 3RR rules, but I was just reverting Ajona edits which was vandalism at times look at the article history closer, and read his statements. 3RR doesn't include vandalism or edits that clearly fail WP:V (one of the statements I reverted was 100 million people attended her funeral, another one was that she sold 200 million records) I stopped after 4 reverts, and asked for page protection to stop Ajona. As a music editor which of course watchlisted the page, and dealt with AJona nonsense, you should have seen the history closely. Secret ^account 16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you didn't break 3RR, but at the same time you say you stopped after four reverts; quite the contradiction. I count one, two, three, four reverts. His edits and your reverts are not exempt from 3RR. Plus, I'm well aware of the situation with AJona1992. — ξ ^xplicit 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at revert three closer, and tell me if that's not vandalism the 100 million people one, and revert one is well in the grey as well. Secret ^account 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll agree that I had to revert to protect the featured status of the article, and I was working with Ajona, not reverting all his edits, but book sourcing them. Secret ^account 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot talk

Arrgh - I thought that had been protected ages ago because of the same problem - thanks for double checking that.Skier Dude (talk 05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:1950 Kings Heralds Quartet California.jpg

Hi, you removed a {{di-no permission}} tag from an image that was set to be deleted yesterday stating "files under a non-free license don't require permission" in the summary. The uploader claimed {{pd-self}} and stated "I scanned this promotional photo of my grandfather which has been in my family's possession for over 50 years". I first tagged with the {{di-no permission}} stating the source as "It is sourced to a scanned promotional photo from 1950." This tag was correct based on the uploaders license, who never claimed fair use. But to be fair you most likely never looked over the history and missed the old tags and only saw the "corrected" license information that I placed on it after tagging the image {{di-no permission}}. The {{non-free promotional}} tag replaced the original {{pd-self}} tag and, more importantly, the {{wrong-license}} tag that was placed on the image by BirgitteSB on October 29, 2008. Had I not noticed that tag I would not have gone back and "corrected" the uploaders license. It also appears this image was sent to PUI on April 2, 2009 however the {{pui}} tag was removed November 2, 2009 as "obsolete pui (never listed?)". Seems the image has been holding on for over a year so in the long run another week may not matter. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that the file was originally tagged with {{PD-self}}, which you yourself change when tagging it for deletion. However, because you used the <nowiki></nowiki> tags and added a non-free license, it simply was not eligible for deletion under F11 at that point. — ξ ^xplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it first, than went back and made the correction per the {{wrong-license}} tag. I could always revert my edit it so it could be seen as "eligible for deletion under F11" and thusly you could revert your edit and delete the file. (Joke). Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

photo File:Medicine story.jpg

Hi, you Deleted a photo because "F11: No evidence of permission". I thought I had this right. I contacted the subject of the photo. I revived permission to use the photo. He has serial reproduction permission. Do I need to have the subject find, contact and request permission from the photographer also ? Thanks. Slowart (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the photographer is the copyright holder of the image and that individual is the only person allowed to release it under a free license. If they do release it under a free license, you can forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, where they will restore the image once permission has been verified. — ξ ^xplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Broussard Photo

Hello,

I received this email from permissions.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tess_Broussard_2010.jpg

We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s).

Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, Fae Styles

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

It seems the photo is now correctly documented. what is the next step to getting it back from deletion?

thanks.

Dk4wiki (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file has now been restored by another admin and has been properly tagged with the OTRS ticket. Everything seems fine.

— ξ ^xplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, thank you.

Dk4wiki (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New question.

I was looking through the article on Tess Broussard and saw that the "personal life" section was removed. I don't believe it should have been removed. it was correctly referenced. And I'm not exactly sure who removed it?

I'd like to put it back but thought I would discuss it with you first.

Thank you for taking the time.

Dk4wiki (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The personal life section was removed in this edit by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs). From what I can tell, it seems that the sources you used seem to be unreliable gossip or tabloid websites. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz may have a more detailed explanation (wrestling isn't my subject of interest), you should consider contacting this user. — ξ ^xplicit 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you. Much Appreciated.

Dk4wiki (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted

Hi,

File:Kumble-last-match.jpg; File:Pattambal-honored-Sangeetha Sagara Ratna.jpg; File:Sehwag-at-chennai-test.jpg ; File:MS-dhoni.jpg

These images have been deleted. I do not know why? First the kumble last played was 2 years old. How can there be a image found without these newspaper articles. I do not know the reason.

Second Pattambal is an very very old image so that no way possible to produce without these news paper cuttings. Almost 9 years.

Thirdly Sehwag it is also the same as kumble. So are you guys waiting for someone to upload it here. no way free - licensed image can be found on those. You too know that.

Last, Dhoni. - the same.

I have explained clearly the reasons before making a decision. Would appreciate If you go through with it.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Every single one of those images failed the first point of our non-free content criteria. Three of the four files were images of living people and, unless these images were subject to sourced critically sourced commentary (which they weren't) that text alone could not describe, were deleted per the policy. As for File:Pattambal-honored-Sangeetha Sagara Ratna.jpg, Pattammal may very well have passed away last year, but there is a free image (File:DKPattammal-DKJayaraman-young.jpg), which results in any non-free image of her violate the policy once again. — ξ ^xplicit 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzky?

Is LONGGONEGONE a sock of Pretzky? Saw him pop up at Nelly 5.0. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's him alright. Blocked and tagged. — ξ ^xplicit 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fred tompkins.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) 10:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — ξ ^xplicit 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added the OTRS tag. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giant's Causeway

Hi Explicit, Can you tell me when the Giant's Causway page will be unlocked. Although there are claims of sockpuppetry, the edits made by the sock puppet were correct. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were made by a sock puppet of yours Factocop... --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Explicit. All fixed.Factocop (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit, can you block O Fenian for edit-warring on the Giant's Causeway wp. He has made several edits which can only be described as terrorism.Factocop (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sockpuppets, they are too fun. — ξ ^xplicit 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

169.204.230.154

FYI, IP user 169.204.230.154 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked a couple days ago, is now unblocked and resuming vandalism. TJRC (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One edit, one warning, not blockable just yet. Should the IP resume vandalizing, consider reporting it to WP:AIV, just in case I'm not around. — ξ ^xplicit 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miles Martinet.jpg

I think you missed my comment at PUF regarding the above file. Who else but the RAF were taking in flight pictures of British prototype aircraft in 1942? The Luftwaffe? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. The next image you deleted, the Hastings, has also been living happily on Commons since 2006 tagged as government work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened. I was already making my way down the page and deleting files, while you commented during this period. I never saw your comments, just your luck.

I've restored one file, though I don't see the point in restoring the other if it's already on Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding the Commons one I agree. Definitely not worth restoring. But not worth nominating either since it could have been speedied. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I went ahead and tagged the restored file with {{MTC}}. Hope I didn't cause too much trouble. Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the CCF Prod

I think some time back I might have been the creator of that article, but looking at it today I agree with you that it didn't meet the GNG. Good call. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go on a search to figure what the hell you were talking about.

Campaign for Children and Families was actually created by Tim Long (talk · contribs), but you did do some cleanup, while Tracer9999 (talk · contribs) prodded it. I was just the deleting admin.

— ξ ^xplicit 18:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on speedy deletion of Belgrave (band)

A discussion on the notability of the band Belgrave has been started at User talk:Blanchardb. I think it's only proper that you offer your two cents in as well given that you deleted the page. I'm arguing for the reinstatement of the page and want use the proper channels to verify the band's notability. Thanks for the help. Trapper (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, huh? Belgrave (band) was deleted by SatyrTN (talk · contribs). — ξ ^xplicit 21:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh yup. Sorry about that. Not sure how I ended up here. Trapper (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catmore

See Template talk:Catmore#Rename this template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesans and prostitutes

Yea, you approved this as a split. I took a quick look and wonder what we do with mistresses? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they go in with Category:Courtesans? Unless a split into Category:Paramours is sought or warranted. — ξ ^xplicit 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that and see if anyone objects. Probably the same for lovers. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Explicit. You have new messages at Rambo's Revenge's talk page.
Message added 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) by Rambo's Revenge (talk). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aaliyah

sorry for those websites, I did not know.--ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text was a direct copy from the Aaliyah article. Please be more investigative next time. — ξ ^xplicit 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

Could you please fill me in on the context of your conclusion of the {{cfd}} of Category:Cause of death disputed?

I became aware of the {{cfd}} when I saw the category get removed from some articles on my watchlist where there was no question whatsoever that it could be clearly documented that the cause of death was disputed.

After reading the nominator's rationale it seems to me that their objection could best have been addressed by work to make the category's criteria clearer, rather than by deleting the category.

I'd like to know how many articles were in the category. Is this something you are in a position to tell me? If so I would appreciate knowing.

If I continue to have concerns with this deletion, is the appropriate channel essentially the same as expressing concern over the deletion of an article? Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the discussion goes, I closed it as delete as the delete arguments were based on policy—specifically, WP:NPOV. The articles that Cydebot removed from the category can be found here in its contributions, around the middle. I'd estimate maybe 300 articles that were effected, give or take a few. If you still have concerns of the result of the discussion, there's always deletion review. — ξ ^xplicit 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

category:anti-Islam activists

Can you restore category:anti-Islam activists? The previous discussions should have been looked at, but this was not done. Category based on activism and not just on opinion is okay, as per categorization guidelines. There is a clear need for a category like this for people like Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller, and Robert_Spencer_(author), so deleting it without providing an alternative is a bad thing for Wikipedia. I thkink it is better than category:opponents of Islam Andries (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here the previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_30#Category:Anti-Islam_activists Andries (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me to ignore consensus and restore the category based on a discussion that resulted in no consensus which took place over two years ago, then no, I can't restore the category. — ξ ^xplicit 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I will go to deletion review. The main arguments in the deletion were

1. that people in the category were there who do not belong there.

2. that categorization based on opinion is not okay.

ad 1. Then remove those people and use the category correctly. It is like saying that an article is bad and hence should be deleted.

ad 2. This is not categorization of people on opinion but activism which is explictly allowed in the categorization guidelines and some examples exist see e.g. Category:Anti-cult_organizations_and_individuals. Andries (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when deleting...

Please check where a file is used. This has been red since July and I only discovered it by chance. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keithley Instruments

Hi, According to the history page the Keithley Instruments page was deleted due to its not being a company of note. Keithley is a large, publicly held company here in Cleveland, Ohio that was just sold for 300 million. I was going to update the page with this new information and found the page missing. The company was sold yesterday for 300 million. Here is a link to that story. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/09/keithley_instruments_sold_for.html I would like to start to get new information on this company added, can we get that page restored so I can update.Knowing wikipedia users, of which I am one, they will be trying to use this for information in this situation, I would like the page to be accurate. Here is their Yahoo finance page. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KEI

Is there any possibility someone maliciously removed the page. It's hard to believe a 300 million dollar, publically traded company was considered not of note.

Below is what I posted to the Keithley talk page.

Keithley Instruments is a major corporation and an industry leader. I am a business writer from Cleveland Ohio and they are one of the organizations I am able to discuss. Here are some highlights of the organization, Founded in 1946

Publicly traded on NYSE

Sales of $120 million

Employs more than 500+

Holder of 20 R & D 100 awards from R & D Magazine, presented annually to the 100 most significant new products introduced that year

Hundreds of patents - I can itemize these if needed. They are clearly an industry leader. I am not employed by the firm and have no interest but I do write about Cleveland companies and test and measurement organizations. Can we get this article restored. I did not write the original but would be happy to rewrite it, assuming we can recover, and ensure it does not have a marketing or promotional tone. Bctwriter(talk) 01:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

editor response----

The place to review deletions is WP:DRV. Can you find links to sources for the awards? Those would help to establish the notability of the company. Will Beback talk 01:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

end editor response----

Hi Will, I am working on sourcing those awards but the company was sold yesterday for 300 million. Here is a link to that story.http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/09/keithley_instruments_sold_for.html I would like to start to get new information on this company added, can we petition to get that page restored so we can update. I am a bit unfamiliar with getting a page restored but knowing wikipedia users, of which I am one, will be trying to use this for information in this situation, I would like the page to be accurate. Here is their Yahoo finance page. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KEI

Is there any possibility someone maliciously removed the page. It's hard to believe a 300 million dollar, publically traded company was considered not of note.

Appreciate all your help, Bctwriter (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) End of what I posted elsewhere ______________ I really want to be able to contribute effectively; please let me know what I can do to get this restored. BTW, I was not the original author of the page.

Thanks, Bctwriter (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can restore the article at your request, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's cleared from deletion. It can still be nominated at the articles for deletion venue. — ξ ^xplicit 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if we can restore that I will make addressing its shortcomings my top priority. I did not write the original page so am unfamiliar with its content but will aggressively address bringing it up to Wikipedia standards. I understand the non-promotional tone and I will make sure we have appropriate citations.

Thanks, Bctwriter (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the article has been restored. — ξ ^xplicit 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, maybe? Please, help.

Hello, I was wandering if you could help me. I'm having an issue with a user User talk:CloudKade11. I have had editing issues with the user in the past, but the user has always backed down on matters or we've come to a compramise (if I didn't, he'd just continue to revert). Recently he inflated TV ratings to 90210 (season 3). I reverted back and posted on his talk page, why I did it (in a nice way, of course). Then the user made the same edit again a few days later, so my second post was slightly more aggressive. Next, the user keeps removing a statement from the Gossip Girl (TV series) page. First, the user said the source was invalid, which isn't true so I reverted. Then the user removed it again stating "doesn't belong here" (obviously in more colourful terms if you look at edit history). To me, removing content from a page without a valid reason is vandalism. His edit summary would have been okay if he actually moved the material, instead of just deleting it. Every time he reverts he says "I'm going to report you" or something similar. The user now makes no effort to negotiate or discuss edits, just replies in rude ways. I have posted at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. But I don't think it's the right place because only 3 of his edits (I know of) to pages have been vandalism. I want the issues of not wanted to discuss anything cleared up. Can you help? It would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on CloudKade11's talk page, please continue the discussion there. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 22:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. I just didn't know if you had watch-listed his page, so letting you know. Jayy008 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I have it watchlisted. — ξ ^xplicit 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question regarding general matters, where will I go if things like this don't succeed and a user continues to just "remove things" because they want to do? Jayy008 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you've attempted to discuss the issue with the user and have warned them not to continue removing content without valid reasoning, initiating a thread at WP:ANI can help. — ξ ^xplicit 22:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand. Thank you for all your help, as always. I will try not to bother you in future for tedious issues, I just hope other users learn to discuss things. Jayy008 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge

Hi. I reconsidered the upmerge and withdrew it. Thanks for your input. Like I stated therein "it seemed like a good idea at the time"!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey, I went ahead and closed the discussion. — ξ ^xplicit 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT and Chinese/Korean names

I've undone a number of your incorrect recent edits to DEFAULTSORT tags in Korean biographical articles. A rule of thumb you can use going forward: the single-syllable one is the family name (and thus comes first in the default sort). E.g. in Jeon Tae-il, JEON is the surname. See Korean name for further information. Thanks, cab (call) 03:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, my bad. I wasn't aware that. So, what if the name isn't single-syllable? And names like Chang Young Hee? — ξ ^xplicit 03:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has a {{Korean name}} tag at the top, it will list the family name there. If it has a {{Infobox Korean name}}, then the first syllable in the romanisation box is the family (spelling may differ slightly, e.g. Chun/Jeon/Jun). As a last resort if the above rules fail you: "hee" is almost never a surname, but is found quite commonly in given names (e.g. PARK Chung-hee, LEE Kun-hee, KIM Tae-hee). Feel free to ask at WT:KOREA if you need any further clarification. Cheers, cab (call) 03:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the information. I'll keep this in mind and try to go messing things up again.

— ξ ^xplicit 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear explicit

Its time for me to say bye bye. I dont know whether I will be coming back. It was wonderful to know you and learned a lot from you regarding WP policies (especially ones which were too boring). Thanks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be dropping like flies lately. I hope you enjoy your time away from Wikipedia. Should you not return, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Thank you for your great content building, the Madonna and Lady Gaga articles would be total crap without you. — ξ ^xplicit 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tony Christiansen - Inspirational Speaker @ Surf Lifesaver.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) 12:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to have the ability to restore files.

— ξ ^xplicit 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks. And second, yes I know it would be nice for me to be able to do this for myself - I'm sure it won't be too long before I try to run the gauntlet. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY APOLOGIES

I DO STRONGLY APOLOGISE FOR ANY INCONVINIENCE I CAUSED YOU, sorry i left caps lock on, cant start a sentence without a capital letter and, well i forgot to turn of caps lock, aaannyyywhoooo, ACTUALLY I LIKE THE CAPS LOCK, IT MAKES MY APOLOGY LOOK MORE SINCERE, on the other hand it annoys me a little, MEH, IM USING IT ANYWAY, I AM VERY SORRY ABOUT ANY OFFENCE I CAUSED BY EDITING YOUR PAGE, REGARDS, DEGGERMEISTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deggermiester (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a category

Hello... You recently posted at CFD to have Category:People from an unknown place of birth in Indiana nomination. I am the category creator and was not notified of the decision. it took hours to sort that category and now they are all merged back in with others. The category you merged into was designated as a top level category and not to contain articles. WikiProject Indiana sorts the people based on their county or city of birth or residence. If that location is unknown, they were put into that category. The main point is, alot of people outside our project throw people into the People From Indiana category and we difuse it and move them to the appropriate sub category. Now, with all these individuals moved back into that top category, diffusion becomes impossible because there are people listed there whose county or city of birth or residence are not recorded in the article. Is it possible to undo the category deletion, perhaps using a different name. I guess what I am getting at, is the people in that category are not obviously from Indiana other than the fact someone put them there. So better to remove them from the category then move them back to People From Indiana. I also note that this rationale and an attempt at discussion was made by myself at the People from Indiana category, which you may not have seen when you proposed the category for deletion. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. First, it's unfortunate that you did not receive a notice of the category's nomination—I'm going to have to bring this issue up at WT:CFD, as this problem seems to be occurring more and more. Also, I didn't nominate the category for deletion, I closed the discussion after reviewing it. As for the category itself, I can't overturn the consensus and restore the category, as there was no other way the discussion would have resulted other than merging it into Category:People from Indiana. If you have other means of categorizing these individuals, I would suggest bringing it up at WP:INDIANA or WP:NCCAT first before doing any work. For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong categorizing people in the general People from Indiana category, as that's where people are usually categorized until the county or city the person is from is known. — ξ ^xplicit 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]