Line 501: | Line 501: | ||
Thanks Explicit. All fixed.[[User:Factocop|Factocop]] ([[User talk:Factocop|talk]]) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks Explicit. All fixed.[[User:Factocop|Factocop]] ([[User talk:Factocop|talk]]) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
Hi Explicit, can you block O Fenian for edit-warring on the Giant's Causeway wp. He has made several edits which can only be described as terrorism.[[User:Factocop|Factocop]] ([[User talk:Factocop|talk]]) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:15, 24 September 2010
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Diamonds Are Forever film category recreation
Why exactly is DAD all of a sudden, the only James Bond movie out of how many there are so far to not have its own category!? I don't know whomever originally nominated the cat was thinking (by not taking that major tidbit into account). So save you're lecturing before taking the rest of the cats into account! Basically, it seemed like it was put up for deletion mainly for the sake of it including various locations like the Las Vegas Strip. TMC1982 (talk) 12:47 a.m., 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the nominator didn't see into the other categories, as editors (including myself) sometimes run into one category that's nominated for deletion when the entire category tree is the problem. Or maybe it was even a test nomination to see if it's would be worth the trouble in nominating the rest for deletion, completely plausible as well. I skimmed the other categories and they could all probably be nominated for deletion with the same rationale. — ξxplicit 07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs
I am requesting that Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs be restored, and another cfd be formed if someone wants it deleted. I created it, and I was not informed at all that it was up for deletion. I had no idea of this discussion, and I would have supported keeping everything that was bundled in, as well as this one. This was unfair to me, the creator.
This category was previously up for cfd on its own, and it was unanimously kept.
Please DO NOT ask me to take it to deletion review. I have no faith in deletion review. If you do not agree to restore it, I plan to boldly recreate it. But I would prefer not to. I would prefer to have it administratively restored, then if someone doesn't like it, to propose it for deletion again. Shaliya waya (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, you want me to overturn the unanimous consensus to delete the categories, even though consensus can change, and you plan to be pointy by recreating the category, despite the fact that it would meet the speedy deletion criteria G4? I fail to see how any of this is anywhere near constructive. Granted, I understand your frustration with not being notified of the discussion, but these solutions border disruptive editing. DRV pretty much is your last option. — ξxplicit 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
With due respect, please review our policy and guidelines. We do not accept images from photo agency or press agency via Fair Use. It has been discussed many times over and over. The template another admin removed even states Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Jimbo himself had the "final word" is deleting the press agency image File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg as a copyvio, despite having a FUR. You can read the deletion discussion as well: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 28#Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg. Re-read what the CSD I placed is for - copyvios and This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. If you want a more direct wording than please read the Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline, and specifically the unacceptable image use section - 7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Please restore the tag and/or delete the image. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because I'm thoroughly confused on the subject, I just reverted myself to allow another admin to review. An image being deleted as a copyright violation despite F9 noting that fair use images are not deletable under that criteria truly, and I put this lightly, has my mind fucked. I'll have to revisit this issue later down the line. — ξxplicit 03:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you on that honest comment and reverting. FYIW I have had issues with the wording of that criteria in the past and have had discussions requesting the wording be clarified, some minor rewording was done but even in its current form it reads slightly funky. Yes, one of the the first things it does say is a copyvio can't be claimed on anything with a FUR - however the very next line says This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. I have maintained that line needs to go *before* the first line. Some read the wording as the opposite of what it means - that anything with a FUR *and* images from agency's are exempt. And others feel, because it only says Getty and Corbis, any other agency not named is exempt. Partly, I believe, that is why we have fair use templates that state things like image from press agency's can only be used "when the image itself is the subject of commentary" and specific "guidelines" that go one step further by adding "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP)..." in it. I am part of related conversation where this issue has come up here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#Template question. (If you don't want to read it all skip to the last few comments by myself, Jheald and Sherool.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Out of interest, I tagged it as {{db-badfairuse}} rather than CSD9 because I couldn't understand the 9 template, but I thought the FUR was irretrievably bad as I know you can't use Press Agency photographs unless the photograph itself is the subject of the article (or at least of the section it was illustrating). So yeah, anything that sorts that one out would be gratefully received. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Elin your CSD tag was fine, and valid. I just didn't know you had placed it before I placed mine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Out of interest, I tagged it as {{db-badfairuse}} rather than CSD9 because I couldn't understand the 9 template, but I thought the FUR was irretrievably bad as I know you can't use Press Agency photographs unless the photograph itself is the subject of the article (or at least of the section it was illustrating). So yeah, anything that sorts that one out would be gratefully received. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you on that honest comment and reverting. FYIW I have had issues with the wording of that criteria in the past and have had discussions requesting the wording be clarified, some minor rewording was done but even in its current form it reads slightly funky. Yes, one of the the first things it does say is a copyvio can't be claimed on anything with a FUR - however the very next line says This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. I have maintained that line needs to go *before* the first line. Some read the wording as the opposite of what it means - that anything with a FUR *and* images from agency's are exempt. And others feel, because it only says Getty and Corbis, any other agency not named is exempt. Partly, I believe, that is why we have fair use templates that state things like image from press agency's can only be used "when the image itself is the subject of commentary" and specific "guidelines" that go one step further by adding "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP)..." in it. I am part of related conversation where this issue has come up here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#Template question. (If you don't want to read it all skip to the last few comments by myself, Jheald and Sherool.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
RfA thanks spam
Bronx/The Bronx
Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Dated deletion categories
Hi Explicit. Hope all is well. I noticed that you deleted a number of Dated deletion categories at C:SD a little ahead of schedule. While you're probably thinking, bah, 20 minuets early is nothing, I just want to drop you a friendly reminder, no, it's not. There have been incidents in the past where admins have deleted files/PRODs ahead of time, subsequently winding up as the subjects of particularly nasty ANI threads. In all good faith, it's only fair to give users the full time guaranteed by the deletion tags to contest the deletion or resolve the issue with their uploads. Twenty minutes may not be a lot of time to you or me, but it is more than enough time to contest a prod or add fur to a file description page. While I know I delete many of these pages on a day-to-day basis, I want to stress that Wikipedia is not a race or a game. Strictly speaking, I'm glad there are other sysops who have the policy knowledge and willingness to tackle these daily backlogs. Otherwise, have a good day and keep up the hard work. All the best, FASTILY (TALK) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- If it comes across as problematic, I'll make sure to wait those twenty minutes. I didn't think it would be a big deal if there were that small of a difference, but I see that you may not view it the same way I do, so I'll respect that. I should point out that there are other admins who deal with prods, AFD and FFD discussion nearly 24 hours ahead of time. Take Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 5, for example. I'm not complaining about this or I hope I don't come across as an ass about this, but if I'm receiving this notice, I only find it fair to drop these exact same notices to Cirt (talk · contribs) (who deals with AFDs), Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) (FFD), Courcelles (talk · contribs) (prods and AFD) and Jclemens (talk · contribs) (prods). There are probably more, but these are the ones that stick out in my head. — ξxplicit 00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- No need to inform me, I'm taking due notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Bitch won 8 MTV VMAs and already the fans started creating the album article. Could you please full-protect it now? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eight wins? Holy crap. Looking over the awards, I can't say I'm surprised "Video Phone" didn't win a thing. Anywho, I might get shot in the face with any attempt to protect in the article... and let's face it, Born This Way (album), Born This Way (Lady Gaga album) and Born This Way (Lady GaGa album) will make their way shortly after. I'd start off with a merge discussion, at least. Or the incubator, whatever that is. — ξxplicit 04:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
R2 Mess
Thanks for going in and cleaning up my mess for me. I really appreciate it man.
Thanks, FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! It's no problem at all. I'm trying to douse the fire now before someone comes along and pours gasoline on it. — ξxplicit 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was fun. So, no harm done other than our three admin logs now contain a combined 1,000 extra entries. :) Courcelles 08:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Corestates.jpg
Hi - I noticed you deleted the file File:Corestates.jpg because it was unused. It looks like there was an edit to the article that changed the link to the file from .jpg to .jpy making it unused. If you can restore the image that would be helpful. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Explicit for helping to cleanup my embarrassing mess. It should have been me, not you who had to suffer through that! Thanks again! -FASTILY (TALK) 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
- If you ever need anything in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. I owe you one. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! I cleaned up after you had become unresponsive, I assumed you had logged off and could be off for several hours. That's when I decided to spring into action. I also meant to bring up List of hip hop groups, which you deleted under R2, despite it not being a redirect. The only favor I ask in return is a promise from you to slow down just a bit, or at least lay off the energy drinks! — ξxplicit 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one for you to full-protect for now, untill the concern uber fan develops a worthy article for namespace. Also, you might want to note on the 3RR going on by that user. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a need at the moment, it seems that Headbomb has ceased reverting and it working on the article in their sandbox. — ξxplicit 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good thing that he has started working on it in sandbox, and yeah, the prophecy is never wrong. Tbhotch predicts more to the prophecy: Born This Way (album), Born this way, Born This way, Born this Way. I boldly predict BORN THIS WAY too, lest that Dance-pop creature comes back. Ohhh I miss those days. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Mesa Verde Cactus
Like everyone else, you have missed it. Go read the distribution section of the article. The part about Antarctica. Aporocactus (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- One problematic section does not merit the deletion of an entire article. Aside from that, the article didn't meet the criteria for G1 at all, so it was ineligible for speedy deletion in the first place. — ξxplicit 03:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!!
→ in re: deletion
Thanks for your help with my recent CSD! --Wolfnix • Talk • 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, thank you for the cookie and kitten! Which one do I eat again? — ξxplicit 05:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Wikipedia Entry On AsiaWheeling
Dear Explicit,
I had posted a entry on AsiaWheeling which is a cycling expedition across Asia for exploration and research. It has been deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Asiawheeling is non-profit organization and there is no promotion or advertising intended through the Wikipedia entry.
Perhaps the entry was incomplete and it did not convey the appropriate message. Is there a way you can restore that article. I will move it to MyPage and move it to the article space when it is complete.
Thanks!
Nikhilnk1 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done, I've moved the content to User:Nikhilnk1/AsiaWheeling, where you can work on the page. Please remember to use neutral wording and to cite your sources. — ξxplicit 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
-> Thanks a lot for the quick action. will keep your inputs in mind while developing the article. Nikhilnk1 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ultra Refined Follicular Unit Transplantation
Hello,
You recently deleted an article I posted on Ultra Refined Follicular Unit Transplantation and coded it as advertising. I am trying to post a legitimate article concerning an advanced surgical procedure. There is already an article on Follicular Unit Transplantation and I feel that there is a significant distinction between the two procedure and the ultra refined procedure deserves its own page.
I don't really understand why this is categorized as promotional or advertising because it doesn't mention any business, clinic or other entity other than the requisite reference which is a published book by hair transplant surgeons with whom I am not affiliated.
I'd be happy to rewrite this article if I had some idea of the offending content.
Please respond.
Kindly, David Beames David TTP (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. The article—which happened to be a word for word copyright violation of this website (and, coincidentally, the sole external link provided in the article), which I hadn't noticed before—was written in a promotional tone. If this subject merits an article, please make sure to write the text in your own neutral words and and cite sources. I should note I'm well aware of an issue was brought up before with the article Hair Transplant Network. — ξxplicit 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pre madonna
I found that there was a consensus to delete the article since it was a bootleg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Madonna. A personal search for the news archives did not return anything notable for this, except that it was released. Can you please delete it? 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I gave the deleted content a look and it seems to be an entirely different topic. The text was: It is a common misconseption that the the phrase pre-madonna was a pun playing on the phrase prima donna. The phrase pre-madonna actually came first. It was used to describe the time before the birth of the Virgin Mary as people wanted a word to describe the time in the old testament. BC/BCE was not sufficient because it covered the periods leading up to christ's birth which. The only available solution was to use the birth of Madonna as the pinpointing moment in history. Naturally, that version and the current version aren't anywhere near identical, making it ineligible for deletion under G4. — ξxplicit 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- You admins are so lucky that you can read deleted content.:) I have nominated it for deletion again. Lets hope so. PS, User:Headbomb is resorting to some aggressiveness and personal attacks, which is kinda dishevelling. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Gnutella Web Cache
Hi, you recently deleted the Gnutella Web Cache article. Would it be possible to restore it to my user space so that I may use part of its contents to create a new article, as GWCs are a quite important part of the bootstrapping to many file sharing networks, including gnutella and Gnutella2. mfg, OldDeath - 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done, I've moved the page to User:Old Death/Gnutella Web Cache. — ξxplicit 05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- mfg, OldDeath - 09:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Word Alive redirect
Hey, seeing as you're an admin involved with music you could understand this. An article for a band known as The Word Alive recently got created by me after many deletions and finally a sucessful revision came about with the help of me and a few others not too long ago. There is a page the word alive (all lowercase) that is protected from being created due to the same reasons as the main page was. I wanted to ask, can you unprotect it so it can serve as a redirect? Thanks. • GunMetal Angel 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus
re this Do we follow it anymore? The consensus is absolutely against the current version, reverting again so Reisio has 4 reversions (and violates 3rr) seems pointless when their edits are clearly against consensus and thus vandalism. I don't see any reason to endorse their copycat BS after they got called out for ignoring everything that had already been discussed.--Terrillja talk 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Making edits against consensus is no where near vandalism. The only problem occurring is the edit war going on at iPad, most notably Reisio and yourself. Plus, I only count three reverts by Reisio: one, two, three. The first attempt to remove the image does not count as a revert. Should the edit war continue, either report it to WP:3RRN or request full protection at WP:RFPP should more users engage is mindless reverting. — ξxplicit 07:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Three reversions today. I have no doubt that if I revert it for a third time, Reisio will violate 3rr, but I see no reason to do so when the discussion on the talkpage and on WP:VPP are both clearly against it. So I ask you, would you like to see another reversion against consensus by Reisio to violate 3rr explicitly, or can you agree that the various discussions are against consensus and violate the bit of WP:VAND that reads "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" as ignoring consensus would be violating a key policy and thus compromising wikipedia. I realize that we have rules for a reason, but a bit of IAR (for 3 reverts rather than 4) rather than bureaucracy makes more sense here. If you want to see them revert again, I'll bring the article back in line with consensus, but it seems like a pointless action to me.--Terrillja talk 08:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not Reisio would make a fourth revert is a guessing game, so I'm not going to take action on something that has yet to happen. I don't understand how removing a logo from the name field of the infobox and replacing it with text is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I should note that the use of images in fields not specifically designated for images are generally frowned upon due to accessibility issues. I gave the talk page a look, and I see one section regarding the matter, which only had two participants: Trev M and yourself. A more substantial discussion would help. Also, if you could link me to the discussion from the village pump, that would be appreciated. It's been archived, but the search for the section title doesn't bring it up yet. — ξxplicit 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wether or not a wordmark is used in an infobox does not compromise wikipedia, but there was a pretty extensive discussion of it here (the link was in my 3rr warning to Reisio), which basically said there is nothing policy-wise against it, when informed of the discussion there and on the talkpage, Reisio's only response was copycat junk trying to copy my edit summaries and warnings. I trust that you can compare our contribs, but yes, after trying to have a civil discussion with them and instead getting sarcasm and copycat responses, I took it to AIV as continuing to revert did not seem to be a productive measure to me. FWIW, the wordmark was used in the Logo= field, but per the talkpage it was moved to the top of the infobox. If it helps from an accessibility point of view, it could be moved to the logo field without a title field as the output would be quite similar.--Terrillja talk 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- True, there's nothing policy-based restricting the use of the image in the name field, but one should take into consideration of the accessibility issue. In response to Cptnono below, regardless, AIV was not the proper venue to report this issue. I'm not sure if you noticed, but there is a considerable difference when using the image in the name field [1] and the logo field [2]. I run on Windows 7 using Firefox, so there may be a difference if you run on other software, I'm not really sure. Hopefully this can end the dispute. — ξxplicit 08:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wether or not a wordmark is used in an infobox does not compromise wikipedia, but there was a pretty extensive discussion of it here (the link was in my 3rr warning to Reisio), which basically said there is nothing policy-wise against it, when informed of the discussion there and on the talkpage, Reisio's only response was copycat junk trying to copy my edit summaries and warnings. I trust that you can compare our contribs, but yes, after trying to have a civil discussion with them and instead getting sarcasm and copycat responses, I took it to AIV as continuing to revert did not seem to be a productive measure to me. FWIW, the wordmark was used in the Logo= field, but per the talkpage it was moved to the top of the infobox. If it helps from an accessibility point of view, it could be moved to the logo field without a title field as the output would be quite similar.--Terrillja talk 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not Reisio would make a fourth revert is a guessing game, so I'm not going to take action on something that has yet to happen. I don't understand how removing a logo from the name field of the infobox and replacing it with text is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I should note that the use of images in fields not specifically designated for images are generally frowned upon due to accessibility issues. I gave the talk page a look, and I see one section regarding the matter, which only had two participants: Trev M and yourself. A more substantial discussion would help. Also, if you could link me to the discussion from the village pump, that would be appreciated. It's been archived, but the search for the section title doesn't bring it up yet. — ξxplicit 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Three reversions today. I have no doubt that if I revert it for a third time, Reisio will violate 3rr, but I see no reason to do so when the discussion on the talkpage and on WP:VPP are both clearly against it. So I ask you, would you like to see another reversion against consensus by Reisio to violate 3rr explicitly, or can you agree that the various discussions are against consensus and violate the bit of WP:VAND that reads "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" as ignoring consensus would be violating a key policy and thus compromising wikipedia. I realize that we have rules for a reason, but a bit of IAR (for 3 reverts rather than 4) rather than bureaucracy makes more sense here. If you want to see them revert again, I'll bring the article back in line with consensus, but it seems like a pointless action to me.--Terrillja talk 08:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
New section
Disruptive editing is still bad whether it is vandalism or not. Waiting to see if someone hits the revert button again does not do the project any favors. I often find myself not liking the way Terrillja goes about things but he does have a point.
Regardless of the dispute above, you never responded to User talk:Explicit/Archive 26#Alex Marquez. I assume it got passed over. Would you mind moving it over to a user subpage?Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I overlooked it as I mentioned in this edit summary. Anywho, I've moved the page to User:Cptnono/Alex Marquez. — ξxplicit 08:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for undeletion of categories
You have just deleted a number of categories in the same hierarchy as Category:1858 in Norway. These should not have been empty, and if you take a look at 1858 in Norway, you will see that. What the error is I'm a little unsure of, except that it must be of a technical nature. Could you please restore these categories and their talk pages? __meco (talk)
- Holy crap, how did that happen? The pages appear to have populated the categories for some time, but they disappeared for no reason, despite the categories not being removed at any time. I deleted quite a few, so it will take me a bit. — ξxplicit 08:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have had some similar issues recently which I inquired about at WP:VPT, and I find it likely that this has something to do with this edit which I made four days ago to the template which places the categories on those articles. But the way this is currently playing out there is perhaps a need to alert some people more deeply involved in the technical aspect of running Wikipedia, perhaps someone at Wikimedia? This could cause a lot of unintended deletions and whatnot if this is more prevalent than just related to this particular template and this category structure. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. I'm thinking this has to do something with the job queue. This happens when the category parameter of a template is altered, it takes the pages a while to catch up with the new category. For example, Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles needing infoboxes was recently renamed to Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles without infoboxes, and those pages are populated by the {{WPBiography}} template. I altered the category here, and as you can see from the old name of the category, there are still over 1,300 pages that need to be updated (either by the job queue or by an edit made after the template change). These pages show up in the old category, despite the fact that they aren't really there. What I'm doing with the Norway articles is hitting edit and save, which making a change; this forces the page to purge, allowing it to show up in the categories which I deleted as empty. — ξxplicit 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch! That's a fourteen days old edit still working its way through the job queue. I'd say this is a serious issue. Do you know if there's any discussion on this where the developers are involved? __meco (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because the category is so large, it can possibly take a month or two, if not more. Special:Statistics shows that the job queue is backlogged up the... well, you know. I'm not aware of any type of discussion regarding the job queue, but I'm assuming it doesn't get a lot of attention as not many editors know of it and admins such as myself that work at WP:CFD just wait it out. There's even a nice little section dedicated to that at WP:CFDWM#Templates removed or updated - deletion pending automatic emptying of category. — ξxplicit 09:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch! That's a fourteen days old edit still working its way through the job queue. I'd say this is a serious issue. Do you know if there's any discussion on this where the developers are involved? __meco (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. I'm thinking this has to do something with the job queue. This happens when the category parameter of a template is altered, it takes the pages a while to catch up with the new category. For example, Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles needing infoboxes was recently renamed to Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles without infoboxes, and those pages are populated by the {{WPBiography}} template. I altered the category here, and as you can see from the old name of the category, there are still over 1,300 pages that need to be updated (either by the job queue or by an edit made after the template change). These pages show up in the old category, despite the fact that they aren't really there. What I'm doing with the Norway articles is hitting edit and save, which making a change; this forces the page to purge, allowing it to show up in the categories which I deleted as empty. — ξxplicit 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have had some similar issues recently which I inquired about at WP:VPT, and I find it likely that this has something to do with this edit which I made four days ago to the template which places the categories on those articles. But the way this is currently playing out there is perhaps a need to alert some people more deeply involved in the technical aspect of running Wikipedia, perhaps someone at Wikimedia? This could cause a lot of unintended deletions and whatnot if this is more prevalent than just related to this particular template and this category structure. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted account
Hi,
I would like to know the reason you deleted my wikipedia page Mark Heaney. I spent quite a bit of time getting that page together and don't understand why you deleted it.
I would like an explanation.
Yours Sincerely, Mark Heaney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh1970 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there, the article for Mark Heaney was deleted because another editor had proposed its deletion, with the concern that Mark Heaney—which I'm assuming is yourself—did not meet the notability criteria for musicians to merit an article on Wikipedia. Subjects, especially biographies of living people, should be accompanied with citations from secondary reliable sources in order for that person to assert notability and be included here. If that can be addressed, the article should be fine. Also, please take a look at the conflict of interest page, as creating an article for yourself may cloud your judgment. — ξxplicit 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, With regard to your answer as to why my page was deleted, It does not make sense.
Someone proposed it's deletion. I would like to know who.
All of the information on that page was correct and justified. I am a professional drummer of some standing and had my wikipedia page for quite some time.
It had links to all the bands I have played in sources, websites etc. Know your saying I have to justify why I should have a page. You have to be joking, I am regarded as one of the best players out there! I am not happy about this and want it sorted please. I want my page put back up and to know who decided to delete it.
Yours Sincerely, Mark Heaney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.78.184 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mono (talk · contribs) tagged the page for deletion, so this user may have a better insight regarding its proposed deletion. As these proposed deletions are considered uncontroversial, they can be restored on request, which I have done. If you're as notable as you claim, I would expect that you'd have no trouble finding sources for the article. Please be aware that this does not save the article from deletion, as it may still be deleted at the articles for deletion venue. — ξxplicit 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Aaliyah
Hi, The user eo said that i cited falses references but, I mentioned the source, I did everything right, it's a slide show of the Univision, the picture 10 says One In A Million sold 3.7 million. the text is on the right side of the page. If you can help me, I'll be grateful Thanks =) comment added by OneInAMillion96 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
Please acess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aaliyah_discography#One_In_A_Millio_Sales: , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ericorbit#Aaliyah , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OneInAMillion96#Your_recent_edits and the source http://musica.univision.com/fotos/slideshow/2010-08-25/aaliyah-a-nueve-anos-de-su-muerte (photo 10)
ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Missed one
Quick note: File:Young Kalsh Boy.jpg should've also been deleted per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 4#File:Kalash mother&daughteratschoolopening.jpg. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On another subject...
Univision-based photo gallery sales claims aside, I noticed this today and wondered what you thought of it? Obviously not a real article or work in progress. Lots of wikilinks to legit articles also. I see this as a violation of WP:UPNOT and a candidate for WP:MfD but don't want to dump too much on this guy at once; he seems to have a long-standing problem with sources and sales inflation — I don't know if its a lack of understanding or a lack of caring. A gentle reminder that this kind of thing is greatly discouraged, or a waste of time to even bring it up? - eo (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It definitely crosses into the WP:FAKEARTICLE territory, but it might be worth notifying OneInAMillion96 that it's not allowed, as he/she may not be aware that it's an issue. Album sales inflation isn't the only thing I've had to deal with [4], and their talk page full of warnings shows it's a recurring problem. — ξxplicit 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your note at User talk:WindowsNT4.0#Your user subpages and for your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards. User:Uchiha23/Awards was one of the pages tagged for deletion at the MfD, so would you delete it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- D'oh, I don't know how I missed the main page nominated! Thanks for letting me know. — ξxplicit 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deja vu
Maybe I'm off-base here but this certainly reminds me of this... or maybe it's this? I'm *this close* to taking it to CheckUser. Opinion? - eo (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- This one's tricky. TrEeMaNsHoE's and CiaraFan4Ever's edits are so similar and the articles they edit often overlap. Actually, I just noticed EastBay16 created their userpage, something TrEeMaNsHoE has never done, so I'm inclined to say this is CiaraFan4Ever. — ξxplicit 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Nelly 5.0
The MTV sources in the article describe Suit and Sweat as different versions of the same album and clearly state that Nelly 5.0 is his fifth album hence the title. Do we not count that as important? or is it because Suit and Sweat had different track listings that we count them as seperate releases? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, odd. I changed it to sixth studio album due to Brass Knuckles being labeled his fifth. From what I remember, Sweat and Suit were completely different albums—which Nelly emphasized this at the time of its release—and the track listings show that. I don't understand why MTV would call it different versions of the same album, as that's not the case. — ξxplicit 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well in the MTV articles it says: Both songs were recently serviced to radio and will appear on the St. Louis rapper's forthcoming LP, 5.0, due to arrive November 16. Dropping dual singles is similar to the way Nelly introduced one of his past projects, 2004's Sweat and Suit. Of course, 5.0 is just one album, the rapper's fifth overall and his first since 2008's Brass Knuckles. [5]. Also rap-up and Mtv referr to the album as simple 5.0. I've been trying to find reliable sources but being hip-hop there is always some degree of ambiguity. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- All the while, Billboard refers to it as his sixth: While Nelly was disappointed by the "Brass" outcome, he used it as motivation for his upcoming sixth album. [6]. The MTV article refers Sweat and Suit two different albums : The two albums were released on the same day, but with different themes... If anything, the writer of the MTV article needs to learn some basic counting. — ξxplicit 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I Guess so. Although I guess Nelly deciding to call his sixth album 5.0 doesn't help LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- All the while, Billboard refers to it as his sixth: While Nelly was disappointed by the "Brass" outcome, he used it as motivation for his upcoming sixth album. [6]. The MTV article refers Sweat and Suit two different albums : The two albums were released on the same day, but with different themes... If anything, the writer of the MTV article needs to learn some basic counting. — ξxplicit 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well in the MTV articles it says: Both songs were recently serviced to radio and will appear on the St. Louis rapper's forthcoming LP, 5.0, due to arrive November 16. Dropping dual singles is similar to the way Nelly introduced one of his past projects, 2004's Sweat and Suit. Of course, 5.0 is just one album, the rapper's fifth overall and his first since 2008's Brass Knuckles. [5]. Also rap-up and Mtv referr to the album as simple 5.0. I've been trying to find reliable sources but being hip-hop there is always some degree of ambiguity. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Haha! It sounds like it might be a decent record *smiles*. LOL Btw... I cant believe the latest TremanShoe sock denounced the results of the check user.... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's TMS for you, always denying the obvious. He's not very good at it, either. "Yes, It was confirmed by a check user, but I am asking for my request reason to be reviewed. Again: I was recently accused of sockpuppeting for user TrEeMaNsHoE. However, I am not him." That's not going to get him very far. — ξxplicit 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Question
How do you change the identity of the maker of an edit in the history? In other words, my account apparently logged out without my realization and now I have an IP edit immediately preceding my edit changing it back to my username. CycloneGU (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's not possible, I'm afraid. However, I can hide the IP address from the revision if you would like your IP to remain unknown, just point me to the diff. — ξxplicit 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that a good idea? It's Jimbo's talk page, I just edited right before messaging you. And besides, will having my IP on there be a cause for danger? Never been IP hacked before. (I should know these things, I claim to be a computeraholic. *LOL*) CycloneGU (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you choose not to have your IP revealed, it can be hidden from the public view at your choice. I, personally, don't have anything to worry about should I edit while logged out, but everyone sees in differently. — ξxplicit 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- My only concern is because multiple computers use the Internet here. *LOL* And it's a single IP thing. I expect to move sometime in the near future, so it probably won't matter. How would the edit show in the history if you hide the IP? CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would look a little something like this, third diff down. The IP you edited from has only made that single edit, so it shouldn't be a problem. — ξxplicit 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, a little blatant, and it would suggest I have something to hide.
- Further, I am seen in the following edit editing the IP and replacing with my username, so not much point to hiding it. *LOL* I guess we'll leave it alone, it'll disappear down the edit history soon enough. CycloneGU (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would look a little something like this, third diff down. The IP you edited from has only made that single edit, so it shouldn't be a problem. — ξxplicit 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- My only concern is because multiple computers use the Internet here. *LOL* And it's a single IP thing. I expect to move sometime in the near future, so it probably won't matter. How would the edit show in the history if you hide the IP? CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you choose not to have your IP revealed, it can be hidden from the public view at your choice. I, personally, don't have anything to worry about should I edit while logged out, but everyone sees in differently. — ξxplicit 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that a good idea? It's Jimbo's talk page, I just edited right before messaging you. And besides, will having my IP on there be a cause for danger? Never been IP hacked before. (I should know these things, I claim to be a computeraholic. *LOL*) CycloneGU (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ajona1992
Can you personally deal with the matter, you got my support, and SandyGeorgia's support as well for a block (I prefer indef) Secret account 03:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I gave him a strong warning, so I'll work with Ajona if anything I'll just go back to AN/I and let an uninvolved adminstrator do a block. Secret account 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Blocking him myself isn't the greatest idea. I've been engaged with too often with this user to not claim a huge WP:COI on my part as I'd see it more fit to ban him across all projects, as the problems stem into other Wikis and Commons. Good luck with trying to work with him, though I personally see it as a waste of time. — ξxplicit 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Illayaraja Photo Deleted
Hi,
I went your reasons for deleting the photo. I accept it. Firstly I am new to wiki. What I beleive is especially for articles thats been rated as good, should have a photo there.
Since Ilaiyaraaja article is rated as good, it should have one at introduction. I know wiki policy. This I am saying as a consideration that guys like you,administraters,reviewer etc., who have power can see and discuss.
Till the time you guys receive a Licensed free,copyrighted image you can actually allow anyone who submits the file with meeting other image media policy, like: rationale use - Fair image use as- news paper, articles, magazine etc., This makes more sense.
I am not totally against your decision in deleting the image file, but again it would be more proper to let the image stay there until someone uploads a image with full license free copyrighted image as you expect.
Example : You allow 2 full days for the image to stay there checking the replaceability. Instead you can allow till you receive a copyrighted license free image from anyone. Once you receive those you can immediately delete as you wish.
Because articles of such importance should not be like: a bread without a jam. Photo brings a more life into an article in wiki
Please do re-consider in this. I do repect all wiki rules and policies.
Many thanks,
Keyan20 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how the policy works. As the individual is still a living person, a picture can be created, which makes all non-free images of him fail WP:NFCC#1. There's no way around it at this time. — ξxplicit 07:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Raymond Harry Brown
Thanks for fixing the C&P. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI: AJona1992
Hi, I've made a proposal (and comments) on [[User:AJona1992|AJona1992's] ANI. If you have time and wish to revisit the ANI to help with it, I'd appreciate it; regardless of whether you support my proposal or not (your feedback is greatly appreciated either way). Best, Robert (ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC))
Deletion of Spitznagel_in_WSJ.JPG
Why did you delete "Spitznagel_in_WSJ.JPG"?? I sent an email on 9/16 to permissions-en@wikimedia.org clearly stating that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image file and that I agree to publish this work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (FYI, it was photographed by Susan Hall, whom The Wall Street Journal repeatedly credits for the photo, and from whom I acquired the copyright for my rather large library.) I further acknowledged that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am following the rules to the letter. So what happened? Please verify my email and statement, and then please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lprideux (talk • contribs) 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like th efile has been restored and OTRS is currently reviewing the ticket. — ξxplicit 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete please. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Tess Broussard Photo
Hello,
The photo of Tess Broussard was removed yesterday. the file was initially posted with incorrect copyright and license information. I corrected this and sent a proper email to the permissions link yet the photo was removed anyway. is there a way to retrieve the photo. i'd be happy to resend the email with the necessary copyright and license info. Please let me know.
thanks.
Dk4wiki (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there, it seems that OTRS still hasn't gotten to your email, I suppose. At this point, it's best to wait until they receive the confirmation in order to restore the file. — ξxplicit 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. How will I know when they've gotten to it? will they notify you to restore the file?
I appreciate your help.
Dk4wiki (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say give it about a week. If you haven't heard back from them, then shooting them another email never hurt. — ξxplicit 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't break 3rr, I thought I originally broke it but I too busy reverting and doing classwork at the same time so I forgot the 3RR rules, but I was just reverting Ajona edits which was vandalism at times look at the article history closer, and read his statements. 3RR doesn't include vandalism or edits that clearly fail WP:V (one of the statements I reverted was 100 million people attended her funeral, another one was that she sold 200 million records) I stopped after 4 reverts, and asked for page protection to stop Ajona. As a music editor which of course watchlisted the page, and dealt with AJona nonsense, you should have seen the history closely. Secret account 16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- You claim you didn't break 3RR, but at the same time you say you stopped after four reverts; quite the contradiction. I count one, two, three, four reverts. His edits and your reverts are not exempt from 3RR. Plus, I'm well aware of the situation with AJona1992. — ξxplicit 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look at revert three closer, and tell me if that's not vandalism the 100 million people one, and revert one is well in the grey as well. Secret account 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bot talk
Arrgh - I thought that had been protected ages ago because of the same problem - thanks for double checking that.Skier Dude (talk 05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you removed a {{di-no permission}} tag from an image that was set to be deleted yesterday stating "files under a non-free license don't require permission" in the summary. The uploader claimed {{pd-self}} and stated "I scanned this promotional photo of my grandfather which has been in my family's possession for over 50 years". I first tagged with the {{di-no permission}} stating the source as "It is sourced to a scanned promotional photo from 1950." This tag was correct based on the uploaders license, who never claimed fair use. But to be fair you most likely never looked over the history and missed the old tags and only saw the "corrected" license information that I placed on it after tagging the image {{di-no permission}}. The {{non-free promotional}} tag replaced the original {{pd-self}} tag and, more importantly, the {{wrong-license}} tag that was placed on the image by BirgitteSB on October 29, 2008. Had I not noticed that tag I would not have gone back and "corrected" the uploaders license. It also appears this image was sent to PUI on April 2, 2009 however the {{pui}} tag was removed November 2, 2009 as "obsolete pui (never listed?)". Seems the image has been holding on for over a year so in the long run another week may not matter. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that the file was originally tagged with {{PD-self}}, which you yourself change when tagging it for deletion. However, because you used the <nowiki></nowiki> tags and added a non-free license, it simply was not eligible for deletion under F11 at that point. — ξxplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged it first, than went back and made the correction per the {{wrong-license}} tag. I could always revert my edit it so it could be seen as "eligible for deletion under F11" and thusly you could revert your edit and delete the file. (Joke). Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
photo File:Medicine story.jpg
Hi, you Deleted a photo because "F11: No evidence of permission". I thought I had this right. I contacted the subject of the photo. I revived permission to use the photo. He has serial reproduction permission. Do I need to have the subject find, contact and request permission from the photographer also ? Thanks. Slowart (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, the photographer is the copyright holder of the image and that individual is the only person allowed to release it under a free license. If they do release it under a free license, you can forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, where they will restore the image once permission has been verified. — ξxplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Tess Broussard Photo
Hello,
I received this email from permissions.
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tess_Broussard_2010.jpg
We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s).
Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.
Yours sincerely, Fae Styles
-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
It seems the photo is now correctly documented. what is the next step to getting it back from deletion?
thanks.
Dk4wiki (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The file has now been restored by another admin and has been properly tagged with the OTRS ticket. Everything seems fine. — ξxplicit 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Image deleted
Hi,
File:Kumble-last-match.jpg; File:Pattambal-honored-Sangeetha Sagara Ratna.jpg; File:Sehwag-at-chennai-test.jpg ; File:MS-dhoni.jpg
These images have been deleted. I do not know why? First the kumble last played was 2 years old. How can there be a image found without these newspaper articles. I do not know the reason.
Second Pattambal is an very very old image so that no way possible to produce without these news paper cuttings. Almost 9 years.
Thirdly Sehwag it is also the same as kumble. So are you guys waiting for someone to upload it here. no way free - licensed image can be found on those. You too know that.
Last, Dhoni. - the same.
I have explained clearly the reasons before making a decision. Would appreciate If you go through with it.
Ungal Vettu Pillai 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)
- Every single one of those images failed the first point of our non-free content criteria. Three of the four files were images of living people and, unless these images were subject to sourced critically sourced commentary (which they weren't) that text alone could not describe, were deleted per the policy. As for File:Pattambal-honored-Sangeetha Sagara Ratna.jpg, Pattammal may very well have passed away last year, but there is a free image (File:DKPattammal-DKJayaraman-young.jpg), which results in any non-free image of her violate the policy once again. — ξxplicit 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Pretzky?
Is LONGGONEGONE a sock of Pretzky? Saw him pop up at Nelly 5.0. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please undelete this image? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Giant's Causeway
Hi Explicit, Can you tell me when the Giant's Causway page will be unlocked. Although there are claims of sockpuppetry, the edits made by the sock puppet were correct. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The edits were made by a sock puppet of yours Factocop... --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Explicit. All fixed.Factocop (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Explicit, can you block O Fenian for edit-warring on the Giant's Causeway wp. He has made several edits which can only be described as terrorism.Factocop (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)