User talk:Explicit/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

File:Highway code cover.jpg

Hi Explicit

Would you please reinstate File:Highway code cover.jpg. This file is permittred in Wikipedia for two different reasons:

1) The article where it is used is about the publication concerend. 2) The book "Highway Code" was published by the British Government ands as such is subjuect to Crown Copyright which means that it can be used in Wikipedia.

Once the file is restored, I will ensure that the copyright notices are correctly installed. BTW, the file in question has been part of Wikipedia for at least four years. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a freely licensed cover on Commons: File:The Highway Code 1931.djvu. Why do you need both covers, especially when the deleted file isn't a recent edition? — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Higway Code is a continually evolving document and there have been considerable changes over the last 80 years, both in terms of booklet size, contgent and looks. The 1931 copy was in black and white, the current copy is in colour. The current copy has a section on mototrway driving - in 1931 there were no motorways. BTW, the most recent paper version of the Highway Code on its own is the 2007 version - advertised here. Updates to this version are either bundled in with other booklet or are available on-line. Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Books are often reissued all the time with new covers, and we usually don't include more than one cover, which is usually the first edition cover (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images#Book covers). Take Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example. The first edition cover is being used in the infobox, and no other ones are in use, despite there being several of them in existence. The same rule can be applied to this document. The mention of motorways in the newest edition isn't entirely relevant, because unlike File:The Highway Code 1931.djvu, which showed the entire document, File:Highway code cover.jpg was merely the cover, which doesn't say much about motorways. At best, I can undelete the image, but because of the policies here on Wikipedia, I'd follow-up with it on WP:FFD. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

May I draw to attention two reasons for re-instatement of the image:

• The first edition of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four is essentially the same as the current version, the first edition of the Highway Code is very different to the current edition.
• The Highway Code' is Crown Copyright which generally means that it can be reproduced on Wikipedia with under a "Open Government License". Martinvl (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From what the article reads, the Open Government License was made available for works published in or after 2010. As the caption that was originally in the article Highway Code, this cover of this edition was published in 2007, so this license would not apply here. As for the differences between covers, as stated above, we generally don't include more than one, and we generally use the first edition. I have yet to see a compelling reason to restore the file, but as I also stated above, I can restore the file and take it to FFD. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Partners

Now shows aired. Please, create List of episodes page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.192.199 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link the article you speak of? "Partners" alone is extremely vague. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

JHE Production Group

Hi,

I am the new admin for the JHE Production Group page and see it has been deleted. What do I need to do to get it re-instated? Can you please let me know what information you need to prove notability?

Thanks! Jessika09 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Samie

The relevant page is the notability guideline for organizations and companies. 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 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested prod of Sayed Ihsanuddin Taheri

At the AfC helpdesk Kalimkarim, the author of Sayed Ihsanuddin Taheri (which was prodded a few weeks ago and which you consequently deleted), asked about the fate of his article. On the one hand, I doubt the subject is notable (I haven't looked for sources myself), but on the other hand, I believe contesting the deletion of a prodded article usually leads to undeletion if it comes after the fact. Could you have a look and undelete it if you consider it justified? I'll caution the author about the notability criteria and the possibility of just having it deleted again via AfD. Thanks, Huon (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that reads like a request for undeletion (specifically, the "I wish we could republish..." part), and the article has been restored as per WP:CONTESTED. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I suppose it has become a habit at this point. Three years of doing the same thing over and over, it just becomes a part of you, in a sense. It has become my primary manner of participation on Wikipedia, and it has been that way for quite some time; I don't have much time for much else, though I do try to create an article every now and then.

2. The biggest issue for me would be the response I sometimes receive from others users about my deletions. I understand their frustration when pages/files are deleted, but taking out their frustration on me and getting snappy isn't going to move things any faster. This is especially prevalent with images, as I'm one of the few administrators who strictly enforces WP:NFCC, while most of the community does not. I also get flack for not notifying the author of a page of an impending deletion, even though that isn't my job nor is a notification by the nominator required by policy. I actually disabled the email option quite some time ago, as I received most of the insults there.

The only thing that comes to mind where I would perform less deletions is inactivity on my part. I can't really think of any other reason.

3. I don't really much of a problem with the current system as it is. I think what may drive other administrators away from deletion work, and at the scale I do, is the type response one receives from so many deletions. Whether it be "restore my page/image!" or "hey, there's nothing wrong with your deletions—they're all within policy—but you're doing too many, so slow down". The latter did contribute to my first case of burnout, as one can see from the dates I received that comment and when I burned out, and I think that's why most avoid the deletion rate that the few of us other administrators dare to take on. — ξ^xplicit 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think your point on how we approach those who shoulder most of the admin burden is well taken. Realizing that if someone does 10x more work than everyone else, they may get at least 10x as many complaint is important. Also, realizing that those who do 10x as much work probably are more accurate than most people because of their specialization is important (I think of how poorly we handled Fastily and Rich Farmborough). I'll try to keep that in mind in my future ANI contributions and maybe try to write a proposal down the road. Thanks again. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Explicit, I may not have done as many deletions as you, but I've done over 12,000, and the complaints have been rare, about 1%. Of them, most are in good faith, and just need an explanation--and with an adequate explanation, even if they do not like the result, they are satisfied there has been proper consideration. A few have not been in good faith--so far from bothering me, i regard them as confirmations that I've been deleting what needed to be deleted. And I think in 5 years I have gotten maybe 2 bad faith emails. (Reasonable complaints by email, I don't mind, though I normally tell them I will deal with it on-wiki) If you get more, something is probably less than optimal with either what you are doing or the way you are doing it.

Perhaps your admitted refusal to notify editors might account for some of the reason you feel you are getting so many: not notifying people of negative actions concerning their work is guaranteed to cause bad feeling. I know I would immediately get angry at such treatment, and not be very likely to stay around and fix it. I hope that the consensus rapidly shifts about even permitting this. For I certainly cannot figure out why you think it's not your job--almost all other admins think just the opposite. Of course, it does take a little time to do it properly with personal messages, but even the form notices are better than nothing.

As for deletion rate, the reason I do not do more is that I know if I look at too many bad articles at one time, it warps my judgment,and I will start stretching the bounds of policy. Perhaps that also has something to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The types of emails I would receive would usually say something along the lines of "you deleted my article, you <explicative>, get a life/couldn't you be doing something more useful with your life?", and I usually received these emails from single-purpose accounts who more than likely didn't understand the deletion process, or what constitutes as a notable subject. If my deletion work was problematic, I would have been sent at least to ANI at least once, and to my memory, that hasn't happened.

Perhaps I may have written my view on notifications vaguely; I meant that I'm not required to send out deletion notices of pages tagged by other users. I always leave notifications when I tag something for deletion, and surely my contributions show that. Other users are not required to do the same when they tag pages for deletion, and there's no way to enforce something like this when it isn't even a requirement to begin with. It's simply a courtesy notice.

And again, as I stated in my first paragraph, if my judgement was faulty when it came to my deletion decisions, this would have been raised at ANI at least once. I'm not very hard to persuade when it comes to undeleting pages that were deletion under noncontroversial circumstances, like WP:PROD, and I certainly have given expanded rationales when it deals with deletion discussions. I always suggest the user take the result of the deletion discussion to DRV, and I can't recall when any of my closures were overturned, either. Taking all of this into account, I really wouldn't consider my actions a problem. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the notices. I did misunderstand. I don't know any of us who leaves a second notice when we delete an article that is already tagged, nor do I see any reason why anyone should (except when we need to do something like a warning or a block). I seem to have over-reacted upon hearing that as I understood it. Perhaps you should clarify above, so we see you're a good example, as you are. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for reinstatement

Hello Explicit,

May I request that you restore File:AVachss honey.jpg, which I see was deleted per WP:NFCC criterion #1. However, the fair-use rationale for the file (a promotional photo of author Andrew Vachss with his then-puppy Honey) did include the specifics regarding why it could not be replaced with free content. Below I quote the rationale's details relevant to criterion #1 (for brevity I have snipped out the rationale addressing the other criteria):

==

This image is not replaceable with a free use image for the following reasons:

• It shows the author in what he has described in many interviews as his favorite promotional photograph: posed with his pit bull, Honey.
• No free photographs exist of Honey (who died in 2005), or of Andrew Vachss with Honey.
• Its inclusion in the article is a significant addition because the photo is relevant to the author, who is a passionate advocate of pit bulls and an opponent of breed-specific dog bans. The author includes pit bulls as central characters in his books '(examples at http://www.vachss.com/dogs/dog_stories/index.html).'
• The photo is significant because it has been the object of critical commentary in numerous news articles, because of Vachss' views on 'nature vs. nurture' as it touches on both raising animals and preventing anti-social behavior.
• Vachss' own description of the significance of the photo is contained in a news article in the 'San Francisco Enquirer:'

"There's a very specific formula for creating a monster," Vachss says. "It starts with chronic, unrelenting abuse. There's got to be societal notification and then passing on. The child eventually believes that what's being done is societally sanctioned. And after a while, empathy -- which we have to learn, we're not born with it -- cracks and dies. He feels only his own pain. There's your predatory sociopath." That's why Vachss posed for a recent publicity photo cradling his pit bull puppy. "You know what pit bulls are capable of, right?" he asks, referring to the animal's notorious killer reputation. "But they're also capable of being the most wonderful, sweet pets in the world depending on how you raise them. That's all our children."

"Unleashing the Criminal Mind", by Dave Ford, San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 1990. [This quotation from the San Francisco Examiner newspaper is included in the Wikipedia article on Vachss that AVachsshoney.jpg illustrated. -Golemarch]

• Andrew Vachss' fame and reputation is built upon his expertise in child protection. His statement about the roots of adult violence in childhood abuse and neglect, and its explicit connection with animal abuse and later viciousness, shows conclusively that the image in question is highly relevant in illustrating Andrew Vachss' mission and message, and its consequent irreplaceability.
• The specific image under has been circulated by Vachss as part of his press kit since 1992. No free-use pictures of Vachss and Honey (or any other dog) exist, and the great majority of images of Vachss by himself are themselves promotional photos. Indeed, non-promotional candid photos, if any exist, would be much less appropriate than the image at issue, since those (A) would not include the significant image of Vachss cradling his pit bull Honey, and (B) would still have to include a license or a fair use rationale under U.S. copyright laws in order to become available for use.

In contrast, this image is available for this use under well-settled U.S. law; it is in fact used regularly by both print and online media; and it serves to depict Vachss, the significance he places in his relationship with Honey the pitbull, and metaphorically his protective mission with regard to abused children.

==

Once the file has been restored, I will make sure that the listed fair use rationale includes any further points necessary to conform it to WP standards. Thanks very much for your help. Golemarch (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that the image was being used to identify a living person. This easily violates the first point of WP:NFCC, as a freely licensed image can still be created. You don't need a non-free image of Vachss with his puppy to understand his stance, the text alone surely says it all. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't really agree that the text alone says it all. The quotation from the newspaper does not offer a replacement for the photo; rather, the newspaper story is quoted to draw the relationship between animal abuse (which leads to violent animal behavior) and child protection (which can ameliorate abuse, and thus insulate society against future violent behavior), These points are central to the child protection work for which Vachss is known. The photo is described in the quotation, and the inclusion of the photo in the Wikipedia article provides contextual significance (Policy criterion #8), particularly for those with a mental image of pitbulls as constantly menacing. This photograph has been commented upon in other news stories commenting on Vachss' philosophy regarding child protection.

That the photo "depicts a living person," in addition to both its contextual significance and its importance as an object of critical commentary, does not in itself a violation of WP:NFCC. If that were the case, no promotional or historical or critically important images of a living person would ever pass muster, which of course is not the case, as stated by WP:NFCI.

NFCC Policy criterion #1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." is no unqualified bar. As noted in my first post, no free equivalent is available of this combination of Vachss and his pitbull (now deceased). Further, no photograph created in the future "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose," which is that of providing contextual significance, as well as providing an "image that is itself the subject of commentary" (NFCI criterion #9). Please do reconsider this request; thank you very much for your attention. Golemarch (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I somehow entirely missed the critical commentary of the image. Definitely my bad on this one. I have restored the image for you. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Golemarch (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Treasure Box, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chorus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:LOTG,week1,2012.jpeg

You deleted this as "no permission". A Google Images search suggests that File:LOTG,drjohncrowd.jpg is the same file. Could you check if there are any copyright problems so that the new file also needs to be deleted? There are several copies on the Internet, but all in lower resolutions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed the same image, the deleted version being of a much large resolution. Both are credited to Will Cameron, and there's no indication that the uploader is that same person. As this is a duplicate upload, I'll go ahead and delete it now. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Stefan2 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the new file File:LOTG,deltaspiritcrowd.jpg also the same file? I forgot what it looked like. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's nearly the same, but at a slightly different angle. Still, it was tagged for lacking evidence of permission for citing Will Cameron as the photographer. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Blues_Clues_logo.svg

Can you restore this file? The logo can be obtained from Nick Jr. website, as well as the TV series. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done, though I'm not sure why the image won't display properly... — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ripple monetary system

00:32, 30 September 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Ripple monetary system (Expired PROD, concern was: lack of WP:N. After cleaning up irrelevant references, only one survived, with mere two and rather transitory paragraphs about 'Ripple')

This is about the deleted Ripple monetary system article, your "deleted article" topics did not match the WP:N motivation, so I post this here :)

Why did you delete the article? 'Ripple' is an important projects that develops better monetary systems protocols, it´s an open-source software project for developing and implementing a protocol for an open decentralized payment network. It is discussed by senior researcher David Hales, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, in this video, and described in detail on these domains, which are verifiable third party sources  : http://ripplepay.com and http://ripple-project.org/

Those three sources above are all verifiable third party sources according to WP:N, Ripple is a topic "worthy of notice",

David Hales, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, in this video discusses Ripple enthusiastically, beginning at 3:21 Ripple actually has potential to change our economic systems for the better, you should check it out!

I understand that the references were insufficient, I was just about to improve the article, now, if you would reinstate our article, we can get on improving the references, starting with adding senior researcher David Hales as a reference/peer of trust :)

Cheers! Johan

bipedaljoe@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BipedalJoe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Already restored by another administrator. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate Febian Nurrahman Saktinegara

This article was deleted. I too also agree that there was improvements required. I understand that the references were insufficient, I was waiting on the results of the 2012 SBM Golden Lens awards to improve the article.

Refer to the non-english article in PedomanNEWS (30 September 2012) http://pedomannews.com/music-movie/16519--erasmus-huis-dan-sbm-umumkan-pemenang-kompetisi-film-dokumenter

"Sementara untuk kategori pelajar, Fabian Nurrahman Saktinegara dari ITB meraih penghargaan untuk ketegori pelajar dalam film documenternya yang bertajuk Epic Java mengangkat tentang keindahan dan eksotiknya tempat-tempat di Pulau Jawa."

The source PedomanNEWS, was originally established by renowned Indonesian journalist and author Rosihan Anwar It is proposed that update reference to SBM Golden Lens which is supported by The Erasmus Huis, Dutch Cultural Centre in Jakarta Indonesia http://www.sbmgoldenlens.com

The Erasmus Huis is not only a showcase for Dutch culture, but is also a home for Indonesian art & culture. http://erasmushuis.nlmission.org/erasmus-huis

Equally the event is cited in the JakartaGlobe. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/lifeandtimes/documentary-fest-to-return-to-erasmus-huis/545320

The JakartaGlobe has been used for a number of cited references including 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi

The International Documentary Film Festival (IDFF) and SBM Golden Lens is discussed in the article "Festival Film Dokumenter Terbesar Dunia Digelar di Jakarta" in SUARAMERDEKA.com http://www.suaramerdeka.com/v1/index.php/read/entertainmen/2012/09/21/7181/Festival-Film-Dokumenter-Terbesar-Dunia-Digelar-di-Jakarta

SUARAMERDEKA is a cited reference for films such as ? (film) and living people such as Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

SBM Golden Lens is also covered in the article "Pasang Rikajang Raih 'Golden Lens Awards II'" http://kampus.okezone.com/read/2012/09/08/373/687083/pasang-rikajang-raih-golden-lens-awards-ii and in The Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/11/13/documentary-films-indonesian-audiences.html

It is suggested that a page be created for International Documentary Film Festival (IDFF) & SBM Golden Lens Awards.

The director has also previously been mentioned in The Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/bali-daily/2012-07-31/festival-attracts-young-talented-film-makers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singkatan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to improve the page can be done through the talk page.

Singkatan (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image

Yes, this is a post about a deleted image, this one to be exact. The image in question clearly had a FU statement, so I am curious why it was deleted. The same has happened several times now with Sfan00. So what's going on? Is a robot or some other automated system doing this? I was able to rescue this because I an admin, but I suspect this is a far wider occurrence than what comes across my little corner of the Wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating "fair use" on the description page is insufficient to constitute as a fair use rationale, it failed to address a single necessary component of a fair use rationale. This specific file was tagged by me, not Sfan00. — ξ^xplicit 23:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The image is resized down, states what article it is to be used in, and why it does not interfere with the commercial interest. I'm sure you found something else that you were noting, but sadly I do not own a mind reading device. Please consider taking the time to help editors understand how to improve things. In this case I would be happy to do so, if I knew what it was you were concerned about (or that you even were, you did not post on my Talk page from what i can tell, but it might simply be lost in time). Generally I advise being careful in any situation where the default result is the removal of content - if in doubt, don't. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted a book Autobiography of a Yogi

Hello you have deleted the current issue of the Autobiography of a Yogi when we were right in a middle of a discussion. Please explain... Also, did you read my explanation so far on the discussion page? We were right in the middle of a discussion...please explain - I am disputing your deleteRed Rose 13 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I left my rationale for deleting the image on the talk page. — ξ^xplicit 01:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Railfest

Hi, since you deleted Railfest (Cumberland), could you please delete the disambiguation page Railfest and move Railfest (York) into its place? Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletions

I see that you're deleting something like 20 images per second. First I'm sort of wondering how you are actually doing that, without (presumably) use of automated tools. I'm also wondering if you're actually taking the time to first inform the uploaders and giving them a chance to fix/address any issues. Can you clarify? Thanks. Volunteer Marek  00:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

20 images per second? I'm pretty sure that's not even possible. If my deletion summaries end with (TW), that would indicate that my deletion was done with an automated tool. The burden to notify the uploaders of image deletions is the tagger of the images, not the deleting administrator, and even then, it's not mandatory to leave notices in these cases. — ξ^xplicit 00:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Jay Park, Nigahiga, Phil in Word of the Day - Bromance.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Jay Park, Nigahiga, Phil in Word of the Day - Bromance.png. Because you 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.

• F7: Violates non-free content criteria or F7: Invalid fair-use rationale – The first of the two rationales means that the file failed to comply with the non-free content criteria policy. I would suggest giving said policy a read before you go on making more mistakes and losing your administrator privileges.

Just unknown (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of IBM_2260_video_display_terminal.jpg

Several days ago I sent a link to the original web page for this photo and quoted the sentence putting it in the public domain. Peter Flass (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on the website indicates that this image was released under the public domain by the copyright owner, which you cited as being David L. Mills. — ξ^xplicit 00:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

[1]

"The unattributed photos on these web pages were taken and retouched by me. They are not copyrighted and you can use them any responsible way you want." (bottom of page)Peter Flass (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That's much more helpful. I have restored the image. — ξ^xplicit 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter Flass (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!

Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with query about image use

Dear Explicit,

I am a relatively new editor and I am trying to find an administrator to help me with the topic of appropriate image use. I recently uploaded an image of a perfume for the page 'Lady Gaga Fame'. I've supported it with a very detailed non-free fair-use rationale and associated talk-page discussion in accordance with the Wiki guidelines (not easy for someone like me!). However, I have received quite a lot of resistance from two editors with regards to the image and the fair-use rationale. Both have argued very strongly that it should be replaced with a free-licensed alternative and issued me block warnings. However, according to the Wiki guidelines on derivative works [2] and copyright [3], the logical conclusion was that there would be no free-licensed alternative due to the nature of the product (somewhat like no free-licensed version of music album covers?).

I am aware that you are a busy person outside of Wiki (as you've noted on your page), however, I would really appreciate it if you could take some time to review my statements on the image's page [4] and the associated talk page.

Thank you, and if you have other matters to review instead, I totally understand.

Regards, Handsdown.1 (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the editor's arguing for the deletion of this image are right. The box may be copyrighted, but a freely licensed image of the perfume bottle—actual product—seems entirely possible to photograph. — ξ^xplicit 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion of DVS* Derek VanScoten

Hello, I was having issues with my email and did not respond to the challenge/ proposed deletion of the DVS* Derek VanScoten page on time. Is there an archive of all the info previously on the page, so I can just update the bio instead of starting a new page from scratch?

thanks for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVSmusic (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I can move the article's history and content to a subpage of yours, for example, at User:DVSmusic/D.V.S* Derek VanScoten, if you'd like. However, by looking at your username, I would advise you to review the conflict of interest guideline, as you appear to be associated with the subject. — ξ^xplicit 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Klooch

Good afternoon! I know, that in October 11 you've deleted the article "Klooch" about Canadian-Ukrainian band. Could you prove me a reason of deletion? This band is well-known and notable in Ukraine and abroad! Why have you done it? With respect --93.72.76.168 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion by another editor with the rationale "Notable? No reliable independent sources." Looking over the article's content, there wasn't any indication that the band met any of the points listed at WP:BAND. Are there any sources that indicate that this band is notable? — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lists of Law Clerks

Hi, You deleted several pages of lists of Supreme Court law clerks for each justice on the ground that they were redundant. This was a mistake, because the page of law clerks for all justices populated their lists from the individual pages. Now the information is missing from the site. Please reinstate the lost data, either in the individual pages or the master list. See List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States--note that listing for all the clerks for Justices other than the Chief Justice is missing. Thank you. — Broodingomnipresence (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I restored the subpages, which contained the content on the main page via templates. Please watch for that in the future. Also note that the PROD on one of the pages was inappropriately reinstated. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 3). Cool Hand Luke 20:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Not sure how I missed the prod being restored on that last one, definitely my bad. — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WinFixer screen shot

On 4 July 2012, you deleted Winfixer.jpg. If I remember correctly, this was a screen shot of a web page used to install viruses on people's computers. As a result, I am not sure that its use violated copyrights. In addition, the image is directly related to the article and, therefore, should qualify for an exception if there was a possible copyright problem.

In particular, the image I remember being there was simply a screen shot. According to Wikipedia guidelines, Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia for the following reasons

1 Cover art

2 Team and corporate logos: For identification

6 Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.

It is my opinion that all 3 apply to the deleted image and that it should appear on the page.

Unfortunately, since the image is now deleted I can not view the related talk page to see what discussion occurred. Therefore, there is no way to know if there was an attempt to fix the problem or if the image was simply deleted because it failed some rule.

I would like to have the image restored and all the links to it. How should I proceed? Robert - Northern VA (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it lacked a fair use rationale. If you plan to add one, I can restore the image for you. — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If what I said above is acceptable, then I can add that. Is there some special format I need to follow? Robert - Northern VA (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the file. You can follow the instructions described at WP:FUR. — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits have been made. Robert - Northern VA (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to restore Tyondai Braxton performing at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.png

This is a request to restore the image File:Tyondai Braxton performing at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.png which you deleted according to the deletion log on 20 September 2012. I am requesting you restore the image, as I have approved the OTRS Ticket for them to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license see OTRS ticket 2012101510005827 for more information. To verify that I am on the OTRS Team verify here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done by another administrator. — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. Since you are an established contributor and reviewer of articles, particularly music-related ones, would you like to comment at the FAC page for The Way I See It (album)? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated, as the process has been a bit slow. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I will give it a look if I have the time. — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Forcefield (art collective)

Hi Explicit. Would you have any objection if I restore this article as a contested Prod? I think they might be notable, and I would be willing to add some reliable sources. [5] [6]. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Same thing for Simparch, which also appears to be notable. [7] [8]. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also I could add some sources to Indianapolis Theatre Fringe Festival. (These were also Prodded by an editor who appears to have developed a habit of tagging articles for deletion because sources are not present in the articles.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the restoration of these articles, especially if you plan to work on them. — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll restore them one by one, when I am ready to work on each. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

point line plane postulate

Point Line Plane Postulate

Why did you delete it? A lot of people are wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.213.205 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Point–line–plane postulate was proposed for deletion by another editor with the rationale "Violation of WP:Not. There are no reliable sources for this article since it is mathematically incorrect in several ways, as is the You-tube video from which it comes." — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This was written by the man who created the YouTube videos "imagining the tenth dimension"

I have 2 questions for Explicit: - this is a geometric postulate which has been on wikipedia for at least the last four years, that was when I first stumbled across it. It is referenced on a number of other sites, in what way are you qualified to say this geometry postulate is "mathematically incorrect"?

- this postulate was posted by other experts long before I came across it, for you to say it "comes from my video" is absurd. What's next? Are you going to delete wikipedia entries referring to Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation just because I talk about this concept in my videos?

It seems clear now that someone recently added a link to one of my youtube videos on this wikipedia entry and that's what made Explicit delete this entry. Explicit, if you are truly interested in the dissemination of knowledge, then revert this page back to whatever the previous version was and stop trying to suppress this information.To remove this legitimate entry does a disservice to the wikipedia community as a whole. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.93.181 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my reply? The article was proposed for deletion by another editor. That means not me. The claim that it was "mathematically incorrect" was made by that user. The proposed deletion of the article went uncontested for seven full days, and was deleted out of procedure. The article lacked inline citations, which are necessary to: a) verify the claims made in the article; b) meet the notability guideline. Secondly, there was one external link-external links and citations are not the same thing, by the way—of a YouTube video, which is not considered a reliable source. Instead of trying to shame me, you could have easily asked to have the article restored if you planned to work on the article and address the concern made by the user who nominated it for deletion. That's really all it takes. — ξ^xplicit 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Point Line Plane Postulate

I understand that you are responsible for removing the PLPP page from wiki? 1. Who gave you the authority to do that? 2. Put it back immediately please! Jeff Hall http://therealjeffhall.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.163.175 (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

After posting this comment I now see Rob Bryanton's comment. "Explicit" betrays his/her ignorance of the subject by attributing the original post to 10thdim. I am a mathematician (MSc Operational Research) and is see no problem in using the point line plane postulate as a means of visualising the otherwise abstract concept of higher dimensions. Jeff Hall MSc MRICS MSTAT

Even a cursory search on the internet for the "point-line-plane postulate" reveals ample support for it as a valid mathematical concept. For example, it is included in an Andrews University publication entitled "A Review of Basic Geometry": http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/webtexts/geom01.htm#POST Even if the article was flagged by another user, shouldn't it be your duty to check if the complaint is valid before deleting the page? Your refusal to revert the deletion only confirms a deep commitment to ignorance and not knowledge. --Kairos1919 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My duties as deleting administrator are listed at WP:PROD#Deletion, all four which were met. The burden to keep the article lies with the user(s) who added or wish to keep this information on Wikipedia. I fail to see how I have refused to revert my deletion when my only reply prior to this one was to explain why the article was deleted, unless explanations are considered refusals now. — ξ^xplicit 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I respectfully suggest that you look up the definition of "postulate" and then reinstate the page in order that interested parties might add links to others who support the ppp postulate. I don't know how Wikipedia is administered but perhaps you could relinquish your administration rights over this page and assign them to Rob Bryanton (10thdim) to whom you previously attributed it? Jeff Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.163.175 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to to tell all the "ten dimensions" fans: Only because you can imagine a paralel universe it doesnt make it real, even if you mention Heisenberg in the process or make videos in youtube. You are attacking VOLUNTEER editors that have no interest in you selling less books that are, as has already been said, wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.126.190 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Court backhand.jpg

I have no idea why this was deleted by you. I gave a proper reason to the query on the talk page as requested. I went to check the talk page just now and it's gone. No explanation, no nothing. I think this should be talked about before such a quick removal. From everything I read the picture passes Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The subject is still alive and well. Anyone is capable of taking a picture of her and release said picture under a free license. It was a textbook violate of WP:NFCC#1. — ξ^xplicit 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Allison Brennan

I was in the process of adding references to Allison Brennan when you got there first and deleted it as an expired BLP prod. I re-created it. A quick check on WorldCat found her books were several of them in over 1000 libraries, & translated into 6 languages, & 1 was a NYT best-seller. I added sufficient 3rd party RS references to demonstrate the key elements of importance to address the BLP Prod issue. I haven't added the reviews yet, to make the notability unambiguous, but I will in a day or two. As merely an expired prod I know I could just go ahead and do it, but I thought I'd let you know.

I do a good deal of checking of prods, and I do not deleted expired BLP prods automatically without checking for refs if there is any reasonable chance of there being any & the person might be notable -- except for sports & entertainment figures, where I just can't keep up. I tried to source them also when BLP Prod first was adopted, and did source 3/4 of them, tho not all were likely to be notable, but I decided someone else will have to do that part.

Most of the content was added by a clearly promotional editor, as the original formatting indicated (I changes that also). I'll deal with that guy tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding sources for this article was kind of difficult. It appears that there is a writer for CNN and a diver of the same name who don't seem to be the same person, from what I could tell, anyway. From what I could gather, it seemed like a case inherited notability from her best-seller, hence its deletion. Of course, I don't feel too strongly about it since other individuals with the same name come up in search results, so someone may be able to turn something up sometime in the future. — ξ^xplicit 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

File:RaphaelXavier.jpg

Hello,

You deleted a photo.. RaphaelXavier.jpg even after I had the permission sent to the permissions email posted.

Was this received or did it have an issue?

Thanks,

Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugenbee (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The email may have not been read by the time I deleted the image. I'll come into contact with one of the OTRS volunteers and see if they can dig up the email and get the image restored ASAP. — ξ^xplicit 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Helmet images

Can you review this again as per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011 December 11#File:LSU Helmet.png, the drawing of a helmet IS copyrightable, and as it is not licensed cc-by-sa the helmet pictures can be replaced by free image and a FUR made for the logo part only. Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like that discussion set a precedence for these type of images, so I've gone ahead and deleted the images in question and noted the conclusion at File talk:Cleveland Browns logo, 2006 to present.svg. — ξ^xplicit 00:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mtking ^(edits) 01:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pest, but did you consider in this decision the possibility that File talk:Cleveland Browns logo, 2006 to present.svg may not be subject to the precedent set at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011 December 11#File:LSU Helmet.png? As noted of the LSU helmet, it is essentially two copyrighted works: the logo of the team and the helmet drawing itself. But the Browns are different in that the helmet drawing itself is the team's logo. Thus the helmet drawing is just one copyrighted work: the team's logo. I supplied evidence of this on the talk page and elsewhere. If you think the precedent still applies, then fair enough, but I wanted to ensure that you were at least considering the difference between a Browns helmet drawing and other teams' helmet drawings. Given the difference, I thought it might be useful to take it to a full deletion discussion to gain some kind of consensus. --Batard0 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there's some more substantive discussion that tangentially involves you at my talk page in case you are interested. --Batard0 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If the image is being used only to identify the logo, then it does appear that it can be used in this case. I have restored the image. Anything further attempts to have the image deleted should definitely be handled at WP:FFD. — ξ^xplicit 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quartz Soccer Club

Hello, I just noticed on my watchlist page that you just deleted the Quartz Soccer Club badge due to it not being on a page. I am sorry because I wanted to make a section where I could repost it on the page but because of the recent Hurricane Sandy I was unable to do anything on wikipedia (except for a few small things) and one of the things I could not do was re-add that logo. Basically what I am asking is if you could possibly restore the image so I can properly repost it on the Quartz SC page. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it's no problem at all. File:Quartz Soccer Club.png has been restored. Glad to hear you're safe! — ξ^xplicit 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers and yes I am safe, thank you again. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Gangnam Style Elevator Scene screenshot.png

Please take a look at it. F7 tag have been removed several times by an IP user. This fair use is disputed and have been deleted one.--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I reduced it, and fixed one text error. --Lexein (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have an opinion about this image: I don't think its fair-use claim is invalid. It's on the hairy edge of permissibility, only because we don't permit multiple non-free images of a living person in a BLP (is that article BLP-ish?), and have in the past heavily frowned on multiple non-free images in an article. Exceptions that I've seen: films, and this is a sort of film. But some court cases have eased the onerous burden on fair-use users, so I'm firmly in the camp of justify it: actually use it for an educational purpose, and source it: discuss and cite discussion of that shot in substantial independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Morning Sunshine, if the F7 tag is continually disputed, the proper thing to do now is to nominate the image for deletion at WP:FFD for community input. — ξ^xplicit 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Asbury Park Convention Center.jpg

Hi,

I see that my image has been deleted. It was taken with my old, low-resolution AGFA digital camera about 8 years ago while vacationing in Asbury Park. Camera quality's why the quality looks like a screenshot. I own the image and it's not taken from any video or TV show. -Fnerchei (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I've gone ahead and undeleted the image in good faith. Your explanation does explain the quality, and I see no compelling reason to keep it deleted. — ξ^xplicit 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) -Fnerchei (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate Mindpearl corporate page please

Hi Explicit,

Can you please reinstate the Mindpearl page you deleted on the 6 Oct.

00:47, 6 October 2012 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Mindpearl (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company in any independent sources.)

Mindpearl is global call centre company with locations in Brisbane, Suva, Barcelona and Cape Town.

What type of validation do you require to reinstate?

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2009-11-02/call-centre-opens-in-fiji-taxfree-zone/141474 http://www.fijilive.com/news/2009/10/mindpearl-will-take-on-air-pacific-staff-ceo/20737.Fijilive http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/btn20080528103844776/

Thanks for your support.

Nigel Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelsclarke (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please make sure to address the concern the article was originally deleted for. — ξ^xplicit 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida. Because you 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. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall. Because you 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. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Saving Londoners' Lives map file

Hi

I originally posted - in error it would appear - the following on SchuminWeb's talk page. Apparently you are who I should have been in contact with. Can you answer my query (below)?

You relisted, then deleted, a file I uploaded - this one [9]. You mentioned on the FFD that there needed to be a discussion of the merits of the file itself. I didn't reply, which is my bad, but I think that the original FFD (here: [10]) has that - a discussion of its copyright status.

Could you reply to let me know your rationale for deletion? If it was that, in essence, you don't think my original rationale was strong enough, that's of course fair play, but it would be helpful to know.

Thanks! Batmanand | Talk 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved in the listing, relisting, or deletion of File:SLL map of schools dec 2011.jpg. User:Explicit did the relist and close on that one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The deletion summary for that file shows that it was in fact SchuminWeb who deleted it. I have no idea why he sent you to me. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is what I thought. I will go back and ask him! Batmanand | Talk 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

International Defence Industry Fair (IDEF)

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the International Defence Industry Fair (IDEF) article, claiming that it's not an important fair. I believe this opinion doesn't reflect the reality.

Please check the links:
http://www.idef13.com/en/index.php
http://www.tuyap.com.tr/webpages/idef13/index_eng.php
http://www.tuyap.com.tr/webpages/idef11/index_eng.php
http://www.tskgv.org.tr/tskgv/?p=1713&lang=en

for detailed information. It is one of the largest military/defence industry fairs in the world, held once in every 2 years since 1993 (the next one will be in 2013.)

Best regards. 88.251.119.64 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Check out the list of participating companies: http://www.idef13.com/en/index.php?main=katilim 78.181.130.75 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) 88.251.83.107 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File: Aliyen kentaui.jpg

As finally you had deleted the image, I'm still waiting for a reason for that action. As I had stated, there is not a free license alternative to the image, so the claim that I had violated Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1 is clearly and totally false. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This was a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. The subject is still alive, and anyone is capable of taking a picture of him and releasing that picture under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

y se llama perú

i'm a bit curious behind the rationale of the deletion of And It's Called Peru. You write "", A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which cbut googling "y se llama perú"+partido gives me 295,000 hits. Hardly a clear-cut prod case. Did you contact the article creator when putting the prod notice? --Soman (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of Google hits doesn't guarantee notability. Per WP:PROD#Procedure for administrators, I did all I had to do before deleting it, and the burden to verify notability lies with the users who want to keep the article, not those who want to delete it or the deleting administrator. As the deleting administrator, I'm not required to notify the creator, but neither is the nominator, so... — ξ^xplicit 00:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"I did all I had to do before I deleted it" sounds pretty dubious to me. You filled some checklist, now you "get to" delete an article? This is not some arcade game where the goal is to delete articles. You ought to be exercising your judgment, not exhibiting an automatic bias toward deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.202.244 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if only the editors interested in having the article kept would exercise their judgment in properly referencing the article to begin with, but I guess courtesy doesn't extend that far.

If you plan to address the concerns mentioned in the deletion rationale, I can restore the article for you. — ξ^xplicit 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Robert J. McCann Group Executive Board UBS March 2012.jpg

Hi Explicit,

I uploaded this image and you left a message stating: (File deleted: F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1 (TW)). Thank you for your participation in this edit but having followed the Wikipedia guidelines very closely when uploading this image I would like to dispute that the image violates non-free content criterion and my rationale is as follows:

1. My search has uncovered no other suitably licensed images.

2. Wikipedia does not insist that all images that are uploaded to their servers are Creative Commons or Copyright Free. This would preclude the use of -- for example -- the UBS logo that appears on the UBS Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UBS_Logo.svg

3. Instead, Wikipedia relies on "Fair Use" rights that are common to UK, US, and Swiss law (among others). Wikipedia's notes on fair use can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC

4. Logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos) and publicity photos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicity_photos) are among the material that is considered acceptable under "fair use" rights. Wikipedia's rationale for the latter is that "[s]ince such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted."

5. I believe that if photos are used in this context, and appropriately tagged, they will remain the copyrighted property of UBS, just as they would were they to be used in a press article. Wikipedia places restrictions on the use of this content within Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC)

6. The image of McCann that I uploaded is hosted at http://www.ubs.com/global/en/about_ubs/media/global/images/executiveboard.html which meets Wikipedia's criteria for fair use publicity photos (1. in an area of the site aimed at the press, 2. available in high resolution format, 3. clear copyright message and licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes.) I believe that Wikipedia considers itself to be covered under the "educational materials"

7. To this end,the image was uploaded in low resolution format, and the following steps taken: a) UBS is cited as the source and copyright holder b) The content includes the Non-free promotional tag c) The content includes the Withpermission tag d) the content is tagged with Non-free use rationale according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale)

Please let me know where I have gone wrong, or if you agree that I have complied with Wikipedia's guidelines allow me in uploading the image again and adding it to McCann page. Thanks for your time. Whileworth (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this case was a textbook violate of WP:NFCC#1, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.. The subject is still alive and well. Even if a freely licensed image of this person does not currently exist, anyone is capable of taking a picture of her and release said picture under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, thanks for replying. I am still unsure as to the best way to proceed about including an image on the Bob McCann page. I do not have access to the UBS employees and therefore I cannot physically take a photograph of him myself. All other images on the internet have copyright issues hence why it is necessary to use the photos made available for press on the UBS site. If you take for example the UBS key logo and refer to point 4 of my rationale - 4. Logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos) and publicity photos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicity_photos) are among the material that is considered acceptable under "fair use" rights. Wikipedia's rationale for the latter is that "[s]ince such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted."

A Wiki Bot has crawled another image I uploaded with the same rationale and accepted the rationale. The image is: Sergio Ermotti Group Executive Board UBS March 2012.jpg The Bot stated: (Bot: Updating license tag(s) with image has rationale=yes)

If you would be kind enough to suggest how I might go about adding an image without physically taking a photograph myself I would be extremely grateful for your time. Whileworth (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if the subject is alive and well, there is hardly any justification to upload a non-free file. As long as this remains to be the case, there should be no non-free photo uploaded of this individual. — ξ^xplicit 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverse Wood Burning Stove

Quote:Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Reverse-process stove (Expired PROD, concern was: This article is just an advert for a particular type of stove, and is not notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia.)

Hi there

I am not on wikipedia a lot anymore, and I just came across your note. As there are this many varieties of stove online as in the attached listing, I don't know why the Reverse process stove is relegated to the category of an advertisement when this others are not. I am not even associated with the stove in any way whatsover, but thought the engineering principles were enough to warrant an article, as did the invention and manufacturing processes. A new link and image (for wikimedia commons) have recently come to light as well. Can you email me back and explain your reasoning please and thank you.

   Air-tight stove
   Bamboo stove
   Beverage-can stove
   Biomass cook stove, a fuel efficient and environmentally aware cookstove
   Buddy Burner
   Electric stove
   Franklin stove
   Gas stove
   Hobo stove
   Kang bed-stove
   Kitchen stove, (also known as cooker, cookstove or range) for food preparation
   Pellet stove
   Portable stove
   Potbelly stove
   Reverse-process stove
   Rocket stove
   Sigri (stove)
   Wood-burning stove

SriMesh | talk 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An reply via email will be sent shortly. — ξ^xplicit 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion of homes.com

On August 24th, you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes.com with the reason:" non-notable company and website"

There is a very good chance this was initiated by a competitor. Homes.com gets over 10 million unique monthly visitors and is currently ranked the #5th real estate website by both Comscore and Hitwise. If needed, I can provide countless news media references (not PRs).

David

204.154.43.244 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was definitely not nominated for deletion by a competitor, but a regular Wikipedia user who registered nearly nine years ago. He likely came across the article by chance and felt that the subject was not notable. If the reference you can supply are reliable sources and you plan on improving the article, I can restore it for you. — ξ^xplicit 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I went back a few months and pulled some references to Homes.com from various national news media outlets as well as the from a real estate industry niche site:

Inman news (Inman News is one of the top Real Estate niche news sites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inman_News)

Homes.com powering listings for media outlets http://www.inman.com/news/2012/09/7/homescom-powering-listings-media-outlets

Homes.com signs up 2 more MLSs http://www.inman.com/news/2012/05/8/homescom-signs-2-more-mlss

Revamped ERA website live with IDX listings http://www.inman.com/news/2012/06/1/revamped-era-website-live-with-idx-listings

National news

How (and where) to buy a house online http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2012/0921/How-and-where-to-buy-a-house-online

The Best (and Worst) Home-Buying Sites http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2012/09/21/the-best-and-worst-home-buying-sites/

A Village Without a Downtown http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/realestate/rye-brook-ny-living-in-a-village-without-a-downtown.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

High-, low-cost ZIP codes to rent in Boston http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/2012/08/22/most-least-expensive-zip-codes-rent/ZPl20S8wBzKi2Rew7sCAjP/story.html?pg=1&t=150&cp=1

College Roommate Selection: A Step-By-Step Guide http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/roommates-infographic_n_1825619.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Five Tactics That Will Help You Fight Back Against The Big Boys http://www.businessinsider.com/five-tactics-to-level-the-playing-field-for-small-businesses-2012-4

What to do with $10,000 now! http://money.cnn.com/gallery/pf/2012/09/20/spending-10000.moneymag/4.html

Getting Warmer: Where Rent Prices are Hot http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/home-front/2012/09/24/getting-warmer-where-rent-prices-are-hot-and-where-theyre-cool

Dhoegerm (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of these do seem appropriate for the article, so I've gone ahead and restored it. Please make sure to add these references in. — ξ^xplicit 02:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of JayData and JSLQ

Dear Explicit, sir!

These two articles have been deleted by you on 9th the Nov as the the deadline have been reached for deletion. The reason for deletion was the lack of references. We amended the foreign references on 6th the Nov but nobody approved the changes till 9th the Nov, so the deletion just occurred. Please help us resolve this, since we do believe those content were valuable.

kindest regards Peter Zentai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Aron Zentai (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you plan to add references to the article, I can restore it for you if you'd like. — ξ^xplicit 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

I've recreated the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/JayData#Fixing_citations). Please let me know if the content is acceptable or requires further modifications. Very best regards, Robert Bonay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonayr (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't review Articles for Creation pages. You'll have to wait until someone else does. — ξ^xplicit 23:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, no problem, I just proposed to accept the new article to show that I'm quite serious adding the references. Could you please restore the deleted article, I will fix the citations and references. Thank you, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonayr (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Frankie Bones

Seriously??? http://thedjlist.com/djs/FRANKIE_BONES/bio/

Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.18.199 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded, not deleted; this article concern a globally recognizable musician that has been active for over 25 years and has dozens upon dozens of commercial releases - Stage Name "Frankie Bones", birth name, Frank Mitchell. Can someone please expand this article or work to make it better. Here is a link to a recent magazine cover story on Frankie Bones

http://www.ortofon.us/files/news/USA_DJ_MAG_2012_72.pdf

Also, a more complete Discography is available on Discogs.com --- a few decent photos would be appropriate as well. This article is need of many additions, it should be much longer. Hopefully someone can get the ball rolling on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:18EE:288A:1234:7949:6938:EFE2:A444 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like the prod was contested and the article is at AFD. — ξ^xplicit 23:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lilah Morgan deletion

Hi Explicit. First, I have no qualms about your deletion of that article, my problem is how it was deleted. It was deleted without being redirected to the proper place, meaning all the content that was in that article is lost, and can't be merged into the proper article, and also tons of redlinks appear for "Lilah Morgan" in various Angel related articles. It should have been merged here: List of Angel characters. Is there any way to get that content that was in the article (so it can be merged), and to recreate the article as a redirect? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can restore the article and redirect it to the page you've linked, and you can view the history of the article. I will go ahead and do that now. — ξ^xplicit 23:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg

I have restored this file, which you deleted as F5. The new image uploaded to the article in its place was a copyvio. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lóvera

A Prod that you acted upon, Gonzalo Lóvera, was recently (2 hours after you deleted it) re-created with what I recall as the same content. As such I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lóvera. Please feel free to examine the evidence and weigh in on the debate. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Whole Lotta Sole movie poster.jpg

Requesting undeletion - it went to "unused" status due to an inappropriate replacement by this PDF: File:Whole_Lotta_Sole_poster.pdf, which I will then promptly speedy delete as

1. Too big (2k x 3k px) for fair use per WP:NFCC, and due to PDF format, too unwieldy to reduce
2. Non-image format, PDF, and too unwieldy to reduce
3. No URL or verifiable source provided for the PDF
4. No proof that the source was the film's director, or "poster created by HiJump" as claimed (no OTRS)

I wish "upload new version" was a reasonable option, but it's not in this case (PDF only). --Lexein (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, file restored. — ξ^xplicit 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that'll do nicely. --Lexein (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi. Since you give comments on music-related articles that are listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

File:TRS meeting in 2010 demanding formation of Telangana state attended by over 2million people.jpg and File:Telangana March at Hussain Sagar on Sep 30, 2012.jpg

File:TRS meeting in 2010 demanding formation of Telangana state attended by over 2million people.jpg and File:Telangana March at Hussain Sagar on Sep 30, 2012.jpg were deleted. Please undelete these 2 files. Free images are not available. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The content in these images can be described in text alone. How do these not violate the first point of WP:NFCC? — ξ^xplicit 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think saying there are 2million people is not same as showing a picture. There are very few political events which attracted millions of people. Other picture is related to another political event to which 200,000 people attended even though govt used force to stop the people coming to that event(by cancelling transportation services, by putting barricades/barbed wire, Police arresting, caning , firing at people etc). This article don't have single picture, even though this movement is a major political and administrative crisis in India for last 3years. I thought I will put few pictures of major events related to this movement to give reader better understanding of the movement. Ramcrk (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images aren't required to show these crowds, text alone can do that efficiently. These images simply do not meet the criteria. — ξ^xplicit 02:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for article Nolan Sotillo

On 00:24, 17 May 2012, you deleted the article Nolan Sotillo. The reason for deletion was "Expired PROD, concern was: Only one real acting credit." Now, there are significant amount of resources to prove that he has more than one real acting credit:

• The Wikipedia article Madison High wrote about his credit of playing as Colby Baker.
• The Wikipedia article Prom (film) wrote about him. He starred as Lucas Arnaz.
• On Internet Movie Database], he also has credit for TV series Corey and Lucas for the Win and TV series Made in Hollywood.
• Also, he currently belongs to Invation, a new teen musical group. The band is also mentioned in article Kenton Duty.

I think it is necessary to rewrite the article. Timothy Gu (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, I have restored the article. Please make sure to rewrite the article so it meets the general notability guideline. — ξ^xplicit 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I wasn't sure where to post this so I went directly to an administrator: This is an IP from Opera Turbo. Doing a Google search of "what is my IP" shows something different than my actual IP when Turbo is not on. It also has contributions which I didn't make. Should this IP be treated like an open proxy? 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8624 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know too much about these new IPv6 IPs, honestly. Far beyond my comprehension. However, you may likely have any questions answered on the WikiProject IPv6 Readiness talk page. — ξ^xplicit 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete my images

The images in question are listed on my talk page-- I was gone and didn't have time to reply to IFD requests. Still, the rationale for their deletion was ridiculous. They were still in use on the Ref Desk, which should count as article space. People shouldn't delete chemistry images simply because they are "bad JPG" or not SVG when they are being used to ask a question. Now I can't look back on my old questions because I don't have the images with which I asked them anymore. Please restore the images. I think this is a common sense argument. Otherwise, you will have broken the Wikipedia:Reference Desk archives. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I have restored five images. If there are more, feel free to list them. — ξ^xplicit 06:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hannes Anier

Hey there,

I'd like to inform you that the aritcle regarding Hannes Anier you deleted for not meeting WP:GNG/WP:NFOOTBALL can now be restored as Anier has since made his debut for OB which plays in the fully professional Denmark Superliga.

http://www.soccerway.com/matches/2012/12/01/denmark/superliga/odense-boldklub/esbjerg-fb/1289528/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommi.1988 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have restored the article for you. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

cami bra

I want to recreate the cami bra page. It looks like I need to contact you in order to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckfan79 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the administrator who deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cami bra, and that would be Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs). — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

9 Ball Shootout.png

You filed the image for deletion, well it may as well go since the article is gone. Sod it. Raphie (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, it has been deleted. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

List of amateur adventure games

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously proposed for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch, I entirely missed it in the page history. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kesha photographs

Hi

I noticed you deleted 2 files as copyright violations. File:Ke$ha Today Show2 2012.jpg and File:Ke$ha Today Show 2012.jpg. I thought I should point you to 2 more which I uploaded from the same set, which would also need deleting for consistency. However, I will say this - I would (almost) swear on a stack of bibles that those permissions have been altered on Flickr since I uploaded these, it would be extremely unlike me not to check, and the original uploader of the other 2 pics uploaded his before mine. I also recall him specifically referring to the Flickr license being CC 2.0, which reinforces my recollection. Anyway, here are the other two: File:Kesha Today Show Pointing.jpg File:Kesha Today Show Kneeling.jpg. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 09:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick addendum - since I'm not 100% sure the Flickr permission was the reason for deletion, I should make it clear I assumed these pictures were indeed the work of the Flickr user present at the filming. If, instead, the issue is something else, like maybe they are from the TV broadcast, then please accept my apologies for muddying the waters.

One last thing, in case it matters: my personal opinion, if the permissions were retrospectively altered, is that we should probably respect the Flickr user's wishes, be nice, and assume they made an error with the license originally. I don't think they are important or unique enough pictures in the grand scheme of things for us to get all steamed up over, even if we were able to prove the license details. That's just an opinion, though - I'm sure you can get lots of those... Begoon ^talk 10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out those two additional files to me, which I will delete shortly. Indeed, the first two images were deleted because of the license claimed on the Flickr page. At this point, it's impossible at this point to verify if the images were originally licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license. In the future, it would be a good idea to upload these types of images on Commons, as there is a review process there that verifies the license, where the images could have remained even if the license on Flickr was made more restrictive after it was reviewed. — ξ^xplicit 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Hi again - it seems the photographer read this conversation.... She emailed me to say she'd be happy to change the license back to CC2.0 and she has done so: User_talk:Begoon#Ke$ha. Because the images were cropped etc, would it be possible for you to undelete these 4, and I'll move them to commons if you let me know? Begoon ^talk 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How very kind of her! I have restored all four images for you. — ξ^xplicit 02:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that so quickly. I'm tagging them for copy to Commons - I'll copy them later - the helper bot won't work for me at the moment. If it's still down later I'll stop being lazy and do it manually... Begoon ^talk 02:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that comment - all copied to Commons - I used this: For the Common Good which I'd never used before - great tool, and meets my "lazy" requirement to a tee. . Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 02:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the local copies under F8 and tagged the copies on Commons for Flickr review. — ξ^xplicit 03:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff. Thanks for all your help. Begoon ^talk 03:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20