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

Help on Mýa Discography

I need your help on page Mýa discography is there a conflict, his albums never sold more than 1 million copies, but got someone is littering and causing a mess, you could block the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There currently isn't enough disruption to require protection of the page at this time. If a user adds or changes album sales without a source, or changes the certifications even though the given sources don't back it up (in this case, the RIAA), just revert their edits using the undo button and consider warning the user of adding unsourced content or deliberately falsying facts. — ξ ^xplicit 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I'd love for you to review the article I wrote up on the band doublethink at the link below so it can properly go live! If you think it does not qualify please let me know what you think should be changed before putting it to deletion as I really want to make sure the page gets on there. Thanks!

Strippedman (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article a look and there seems to be some issues. The most evident is that the article largely relies on the band's own website. Articles should contain significant coverage from secondary reliable sources, independent of the subject. For example, this source reviews their EP, Dawn: Je Ne Crois, and this source gives some information on the band's background. These sources should replace the use of the band's own website, as the use of their own website does not assert notability. — ξ ^xplicit 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I updated the page by not using the band's MySpace page at all, and didn't use the band's website where applicable. However, the only source to assert what organizations they support and what organizations support them is their own site obviously, so I left those references alone. Unless you might suggest a better way to cite those facts without using their website as the reference? Thanks for your help! Strippedman (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, there are a few facts that are only mentioned by the band's website. So until that gets coverage from other sources, the band's website will do for now. — ξ ^xplicit 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, thanks. I'll get some more reviews and get rid of that watermark thing at the top! Thanks again. Strippedman (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga GA

Delete Talk:Lady Gaga/GA2 please. New user crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — ξ ^xplicit 07:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a redirect?

Quick question: is there a speedy delete criteria for useless redirects? I ask because Pens and White Lines is a redirect to a user page, created by said user. It serves no useful purpose. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that would fall under R2 and has been deleted as such. Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action on that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National subcategories of Category:Formula One people

Hi Explicit. Thanks for closing this CfD. Could you please ask Cydebot to merge Category:English Formula One people and Category:Scottish Formula One people into Category:Formula One people as well? The intent of the CfD was to include all national subcategories; I must have missed those two when I raised it. Thanks DH85868993 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Unfortunately, because the additional categories weren't included in the nomination and weren't tagged with {{Cfm}}, merging the leftover categories would be out of process. The best option at this point is to nominate them at today's CFD and use the same rationale, noting the outcome of the previous CFD. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

221.206.103.59 has created a series of user accounts, all of which start with Mbt, and then fills the user page or user talk page with gibberish, the only commonality being imbedded links to mbt shoes. I blanked the first couple, but more have been created since. Is this a problem I should take to ANI or to AIV? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is some odd behavior, but I'd say this is an attempt to spam. I'll shortly initiate a sockpuppet case with a CheckUser request to weed out all accounts, as their appears to be others laying around from earlier in the year, like Mbtshop (talk · contribs) (which is blocked) and Mbtsells (talk · contribs). — ξ ^xplicit 03:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a few SPAs over the years, existing only to spam or push a POV, but I have never seen this particular pattern of behavior. The nonsense that is posted gives the impression that this is being done by a computer, simply combining words randomly. Is there a way of blocking that Mbt prefix to prevent any further accounts from being created with that sequence of letters? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the sockpuppet case was quite revealing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbtshop/Archive. I don't think it would be a reasonable idea the disallow usernames to begin with the Mbt- prefix , as there are several that currently exist that aren't related to the website at all. However, the IP involved in all this has been for two weeks. — ξ ^xplicit 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doublethink. JPG

What do I have to do to get this photo to not be deleted? I have permission from the owner and everything, and labeled the photo as such with the owner's name and the site it was taken from. What am I missing? Strippedman (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps being deleted because, at the upload form, you indicated that the image may only be used here on Wikipedia and not commercial use. Files that are licensed freely must be licensed to be used here on Wikipedia, as well as for commercial purposes (see here and here). If the copyright holder of the image released it under those terms, you should forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and the link to the image. If verified that the file can be used on Wikipedia as well for commercial purposes, the file will be restored. — ξ ^xplicit 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album categories

Thanks You are correct that I have created a number of album categories (possibly a majority of them at this point, including over a dozen today) and I have an interest in this categorization scheme, but I'm not sure if I have anything to add to the discussion. Simply put, I think you're on the right track about (e.g.) Category:American albums being tricky. Where these recorded by American artists, recorded in America, or released to the American audience? Tough to say. It seems like Category:Albums by American musicians might be desirable (and the only one of those three options that is appropriate for categorization), but I don't know that I have more to add than that. Thanks again for the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_8#Category:Compilation_albums_by_country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — ξ ^xplicit 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bandals

Looks like this was aimed at you? Just thought I'd let you know. Chzz ► 22:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so he plans to vandalize pages until I apologize for deleting an "articule" [sic] which fell under WP:CSD#G4? This unique disruption... is interesting. I'll leave him a note explaining why the article was deleted. On a side note, I couldn't help but laugh at the title you gave this notice. Thanks for the laugh.

— ξ ^xplicit 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riau logo.gif

Hi. This was on my watchlist and went red. All these official seals are PD per Indonesian Law. It would fall under Commons:Template:PD-IDGov (although this was here, I know). Anyway, it broke a lot of stuff and people will unlink it all and the structure will be lost. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, the file was licensed under {{PD-IDGov}}. However, the file page failed to consist of a source to verify that this image was a work of Indonesian government and that it had been released under the public domain. If you or any other user can provide the necessary source, I'll gladly restore the file and add it to the description. — ξ ^xplicit 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

http://www.riau.go.id/ ?

It's the official site of the province of Riau in Indonesia and is given on that page.

There's also w:id:Berkas:Lambang propinsi riau.gif which has the same sort of pd-tag on it (and is rather poorer quality)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that'll do. File restored and source added. — ξ ^xplicit 08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added this, which is their page on the 'lambang' (seal). Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Yellow Horse

I think that file was probably uploaded by Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned nearly 3 years ago. That would account for why nothing was done about the sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Tecmobowl did upload that file. Since the file was tagged with {{PD-1923}}, a source is required to verify that the copyright has expired. My Google search didn't bring up anything useful, as this specific image was only here on Wikipedia and baseball-reference.com, which happens to be a Wiki. — ξ ^xplicit 08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he were wearing a Pirates uniform, it would be easy, as he only played during 1921-22. Unfortunately, he's wearing some obscure team uniform, and it's unclear which one or when, and he played in the minors both before and after his stint with the Pirates. One thing that's fairly certain is it would have been Tecmobowl that uploaded it (as "Baseball guy") since it was done around the time Tec was blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the editors of the article should considering using a non-free file? The subject is diseased and there doesn't seem to be many free images of him around from what I can tell, and the use of a non-free file wouldn't violate WP:NFCC in this case. — ξ ^xplicit 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notoforeigngames.jpg

How did this violate non free criteria. It was used as Fair use and a reference and is not replaceable Gnevin (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific image could be easily replaced by words. There was nothing in this image that text alone couldn't adequately explain. — ξ ^xplicit 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Expect for the fact the image also served as a reference Gnevin (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)~~ Sorry . Your correct Gnevin (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif

Hello, I took the picture File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif and added it to the Palago page. I later got a msg that it was going to be deleted because of improper permision. I thought I went in and added the correct permission but the pic was deleted anyway. Can you please tell me what I missed.

thanks, RexJacobus —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexJacobus (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There were to issues with the file File:PalagoGreenYellow.gif. The first I think is pretty evident, lack of licensing. Additionally, had you licensed it under {{GFDL-self}}, which I believe you attempted to do, the file could have been deleted under our speedy deletion criteria, as the cover art for the board game is copyrighted by the company that created the game and the graphic artist(s), even if you took the picture of the cover. The best option would be to upload the file under fair use, using the {{Non-free board game cover}} license, as well as using and filling out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. — ξ ^xplicit 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etherboy

Well sorry about the 3 revert thing but he needs to stop taking huge sections off the page for no good reason. And he has done another revert. His removing content is jepordising a correct AfD decision on the topic. STAT- Verse 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting him, you should have instead contacted Str8cash and get a discussion going, while noting that he was removing sourced content at the AfD page, as those who stumble upon the AfD are likely to check the history of the article before commenting. Alternatively, you could have contacted another user for a third opinion or asked for an administrator's help; edit warring is not the route to solve any dispute. — ξ ^xplicit 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I left a thing at WP:ANI and I have left a note at the AfD. STAT- Verse 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the discussion at WP:ANI and warned you both for edit warring after reviewing the history of Etherboy. I would suggest asking Str8cash to restore the content (and not revert him if he declines to do so) to allow other users to assess the article's content in a more accessible fashion. — ξ ^xplicit 03:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes

As someone active on ANI and experienced with BLPs, please would you take a look at this (centred on this person)? Thank you. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will review the situation shortly. — ξ ^xplicit 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Time of Angels.jpg

Thank you for using the template {{G8-exempt}} to preserve this Talk page. I was concerned that the discussion would disappear along with the image. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There was some pretty substantive discussion on that talk page, so I thought it best to keep that archived. — ξ ^xplicit 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some even more substantive discussion here. HairyWombat (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over shortly. — ξ ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hi, I saw that you blocked JohnnyCalifornia4Life (talk · contribs), a new user has popped up MiamiFloridaBabii (talk · contribs), appears to be a sock. -Regancy42 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked, that's so undeniably Tony254trill (talk · contribs). The fact that this user is picking different locations in their usernames fails to fool me. — ξ ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bio FA comments

Since you recently promoted Aaliyah to FA, would you like to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 and give some of your input? Thanks in advance, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will give it a look when I have the time. — ξ ^xplicit 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

larbi tadlaoui article

Hi i am Larbi Tadlaoui and i would like to know why you have deleted the article over my racing career please clarify asap many thanks in advance ,kind regards Bilarone /Larbi Tadlaoui —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilarone (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Larbi Tadlaoui was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, as this user created the it, MotorsportPete93 (talk · contribs), blanked the page and requested that the article be deleted. — ξ ^xplicit 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg

Hi, Explicit—I wish to challenge the result of the deletion discussion of the said image, and WP:DRV requires that I chat to you about it first. I very broadly agree with your result of "no consensus" – but WP:FFD clearly states, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them."

The result of "no consensus" should, therefore, be an impossible result for an FfD discussion: or rather, where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image.

I would welcome your comments as soon as possible. Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Files are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus, but the text is not binding. Both sides of the argument brought up good points as to why the image should be kept or deleted. However, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm more of a deletionist over an inclusionist, especially when it comes to non-free files and WP:NFCC, both HairyWombat (talk · contribs) and EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) brought up valid points concerning contextual significance—this, of course, is open to interpretation and difference in opinion. Users fell on both sides of the fence in that discussion, both brought forward valid points as far as the non-free content criteria policy is concerned, and I closed the discussion as no consensus, defaulting to keep.

I hope my explanation has given a clearly view of my decision. If not, feel free to take it to DRV. I'm actually on my way to bed, so it'll be about 12 hours before my next response, with school and all. Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 07:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]