User talk:Explicit/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. — ξ^xplicit 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, In response to your proposed deletion of File:Low - Flo Rida.ogg It looks like some edits to the page caused the Non-free usage rationale to be removed from the page, but it appears now. To reiterate the rationale for inclusion, the file is a music sample and as such it provides an audible sample of the style much better and clearer than words can describe - for example the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied. Many other music samples of similar length and quality already exist on Wikipedia, and I believe that it definitely improves readers' understanding of those who have not heard the song before.

Please remove the deletion tag for this file. Adammw (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem still is the fact that the musical style of the song is not mentioned anywhere in the article. As point eight of our WP:NFCC policy states, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The reason you stated is so that "the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied". If this file has true contextual significance, why is the musical style—singer's accent, background music, effects, etc.—not discussed in the article? — ξ^xplicit 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello explicit: Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at this discussion. I'm personally against its inclusion as I've argued there. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What in the world????????? Why on earth are you against it??? It's a respectable category, and it's more accurate than some of the other biracial categories.(LonerXL (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

I am not "against" anything. Please take a look at the category for discussion page for my rationale. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete mixed-ethnicity categories as overcategorization. If you believe that the category should remain, please make a keep argument there. Also, as far as I know, all other mixed ethnicity categories have been deleted. We have a People by ethnic or national origin category, but that's based on origin. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please come to this article and check out the alternate covers if they are failing WP:NFCC#3a? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

These alternate covers get a bit tricky. Because the covers are different from the original, some users would argue that they are need for identification of a different packaging (though others, including myself, disagree). There has been a long unsettled debate about this, where a large discussion took place here. I'm not sure if my intervention here would be welcomed by some, so I think it's best to bring it up on the talk page of the article. I'll gladly participate, because more than one cover without critical commentary seems in violation of WP:NFCC#3 as excessive non-free content is being used, at least in my opinion. One thing's for sure: at least one of the two additional images should to be removed. — ξ^xplicit 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll open up a talk page comment at Talk:The Fame#Alternate monster covers. I have a feelign the one with the blond wig should go as its not difficult to visualize Gaga with a blond bod cut nowadays. The other one with black hair can stay as it is starkingly opposite from what she is portrayed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for responses. — ξ^xplicit 06:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this article, do you think it has any chance of passing WP:FLC? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Will give it a look later on today. — ξ^xplicit 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns at the FLC and also we seem to be reaching a consensus here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can I get your input for why think the image should be deleted, since it adds significance and illustration to the article. It also seems as standard procedure that if there is a acceptable image capture of a music video, to add it to the section of the article. Thanks!! Candyo32 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I tagged this file for deletion because it seems that it fails point eight of our non-free content criteria policy, which states: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, this image doesn't do anything words alone can't describe. — ξ^xplicit 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just wondering if that were the case, then would many captures of music videos on Wikipedia be on their respective articles then? Candyo32 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Many screenshots of music videos don't meet our WP:NFCC policy, but because there are so many screenshots out there, it's understandable that there will be several that don't meet the criteria. In response to your question, probably not, but that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. — ξ^xplicit 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we might have a consensus at here. By the way did you look back at the FLC? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The FLC seems have passed me by. Sorry about that. I'll take a look at the alternate covers discussion shortly. — ξ^xplicit 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You made my dayyyyyy!! Love ya --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, no worries. — ξ^xplicit 03:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Take your time to answer the questions and don't forget to fix the timestamp after transcluding. If one of your talk page stalkers agrees with my proposal to nominate you, they now have the time to offer a co-nomination Regards SoWhy 11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions answered, RfA transcluded. Here we go! — ξ^xplicit 15:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck SoWhy 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. — ξ^xplicit 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Explicit ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rcool35 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,Taylor Karras (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. That was easier than you expected, wasn't it? Have fun with your new mop and if you have any problems, feel free to ask me. Regards SoWhy 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think I'd get unanimous support. Didn't know what I was worried about. Thanks again for the nomination, SoWhy. I probably would've still been going back and forth about the whole RfA thing, ha. — ξ^xplicit 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, that surprised me as well. I expected at least 1-2 people opposing over something or other, it happened with all people I nominated so far (except for Maedin but with her it might have been the girl-factor ;-)). That said, I never had any doubt that you would pass with flying colors and I am happy to be proven right. Regards SoWhy 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your wildly successful RfA, Explicit! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin. Timmeh 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Timmeh. I'll do my best and try not to screw up too often. — ξ^xplicit 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, now Lil Lez is your own problem:) No seriously, congrats and let me know if you need help with anything. DMacks (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DMacks. I've read over WP:NAS and I think I have a good grasp of things, but will ask for help when needed. — ξ^xplicit 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Belated congratulations. ÷seresin 05:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I totally didn't notice. Congrats! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that... that hurts my feelings. Then again, no it doesn't. Haha, thanks Bookkkeeper. — ξ^xplicit 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just want to know how I've broken 3RR by reverting vandalism by the user? He blanked two separate sections and continued to revert when I unblanked them. Does section blanking no longer qualify as vandalism? Frmatt (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh...and there's now a third user making the exact same edits as the previous user...Frmatt (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(What I wrote before the other account appeared) You haven't breached 3RR as you've made only three reverts; it takes four to violate 3RR. This is definitely a content dispute, as the other user, S8m2s (talk · contribs), may not feel that those sections belong in the article. If you haven't, please try to communicate to the user before adding more warnings. (Addendum due to sockpuppetry) Well, the situation has changed. The user created sockpuppets to violate 3RR. I'll shortly start a case at WP:SPI as this in violation of both 3RR and WP:SOCK. I'll revert the edit shortly as well. — ξ^xplicit 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Just FYI, before putting the RFPP in, I'd put a notice at ANI [1]. Thanks for your help! Frmatt (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, should be resolved soon enough. Should the user come back under another account or IP, let me know. — ξ^xplicit 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking this charming individual. I was in the midst of leaving him a warning for vandalism when I lost my internet connection. By the time I got back on, you had already taken care of him. Speedy and much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Considering Oldschoolrebel's edits consisted of falsifying vandalism and personal attacks, it seemed like the most appropriate choice. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted this image. There was no advance of deletion on the file page, its Talk page, the relevant article's Talk page, or my Talk page - I'd have picked up any of these on my watchlist. If the image upload form does not provide the relevant facilities or information, then the process should improve. I did provide a FUR, and far as can see there was nothing wrong worth that. Of course I can't check that, now you've remove the evidence. The image procedure becomes like the worst type of tax system by the day. --Philcha (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Philcha, the file File:James White 01.png did have a fair use rationale, but it lacked a license tag. Prior to its deletion, it contained both {{Somewebsite}} and {{No license needing editor assistance}} tags that remained there for at least seven days. These tags were automatically added when you uploaded the file, so that's probably why you didn't receive a notice. If you'd like, I can restore the file if you could specify which license tag should be added. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please restore. Re "These tags were automatically added when you uploaded the file, so that's probably why you didn't receive a notice", if that's the case then it's a good case of "... the process should improve" - if you've overlooked something, that's when you need a notification! Is there a suggestion box I could pop that in without completing a form in triplicate? --Philcha (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the file and added an appropriate license. A suggestion box might be a good thing to get things going, haha. — ξ^xplicit 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the first problem is where to suggest a suggestion box? Hmmm.

Thanks for the changing licensing.

Of course that prompts another of items for the hypothetical suggestion box:

• I noticed the template {{No license needing editor assistance|month=October|day=28|year=2009}} when the image was created, but where was the editor assistance? The next I saw was the deletion.
• {{Non-free fair use in|James White (author)}}is a template I've never heard of before, and is not in the UI. How do typically editor find this sort of stuff?.

I appreciate the help you've provided in this case. But the current process seems to have too many gotchas (think "Catch 22"), and needs to be simplified or at least streamlined to reduce the number of steps in the commonly cases and provide improved facilities and info in as much of the rest as possible - otherwise both editors and the admins who deal with image issues while wil be overloaded. --Philcha (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that {{Non-free fair use in}} exist until quite recently, when someone uploaded File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg. Files tagged with {{No license needing editor assistance}} are categorized under Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status, which must not get a lot of attention considering these files are often deletion without assistance (something that should be looked into). After reading the upload form, it seems the best place to start making suggestions is here. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree#Is_this_the_right_place_for_comments.3F. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on the discussion. — ξ^xplicit 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Im kinda late but CONGRATULATIONS on being an admin!!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it. — ξ^xplicit 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review this. The request is to change from full to indefinite semi- for the reasons given. Please read carefully. There's no sign that Hound:173.*.*.* will change. 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be wikihounding by the individual(s) behind those IPs, but the article was fully protected because there was a full out edit war occurring including several editors aside from the IPs. The article should remain fully protected to its expiry or until a consensus is formed on the talk page for the preferred content and wording. Should the IPs continue their behavior against consensus (assuming one is formed), the article can be semi-protected for a longer period thereafter. — ξ^xplicit 06:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there is already a consensus. Squicks seems to have formally retired from WP. Hauskalainen and I (MBHiii) are in near total agreement. 173.*.*.* contributed nothing on the Talk page but simply reverts me on anything possibly political. -74.162.150.182 (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a message shortly on the talk page. — ξ^xplicit 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Yes I see User:The Squicks has indeed retired from WP. I see no reason why this article needs to be even semi-protected. The main protagonist (apart from me) seems to have given up the ghost. I expect we will meet again in a new incarnation just as I suspect we have crossed swords before in his/her other guises. I have made a proposition today at the talk page to reinstate the original edit that User:The Squicks objected to, which, despite Squicks claims to the contrary, was properly referenced and fairly reflected the source. The article is about a current new item and the situation changes regularly. I am easy about whether the article should be protected or not.

Hi Explicit. You deleted a file based on a deletion discussion, but the discussion covered more than just the one file you deleted. All the similar files were nominated, from File:Stkfcnumber1.jpg to File:Stkfcnumber50.jpg. Can you please go ahead and delete all those files, per the consensus? Thanks, Somno (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The remaining 49 files weren't tagged with {{ffd}}, so they'll have to be tagged and relisted at today's FfD. — ξ^xplicit 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. If you are confident that the account you listed there is a disruptive sockpuppet, please feel free go ahead and block yourself. You do have the sysop tools now; don't forget that :) I'll be happy to do the clerk work for you if you wish to avoid that. Regards, NW (Talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure if it would be appropriate to block the sock, so I took the safe side and added to case. Will keep it in mind in the future. If I were to block a future sock, would I leave an edit summary linking to the case, or just something along the lines of "Suspected sockpuppet of User:Pretzky"? — ξ^xplicit 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you filed a case, you could just leave a link to it, but filing a case isn't really necessary. It is appropriate to just do the latter edit summary and tag the userpage with {{blockedsockpuppet|Pretzky}}. NW (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Will keep that in mind for next time. Thanks. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You placed a protection on this article. I have made a proposal to end the dispute and nobody has objected to this. The proposal is to reinstate the fully referenced, edit which User:The Squicks objected to. User:The Squicks has indicated at the users home page that the user is no longer an editor at Wikipedia.

I therefore respectfully ask that you unprotect the article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the expiry beat me to it! — ξ^xplicit 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm trying to get my user page going... and uploaded my photo. I have the permission to use the photo and there is nothing wrong with it... but you deleted it. Please can you tell me why.

A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below:

• 21:23, 8 November 2009 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Albertpote.jpg" ‎ (F3: Media file with improper license)

ALbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the reason the file you uploaded was deleted was because it had an improper license tag. It contained the tags {{Non-commercial from license selector}} and {{db-i3}} (you may want to give the tags a look) as you indicated the file could not to be used for commercial purposes. If this is the case, the file may not be licensed under free licenses, such as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}. If you have permission of the copyright hold of this image to use it, feel free to re-uploaded the file and forward the evidence of permission to Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) to verify. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi What if I don't have any proof..? the guy e-mailed me the photo a year ago and I don't the e-mail any more. Albert 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote (talk • contribs)

Hmm, would you be happen to be in contact with the individual today? If so, it might be worth emailing him again. — ξ^xplicit 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what, it's not worth the hassle! What about the next image I loaded up... It is from the mailinglist of the Cape Town International Airport. They just opened a majour section of the work they are doing and emailed out the map. Do I need a letter from them as well? File:CapeTownInternationalAirport.jpg Albert 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote (talk • contribs) Sorry... I'm adding the "Albert 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" but it doesn't sign?
Albert 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote (talk • contribs)

Posts are signed with four tildes (~~~~). The more recent file you uploaded, File:CapeTownInternationalAirport.jpg, doesn't need permission, but a proper license tag and a fair use rationale. There's a full list of possible license tags here, thought the best tag here seems to be {{Non-free 2D art}}. I went ahead and added the licensing for you. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Albert 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote (talk • contribs)

No problem. — ξ^xplicit 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed on my watchlist that you protected Adam Lambert's page, so would you please do the same for Kris Allen's? The very amusing, but obviously highly unconstructive, imperialistic attack launched on these two pages is clearly a well-organized vandalism effort (on behalf of ONTD_AI, a LiveJournal community...I know, based on the in-jokes they've made). All of the edits are Kradam-related (lol). I thank you in advance--if you haven't already begun to do so!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. — ξ^xplicit 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Would you mind deleting all of these pages? Thank you. ς ح д r خ є 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — ξ^xplicit 04:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind checking the vandalism going on in this article. Overzealous fans are continuously creating new article for the re-release and removing content from teh original. A salt and full protection is needed for The Fame Monster releated ids. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Got beat to it! — ξ^xplicit 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? *confused face* --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster was protected by Tone (talk · contribs). The Fame doesn't look like it merits full protections, it's just new users making an avalanche of edits. If anything, they should at least receive a notice or some sort of warning before taking administrative measures. — ξ^xplicit 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I think both The Fame Monster and The Fame Monster (album) needs full protection so that the uber fans in terms of registered users and not just IPs, can't undo the redirect. A semi-protection doesnot work I think. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Both fully protected indefinitely. — ξ^xplicit 04:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The page is being created repeatedly because it is no longer a re-release. The consensus in the AfD was that since it was a re-release, it should not have a page. It is now (announced today) being released as a standalone separate album, therefore deserving its own page. Attempts to make this clear have been repeatedly ignored and not responded to even tho MTV [2] and Interscope [3] have been cited as the sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to laugh at his argument but can't. :) The article clearly states that the stand-alone CD is being released for those who has the original album and won't be interested in buying the old songs again and hence a separate standalone Cd is being released. Also, {{Lady Gaga}} needs full-protection for sometime for the same reason as the re-release is being added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to be laughing a little too. Are you trying to tell me that this album is only for those who already have The Fame? The decision was made with them in mind, but you can't argue that it is not available as a separate new album. In fact it is being referred to as the standard edition as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about anyone else, but this is getting beyond complicated by each passing day. Grk1011, I can't override the consensus of the AfD, even in light of the new material (which is ambiguous, at best, because there's no indication that The Fame Monster is a studio album). MTV News referred to Monster as "'standard edition' album". Because "standard edition" is in quotes, I think this indicates it's not a studio album. It might be worth contacting the closing administrator of the AfD, Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), of the new information and possibly initiate a request for comment regarding Monster and whether or not allowing the recreation of the article is suitable. — ξ^xplicit 04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, it is not overriding the consensus of the AfD because that is for a different page in theory. The deletion debate was for the re-release (The Fame + new songs) and votes were all based on the fact that it was a re-release, while the page I sought to create was for the new album (whether it be studio, EP, or whatever). If the two had different names we would not have this problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is exact the same reason why Billboard had decided to include Monster as the re-release. One of the criteria for being included as a re-release is that Billboard takes into consideration that the name of the album issued is not significantly different from the original parent album. Since they consider The Fame Monster as not being significantly different from the parent album, hence it is considered as a re-release. The standalone CD will be considered as part of the re-release. Not only that all singles and sales will be credited to The Fame. Chart 'Monster' Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases. I don't think we need any more clear proof than that is present here. As I said before first person source doesnot matter at all. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your links are outdated as I've been saying. New information has come to light and I don't see why you are so against updating the pages to reflect it. Now that it is announced as a separate album, how can you be so sure that they won't now track sales in that way. The thing is you don't. It's a form of original research to take one source and apply it to something else to prove a case. I think the best thing is to just wait it out. Since the information is so new, it will take time for it to spread. With that being said, I urge you to calm down and realize that we are all trying to improve wikipedia, not destroy it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, both in applying the CSD criteria and, especially, in taking it to RfD. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rated Next, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The fame monster (album) needs to be taken care of.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time this article was recreated... — ξ^xplicit 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a full-protection of The Fame is needed for the time-being untill the heavy discussion at the talk-page is resolved because overenthusiastic editors will and does continue to remove the information about The Fame Monster from the article continuously. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected. It might be worth having one centralized discussion instead of multiple sections on the talk page. — ξ^xplicit 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help Explicit. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully Gaga's label clarifies this situation soon. — ξ^xplicit 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was clarified two days ago when Interscope said "smash single “Bad Romance” from Lady Gaga’s new album The Fame Monster available 11.23.09!". [4]. Why are people being so ignorant? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Lady Gaga fan and thus have no interest whatsoever in what pages say, etc. in the very end, but during my research of some other Lady Gaga material I came upon the discussion and edit warring on The Fame and the ensuing discussions, which also spilled onto my own talk page. I believe you protected the page that's been continually recreated and deleted, so I'm directing you to this to help alleviate confusion. There is debate as to whether The Fame Monster is its own standalone album or simply yet another re-release of The Fame.

Per my latest comment on the talk page of the now-protected article, I referenced this source: An Article on Earthtimes.org It so happens that the page quotes Lady Gaga as saying "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album. I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP; it is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet. It doesn't need The Fame."

Per this paragraph, it's clear that Lady Gaga herself is referring to "The Fame Monster" as specifically the 8-track EP (the current discussion is suggesting EP) and that the Deluxe Edition of the album contains the entirety of the 2009 edition of The Fame as a bonus (per Gaga's site). Thus, we ought to treat the album exactly how Lady Gaga herself treats it; this is either a sophomore album, or an EP. Since Gaga quotes it as a sophomore album, I'm leaning towards that. Thus, we need to recreate this page immediately. Just my two cents - or more like 1.7 cents Canadian. CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to include a page from Gagas' official site, managed by the label. Album info. It's been decided by the label that the album is a standalone 8-track disc. The standard edition is that disc; the Deluxe Edition includes The Fame as a BONUS. There is also a Super Deluxe Edition that includes all kinds of different stuff and sells retail about $90-95 or so (on Amazon for about $75). Since the standard edition is the very content that people are speculating is the bonus on a re-release, I think it's clear now that the album is a standalone. CycloneGU (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I and the facts support this as well. Imo the only problem is the AfD. If the new album was called Monster instead, then the AfD would be completely irrelevant since it would be a whole new page. The new album having the same name as the re-release is clouding people's judgement. Not to mention the fans are going crazy trying to prevent this new album article from being created despite widespread sources now being available. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the AfD in question. Clearly the delete comments are from mid-October. They are not relavant to the current sources and thus the AfD is old and expired. Citing the AfD as a reason to prevent creation of the page with CURRENT SOURCES is harmful to Wikipedia; in the face of legitimate information, old information is being used to prevent its being shared. This is why we have an edit war right now; on one side, those citing an old AfD, while the other side has the editors citing current information doing their best to help improve Wikipedia with the new information. That is the war. We need to end it. CycloneGU (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Explicit. I urge you to read over the AfD and see that it is not related to the new album and then unlock the pages accordingly. Since there is still a disagreement, the pages should be relocked once the new album page has been created. Enough people are citing an absent consensus to redirect the page that they should be prevented from doing so until one is established. Yes, there is no consensus to redirect the album page, only the re-release page. Please make the distinction. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an update, I've made contact with Tone, who directed me to the person who nominated The Fame Monster to be merged with the article via AfD. Per Tone's suggestion, I've contacted User talk:Dalejenkins to suggest having the AfD recycled and no longer used. Pending what happens there, The Fame Monster may be available for creating the page later today; if so, I recommend we create the new page and put all information there, then simply have a small section on The Fame saying that the album is included as a bonus to The Fame Monster as that is what the artist's official site says. This should satisfy all sides. CycloneGU (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CycloneGU and Grk1011, I think we can all agree that this issue was difficult since day one. I've done a lot of searching and trying to look over the arguments on both here and the article talk page. I think I can say I've found the solution. After quick look over at MTV News, Gaga herself calls it an EP. I'll leave a notice on The Fame's talk page and unprotect The Fame Monster (as this seems fit now). I'll be off to school after that and hope one of you (or another editor) can recreate it with this or a similar proper source. — ξ^xplicit 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to it, I've done what I can to both pages as any good editor would. If Grk or any other editors have additional content, that's up to them now. I've reverted The Fame Monster to the previous revision and saved that first, then I started making slight changes. I've simplified the section in The Fame as well to refer to it only as bonus content to The Fame Monster. I'm keeping an eye on both pages. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank you as well for taking the time to investigate what exactly was going on. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for semi-protecting physician. I really cannot see why it should be particularly controversial, but the subject seems to irritate some people. --DavidB 03:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I see things have settled quite a bit. — ξ^xplicit 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

...for your help in unprotecting the Lady Gaga albums so that we could get them updated. Editing on The Fame appears to have finished four-five hours ago as I type, and after a little more edit warring today in The Fame Monster (which I let fizzle itself out after I stepped in twice to correct things), I've taken the time to finalize an update of the article and put the issue of updating the article to bed. Feel free to take a look and see what you think.

Me, personally? I'm not a Lady Gaga fan, I just stumbled upon this and wanted to help get this done. I've already seen my references messed up in the article today and had to repair them. I've seen my prose deleted and restored by other editors. It's been an interesting day on that article. *LOL* My rewrite now should summarize everything. I'm exhausted and I'm going to bed just after 11 p.m. on November 12. I'll be watching AllMusic for the addition of this album; when it shows up, I'll relabel the album myself if needed if no one else already has. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Gaga fan myself, but when duty calls... She's become pretty big, so one can imagine the edits will come in pretty heavily to related articles. Thanks for keeping the articles in shape and for the patience with dealing with the articles. — ξ^xplicit 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping an eye on User:Grk1011's edits. Has a tendency to include unsourced informations in the Gaga articles while making it look as if he's trying to revert vandalism or some other comments. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at the same edit, I'm not seeing the problem. The information being complained of was added by other editors and Grk appears to have made a go of fixing it. Legolas's edit appears to have removed some important information - even such silly things as a link to Teddy Riley. Orderinchaos 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that users are reverting a certain version and then trying to copy-edit that version. Plainly, this causes the problems, as reverting to certain versions will undoubtedly brings the issues that version had. Instead of doing that, one should go through the article manually and correct the issues as its a lot less prone to content disputes such as this. — ξ^xplicit 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

I disagree with the deletion of this image:

04:03, 17 November 2009 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:James Birren Father of Gerontology.jpg" ‎

The image contributor appeared to have licensed it...I suggest a review.Ryoung122 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the content that was on the file page prior to its deletion was the following:

{{di-no license}}


{{Information |Description = James Birren, Ph.D., is widely considered to be the father of gerontology. |Source = I A.G.B. created this work entirely by myself. |Date = Nov. 4, 2009 |Author = A.G.B. |other_versions = }}

Although the uploader may have created it, the file lacked a license tag (for example, {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-sa}} or {{PD-self}}). I wasn't able to determine if the user had uploaded the file with any of these compatible licenses (sometimes images are uploaded with licenses incompatible with Wikipedia, like CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC). The lack of licensing led to the deletion of the image. — ξ^xplicit 05:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know, I've semi-protected Lupe Fiasco for one week due to the continuing IP disruption. Bettia (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, having said that, this video (I'm guessing this is the interview our previously anonymous editor was referring to) suggests that it is indeed the 16th. Bettia (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is strange. How can Rolling Stone and Allmusic get that wrong? It doesn't make sense to me. Oh well, for what its worth, it's really their fault, not Wikipedia's. — ξ^xplicit 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The user you just blocked may have a meat puppet (is that the right word?): see User talk:Nye-yea. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see you saw. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The word would be sockpuppet because it's one person abusively using more than one account. That other account just quacked at me. — ξ^xplicit 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked them up now. I was confused cause I ran into one yesterday, and another editor said it was meat, not sock, I was dealing with; I see now they were wrong. Anyway, thanks for setting me and the duck straight. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to make my user page cool like yours? I don't know how. --Łoshɢooþii ^T.C. 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't really do too much with my page. I actually took one of the examples from Wikipedia:User page design center/Style#Borders and tweaked it to something I liked. You can see this and more user page design ideas at the user page design center. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! --Łoshɢooþii ^talk 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — ξ^xplicit 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

like to comment on this one? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also can you take a look at the re-creation of The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP) again as per previous AFD? just a bunch of amazon links thrown in this new version. Might be considered for speedy delete. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cherrytree Sessions speedied. — ξ^xplicit 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The message you posted stated that if I felt that it should be kept then I should leave a reason, yet the page is deleted two seconds later. How is that fair to say the editor can give a reason, but delete it right after saying that? --Shadow (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because there is no time limit as whether an administrator can delete a speedied article. The article you created (which I believe is the same version in your sandbox) did not address the issues brought up at the AfD. The recreated article was nearly identical to the one deleted via the AfD. Additionally, the use of online retail stores like Amazon.com is not significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. Neither was the primary source like Gaga's official website nor Rhapsody, which was just used to verify the track listing. The article clearly met the speedy deletion criteria, which lead to its deletion. — ξ^xplicit 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I fully support your suggestion, thanks. XPtr (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the file that was in this article Joy_(perfume). There are no free images of this product available. Why cannot it not be used?

--Tamara lempicka (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I deleted the file based on our non-free content criteria policy. The first point of the policy states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.. As the perfume is still in production, a free image can still be created, which means the non-free image doesn't meet our policy. — ξ^xplicit 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the page that I should have placed a {{g8-exempt}} on. Please restore it as Template talk:Incubate movedto uses {{todo}}. Thank you for the other deletions you made for me. -- allen四names 04:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Sorry about that. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- allen四names 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we semi-protect The Fame Monster indefinitely? Ever since the protection expired, all sorts of knowledgeable IP editors have been creating rumours and false information in the article. Just now I had to clean up five incorrect edits to the article since three hours ago; some others have already been cleaned up by well-established editors other than myself. This even considers my comment at the top of the damn SOURCE saying don't use GagaDaily as a source; four or five people still went ahead and did that AFTER I added the comment where they should SEE the damn thing. I already left three separate notes for IP editors, two of them here and here.

So yeah...requesting indefinite semi-protection to avoid what Legolas calls "fancruft". CycloneGU (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced semi-protection is best. As it was recently released, there's bound to be active disruption around this time. I've semi-protected the article for two months instead. — ξ^xplicit 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

First of all, thanks for the support, now i wanted to create the template myself, and i kind of did it, but the whole template documentation got me confused and, well, i could n`t. I don`t know how to make it work just with the {{}}, i gotta say even when i been working here for a while sometimes the english get the better of me and there are a lot of things i can`t do. So please could you do the template? and, if you will, let me know how so i can make the genre ones. Thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll give it a try in a bit, though I can't say I'm an expert at this, though. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I believe I've got it down. The main problem was just that you forgot the "s" after 2010 (it should have read 2010s, not 2010). After moving the template with the correct pluralization, I believe it's ready to go. — ξ^xplicit 08:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, i see the error now i can continue with the genre ones. Thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd username given the new album. Is there any way we can find out if there's a conflict of interest here? Edits have already been made by this user. CycloneGU (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a conflict of interest is a problem with this user. The first thing that did stand out was this edit to The Fame Monster, a direct copyright violation of Digital Spy. I'll leave a note on the user's talk page of copying copyrighted text shortly. — ξ^xplicit 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are Barns and Nobel and HMV.com reliable sources for the element of freedom tracklisting? If they are i would like to add the listing to the article. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I know that Amazon.com has been deemed an unreliable source; not so sure of Barns and Nobel and HMV (might consider bringing those to WP:RSN). For what it's worth, neither Keys' official website or J Records' website have released the track listing, so it brings into concern where these questionable sources received their information. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wooff! Another job for you. Can you full-protect The Fame: Part One? Another fan-created article with a bunch of download links and imdb link. Nothing is present in the article for warrantying a full page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it was just redirected once (by you), doesn't seem to warrant full protection at the moment. Should it be recreated again, it might be worth taking it to WP:AfD. — ξ^xplicit 05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain why this image was deleted? The rationale of "no metadata, no source, uploader has history of questionable uploads" doesn't make any sense to me; the picture was taken by User:Dashwortley so it need not state a source and I don't believe he has a history of questionable uploads! Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, that file was deleted based on the WP:PUF description, which states that it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms. [...] If no objection to the image's deletion is raised, or no proof that the image is indeed free is provided, the image may be deleted without further notice after the 14-day period. No user objected to the file's deletion—including the uploader, who has edited since being notified of the problem—and thus, it was deleted. A look at Dashwortley's talk page shows problem issues with files in the past, so the concern given by Skier Dude seems legitimate. — ξ^xplicit 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As the protecting admin would you mind unprotecting to make way for a move from here, the vineyard easily meets our threshold for inclusion. Full disclosure, I had worked on it in July (prior to first deletion I think), so I requested Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) to userfy it so I could see the history (I don't recall it being that bad when I had worked on it, but I have been known to be wrong in the past). My request was rejected. --kelapstick (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, nice work on the subject! The version in your userspace does seem meet notability guidelines, so I'll move it into article space shortly. — ξ^xplicit 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Enjoy your week.--kelapstick (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please consider taking a look at this article's history? Fans are continuously removing reviews which address the album negatively and removing information regarding the development of the album. Please I need your administrative help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And Im sure a proper warning for vandalism warranties for this edit. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind running me through the close on this one? Thanks, Hiding T 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, to expand on my closure: I felt consensus was in favor the disambiguation as Category:Seven albums would be too ambiguous, even on its own. As Postdlf (talk · contribs) pointed out, it might cause confusion as the category may imply the quantity of albums. Obviously, those well aware of how category structure works would be less likely to think as such, but to believe that all readers would understand that (especially when the recording artist's stage name is stylized as "Se7en") seems less than likely. — ξ^xplicit 06:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I never had the opportunity to rebut Postdlf's point, there's not much more to say. It's hard sometimes to understand a close which comes in the middle of a conversation and which places so much weight on one point while ignoring the wider point that given context it is unclear how it might cause confusion as the category may imply the quantity of albums, so perhaps you could explain why that argument swayed the close. Hiding T 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't place more weight on one argument over the other, consensus favored the addition of the disambiguation. Both sides have reasonable concerns, and to claim that one point had more strength or is more valuable than the other—especially with the long-practiced speedy rename criteria number six and the recent argument to deprecate that criteria—would be unreasonable. To reiterate, my decision was based on the consensus of the discussion favoring the further disambiguation, not my personal view on the issue. — ξ^xplicit 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You have me confused now. How did you determine the consensus without weighing the arguments? Hiding T 22:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't weigh the arguments, I said I weighed them equally. Consensus chose one over the other, which lead to result. — ξ^xplicit 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I still can't quite see it based on the shape the debate took. I can't tell if you are stating that Debresser and Good Ol'factory are agreeing with Postdlf, which doesn't compute since they posted before him, or I'm missing something. Can we agree that the only person to put forwards a reason for any ambiguity was Postdlf, and can we also agree that the long-practiced speedy rename criteria number six is currently under dispute? Hiding T 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Postdlf did specify why the category would remain ambiguous, and yes, the speedy renaming is under dispute. Still, consensus was in favor of it. — ξ^xplicit 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how you can then say there was a consensus, if we agree on those two points. But no real harm done. I'd advise that you may want to post better summaries when you close such debates so that they are better understood, but I think we're better off agreeing to disagree. Thanks for your time, it's been appreciated. Hiding T 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent deletion of File:HCastListingNew.jpg. Did you notice that the image had a {{hangon}} tag, and a message stating it was the subject of a discussion thread at WP:NFCR ?

Unfortunately I can't tell whether you noticed this or not, because there was nothing in your edit-summary to indicate you had reviewed the case for keeping it, nor any kind of message or acknowledgement to me that you had seen the hold-on tag.

Regardless of whether your delete was justified here (and it may have been), I fear there is a more general systematic issue here, so I have opened a thread at WT:CSD to consider the whole question of what etiquette is most appropriate in connection with CSD:F7 when a dfu tag is itself disputed. Jheald (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do review the files before I delete them; this specific file did not have {{hangon}} tag as Fastily (talk · contribs) had removed it. Even so, the hangon tag was incorrectly used, as the file was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}}, not speedy deletion. Posting your dispute on the talk page should have been the course to be taken, as I always give those a look when reviewing files up for deletion (assuming the talk page is blue-linked, of course). — ξ^xplicit 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please full-protect The Monster Ball Tour for the time being as huge (I mean HUGE) amount of unsourced data, including set lists , opening acts, ysnopsis, concert dates are being added in random by newly registered users continuously. In the meantime lemme find some sources and I'll get back to you for dropping to semi. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Legolas, sorry for the late reply, buying and setting up a new PC takes forever. Anywho, I don't feel full protection is merited in this case—especially when semi-protection hasn't been attempted. I'll semi-protect the article for a week and see how it goes from there. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't aware it was semi-protected before. I went for a month this time. — ξ^xplicit 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Explicitboy! What PC did you buy? A mac or a windows 7? By the way Im going to The Monster Ball Tour tonight in Boston. Yeah! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7; Macs are gross. Well, I'm off to bed, have fun with Lady Gaga. — ξ^xplicit 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song)? I don't understand how can anyone possibly say that the song doesnot pass WP:NSONG. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• [5]

I understand where you're coming from, but WP:NAMB contradicts the whole purpose of {{otheruses}} templates. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. The {{otheruses}} template is placed atop the primary topic article (assuming it isn't a disambiguation page to begin with) for other uses of the term. Could you expand a bit? — ξ^xplicit 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've never come across anyone that disagrees with that. Well, let me ask you this...why do you think there isn't a contradiction? (Keep in mind that I'm talking about the family of {{otheruses}} templates, not merely the specific template I linked to.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As WP:NAMB points out, hatnotes generally shouldn't be used when the article is already disambiguated, as B5 (band) is. The typical reader wouldn't arrive there without first landing onto the disambiguation page, B5. If the reader was looking for another topic with the name "B5", they wouldn't end up at B5 (band) to begin with. The template should be used when there is a primary topic, like pink. As other uses of the term exist, the use of {{otheruses4}} in this context makes sense. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Given the continued socking, I've just initiated an ANI thread suggesting a ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will chip in shortly. — ξ^xplicit 04:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happened 1st time and a second time after the denial. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Three hours of semi-protection for that talk page too. I had my hopes up that it would end; I was wrong. — ξ^xplicit 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been happening the last few days on random userpages and user talk pages, almost all of them are open proxies. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes me wonder when my talk page gets initiated into this lovely process. — ξ^xplicit 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. I'm curious, if you can tell me, how do you know if a particular IP is a proxy? I had assumed that they were distinct users clicking an offsite link containing a diff with the vandalism included and ready to go. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would talk to User:Zzuuzz, he knows about Open Proxies. On the other hand I had it happen to me and had to get my talk page protected for a time too. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(tps) See User:Zzuuzz/Guide to checking open proxies.The second of these IPs meets the duck test, but is undoubtedly related to User:85.8.21.151 which has port 3128 open (see exit servers section). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok now the user's userpage is being vandalised, sensing that the talk page is protected, he found the userpage to pounce on now. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked a proxy and it seems to have stopped for now. I've added the userpage to my watchlist, just in case. — ξ^xplicit 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! --Meaghan ^{the vanilla twilight} 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For protecting my talk page when I wasn't around to ask for it. Thanks. It means a lot to me. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thank you for the barnstar. — ξ^xplicit 01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You were right, another IP is back on Zhang_He's page. Momo san ^Gespräch 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have called a bet. Oh well. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would have made a good bet too. Momo san ^Gespräch 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorna_Angie_Cepeda.jpg , be deleted? If so, what is the process? Do I need to create a user account at Wikipedia Commons? (too much trouble for just one image)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_image_deletion says "If an image is available at both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and it is deleted here"

If permitted, would you like to do all the submitting so that I can watch the process from A to Z? Or refer the matter to another user who you think will do it (and tell me what that user's name is) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the file on Commons is already for lack of permission, so it will be deleted in a few days (though it looks like that area is quite backlogged). I left a post over at Common's administrators' noticeboard, so it should be dealt with soon. — ξ^xplicit 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You declined my speedy deletion of 20px. Your explanation (sixteen hours after I had tagged it with db-f7 ) was that it was not properly tagged for seven days. Please explain. Also point me in the direction of a description of a speedy deletion process you are happier with, if possible.

Thank you!

Iago2¹² 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Per WP:CSD#F7 the file needs to be tagged with {{subst:dfu}} and can be deleted after this tag has been on the description page for 7 days. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What he said. — ξ^xplicit 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Trying this then. Iago2¹² 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,
hope you don't mind but I'll just clean up those Rihanna images right away, they are all quite clear cut copyright and fair use violations.
Cheers, Amalthea 02:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I usually take files to WP:PUF when I can't find an exact source for an image, sort of like a force of habit. Thanks for lending a hand. — ξ^xplicit 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at what 84.104.113.15 is doing right now, absolutely vandalizing the article repeatedly (look at the history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Method_Man_discography&action=history). This guy is ignorant and won't stop. Where should I report him so I can block him permanently. Hometown Kid (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009.

Also look at the vandalism he just did while a go to Rakim discography.

I reverted the IP's edits that hadn't been reverted yet and gave them a warning—a block wasn't justified quite yet and IPs aren't blocked permanently. In the future, it would be a good idea to warn the user by adding warning templates on their talk page. If they vandalize after their final warning, they can be reported to the administrator intervention against vandalism venue, where an admin will likely block the offender shortly thereafter. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He refuses to listen so I suggest you block him now, because he still vandalizing the article even after you warned him, look at the history. Hometown Kid (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009.

I know I've discussed this with other editors in the past, but you're the only one that comes to mind right now. So I'm notifying you of a discussion I've raised recently: Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Please_do_away_with_Associated_Acts -- I can see that its getting derailed, maybe that's my fault. I think the field should either be removed or we seriously need to ratchet down the criteria to define what "Associated" means if its going to populate the infobox. Otherwise we will constantly be battling polluted infoboxes, as we currently do. JBsupreme (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These images were self-made from files of own original work.

  * 1.12 File:Beowulf Cartoon bookwork.jpg
  * 1.13 File:Space Opera book 2000.jpg  
  * 1.16 File:Vis assc cat. cover.jpg

These images were self-made from files permitted by, or on behalf of close non-living associates, living associates and affiliated organizations.

   * 1.4 File:A Pocket History of the Soul (chapbook cover).jpg
   * 1.7 File:SGR recruitment leaflet 09 001.jpg
   * 1.8 File:Furst fruts uvl 977.jpg
   * 1.9 File:Axe Hero cd insert cover.jpg
   * 1.10 File:Dust jacket The Joy of Letting Women Down.jpg
   * 1.11 File:WF workshop & book launch flyer 2002.jpg
   * 1.14 File:Ssf6+Processural.jpg
   * 1.15 File:Positive future.jpg
   * 1.17 File:Chainsaw -2 cover.jpg (file 72 DPI).jpg

All image files were uploaded in good faith on understanding they complied with copyright & licensing requirements. Can you please assist with undeletion and help restoration to original articles.

Thank you Wikiwel (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, although you may have taken a picture of the works, they are copyrighted works, in which the original creator of the images still hold the copyright to. There was nothing that indicated that you were the copyright holder of these images or that you received permission to upload these images under a free licensing, which is why they were sent to WP:PUF and then deleted. — ξ^xplicit 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dp you feel that the above article's musical structure is fancruft. As far as I know, such addition of the composition of the song is essential for an article to be GA or FA. however, the reviewer of the article believes that the section is WP:IN-U and is not accepting the fact that it is essential for the article. Could you help me out on this? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not give a reason for your decision to delete this file. Given that there was controversy over it, could you please explain your reasons for deleting it? Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Tryptofish, sorry for my lack of explanation (I was over at WP:PUF for quite a significant time just handling one day's log, so it skipped through my mind). The main issue that I saw with those in favor of keeping the file was that they failed to address why the image should be used. I was aware that the use of the image was under dispute, but no one (at least, not from what I saw) explained how this image is significant portrayal that a free image or text alone can't describe (WP:NFCC#8). Although some of those who were in favor of deletion didn't have arguments any better, there were those who addressed the point that a non-free isn't needed to depict crucifixion in anime in the article. — ξ^xplicit 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I guess there was so much drama going on at the page, with discussions going on in parallel at both places, that those of us favoring "keep" did not do as good a job as we might have of addressing the point you raise here. If you don't mind my doing so, I'll take a stab at that now, in hopes that you and I can discuss it without having to go to deletion review. If I break the issue down into its constituent parts, there is (1) the significance of the image to the page, (2) the availability of a free image, and (3) whether text alone would suffice. Number 2 is the simplest: there are no such free images at Commons or found by editors looking for them. As for number 1, while the deletion discussion was in progress, I researched and added to the article a reliable secondary source (which I did mention in the deletion discussion) discussing this particular image as part of a notable controversy about censorship of crucifixion images in anime by Western publishers. Thus, the image relates directly to a significant part of the text of the page, and is sourced to support that significance. (Ironically, the image has been controversial at Wikipedia for the same reasons that it has been censored outside of Wikpedia; the article content dispute was triggered when an external site stirred up a large number of IPs who came to the page and made disruptive edits.) Number 3 is the most subjective issue. On one level, one can make a case that all of the images at Crucifixion in art could be dispensed with and just described in the text, resulting in a page with no images at all. But it is, after all, a page about something "in art". I suppose it can be argued that "everyone" knows what anime looks like, although I do not really think it is any more valid than saying that everyone knows what Salvador Dali's paintings look like. If one looks down the page, it shows how depictions of the subject matter have changed over time, and that is entirely appropriate to the subject matter, and the image in question showed a notable aspect of crucifixion imagery that is not shown elsewhere on the page. It's certainly not identical to any of the other images, but, rather, it provides an informative comparison with them. In my opinion, at least, the images at Fullmetal Alchemist (also fair use) do not parallel the other images at Crucifixion in art as well as the deleted one does. I hope you'll consider these points, and accept my apologies for not doing a better job of explaining them sooner. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the deleted image and the ones in the article (with the exception for File:Crucifixio.jpg, which happens to be missing a fair use rationale) is that they are released under the public domain, which means WP:NFCC doesn't apply to those, because the images are free. The use of non-free files in other articles isn't an issue in this article. Taking a look at the article's talk page, it seems there's still significant opposition of the use of the image, let alone the references to anime. Unfortunately, I do not see consensus to keep the image, nor have it included in the article. If consensus changes on the article's talk page, or if you invited the others who took part of the FfD discussion to my talk page to express their views so I can get a better perspective of the reasoning behind keeping the image, I would gladly restore the image myself. Until then, I'm afraid I don't see enough support to restore the file. — ξ^xplicit 05:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For editors like me who are concerned about censorship of the image, the catch-22 comes with asking that consensus coalesce around keeping the image, while pre-empting that consensus by removing the image before any real consensus exists. But I do appreciate the fact that you make it clear that you are open to restoring the image when and if there is consensus to do so. I think that's very fair and balanced, and I thank you again for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.