User talk:Explicit

Disputed fair use rationale

I have seen you tagged some album covers for being disputed like this. Could you tell me how to know a disputed one. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know very much. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I tagged alternate covers uploaded by Chikazuku as disputed fair use in compliance with the non-free content criteria, as Wikipedia's mission is to produce as much free content and to limit the amount of non-free content used in articles. Alternate covers from Japanese singles and albums are usually used for differing editions, like CD-only editions, CD+DVD editions, etc. My rationale points to these image violating the eight point of this criteria, which reads Contextual significance. 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 removing these covers, the reader does not lose any essential information, as it's still understood in the text of the article that multiple editions were released. If an alternate cover is subject to critical commentary from secondary reliable sources (for example, the alternate cover of Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster), then it may merit inclusion. But these covers don't have that, and they hardly ever do, which is why I tagged them for deletion. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to un-delete images

Hi Xplicit,

Can I please ask you to un-delete the following files :

File:Olivi (1942).jpg File:Baptismal Font in St. Peter, Rome (1915).jpg File:Winter In Piemonte (1960).jpg File:Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia (1939).jpg

Massimo Calabretti, the director & appointed representative of the G. M. Aicardi Foundation (owned by the daughter of the painter) has sent an e-mail to en-permissions through m.calabretti@gm-aicardi.com to give permission for use of all the images listed above. I understand there might be a backlog but we are currently setting up the foundation, the website and wikipedia page for the painter G. M. Aicardi and we have a lot of investors that are waiting for all three to go live so we can start the ball rolling on our project. I do appreciate your help and co-operation on this one.

Maximo98 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Once an image is deleted for lacking evidence of permission, I'm not too keen on restoring it until OTRS confirms permission. As an example, an email for evidence of permission for File:Saint Paul's Cathedral 2012.jpg was also sent to en-permissions, but ultimately, the license was not suitable with Wikipedia and was deleted. I'm not sure of what the email says exactly, but I prefer to err to the side of caution when it comes to copyright. If the permission checks out, it will be restored on the spot. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a minor issue, which I am not at liberty to discuss, ironically resolved when I saw this note.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale

Hi there! I'm here regarding the files File:Wae Ireoni.jpg, File:BoPeepBoPeepVersionB.jpg, File:YayayaVersionB.jpg, File:YayayaVersionC.jpg, File:T-araRolyPolyVersionB.png, and File:T-araRolyPolyRegular.png. Though I agree with the reasons why they should be deleted, I feel like the limited-edition single covers (E.G. Bo Peep Bo Peep version A and B) should only be removed and that the regular edition covers (File:JapanBoPeep.jpg, YayayaVersionC.jpg, T-araRolyPolyRegular.png) should be kept in the articles because it creates consistency and well, because they're the regular covers; the limited-edition singles are produced in a limited quantity. I've also created the article for the single "Wae Ireoni" which was released before Temptastic but uses the back-cover of the album. Best regards, Chikazuku (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I, too, use the regular edition covers for Japanese releases (like Let It Go! and Neverland (song)). If you'd like, you can just go ahead and remove the limited edition covers from the articles and move the regular edition cover to the lead infobox image. The cover for "왜 이러니" seems fine now, though it should still be removed from Temptastic. — ξ^xplicit 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is in relation to something on your page, but not related to our discussion. MSJapan (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 21#File:Frontier Series - .24100_front.jpg

Hello. I urge you to reconsider this close as there is no free equivalent to these files, they are encyclopedic and enhance the article by showing how the bills look like and greatly increase the readers understanding of how the bills resemble. The reason why I provided the article on Australian banknotes was because I am attempting to model this article after that article and people have had no problem with providing a visual representation of the banknotes on that article (since ~2006). Thank you. ----Addihockey10 ^e-mail 02:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to the low number of participants in this discussion, I'll go ahead and relist it. Per WP:NFCCE, please remember that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". — ξ^xplicit 05:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Image Removal- Dispute Copyright

Hi Explicit,

You recently deleted File:Criterion Economics.jpg citing F9 (copyright violation without fair use permission). I'm not sure how it is a copyright violation. Can you please explain? I am the photographer and I am wondering how to go about verifying without sending you a photo archive. Thank you.

econoedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrowley00 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Criterion Economics.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation because it appears the image was taken from this website, under the 'My Photos' section. If you are indeed the copyright holder of the image and would like to release it under a free license, you can follow the steps given at WP:CONSENT. — ξ^xplicit 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please review On the documentation to {{Talk header}}, it says to not use the template unless needed. Edits such as this add it somewhere that is unjustified. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove those additions. — ξ^xplicit 21:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

CoD: BlOps 2 characters

Hi Explicit,

Sorry to bother you, but concerning your revert on List of characters in Call of Duty: Black Ops II, in what way has Jmdarsenal "contested" my proposed deletion? The banner states that: You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. - which Jmdarsenal hasn't done in the last two days. It's not an argument, but considering that those edits were the first in nine months, and the one before that a year prior, my guess is that Jmdarsenal simply stumbled upon the article and decided it should stay. I'm not hell-bent on getting that article deleted, but I would like to know what the correct procedures are. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 10:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag in compliance with WP:CONTESTED, which reads: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. Solely removing the prod without any explanation is in itself contesting the deletion. — ξ^xplicit 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting administrator intervention for a couple of issues

Given that you are an administrator, I wished to request your comment on a couple of incidents an incident.

The first incident occurred here, where my eye was caught by one of the most suspicion-causing things which I see on Wikipedia recent changes patrol, and that is an unestablished editor reverting edits by an established editor. I removed the content in good faith given that there was considerable disagreement over it, especially given that a credible editor disagreed with the content. Somebody reverted my edit, apparently in good faith, mistaking my edit as vandalism. I did not revert again as I did not wish to engage in an edit war. This issue was already resolved.

The second incident occurred here, where I made valid edits, which accurately reflected Wikipedia policy, and, another IP editor reverts my edits in bad faith, claiming that I was gaming the system. I reverted that edit in good faith, given that I have edited Wikipedia for considerable time and I am familiar with at least most of the policies. If the other IP editor reverts my edit, I will not revert it again to avoid edit warring, although, as I stated, I am requesting some administrator input on these issues. Additionally, that editor also placed an attack in the sandbox against a living person, and tagged his or her talk page for speedy deletion likely in an attempt to hide my warning.

Thanks in advance. 70.248.182.33 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC), modified 23:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The case with Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox, it seems that the other IP editor disagrees with your additions to the page. They may either disagree with your edits or may have misinterpreted what you wrote. The first step, of course, would be engaging in discussion with the user. Explain your edits and ask why this user disagrees with your additions. Try to come to a consensus if possible, and try other venues if that falls through. — ξ^xplicit 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The way the editor seems to be behaving, it is unlikely that (s)he would be willing to speak to me. Is it possible for you to review his/her edits and revert them at your discretion? (S)he reverted one of my edits to the page in question on the first incident as well. 70.248.182.33 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the editor is attempting to portray my edits as bad faith as an act of retaliation for taking action in response to his or her attack at the sandbox. I do not even believe those venues are worth trying. It will only heat the dispute more. May I kindly request intervention either by you or (an)other administrator(s)? Thanks in advance. 70.248.182.33 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: The user also abusively added a warning template to my talk page for an edit which obviously did not constitute edit warring if one reviews the edit summary. I had even discussed the matter with the user who reverted my edit, who confessed that he had mistakenly reverted my removal, therefore, I had reinstated my removal. 70.248.182.33 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left the user a note on their talk page, which I suggest you read as well and will watch what happens from here. If page protections or blocks are required for this dispute, they will be used when appropriate. — ξ^xplicit 00:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I just wish to inform you that I have never intentionally edit warred. I never reverted more than once, and, I will never revert pages more than once. I have always edited Wikipedia in good faith. If I have done anything wrong, please inform me. I fight vandalism almost every day and I strive to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Thank you. 70.248.182.33 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC), modified 00:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)