User talk:Explicit

Deletions of files without a license

Hi!

I noticed that you deleted a lot of files because they had no license. As you can see from the top of the category for January 6 there is a notice on the top asking admins to check files before they delete them and telling that there is a lot of old files that has been tagged so they should be carefull. Same note was on the category for January 5.

There is a discussion here that I hope you would like to comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG. This user has tagged hundreds of files and it has been said that many of them should not have been tagged with a CSD. You have deleted a lot of the files this user tagged so perhaps you could leave a note on the discussion telling if you found a lot of mistakes or if they all looked ok?

Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I went ahead and left a comment on the RFC's talk page—hopefully that's where belongs. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. — ξ^xplicit 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that the user makes to many mistakes. Therefore we should be careful before we delete files tagged by him. I spend about 4 hours yesterday checking 200 files without a license and I found 20 that was mistagged. I must say I'm a little surprised that it takes me 4 hours to check 200 files and you can check something like 50 in one minute!

Are you sure that you remember to

• Check the text on the file page to see if there is a license?
• Check the file history to see if some vandal has removed a valid license?
• Check links to see if source mention a usable license?
• Check the file if you can add a valid license yourself (like a PD-ineligible or PD-US<whatever>)?
• Check if uploader was informed about the missing license?

Not just for one file but for every single file before you delete it? --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It actually took my at least half an hour to check the files of just one category, every single one of them. This is probably why not many admins like working int he area, it's a daily tedious task. My edits to these files [1] [2] [3], where the license was written in text rather than utilizing a template, hopefully show that I do check every file. I also check to see the possibility of some sort of PD status, as seen here. I found that many these files were left unlicensed for over a year, even more in some cases. File:Dock background.png is an example of one. These edits [4] [5] [6] also show that I check if files are actually still orphaned. At the rate I delete files using batch deletion, I understand that it may seem like I just delete them on the spot, but I'm far more careful than that! I guess my speed has increased since I've been doing thing nearly everyday for over a year. — ξ^xplicit 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for your answer. I hope you were able to do it so fast because I have fixed some of the hard ones ;-) Better that than it is just me being slow :-D --MGA73 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums

The nominator agreed to withdraw the CFD so I could depopulate the category and tag it for C1, which I've done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The category has been deleted by another administrator, though I fixed your closure, as the {{cfd top}} template goes below the header at CFD. — ξ^xplicit 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:M&Ms-Flavor-Varieties.jpg

With respect, it isn't complex at all. This is a user created montage of 9 different copyrighted images. This is discouraged by WP:NFC, and even if we did allow it it would require 9 rationales for every use. We routinely delete all sorts of user created montages like this one. This is the first I've ever seen such a deletion not honored. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the montage statement at WP:NFC is only briefly mentioned on WP:NFLISTS: "such as a... montage... [is] strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly." I suppose this can be applied more broadly, and I think this may probably worth bringing up at NFC. — ξ^xplicit 23:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Explicit. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patriarchal School

I am looking to create a short article on the subject and was hoping to get a look at the previous article to hope this one does not follow in it footsteps and get deleted as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. There actually wasn't any content created. Patriarchal School was originally created as a redirect to Halki seminary, but the author tagged it for speedy deletion a minute later. Nothing else, I'm afraid. — ξ^xplicit 00:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK good to know thanks. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg

Hi, I would like to add this graphic again to the page. The original hand graphic (author unknown) was placed on a public walkway and I took the photo. I though I had correctly labeled the file for publication. Please advise. Thank you.joeu (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

01:30, 8 August 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg" ‎ (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 25#File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg)

Hey there. The file was deleted because you added a free license to the image. In this discussion, the conclusion was that, because the author was unknown, it could not be licensed freely. As such, the file was deleted as it likely infringed the copyright of the original artist. — ξ^xplicit 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops

I just heard Justin Bieber was dead. Sorry about that... Tnd900 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, he's still alive. If you've seen anything about "RIP Justin Bieber" lately (most likely from Twitter), it refers to his character in CSI. — ξ^xplicit 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Marakkar-Navy

I see this in the deletion log, (Deletion log); 22:51 . . Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Marakkar-Navy.JPG" (F2: Corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons)

But the pic is there and its not an empty/corrupt file. Can you clear my confusion? NMKuttiady (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "or a file description page for a file on Commons" explains this case. Files hosted on Commons should be categorized there and not here on Wikipedia. Otherwise, categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2 as a description page on Commons. This is why several image categories or just regularly plain categories link to a category on Commons; in this case, that would be Category:History of Kerala|. There are exceptions, like files with featured pictures or featured sounds templates, but in most cases, these types of pages are eligible for deletion under the aforementioned criteria. Hope that clears things up. — ξ^xplicit 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Assassinations inspired by relegion

Hi,

you deleted Category:Assassinations inspired by relegion earlier. I just wanted to let you know, that it is still listed under Subcategories in Category:Assassinations. Cheers, --78.53.32.190 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Category:Assassinations inspired by religion, right? There deleted category has a misspelling, while the other doesn't, which is why it's still listed as a subcategory. In any case, Category:Assassinations inspired by religion is currently nominated for deletion. — ξ^xplicit 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Explicit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Musashi69 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Received and replied. — ξ^xplicit 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:PMC logo.png

I can't make sense of your decline here. This is a non-free image (ie. it has a copyright not held by the uploader), yet your decline was "Declined speedy; non-free files can't be copyright violations." Can you clarify? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's a non-free image. A non-free image indicates that the file is legally copyrighted, but is being used in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. A file is deleted as a copyright violation when the uploader claims that the image is available under a free license, but said image is fully copyrighted. Deletion of this file as a copyright violation simply does not make sense.

On an unrelated note, there is a coding error in your signature; the red font bleeds onto everything else. Please add the closing </font> tag to the very end of your signature preferences. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure the image doesn't follow our guidelines. They literally just downloaded the image from the company's website and uploaded it to Wikipedia, full resolution. So, maybe it's a different deletion rationale.

As for the sig, it shouldn't have any red text at all. Not sure what caused that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it could violate any guideline or policy. Where else would the logo come from? The resolution is actually well within the recommended resolution for a non-free file. — ξ^xplicit 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hamrlik

I gave you the source of where I got it from and you still deleted it, Seriously, guys, you poke into everything. Jerks. --Nhlrules 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlrules (talk • contribs)

To start things off, let's remember to remain civil. Jumping to conclusions and name-calling won't lead to anything productive. As for File:Martin Hamrlik.jpg, which I'm assuming you're talking about, yes, you provided a source. What you failed to provide was the license tag that must accompany each and every single file. My deletion rationale states this. — ξ^xplicit 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rand Schulman

Hi, my name is Erik and I was told to see you by the folks on the live chat (Mr_R00t).

I am trying to reinstate a deletion that occurred of regarding an entry/article about Rand Schulman, a well-known web analytics and online marketing pioneer. Apparently the admin who deleted it (jos@wikipedia/fox) is no longer with Wikipedia.

Can you help? I am wondering if it can be reinstated with modifications, or if we should just start a new submission. There are plenty of references and material to back up Schulman's Wiki eligibility.

Thank you very much in advance, Erik Bratt.

Erikbratt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to update the article to reflect the modifications you made or will make to meet the notability guideline and verifiability policy. Thanks! — ξ^xplicit 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:OrelekZygmuntaS.jpg

Hi. In response to this edit. File has no source, means a lack of the law act which makes it governmental symbol. File is a private reproduction of 16th century seal. Author is Adam Kromer and he didn't gave any permission to this file. Links in Description file. So should I give template Bad license or No source? I had chosen No source, but as I can see You have misunderstood my intention. JDavid (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. If the file is licensed as a free governmental symbol but the source doesn't back that up, possibly unfree files would be the route you should take. — ξ^xplicit 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:KR Kiva Title Card.jpg

This had a fair use rationale. I don't know why you deleted it. Just because it doesn't have a templated rationale doesn't mean it's not a rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad. It's a very thin fair use rationale, I must have read it as a description of the image. I usually catch these things. — ξ^xplicit 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

please reinstate incorrectly deleted file Image:Kiki Kogelnik Early 1960s.jpg

Image:Kiki Kogelnik Early 1960s.jpg This file has been incorrectly deleted. Permissions were granted under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as requested. This is not a fair use issue. Please note the previous entries regarding copyright license back in June and reinstate the file. I own the copyright to this work and all necessary emails to permissions were sent. If you need to add something regarding fair use in addition to all the permissions I gave, then do so, but I don't see why it would be necessary after I gave common use license. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no error in deletion, it was tagged with {{Non-free historic image}}, a non-free license, and lacked a fair use rationale. If you could, please forward the email or resend confirm to WP:OTRS by emailing them at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. — ξ^xplicit 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is such a unnecessary waste of time. The CC BY SA permissions were sent twice already. There is such a thing as a historical image whose license was given as well. The tag for fair use was from before the CC BY SA was given, you could simply have removed the old tag instead of the rash step of deleting the file. I will send the CC BY SA 3.0 to permissions again. Why don't you provide me with your email so that I can email the same to you and you can follow up with this yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The file history doesn't show that a free license was ever added. The file was uploaded by you with the summary "Image courtesy of Kiki Kogelnik Foundation" and the non-free license I stated above. The only other edit after that was the addition of the {{di-no fair use rationale}} template. There was no possible way I could have known about the Creative Commons license. When you sent those two emails in the past, did you receive a reply? If you didn't, I think that's the main problem, OTRS always follows up. My email is explicifromthewiki@gmail. — ξ^xplicit 21:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I got mixed up and the emails were in regards to the other image on the Kiki Kogelnik page. Sorry about that. It's just that these deletions seem to come out of nowhere after spending time trying to conform to all the various rules - you seem very versed in how this works but I find it all a bit confusing. In any case, I did send the email to permissions@wiki, giving CC BY SA 3.0. I'll forward you a copy so you can see what was sent. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onom (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so from here, the only option we have is to wait until you get a reply from OTRS. — ξ^xplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreleased Madonna Songs

Hi there. Just writing because you have tried to delete the Unreleased Remixes on Madonna's Unreleased Songs Page. You implied that i had made up the fact that there was a discussion to keep this back in October. Not very polite of you. The whole page was marked for deletion back in October and I spent hours upon hours of my personal time to save it. I lobbied for it to be kept and I added over a hundred references myself and tidied up the page to the best of my abilities. At the end of the discussion on the Articles For Deletion Page, it was decided as "KEEP" for the WHOLE Unreleased Madonna Songs article - including the remixes. I breathed a sigh of relief that i was hopefully somewhat responsible for helping it be kept alive - and intact. Even though i KNOW a remix section is slightly wrong to be placed in an unreleased song article - i think it does have merit in being there as they ARE unreleased OFFICIAL Madonna recordings, and therefore should be included. Anyway, just wanted to clarify my position and why i took some personal offence at your dismissing my reason for it being kept, when i have invested a lot of my blood sweat and tears on that page with little or no thanks. Regards, (Spacedub (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I am thoroughly confused. Not once have I touched the article or the AFD. — ξ^xplicit 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive Me!

Please forgive me! I posted the previous post on the wrong User page! I do apologise. Please ignore my previous post. Kind regards, Kevin (Spacedub (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Well, at least now I know you've contacted the wrong user! How did you happen to land here? — ξ^xplicit 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I had multiple windows open and I presume I clicked on the incorrect user "Talk" page. My own fault for not being more observant. Once again, my apologies. (Spacedub (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Don't worry about it, it was an honest mistake. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mike_Morhaime_-_BlizzCon_2010.JPG

Hi, you made this edit to File:Mike_Morhaime_-_BlizzCon_2010.JPG saying that a license for the image was provided, but I believe the image was actually uploaded under an invalid fair use claim.

I've replaced its use with a free alternative instead, and I thought I'd let you know, just in case. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 11:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I must have missed what article it was used in. Thanks for the note. — ξ^xplicit 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new 5 Girls page

To Whom It May Concern,

I was interested in creating a new page for the 2001 documentary film, 5 Girls. I see the page previously existed and was removed. The info I received is below:

01:56, 15 June 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "5 Girls" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable film)

Please let me know if I can re-start this page with new references, including awards won and other reviews of the film. Thank you.

R. Patrick Lile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdlile (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What I can do is restore the article and move it into your userspace, which will allow you to work on the page where you can add references and expand the article. How does that sound? — ξ^xplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great to me. Sorry if this isn't the spot that I confirm, but I didn't see you on my 'talk' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdlile (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, the page is now available at User:Rpdlile/5 Girls. — ξ^xplicit 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please revert deletion of "A Silent Film" page

I believe you had previously deleted a page on a pretty popular new alt-rock band called "A Silent Film". The band is extremely popular in the alternative rock scene, and in fact had one of the most played singles ("You Will Leave a Mark") in 2010 on XM/Sirius's Alt Nation channel - earning a #4 on the most requested songs for 2010 list (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110101121602AAxrRfa). It was also part of their weekly Alt-18 countdown for many months, occasionally topping the chart and they won the "Best Studio Performance of 2010" award as well from Alt Nation as voted on by the listeners. Apparently, the UK band is extremely popular in Portugal as well.

I'm writing you in hopes of establishing enough notoriety to re-establish the Band's page.

Some references of notoriety -

http://www.last.fm/music/A+Silent+Film

http://www.myspace.com/asilentfilm

http://www.facebook.com/asilentfilm

http://twitter.com/asilentfilm

http://musicbrainz.org/artist/f0e5c9e5-b24f-4d84-8d2a-b166865d8678.html

Please let me know if this should suffice for re-establishing the page, or if more evidence needs to be provided. I'm simply a fan of the band, and was surprised to see that it was missing a wikipedia entry due to deletion. Thanks in Advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.82.180 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to add references in order for the subject to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning music. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. — ξ^xplicit 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nintendo3ds-final design.png speedy deletion

Hi - you recently stated in your edit summary in this edit that File:Nintendo3ds-final design.png is up for regular deletion, not speedy deletion. However, it is, technically, up for speedy deletion under F6 criteria. Or am I missing something? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it isn't. Otherwise, the file could be deleted on the spot, but we there's a required seven-day waiting period. I think this is called pseudo-speedy deletion (at least, that's what Twinkle calls it). Regardless, the {{hang on}} tag was inappropriately used in this case. — ξ^xplicit 23:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, it's like an in-between type of deletion, I guess you could say. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded image. (previous deletion)

I am a new user. . . I uploaded an image File:30thAnniversaryOfConstructionTroops.svg but I didn't know which license to apply. Can you look over my information. I uploaded the same image before but couldn't get it to display properly, and requested that it be deleted. The new image seems to display properly. The original image is in "Category:Emblem images that should be in SVG format." and File:30thAnniversaryOfConstructionTroops.jpg. I would like to work on more files, so any advice on the upload information would be appreciated. Niineta (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave the files and look and just have one suggestion. I would be better if the license of vectorized image correspond with that of the old image, in order to avoid any possible complications that may result due to the differing licenses (assuming they can occur). Other than that, everything looks perfect. — ξ^xplicit 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and Yes I agree about the license but it was not on the drop-down menu. I've looked in the Edit page and saw some coding that may be the license. I'll test it in the sandbox and if it is the license I will use it on any original work where it appears. Niineta (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Qxz-ad225.gif

Hi, you deleted the image description page here on enwiki for the Commons image File:Qxz-ad225.gif. That image is one of the Wikipedia ads and image description pages for many of them (e.g. File:Qxz-ad114.png) contain the template {{Wikipedia-adnavbox}} that lists all the ads. Since that template is here, it can't be placed on the Commons description page. I know that having image description page for a Commons image is very rare, but I think it makes sense in this case. What do you think? Svick (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! I didn't see the template, probably because it's collapsed. I've restored the revision. Sorry about that. — ξ^xplicit 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:SEK 5 1959.jpg

Just a heads-up - I noticed you removed the deletion tag from the above file because it was freely licensed...however, it does carry a non-free license tag. Not hassling you - I do appreciate all the crappy cleanup work you do. :) Kelly ^hi! 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale, since free alternatives can not be reasonably created. — ξ^xplicit 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

why is Danijela Dona Ilic deleted

HI,mu user name here is Siren 72 and I made a page about Danijela Dona Ilic,you deleted it and we still dont see the reason why. Let us know what all the papers and document we need to send so you can verify her,You can also check all about her only if you just Google Danijela Dona ilic or Dona International Production which is her company,She was first to be selected as Miss Yugoslavia for Hawaiian tropic and Miss American Dream of Yugoslavia which was held in Bahamas,She was also first in her home country Serbia to organize FIRST INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY PAGEANT and she brought many models from all over the world.She is famous TV host,screen writer ,TV show author and the owner of Miss Sirens of the Word beauty pageant.you can also all that check here www.dona-production.com www.youtube.com.donayu72 www.facebook.com/Danijela Dona Ilic official www.facebook.com/Danijela Dona Ilic we have many articles from magazines to send you where you can read about here and who she is,just let us who and how to send. Thanks siren72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siren72 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Danijela Ilic Dona was deleted as another user proposed its deletion. The deletion summary states the rationale the user proposed the deletion of the article: "Unable to verify the content of the article. A former Miss Yugoslavia could meet notability requirements, however a search for sources came up empty - there is no evidence to support the contention." In general, Wikipedia considers an individual to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. That way. it would meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Puppeter template.png

Dear Explicit. While making another travel through WP's history, I discovered that you deleted File:Puppeter template.png, causing a gap in a number of historically significant pages.[7] Perhaps you could upload the image to commons? That wiki hosts a .gif version of the image which is, to the best of my knowledge, an exact duplicate of the .png version. Another option is not to restore the .png version, but to have the file name redirect to the .gif version on commons somehow. What do you think? - theFace 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the file and added a license. I suppose it can be moved to Commons now. Thanks for letting me know of the issue. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've moved the image to commons using Commons Helper, though the tool didn't prove that helpful really: it made a total mess of the description text (see the log of commons:File:Puppeter template.png). The local File:Puppeter template.png is now tagged with {{Now Commons}}. Cheers, theFace 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Local file is deleted. - theFace 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Help me with a file you deleted?

Hi - you deleted a photo which I uploaded, because of your F11 criteria. The picture is definitively MINE to use (and to upload as I see fit!) because I personally took the photo. However, apparently the information I put into the upload wasn't what you/Wikipedia needed to be sure use is authorized. Please tell me how I need to document the photo to keep it in Wikipedia, and also how to restore the file. I would just re-upload it but I'm pretty sure I'd still mess up whatever I have to document ...

Thanks, Lisa (Tigger-ibby) File:Chihuly Fiori di Como.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigger-ibby (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to sign last post although I included my name & username! Tigger-ibby (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I went ahead and restored the file. Please make sure to specify which license you would like to release the picture under, there is a comprehensive list here. — ξ^xplicit 09:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

National Credit Union Administration

I was wondering why you recently removed a category from this page. The cat you removed certainly belonged on the page, as the NCUA is exactly equivalent to the FDIC in terms of financial regulation. I didn't want to just revert it in case you were seeing something I wasn't. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually deleted the category as it was created by a banned user and I went around removing the red-linked category. It was created shortly after by another user, so it now appears like I'm removing the category for no specific reason. Feel free to revert my edit, I don't mind. You can find the rest of the pages I removed the category from here and revert where necessary. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please revert deletion of "Outsourcery" page

Can you please revert deletion of 'Outsourcery' page so that i can remove the PR related info or is there anyway you can revert it back to older verion.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamjaslam (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I've restored history. Please make sure to write the content in a neutral point of view and back up claims through reliable sources independent of the subject. — ξ^xplicit 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Comparative Anatomy band image?

Not sure why, as I indicated in the notes, I got permission from the band's label to use the image. It was copied from their website. I provided their email address for verification if it was necessary. Apparently you didn't check with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanSteps (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue with the image. The file was deleted because, at the upload form, you indicated that the image was of a living subject, which resulted in the file being tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. It was deleted in correspondence with our non-free content criteria. If the image was released under a free license by the copyright holder, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. — ξ^xplicit 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, I just forwarded the email to the address you gave me. StanSteps (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)StanSteps

Alright, for right now, we'll have to wait until they get back to you to confirm the license or ask for additional information. If it gets confirmed, then it will be restored on the spot. — ξ^xplicit 05:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, well I forwarded the complete form I was sent and then sent to the record label. They sent me back the form with the required information filled-in. Let me know if there are any problems, but that should be it. StanSteps (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)StanSteps

Hellooo: A question

Hey Explicit how are you? I have come with a silly querry. How can you find out the no. of words or readable prose for an article? For eg. if I wanna find out the amt of prose in User:Legolas2186/Sandbox, how can I do so? Is there any tool that I am not aware of? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not aware of any wiki tools that calculate word count. — ξ^xplicit 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, lemme ask somebody else. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to talk page stalk, but the tool you are looking for is at User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js. It adds a Page size link in the Toolbox section of the left bar. And that tool says your sandbox page is: Prose size (text only): 7171 B (1283 words) "readable prose size" Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's Be Friends (Emily Osment song)

A tag has been placed on Let's Be Friends (Emily Osment song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 79.223.62.178 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pongr

Hi,

The page for social media site Pongr was deleted by you for lack of verifiability/outside links. Since this deletion, Pongr has been featured in the Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1284286), Thats Great! Blog (http://blog.greattv.com/2010/12/whats-new-in-digital-marketing-mobile-social-gaming-mashup-meets-brands-agencies-and-traditional-media-move-over-foursquare-here-comes-pongr-and-you-heard-it-first-here/), Brand Channel (http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/11/29/Pongr-Tells-Brands-to-Take-Off-the-Goggles.aspx), Chubby Brain (http://www.chubbybrain.com/blog/pongr-investors-complete-a-seed-round-of-funding/), The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/09/pongr_invites_you_to_snap_pict.html), and We Love Mobile (http://www.welovemobile.co.uk/mobile-social-networks/pongr-the-new-visual-foursquare/), just to give you a few examples of it's media coverage. I think with these and the other press the company has gotten it would be valid to reinstate the page. Is this possible?

Thanks, Amber Garner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrgarnr (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 05:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No non free use rationale for file: Berkman_Center_logo.png

Hello Explicit!
I saw that you deteted the image Berkman_Center_logo.png that I uploaded because it had no non free use rationale. I read the policy, but may have understood it wrong, so I decided to post you a message to better grasp the meaning of this policy... I indicated that the file was the logo of a research center at Harvard University and I used it in its Wikipedia article. So, what kind of "rationale" should I have provided in addition to that to make things right? Could you clarify that point for me please? Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry for not being able to manage myself! ;) SalimJah (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. What constitutes as a full fair use rationale can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. There, lists the necessary necessary components that a non-free file must be accompanied with in order to satisfy the non-free content guideline. — ξ^xplicit 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Explicit! So I tried my best to provide a rationale that meets the above criteria and have uploaded the file again. Hope it fits!! Thanks for your help and advices. SalimJah (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I beefed up the rationale a bit, hope you don't mind. — ξ^xplicit 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I noticed that! Now I understand what a full fair use rationale looks like. Thanks for the demonstration! ;) SalimJah (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please undo your deletion

Hi Explicit you deleted

• "File:Pete in garden chair 01.jpg"
• "File:Becky's Mirror.jpg"
• "File:Person-tree.jpg"
• "File:Tree person.jpg" ‎
• "File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg" ‎because "F11: No evidence of permission"

The first 4 are photos belong to me and are of things I own, I thought I give them a valid copyright licensing tag. What proof does wiki need to show that I give permission?

The File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg I have an email from the owner giving me permission to upload it to wiki. Please revert all the above deletions and I'll forward my email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Also what the rush? Between the time of the notice being put on my talk page and to you deleting the images has only be 9 days. I did send a quick email to Ronhjones stating I would clear this up on my normal editing day. I now see that he has used Twinkle, which seems to be an automatic reporting device. Which is fine but I believe the time between giving notice and doing the action should be longer. Most editors seem to be adding content here in good consciousness. I mainly only edit fortnightly or less depending on my life. I'm guessing you don't know that I am Australian and live in one of the flood affected areas. I'm sure in any given month editors who don't edit every day have stuff happen in their lives and would appreciate some extra time to get the files or their edits right for wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. With the first four photos, you indicated that you obtained them though pooktre.com with permission from "Peter Cook and Becky Northey the owners". With the addition of your statement above, it seems that you are in possession of the photos, but not necessarily the copyright holder. A week to address concern isn't much of a rush, that's the standard time given for the deletion of most pages. It's unfortunate that you are victim of the floods that devastated Australia recently, but I personally feel uncomfortable restoring images that were deleted for lacking evidence of permission. Once OTRS receives and confirms the permissions, they can be restored at that time, the files will always be retrievable. — ξ^xplicit 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply, if you have a look on my user page you see that I am a co-founder Pooktre. I'm Becky Northey and would be happy to email you from my pooktre.com email. Blackash have a chat 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, apologies. I went ahead and restored the first four files. — ξ^xplicit 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did also send an email from my pooktre.com account to wikipedia permissions. I can see what you mean about the wording, I forget that no-one really has a clue that I'm Becky Northey, so I'll add some more text to try and clear that up. Blackash have a chat 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, ticket:2011020310002137 contains permission for the use of File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg. Could you please restore the image. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, file restored. — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out, the file File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg still has a notice to detele tag on the page. Does that stay? Blackash have a chat 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

All cleaned up, no more issues with the image. — ξ^xplicit 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blackash have a chat 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Album covers by artist

I have nominated for renaming Category:Album covers by artist, which you created. I would welcome your thoughts on the proposal at the nomination. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall Berdan

Hi, Explicit, According to my watchlist, you have tagged the image waterfall Berdan.jpg in deletion log (F2). Well, I am a bit confused. It is not a corrupt or empty file. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. If a file is being hosted at Commons, it should be categorized there, not here on Wikipedia. Categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2 and was deleted as such. Hope that clears things up. — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request image restoration re: Zuckerberg and Eisenberg

I feel that File:Zuckerberg-Eisenberg.jpg should be restored for a number of reasons:

As per the discussions at File talk:Zuckerberg-Eisenberg.jpg and Talk:Mark Zuckerberg, the file should not have been tagged and cetainly not as a Speedy.

The reasons mentioned by those supporting the image removal were faulty, as stated in those discussions:

1. That the the image was replaceable, but as it captured an irreplaceable one-time event on TV with a screen capture, it was clearly irreplaceable;
2. That the image of the persons in the photo was freely available, which completely ignored the "event" aspect of the photo - that it was not meant to be another photo of a person;
3. That the image was no more than "two persons shaking hands," and therefore meaningless, which again totally ignored the substance of the entire TV segment which was their "first meeting;"
4. That it was not actually their first meeting, which only meant the original tagger never read or viewed the source in the article which proved the opposite;
5. That the commentary and photo link was unsourced, which was shown to be untrue;
6. That there was no commentary in the caption explaining the photo, which again meant the tagger did not read the article section relating to the photo. In any case, the caption was modified to clarify the photo even though it was redundant;
7. That there was no commentary in the article about the photo, which was obviously wrong and mentioned in the discussion.

Hence, the image was unnecessarily tagged as violating rule #7 of NFCC and the discussion proved that to be wrong. Furthermore, it was tagged as a Speedy which would not allow all parties to review and comment if they wanted. Whether the tagger, User:Tbhotch, used a rapid-fire bot to tag the image I can't say, but he clearly uses them often. But the image was deleted by you without mentioning those discussions and any of the above factors. I therefore kindly request a careful review of the deleted image, its rationale, and related discussions, and hopefully a restoration of the screen capture. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you've apparently been unable to respond for nearly a week, I re-uploaded the image as there is now extensive commentary in the article that supports the screen shot and covers all prior reasons for the deletion. Please review and reply when you're able. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pharrell Williams Countertenor/guardian

Yes, believe it or not The Guardian is not a credible resource for issues such as these, as the author of the article is not a musicologist, and I'm sure even the Guardian employs writers who make haphazard guesses about things they don't understand. A "countertenor" is one who can hit upper register notes in the modal voice NOT the falsetto. The point OF the falsetto is so that men with regular baritonal ranges can hit those notes. This is not my "opinion" or unqualified analysis: if you aren't aware of this FACT then you shouldn't be editing music articles. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.48.162 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Evan Lurie

Please Undelete Evan Lurie Actor Page. He wrote and Starred in Several Movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.239.186 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Whip My Hair

Umm, full-protect? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New sock?

I think we have a tremanshoe sock POV pushing at Talk:Like a Surgeon (Ciara song) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Outsourcery page has been reverted to older version which was approved in the past and I believe that it’s not written like an advertisement. Can you please advise me on what I should do to resolve it.

Outsourcery has been reverted to the older version

Outsourcery page has been reverted to older version which was approved in the past and I believe that it’s not written like an advertisement. Can you please advise me on what I should do to resolve it.

Restoration of Image File

Hello Explicit,

It seems as I did not input the copyright information for a photograph I took and uploaded. Since I am new to this, can you advise whether it can be restored with the proper copyright information or if I should re-upload?

Thanks! Shadow6934 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Supertram Image deletions

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted the two GIFs, but you left the Bristol BRT.jpg when it had the same fair use rationale as the GIFs. Keep up the good work. Sorry if this question has been entered in the wrong part of your user page. Nostalgic34 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Raul Portrait.JPG

Can you please restore this image which you have deleted? We now has OTRS permission for its usage. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)