User talk:Explicit

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

Much appreciated if someone else could review media tagged with this as well Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Envy

I noticed the page was deleted, and I was wondering that if the webcomic itself updated, could the page be undeleted? I realize that the comic isn't particularly notable, but I am just wondering. I would have objected to the deletion during the prod period, but my internet was being less than cooperative. P.S. I noticed a disambuguation page linking to it, and it probably needs to be changed somewhat as only two of the eight results link to anything. --82.24.170.37 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this webcomic to merit an article on Wikipedia, it should at least meet the general notability guideline. Solely being updated is insufficient for the subject to assert notability. As for the disambiguation page, red links are sometimes put in place to encourage editors to create these pages, so there isn't anything necessarily wrong with them. — ξ ^xplicit 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of deleted image

I don't know if that's at all possible, but could you e-mail me a copy (or a link to a copy) of File:Mariosizechart.jpg? Thanks. Salvidrim! 01:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I have sent you an email with a copy. — ξ ^xplicit 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Salvidrim! 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this please?

Can you check if the image you deleted per this nomination Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 8#File:Jennyatbat.png is essentially the same as this new uploaded image File:Jennyatbat2.jpg. I don't remember the image. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two images are completely different. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annie Seel portrait Alexoch Martin.jpg

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_July_2#File:Annie_Seel_portrait_Alexoch_Martin.jpg

Would you please care to expand upon your rather terse, "The result of the debate was: Delete" Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip over the PD and CC license claims, as I think everyone in that discussion understood that neither were appropriate here. From the discussion, I see two arguments: 1) Remove the license and simply cite the original site's requirements; 2) this image meets WP:NFCC#8. As before, neither option was appropriate. All files require a license template, regardless if it's a freely licensed image or not. Citing the text on the source's website (this bit: Photos below are free to use for press and promotion of Annie Seel. Photo credit and photo byline "AnnieSeel.com/MaindruPhoto" is requested.) is insufficient. That strikes out point one. As for point two, all non-free files must meet all the points of WP:NFCC. You argued that this image met point eight, but this image easily fails points one in that a free image can be created. So, this wouldn't fit to be tagged as a non-free file either. As such, this image was simply not fit for use on Wikipedia. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiotica Relaunch

Hi, I see that you were the deleting administrator for Symbiotica, and you cited "No evidence of meeting WP:GNG". I would like to recreate the page. I wish I had been actively editing when the PROD was taking place, as I would have been able to provide some additional reliable sources that offer significant coverage that would cover the general notability guidelines. I will do so now that I am actively editing. This page is within my area of domain knowledge and I wish to recreate it and bring it up to good wikipedia standards.

Some of the most recent reliable and notable sources I will use in the relaunch that should qualify for the GNG:

"Culture: Artists in the Lab." Martin Kemp. Nature. 477, 278–279 (15 September 2011) doi:10.1038/477278a

"Culture: Art That Touches a Nerve." Anthony King. Nature 470, 334 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/470334a

"When Artists Enter the Laboratory." Dixon, et al. Science 18 February 2011: 860. DOI:10.1126/science.1203549

Infoeco (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and restored the page, please make sure to address the issue it was originally deleted for. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion F1

Hi you recently speedy deleted three images under CFD F1:

The nominator did not declare which images they were supposedly redundant to, yet you deleted them anyway. Moreover, F1 requires that the redundant image be an exact pixel for pixel duplicate. These three images are not the same, although they are similar. They were used to illustrate problems with rescaling raster images and thus one of them was designed to be grainy and out of focus. Please restore. -- Selket ^Talk 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first image was deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs), so you'll have to take that one up to that user. File:Selket.png was deleted under F1 as redundant to File:Selket-big.png, which was deleted a week later. F1 does in fact allow lower quality/resolution duplicates to be deleted under the criteria. Is there a specific page these images will be added to? — ξ ^xplicit 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TT100

Hi.

can you show me or tell me anything about the deletion of File:Triton wearing Dunlop TT100 tyres.jpg as I missed it being flagged up or discussed. It must have looked something like these [1] [2] as I make a point of searching for only CC tagged photos on Flickr.

Thanks. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triton wearing Dunlop TT100 tyres.jpg was deleted because the source indicates that the image can not be used for commercial purposes, which made this file a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. The image had the {{cc-by-sa}} tag, but there was no evidence that it was released under that license, hence its deletion. — ξ ^xplicit 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if this file was in use anywhere & if it has been replaced? I like this picture [3] as it has a clear view of both the Triton & the TT100 Alanthehat (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure where the deleted file was used. As the original uploader of the image is now blocked, it may be unlikely to get an answer for that. As that image in the Flickr link you provided has an acceptable license, you are free to upload it over at Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 00:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of I Am America EP file

This deletion seems inappropriate. J Milburn's fair-use dispute was based on an interpretation of the NFCC that is not supported by current practice on the basis that there was "no consensus" on the application of policy to this situation. Cover art has been repeatedly accepted under NFCC#8 if it is being used for visual identification in the event of sourced commentary of the work the cover represents, which is why album covers on album articles are consistently accepted even if the cover itself is not discussed. Nowhere is that same allowance denied to articles where the album is the subject of commentary, but is not the overall subject of the article. I changed the article and rationale to insure that there was sourced commentary of the album to clearly justify keeping the cover art under NFCC, so I am not clear why this was speedied on the basis of F7.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free album covers in articles about the musician has been discouraged for several years now. WP:NFCC#8 requires that omitting the image be "detrimental to [the] understanding" of the topic. Without the image, readers will still understand the two notable songs mentioned in the text, and it was used purely for decorative purposes. What understanding would be lost without the presence of the album cover in an article about the singer? — ξ ^xplicit 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is "discouraged" is not the same as saying it meets the F7 speedy deletion criteria, which implies an invalid fair use rationale. I made a point in the file talk that she has an EP and single by the same name so removing the image of the EP is detrimental to understanding of the topic as it does not provide for clear differentiation between the single and EP. Being able to visually identify a subject of discussion inherently aids understanding of the topic. Additionally, I added the image in lieu of adding multiple fair use video and audio clips as was suggested during a peer review, which was in fact my primary reason for adding the image.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a compelling argument. There are several cases where the title of a single and album are the same, but the cover of one of them isn't utilized to make that point, especially when they should be formatted differently in the text (song titles should be accompanied with quotes, while albums should be italicized, see WP:SONG#Formatting). The text in the article adequately differentiates the two, and I hardly see the case that readers would be unable to tell the difference in the way the single and EP are being discussed in the article. — ξ ^xplicit 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, when the albums are actually shown to people, they are generally not given such helpful hints. The single and EP have distinctive covers, but their titles are very similar. Someone being able to visually recognize which one is the EP is significant. Visual identification of a work that is the subject of sourced commentary is sufficiently significant to understanding on its own, even without such consideration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMAPI talk page deletion

I nominated the OMAPI article for deletion a couple of years ago, because I didn't think it was notable. However, it appears that there is some demand for the article, because User:Pratyeka undeleted it. I can't remember what was on the talk page, but if possible it might be good to undelete it as well. I don't see a way to do that, so I'm asking you to do it. This is not urgent, and if you don't ever get to it it won't be a tragedy—it's entirely possible that what's there is irrelevant anyway. It just seems like it would be better to start from what was there than to start over.

Thanks! Abhayakara (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, talk pages should usually be restored when a prod is contested. — ξ ^xplicit 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image Propaganda Dc.jpg

You deleted File:Propaganda Dc.jpg with the comment "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale". There should have been more time for people to add a rationale before it was speedily deleted. Please restore the image so I can put a rationale on it. Thanks. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged for full a week, not exactly something I'd call a speedy process. But I went ahead and restored the image. — ξ ^xplicit 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi. Not sure what happened via Aaron Gwyn. AfD. Endorsed by another editor. Discussion on BLP. Then, prod removed because the subject of the article doesn't want his own article deleted? Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONTESTED: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. The template should not have been restored, and the article should have sent to (and currently is at) WP:AFD. — ξ ^xplicit 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete "List of life forms" article

Please undelete "List of life forms" article. I would have requested it there, but the Talk page no longer works. I didn't see a way to undeleted it myself. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ ^xplicit 23:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg - my email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org may have been overlooked

Hi,

You recently deleted the image "File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg", which I originally posted. When this image was tagged for deletion because of inadequate proof of permission to post it, I obtained that permission from the author and emailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on July 9, 2012. I never received any notification that my email had been received or processed.

The permission email is copied below. May I re-post the image?

Thanks

Hugh Chipman

Forwarded message ----------

From: Raghab Bandyopadhyay <raghabb@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM Subject: Re: request permission for your photo to be posted on Wikipedia To: Hugh Chipman <hugh.chipman@gmail.com>

To whom it may concern;

I hereby affirm that I, Raghab Bandyopadhyay, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of "Picture of Raghab Bandyopadhyay" [File:Raghab Bandyopadhyay.jpg]. I agree to publish that 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). I acknowledge 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 aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Raghab Bandyopadhyay

[Raghab Bandyopadhyay, Director, Charchapada Publication Pvt Ltd, 13 B Radhanath Mullick Lane, Kolkata - 700012, India] Copyright Holder [July 9, 2012] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh.chipman (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the volunteers over at Wikimedia permissions of this, you should receive a response and confirmation shortly. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard R. Murray

I saw awhile ago that you deleted the page for Richard R. Murray citing "Expired PROD, concern was: Subject of this (apparently autobiographical) article fails the notability tests of WP:BIO, in particular the absence of 3d party coverage of the individual". I was in the process of editing the article to address the concerns listed, and I did not finish my edits before the PROD expired. Is there any way you could restore that article provided I finish updating it? I was not the original author of the page (nor am I Richard Murray), but I would like to correct the language so that it no longer appears autobiographical and biased. Thanks for your time! Dudemanfelix (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was page titled Concerned United Birthparents deleted as non notable group

Hello, You deleted the Concerned United Birthparents page. Iis an important American group in the story of adoption. It still exists and has an active membership. The Boston Globe and other newspapers wrote about it. TV carried stories about it. How did you decide it was not notable? Why was it deleted? thank you 216.246.141.215 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned United Birthparents was nominated by another user for deletion with that rationale, and the page was deleted as proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days. 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. You may considering reading over the related notability guideline for inclusion of articles concerning organizations. — ξ ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore File:Movies es5-20030823.png?

Can you please restore the file File:Movies es5-20030823.png which you deleted a week ago? I'm the original uploader and was just taking a wikibreak during the one week period I had to respond to the issue after it was raised on my talk page.

The speedy deletion justification was that it is fairuse image that was orphaned. The reason it was orphaned is that the link in the article was removed automatically when the image was deleted (due to a misunderstanding about its content) and then restored earlier in the year. I'd appreciate if you restore it and then leave a message or {{talkback}} on my page so I can see it and make sure it is used again on the Earth Station 5 where it never should have been removed in the first place. Thanks! 01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Another admin restored it for me and re-added the link so that it's not orphaned any more. —mako ๛ 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windpower Monthly

Hi there

I put up a page for our magazine Windpower Monthly in 2010 and have just found out it was deleted in May. I'm not entirely sure why although I suspect it's because I didn't add enough external links. My apologies, as I my experience on Wikipedia is pretty limited. Just so you're aware, WPM is a real magazine and is the oldest English language publication in existence.

Is there any chance we can get the old page back and make the necessary changes, or at least create a new one that doesn't fall foul of any issues?

Many thanks

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooroha (talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to address the notability concerns, as the article may still be deleted through the articles for deletion venue. — ξ ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about a Korean admiral's trivia

Hi there, since I reverted some vandalism on your user page, could you do me a favor and take a look at the recent edit-warring at List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures? At first it appeared to me, anyway, that the person cited did not exist; then when I relaized that the name was wrongly transliterated, a newbie and his sockpuppets continued to insert trivia about Yi Sun-sin and nonsensical word salad into this list about haplotypes. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to see into the matter if I have time. — ξ ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not sufficiently notable" was incorrect on Commercial and Government Entity

Hi. Whoever thought that the subject of CAGE (Commercial and Government Entity) codes was not sufficiently notable to have a WP article simply happened to be someone who's ignorant of the defense contracting industry in the U.S. The subject is indeed notable enough to have an article, but they wouldn't know that if they don't work in that industry. I would have explained this at the proposed-deletion discussion, but apparently it was only available for 7 days and I was not aware at the time that it existed. Just letting you know, per the instructions given upon recreating, that I will be recreating the article. Thanks. — ¾-10 02:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored the article for you, just to make things easier. — ξ ^xplicit 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lukas zpira's entry

I saw that you deleted the entry about "Lukas Zpira" ? why ? this page was really interesting and provided me a lot of useful informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourrierIT (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Zpira was deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) unambiguous advertising or promotion. You may want to contact that user for further details. — ξ ^xplicit 00:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyfat

why did you delete this page? Dribblingscribe 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by another editor for not being notable; this proposed deletion went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as result. You may want to consider reading over the related notability guideline for inclusion of articles concerning musicians. — ξ ^xplicit 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech Harmony Remote - Deletion

Explicit,

I noticed the article Logitech Harmony Remote was deleted in April. The non-notability of the article did not clarify enough. I wanted to gather information before I created the article again and if within reason, create with information regarding the different remotes, history, etc. Please give insight to the reason for deletion and would it be possible for the article to be restarted as this is yet another mainstream product of Logitech. Thank you. CBassett1 01:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Saeme - Deletion

Hi Explicit,

I would like to appeal regarding the deletion of the article on Mohammed Saeme on the grounds of lacking references to attest notability and having almost no mention on Google books/News. A quick search on Google would show numerous international maritime conferences of which he is referred to as being an international expert. Also, webpages exist that verify that he is indeed a founding chairperson of internationally recognized body on maritime health. Should additional references be needed, I would gladly provide it.

Best Regards. Orphidian11 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max I. Silber Photos

Your bot removed multiple files that I uploaded which were taken from photographs that I took on the article Max I. Silber. As the photographer, I own all the images, and I had right to donate them to Wikipedia. Please repair the blatant damage your bot has done to the page. RobHoitt (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{has-NFUR}}