User talk:Explicit

J Carter Marketing

Hi my page for J Carter marketing was deleted because of advertising promotions...But I wasn't finished. it was going to be an entire history on the company. They've been around for 10+ years. Is history mixed with what they do (pretty innovative stuff) not allowed on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.66.240 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article you created for J Carter Marketing read in a promotional tone, which was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria as it appeared to have been created for promotional of advertising purposes. Even if the article was not written in a promotional tone, in order for corporation to merit an article here on Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. This means that J Carter Marketing would need to receive significant coverage from reliable sources; if the company does not have such coverage, an article of it should not exist, as our notability guideline for organizations and companies indiciates. — ξ^xplicit 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Steaua player, Florentin Matei

Please undo this player from Steaua II, he debut tonight for the first team in Liga I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.101 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but be aware that the article is still subject under deletion via articles for deletion. — ξ^xplicit 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the IP is absolutely right. As of about an hour ago, this person does meet the notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary categories

For all of these the talk page was tagged with the rename template. Does that count? I'm not sure if it does ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking the talk page didn't even cross my mind. Personally, I don't think it does. Deletion (or, in this case, rename templates) templates are placed for visibility on the category page, just like AFD templates are placed on the article, not its talk page. I'm not sure if any guideline or policy directly addresses this issue, but I to see any page deleted without any visible notice would be extremely unhelpful for other editors who view the page. — ξ^xplicit 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me—it's already been a while so I can wait the additional 48 hours for speedy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no rush for these categories. — ξ^xplicit 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up: new potential sockpuppet case

Hey Explict i don't know if you remember but not too long ago you blocked RyanG222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) thanks to an ANI i filed. Well it looks like he could possibly editing through an IP address now. Although the IP was active before we was blocked the editing pattern and overlap of editing the same articles in the same way is highly suspicious. I filed at SPI against the IP here but as the blocking admin i thought you'd want a heads up on it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this is RyanG222. The first thing that struck me as odd was the fact that the IP replied notice left to them [1]. The only talk page RyanG222 edited was his own, and that was only to remove notices or ask for unblock requests [2]. Unlike RyanG222, the IP is actually interacting with others and isn't blocked. Additionally, according to RyanG222's userpage, he was from Scotland [3]; the IP is geolocated in the Netherlands [4]. — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair play. I just thought it was odd how the editing appeared to overlap. Perhaps the SPI should then be closed as not likely?Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the SPI case pointing to this discussion for the reviewing administrator. — ξ^xplicit 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New TremanShoe?

Heads up again, i think we have another TremanShoe sock in the form of Leavemeforever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He made requests to edit on my talk page [5]. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The infamous ellipsis point to the sock being Brexx (talk · contribs). Blocked and tagged. — ξ^xplicit 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze! its kind of difficult to spot which is which. I'm not very good at this so its good that you and User:Kww are looking out for the to editors.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, both TrEeMaNsHoE and Brexx are somewhat similar to each other. One of the characteristics that sets them apart is that Brexx always uses an excessive amount of ellipses when using edit summaries, as seen here. Sometimes, they are difficult to tell apart, as seen during this case and this case. — ξ^xplicit 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

Unfortunately I've only noticed this CFD after CydeBot is going through eliminating all the members. I think it should have been closed as no consensus - default to keep, or perhaps renamed to "Video games with female main characters" (though protagonist works just as well). Thoughts? –xeno^talk 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I knew someone would come to me about this closure. I can't say I have much to add to my closing statement. The discussion would have closed as no consensus by simple headcount (5:4, majority delete), but let's not forget to consider the weight of the arguments. Most of those who favored keeping the category didn't even address the concern the nominator put forward, let alone the more persuasive argument made by Someone another (talk · contribs). Two of those in favor of keeping (the last two), both asserted WP:INTERESTING arguments for keeping the category, which held little weight to the discussion as a whole. No one had suggested Category:Video games with female main characters, let alone suggested a rename to begin with, so completely ignoring consensus and renaming to what I thought was best would be out of the question. At this point, I'd suggest that WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Categories attempt to find a better alternative for naming a category or perhaps a list as suggested by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), if members of the WikiProjects would like to attempt to address the concerns. — ξ^xplicit 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - I'll make a post at WT:VG. –xeno^talk 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

I've made some changes to Cydebot that should address the deletion summary issue (specifically, the lack of a correct link to the per-day discussion page in some instances). Please keep your eyes peeled for any remaining issues. More information is here. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tea Party Protestors.JPG

Hello Explicit,

I tracked you down in regards to a image you deleted[6]. The same person uploaded it[7] under different licensing. I was wondering if you remember it or have any insight of its origins. It looks like an obvious fake, probably a comical Christmas card going by the date. I know that wouldn't be a reason to delete it, but it could help me in removing it from the Tea Party article. I've searched forums where misspelled tea party signs are posted, there are lots of them. I could not find this image or anything half as ridiculous. I just don't think someones satire picture should be presented as a 'typical protester'. I would have gone to the author for answers, but his summaries while posting it leads me to believe he/she wouldn't be very sympathetic to my concerns[8][9]. I don't know how long it lasted the first time, but nearing two weeks is surprising. Thank you. (That is Fake (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Hmm, if anything, the copyright claim made by the uploader is false. This image returns three TinEye search results. Most notably, this website has the exact same image, but at a much higher resolution. I think it's a safe bet that the uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. I'll list File:Tea Party Protestors.JPG shortly at the possibly unfree files venue and should be deleted within two weeks. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:DEB-Lansbury-TVG.jpg

Hello, I am writing you to ask about the file that I uploaded. You have removed it citing Wikipedia policy. But I do not understand this. First of all, I should have been notified so that there could have been a dicussion on the rationale of the upload. I do not agree with the deletion for a number of important reasons: - The copyright holder does not object because he considers it a good example of his work, that is why it was presented there - It is original artwork that was used on a magazine cover. It is not in the magazine article bcause it is not a scan of the magazine cover. - The proper route I feel, should have been that we had a discussion about the licensing.

I realise that in the current Wikipedia safeguarding proper use is a difficult task. But I write in the Wikipedia to educate and inform. There is a certain deltionist attitude on the Wikipedia that seems to lack direction. This will drive serious contributors away. JHvW (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The reason the file you uploaded, File:DEB-Lansbury-TVG.jpg, was deleted is because, at the upload form, you indicated that the file was non-free and can be replaced by a free image or by text. This automatically tagged the file with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} instead of a proper license, which is why you didn't receive a notice of the file's deletion. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New sock puppet/sock master issues.

Ok im not sure whats going on but there is definately some sock puppetry going on here. It might be related to Brexx or Tremanshoe or both or a seperate sockpuppet issue but i believe there's a connection between the following users:

• CiaraFan4Ever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) made this edit [10] which i reverted only for a new account
• UltimateCiaraFan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to make a similar edit [11] which i reverted and warned them about [12] on for another new account
• Bangin' beats (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to try and re-add the info with a source [13] which i also reverted.

Now my thoughts are that CiaraFan4Ever might be the sock master here or alternatively the other two accounts are linked to Brexx or Tremanshoe. Or maybe neither... it just seems suspicious. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence does seem to point that UltimateCiaraFan is a sockpuppet of CiaraFan4Ever. I should point out that CiaraFan4Ever was previously blocked for sockpuppetry in the past. I'm not so sure about Bangin' beats, though, that accounts gives me a TrEeMaNsHoE vibe, as that account has edited a discography and redirect World Tour (song), an article he attempted to get deleted in the past with one of his sockpuppets, but I'm not 100% sure. I sockpuppet case requesting CheckUser may be in order for these accounts under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CiaraFan4Ever. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK should i file a sockpuppet case for CiaraFan4Ever with suspected account UltimateCiaraFan? And what to do about Bangin' beats? is it worth filing a tremanshoe report? Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. — ξ^xplicit 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, launched SPI for both. in both discussions i've linked this coversation and noted that there might be plausable cause for checkuser.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ecole-Odyssee.png

Some thing I don't like about Wikipedia is that it isn't very new-user-friendly. Just my opinion.

I still don't understand what qualifies as non-free content, even though I read through F7 at least three times. It's a government-owned building, so how could taking a picture of it not qualify as non-free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericleb01 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content is copyrighted material that is not released under a free license. The file you uploaded is an image which is copyrighted by the by the New Brunswick School District 01. At the upload form, you indicated that the image was not yours, but a copyrighted work of some other entity, which can be replaced be a free alternative. In other words, anyone can go take a picture of the building in question and release it under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much, that makes much more sense. I'll be uploading my own picture shortly. Ericleb01 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can something

Be done against the continuous addition of extra album covers, which do not have any rationale, except for decoration in The Remix? This user is keeping on adding the same album cover, even when the previous one was deleted. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You should consider warning the user of the WP:NFCC policy and its strict enforcement regarding non-free files. In this case, there should be emphasis on point three and point eight of the policy. If the user persists, admin intervention may be required. — ξ^xplicit 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Protection

I would like to thank you on the edit protection you imposed on Saudi Arabia. How long will the ban be? I am a frequent editor of Middle Easter related articles. Thank you for your time. Dhulfiqar 12:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

You're very welcome. The protection will only last three days, as it hasn't been semi-protected since October 2009. Should vandalism resume after protection, feel free to request page protection for a longer period of time. — ξ^xplicit 18:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I will do my best in keeping an eye out for any suspicious activity. --Dhulfiqar 11:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

American Baseball players by home state help

Hi there, Thanks for closing this AfD. Can you speedily move the connected categories, I.E. Category:Major League Baseball players from California to the broader categories discussed in the AfD Category:American baseball players from California? Thanks for your help.--TM 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the impression that the remaining 51 subcategories would be nominated to have the redundant "American" removed from the category name, which would naturally require a full CFD. Is that no longer the case? — ξ^xplicit 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct. That CFD will be forthcoming. Thanks.--TM 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Hayzlett, Kodak portrait.jpg

Unless I mistagged it, this had an OTRS permission attached. Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the right file? File:Jeff Hayzlett, Kodak portrait.jpg was uploaded and edited solely by Binksternet (talk · contribs); it had a fair use rationale and {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} tag. — ξ^xplicit 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, facepalm. It was authorised in an OTRS email which I didn't fully process since it had already been uploaded. Check out OTRS ticket 2009111310043544 for the permissions. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I'm unable to view the tickets. You should consider contacting a volunteer found in Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers and ask them review the ticket. Assuming they're an admin, they should restore the file after verifying the permission. — ξ^xplicit 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Darkside

I would like to ask. Do you have ANY guideline that says that bullets should not be used in singles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STATicVerseatide (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Article body: "Include a paragraph on each song, describing its critical reception and relevance to the article as a whole. [...] See The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars or Aquemini for examples." — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Paule White Photo

I Explicit. The picture of Paula White was taken during a church service. I don't know how else you want me to prove it. It's plan and simple at the time I didn't have a good camera and I did my best with what I had. I no longer have the picture on my laptop because it crashed and I lose everything. Can the picture be savaged?Mcelite (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as I would like to assume good faith, I have trouble doing so after the nominations I made at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 7, as well as your past blatant copyright violations, like File:Iriomote Cat Climbing.JPG and File:Flat-Headed Cat Resting.JPG. Why should I believe the image of Paula White was authentically yours, when you've claimed these other files were authentically yours, but turned out to be copyright violations? — ξ^xplicit 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Those two photos were given to me. So authentically no they are not mine but were given to me. Whenever I uploaded them which was a while ago. It was difficult to get the picture and I'm very frustrated that the decision was made in a day. I clearly stated where the picture was taken the only way you will find a picture that can match that is if someone was taking a picture at the same time as me or took if off of wikipedia when I uploaded it.Mcelite (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The decision wasn't made in a day; discussions at WP:PUF are kept open for two weeks, a week longer than any of the other processes like WP:AFD or WP:FFD. As far as "I clearly stated where the picture was taken" goes, several of the images you uploaded stated a location, but all of them were distorted images of copyrighted work of other people. One specific example that sticks out to me was an image of the Chinese Mountain Cat you had uploaded, which you claimed was your own work, turned out to be a distorted version of this copyrighted image. Most of the images you uploaded where you claimed copyright turned out to be copyright violations, while a small group were moved to Commons (most of which were also deleted as copyright violations as well). To believe you authentically own the copyright of one image, where the rest were deleted as copyright violations—which you claimed to own the copyright, which clearly wasn't the case—I find highly improbable. I see absolutely no reason to believe this claim of owning the copyright to this image when most of your other uploads claimed the same and resulted in being copyright violations, which is a serious legal matter; I have no plans to restore any of the deleted images you uploaded and would condemn any administrator who would do otherwise. — ξ^xplicit 09:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said I didn't do the full respondsible thing when I was given the images. I just posted them with good faith believing they were original. So with the cat photos yes they were incorrectly documented and all I can do is apologize because I trusted someone that didn't think it was a big deal. Well I guess I can't much big of a fuss right now about the Paula White photo even though I'm still pissed about because I doubt I'll be able to a picture of her soon. The article has a picture of her any way. Sorry for the past errors I'd just began being an editor so that's that.Mcelite (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just hope you understand how important copyright is and that you have learned from this. The best advice I could give you for finding a freely licensed image of Paula White is to search Flickr and try to find one, or contact an uploader and ask permission to use a copyrighted image under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

More album discussions

See here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. You beat me to the nominations. — ξ^xplicit 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help this Historic Article

Hi.. The photograph you deleted File:Mino Argento in 1977 is unique historic from 1977 from Catologo One man show in New York Betty Parsons Gallery... please can you tell me the reason is deleted. i will be happy Upload file:Mino Argento in 1977! Thank you(MA3ARG (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

I replied to your email earlier concerning this matter, hopefully you've received it. — ξ^xplicit 04:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

An editor has asked for a deletion review see Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Because you evidently closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)