User talk:Explicit/Archive 3

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.

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made changes and comments per your review of this article, thanks. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me why it is wrong to put this in the lead? Osh33m (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "wrong", it's just unnecessary to mention awards in the lead. There's no reason to highlight one type of award an artist won in the first sentence. — Σxplicit 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my RfA you stated that you didn't trust me. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to move the page Eve (rapper) to Eve (entertainer) before I knew about the move tab and I need help to delete Eve (entertainer) so I can move Eve (rapper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidearly46 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged Eve (entertainer) for speedy deletion. Once an administrator deletes it, Eve (rapper) can be properly moved. — Σxplicit 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your not supposed to add images unless you absolutely need them to help explain the article. So I'm taking out the Lupe image, as it is in the awards article. If you look around the musician articles, those who have won Grammys have them in the title because they are regarded as some of the hierarchical awards given to musicians. So I'm putting it back in.Osh33m (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy that states that this image can't be used. I'm going to have to ask you to please stop removing the image, as you've been reverted three times by three different users. [1] [2] [3]. You've continuously been edit warring, which may lead to a block if your edits continue to be persistent. — Σxplicit 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:ANI#User:TrEeMaNsHoE, I have blocked the user for 24 hours for the disruption. I think I cleaned up the various pages and also protected a few pages for the equivalent full-protect time as Work (Ciara song). Please let me know if I missed anything or should alter something. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For great work in pruning fair use images that don't meet the criteria. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! — Σxplicit 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a LOT of information on this song, why did you have to delete the article?Osh33m (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the article, I redirected it. My edit summary reads "Redirect non-notable song per WP:NM". Please take a look at WP:NM, as the song does not meet our notability guidelines. I quote, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Until the song charts or wins a significant award, it should remain a redirect. — Σxplicit 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's got to be some truth to it. :) decltype (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! What are the chances? — Σxplicit 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

I just responded to your nomination to delete the category for Grammy award nominees in the talk section of that category, which is where I believe it told me to make the comments. Can you please tell me first if I put the objection in the correct place and two, whether you can read my reasoning for the category and explain why you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Todd. The best place to share your thoughts is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 25#Category:Grammy award nominees. Clicking on this link will direct you to a discussion, where other users will place their input to keep or delete the category. The main reason I've nominated the category for deletion is for the fact that it lacks a precedent. For example, for Category:Grammy Award winners, is a subcategory of Category:Music award winners, which is a subcategory of Category:Award winners, and so on. As you'll see, there is currently no Category:Award nominees, and I believe your category is the only one to include nominees. Whether it's notable or important is a matter of debate, but that can all be discussed here. — Σxplicit 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Again Explicit. I could have sworn the rules said the "debate" was to go on for seven days. I still have no idea where people were conducting this "debate". I attempted to follow all of the instructions as to where to express my point of view, but still somehow never had my side even considered. I'm very disappointed in how dictatorial this whole process is. You have a number of very opinionated people running around with the power to destroy other people's hard work, and the "system" is designed to provide the normal user with very little voice. It's really a shame.

I hope you will personally consider what I said about being nominated yourself for a Grammy. If and when that ever happens, you'll consider the nomination notable. The powers that be at Wikipedia have just concluded in a matter of minutes (not days) that a Grammy Nominee is not notable and tantamount to trivia. Shame on all of you!

Remember that our business, the music business, is one you hope to embrace some day. I certainly hope you have more regard for artistic endeavors than you've shown here tonight.

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the category existed before, was nominated for deletion and was agreed upon to be deleted, according to this: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3#Grammy Award nominees. Therefore, the category was speedily deleted because it was recreated. If you take a look at our speedy deletion criteria, it states, "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." If you believe that the category should exist, I suggest you take it to deletion review and state your argument there. — Σxplicit 06:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cause everyone needs a kitten! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm not allergic to this one! Haha, thanks Bookkeeper. — Σxplicit 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokista02 needs to be block. Again and again, he has added the album cover to the Michelle Williams (singer) biography despite the warnings. Lovejonesfly (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask this because he has repeatly ignored the warnings. Lovejonesfly (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I previously warned the user, so now I'll report them. — Σxplicit 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an emergency situation on our hands, 84.109.254.154 has repeatedly vandalized the T.I. discography article by altering the chart positions and certifications. Are you able to undo his bad edits? Look at these [4], [5], [6], [7]. This guy won't stop after his edits are undid, he needs to be blocked indefinetly. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2009 (ET)

I've reverted all of the IP's edits and gave him/her a warning. IPs are rarely blocked indefinitely, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Σxplicit 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I put it a ways up. In short though, why don't you trust me? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I did miss it. Sorry about that. The reason I opposed your RfA is because of the temperament problems that I saw in the RfA. For example, your very combative discussions here. The fact that you "won't back down from a fight" is a bit worrisome, as this type of attitude may inflame certain situations. The fact that you badgered opposes, like oppose numbers 14 and 15 by leaving a comment to look at a support, only shows that fight over things that aren't worth fighting for. I was also unsatisfied with this unnecessary comment you left to a blocked user. To be more precise, I am unable to trust your actions and judgment if you were to become an administrator. — Σxplicit 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, no problem. Wouldn't be the first time a simple oversight happened.

I find you to be quite reasonable, so I'd like to pick your brain and see what I can do to alleviate your concerns by changing either the perception I'm giving or changing behavior you feel isn't appropriate.

1. Let's address the "won't back down from a fight" issue first:

   I assume you got the diff from MTurkeyGroupie's comment. This user is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user and consistently uses things taken way out of context to spin things in an inappropriate way. Moreover, this was the same person who left death threats on my page and accused me of murdering another Wikipedian, so I suggest taking it with a grain of salt

   As I stated in this diff, my point was that I wasn't afraid of confrontation, but, as pointed out later, that phrasing didn't leave the best connotation or impression. Accordingly, I changed that in my responses prior to submission to RfA and have avoided such phrasing since then. That was the whole reason for asking for assistance.

2. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on "temperament problems in your RfA"?
3. I'm kind of confused as to "badgering". I responded to a critique to show where their concerns had been addressed. Why is that badgering? Would a simple response have been better than referting to another section? I wouldn't say that's "fighting" at all. It's a civilized response, IMHO. We are supposed to discuss things, aren't we? Is this in some policy or guideline of which I am unaware?
4. As for my "combative discussions", I went to a neutral forum to ask for assistance. While "slander" didn't help the discussion (and I haven't used that word since then to describe anything other than the legal term because of the connotations), the disruptiveness of those users was something that needed to be addressed: Claiming consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists is disruptive. After pointing that out, such actions ceased and our discussion continued without such problems.

Your assistance in better understanding your opinion is appreciated. Thanks? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider this conversation "badgering"? If so, I'll just stop now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Alright then, I'll take you word for this one. I would find it helpful if you didn't call a discussion a "fight"; you don't need to make a discussion have a negative connotation just because not everyone agrees.
2. Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant it to say "temperament problems that I saw presented in the RfA". And by that, I mean the diffs that were provided by some users.
3. There's nothing wrong with responding to an opposing user. It's a completely different matter just to point out a supporting user to an opposing user; clearly, the rationale in the support section didn't sway the opposition, and pestering the opposition in such a way isn't going to help. If anything, badgering gathers more opposition.
4. Okay, I see where you're coming from on this one. I feel you're still a bit too aggressive (and I'm sure I'm not alone, looking at other opposes). Just toning down a bit would help a lot. And no, I don't find this discussion badgering; I encourage you to look beyond these opposes and better yourself rather than satisfying your opposition. That will go a long way. — Σxplicit 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

   With regards to #1, cool; same with #2.

   With #3, let's use those "See support #37" comments as an example. My point was that I addressed their primary concerns after they made such a comment and I felt it would be considered "badgering" to respond to each of them with "Issue addressed". Do you think it would have been better to answer each individually to state that their concerns had been addressed?

   I think bettering myself is certainly a good idea, but obviously some people oppose me, so I'm starting with these as concrete things upon which I can improve and get feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's much more efficient and effective to address each issue individually. You have to assume that the opposition has already read support votes and are not persuaded to change their stance, so pointing out a certain supporter will do virtually nothing. Just keep working at it for a few months, you'll get there. — Σxplicit 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but it was my comments to the supporter (stated after their comments) that I felt addressed their concerns. Thanks for the encouragement! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Explicit. I have addressed your concerns regarding this article. Hope its fine. Thanks for the wonderful review. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look when I come back from school. — Σxplicit 16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you can remove them from the confifmed tracks list, but as you can see, they are singles. By, the way are you authorized to unprotect pages, because Like a Surgeon (Ciara song) has become a notable song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrEeMaNsHoE (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ----TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Colds7ream/RfA

I'll try to expand and refine the legacy when I get a chance. Otherwise I think it looks good. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DM, I'm really going to go for FAC with this one. — Please comment R² 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I skimmed the article, but I'll do a more in-depth review later on today. — Σxplicit 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were allowed to post two different covers for the same single???

e.g. Love Sex Magic, Battlefield (Jordin Sparks song) (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, for the most part, no. You may want to take a look at WP:NFCC#3a. It states: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Since multiple covers don't add any significant information, it isn't necessary to include them in the article. — Σxplicit 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm well aware of what I am doing. I take warnings over edit-waring with a grain of salt when it comes to BLPs. I find maintaining the WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY of living person's biography more important than being blocked for a period of time. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to voice your opinion here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Seems like consensus is in favor, again, at the current structure. — Σxplicit 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. How do you like my edits to Aaliyah, btw? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking good! Not sure if you noticed my notice at the top, but I have limited resources at the moment (laptop + Internet Explorer = torture). Hope to get things fixed soon to get more actively involved. — Σxplicit 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoaahhhhhhh. I just came to know that you are Diverse Mentality!! Whoaaaaaaa!!! I thought that amazing user had left wikipedia. Thank god you are still here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think I'll be around for a while. Thank you for the kind words. — Σxplicit 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just rolled back this edit [8] by an editor to whom you just gave a high-level pre-block warning. Newportm (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems alright as it was undiscussed and he removed the link to Lil Wayne's discography page. There's currently a discussion of he user in WP:ANI regarding his edits. Regards. — Σxplicit 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to fiddle with the article, but your edit summary was pretty strange. Pleading guilty to a felony certainly causes you to become a "convicted felon". There isn't some kind of gradation of guilt where being found guilty as the result of a plea, being found guilty as a result of a plea agreement, or being found guilty as a result of a jury verdict weigh differently upon a person.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to respond on the article's talk page, but Bookkeeper beat me to it, which caused an edit conflict on my end. You can find the explanation to my edit summary there. Regards. — Σxplicit 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically we're all right and wrong: For the defendants, plea bargaining provides the opportunity for a lighter sentence on a less severe charge. If represented by private counsel, defendants save the cost for trial and have fewer or less serious offenses listed on their criminal records. source here there's also an interesting paper about plea bargaining hereThe Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit. You have new messages at Talk: Find a Grave.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A tag has been placed on Needlz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the prior 2008 AFD and it appeared to be deleted for lack of sources, which your version appeared to address? In any event, let me know if you would like me to userfy it for you since it appears you did some work to recreate it. Plastikspork (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's taken care of. Appreciate the note, Plastikspork. — Σxplicit 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I was going solely by the deletion header and I failed to look at who'd posted it. I'll restore it immediately. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We're all set, talk page and all. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding in the face of this error. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

the information about michael jackson converting to islam is verified in Wikipedia, and has many resources. you can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24684859-7484,00.html

i hope you dont have any personal issues to prevent adding such important info about michael jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmgx (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This was previously discussed on the page here and consensus has shown not to included it into the article, mainly because The Sun was the only publication "verify" this while other publications cited The Sun as the source. Jackson nor anyone else in his camp has verified this as he never publicly discussed his faith, and we must comply with our WP:BLP policy. — Σxplicit 05:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not critical blame me, without proof as you did on User:Papa November's talk page. "* Lovejonesfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Lovejonesfly added the {{administrator}} template after copying the content from your userpage. — Σxplicit 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)" Just because he happened to have it on his page, doesn't mean I copied it. Lovejonesfly (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by critically blaming you. I was specifically addressing the fact that you added the {{administrator}} template to your userpage, a template only administrators are allowed to place on their userpages. Seeing are you aren't an admin, it really shouldn't be there. — Σxplicit 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, I will remove it, but please do not blame with insufficient proof of copying. I saw your Heads Up topic on Papa November's talk page, were you blamed me for what you thought I did. Lovejonesfly (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me stress again, whether you did or didn't copy someone else's userpage isn't problem nor the point I was raising on Papa November's talk page, it's the fact that the template mentioned above is on your userpage. — Σxplicit 22:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, why do you even care what I do. What I do on my userpage is for me, you don't have to bother someone else with what I add on my page whether it's a heads up or not. It shouldn't matter to you what I add to my page then to go and notify someone. If you don't like what I add to my userpage "tuff", I added what I like and what is appropriate. I have been doing the "recent activities" and "pages created" since the beginning of June 2009 except it was on my talk page. Lovejonesfly (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be your userpage, but there are userpage guidelines everyone has to abide by. It's not appropriate to add the administrator template if you aren't one, as you're asserting authority you don't have. Since you removed the template, things are resolved. — Σxplicit 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I also deleted a pile of useless "foo (bar)"→"something" redirects. I think the ban-hammer will fall soon. Might want to watchlist some of her favorite targets in case she reappears as a new account. DMacks (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Don't quite understand why this user continues to move articles that don't need moving and making strange redirects. — Σxplicit 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume no objection to indef-block? She's also got no clue about fair-use for images. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block might be a little heavy for a second block, no? Although a lot of Lil Lez's are disruptive, I've seen one or two that were actually useful. Perhaps a week or two week block might get the message across. I wouldn't object to an indefinite block past that though, as the editor either doesn't understand our guidelines or just ignores them. — Σxplicit 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks it is. I reverted her Beautiful Girls (song)→Beautiful Girls (Van Halen song) move before I saw you had edited the resulting (song) page afterwards. Let me know if you want me to revert my revert (or feel free to move and edit further). This was only one of several disruptive edits in tonight's edit session (other inappropriate moves and also some useless redirects) so even if I grant that this was a viable edit, I would still have blocked. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take look at Beautiful Girls (song) later tonight and see if it needs to be moved, right after I'm done copy-editing another article. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly Sorry,i did think that Michael Jackson confirmed it. Please accept my apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhakir (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's alright. Thank you for taking time to look at the article's talk page. — Σxplicit 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! — Σxplicit 06:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

i-20 is Liberian. His father got the same name as him "Bobby Sandimanie Sr". Google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to provide an inline citation. Any unreferenced material can be removed from articles, especially in biographies of living persons. The burden of evidence lies in the person who adds the material. — Σxplicit 03:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except the page says "Summary fair use" and "Comment fair use" which sound like two assertions of fair use to me. If your reference to the fact that it's not fair use is based on the fact that it's also tagged {PD-self} then you're relying on a tag that's clearly and self-evidently wrong. Dai Xi (whose article claims he died in 1860) is unlikely to be a Wikipedian.

I'm not saying this can't be fixed. Maybe it ought to be {pd-old} or something. The point is that someone more knowledgable than me needs to check that, and removing the tag hasn't solved the problem. AndyJones (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't go hunting out her edits too hard. As I noted at the SPI investigation, I really, truly doubt that she is Brexx. You might want to take a look at User:Kww/newbrazilchart, too. If things go the way I think they will, we're going to have a lot of fun dealing with trying to integrate a legitimate Brazilian chart that only affect .00001% of Wikipedia articles.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert too much, most of AndreaCarax's edits were reverted before I got to them (Most of her edits consisted of the usual removing of pop anyways). As for Brazil… is it really a recently created chart? This will truly become troublesome if all prior charts were in fact fake, as it would increase the addition of these charts prior to this year. Any idea what happened to the following weeks after June 5? — Σxplicit 23:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: this is both ridiculous and hilarious. — Σxplicit 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean July 5, I think. They just run a few days behind. The chart ending July 5 was posted around the 16th. Yes, it's truly a new chart, yes, all previous charts were unreliable, and yes, it's completely legitimate. The only real question is whether they are going to publish it on a regular basis that we can count on, or if it's just going to be an occasional thing they publish on a slow news day.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, I meant July 5, I misread that. Considering how long it took to post the original two, it seems that it'll be a slow progress. We'll just have to wait and see how things turn out. — Σxplicit 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this user's edits? I believe the Rollback feature is getting misused for content dispute. A quick look made me see that the user is hell bent on adding a cover failing WP:NFCC#8 and is disrupting the singles section of the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left the user a warning here, which they subsequently removed. I'll keep an eye on them. — Σxplicit 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why am I always accused of owning up the Gaga articles? Is removing unsourced additions owning up? I feel bad. :(:( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just out of frustration more than anything. I was called a dumb ass for reverting unsourced album sales—doesn't necessarily make me one. — Σxplicit 04:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you don't mind, I would like to explain my misabuse of rollback. I will admit to misusing it in the heat of the moment and without thinking. This will not happen again, and I certainly hope that you do not percieve me as a vandal for my mistake. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not perceiving you as a vandal, you're just misusing the tool. Please be aware that any further misuse may lead to the rights to the tool being removed from your account. I'd also like to point out that you are currently engaged in an edit war and are about to violate WP:3RR in The Fame. Discuss things on the talk page first, the article and each person's version won't disappear. — Σxplicit 03:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the consequences of further misuse, and I would like to apologize again to the community for gaining trust to use the tool properly and then abusing it. I am aware of the three-revert rule and I will not be making any further reverts on that page for 24 hours, and until consensus on the matter is reached. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just keep that in mind for future use of the tool. Even when 24 hours does pass, it doesn't give you a free pass to revert edits again. You don't have to breach 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. It's best to keep everything in discussion, even if it takes several days. — Σxplicit 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, "until consensus [...] is reached." ;)

I would like to thank you for being so calm. I have really been put in a bad mood by people who didn't assume good faith and attacked me when they could have explained their opinions to me calmly as you did. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just remember to discuss things first if other editors don't agree as opposed to warring. If there are no agreements, try to compromise if possible, or considering using dispute resolution. — Σxplicit 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this article? User:Alecsdaniel is continuously adding unreliable sources like youtube after being repeatedly asked not to do so. The article is GA nominated, hence this kind of addition and reversion will make it unstable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like I was late to the party. Hope that the note Redvers (talk · contribs) left the user was helpful. Will keep an eye on the article. — Σxplicit 17:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

R u online by any chance? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Am now. — Σxplicit 05:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well a user, simply copy pasted from Greatest Hits Volume 3 (Madonna album) to Celebration (Madonna album) instead of doing a move. Hence the hostory will be lost now. Can you help to merge the hostory to the correct page? The user has been previously warned against such redirects and moves, but alas!

PS: The calamity with Billboard! We are f***ked badly. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh god! Sorry to bother you again. A user, inspite of explanations and warnings (later) is deleting material from the lead of Miles Away (Madonna song). The article is a GA and everything is sourced, but the user is citing censorship and controvery which is baseless as everything is what represented by the critics voice of opinion. I left an explanation but the user replied back with a snarky remark. The last change I have rollbacked considering it as vandalism, but I will be waiting for your opinion and won't Rollback further now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

← The cut and paste move seems to be fixed. Will see if Paul75 (talk · contribs) will explain his concerns on the talk page. — Σxplicit 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced that this article Live in Tokyo (Beyoncé DVD) should probably be deleted. I've searched high and low for the existence of said DVD but my searches have come up empty. It has no sources or references and is most likely some sort of fan-cruft. I don't know the proper way of going about putting an article as a candidate for deletion as was wondering if you could figure it out. Thank you. Ratizi1 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My Google searches seem to all point to a DVD by AOL ([9] [10]). Even then, I'm not too sure if it's pointing to the right one; it definitely lacks notability, though. I'll prod it first and take it to WP:AfD if that's contested. — Σxplicit 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

These links show the performances in question, but it appears to me that the concert was streamed online and there is no actual release of a DVD containing said show. Ratizi1 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you removed some content on Forever_(Chris_Brown_song) I added it back in with references, it is a viral picked up by numerous news agencies. RP459 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Upgradeumusicvideo.jpg delete please. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion. — Σxplicit 05:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

O M G !!! -_- If YOU have a FREEE image then please upload it! The one that was up before was horrible and did not show Michelle in a good light at all. Why can't you just leave the picture alone. People like you take things waaaaay tooooo far. It really is NOT that serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanLGardner (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:NFC. Non-free images should not be used to depict a living person when free alternatives exist or can be created. There's no reason to use a screen shot of a music video in this article. — Σxplicit 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are threatning me like that? =O If you are so sure that there are free images of both Michelle Williams and LeToya Luckett I would appreciate it if you could post them (oh and if the pictures of either Michelle or LeToya are still up, then don't block me because I put them up before I got your 'threat'). Have a nice day =) Remember to get some t a m p a x if you have the time =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanLGardner (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning for incivility. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

i can't upload pictures on wikipedia or i can't create articles either, and i can't edit some articles either. (Youngmoneyfan1 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

That's probably because your account is new. Usually, after four days and ten edits, you should be able to make all use all the features an auto confirmed users can do. — Σxplicit 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get what is wrong with Beyonce Sweet dreams picture, I compared the info on some other music video screen shoots and it seems to be regular?? So why is it up for deleting??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBanks92 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason the file is up for deletion is because it does not comply with out non-free content criteria. Specifically, a screen shot of a music video should significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This image does not do that, which is why I tagged it. — Σxplicit 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this article and the continuous reversion by User:Tikkuy? I explained to the user regarding WP:MoS#Images and why images cannot be exactly below the heading and should be kept to default size as not everyone watches with same browser options, but the user is reverting without any explanation. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have raised a discussion at Talk:Chillin#Images, but the user is avoiding a reply. LEt's see. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh haha! I see how it works now! You two are pals! Legoland (or whatever your username is supposed to be) you only backed Explicit up because you're friends -_- Oh and by the way, please reply to the message I just left you on your page Lego =) JonathanLGardner (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)=

Will get to the article shortly, Legolas. — Σxplicit 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Why can't you leave my posts alone! There is ONE screenshot in the WHOLE article - which is PERFECTLY reasonable under wikipedia's rules and therefore is a FAIR USE of a non-free image. So WHY have you marked it for speedy deletion when its use complies with Wikipedia's regulations!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanLGardner (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of your screen shots don't comply with WP:NFCC. Most of the screen shots do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, which is why I (along with multiple users, not just myself) tagged them. — Σxplicit 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

what if the proof you have behind a change isn't on a url? Do you have an email where I can send you proof?

helllooooooooooo can you answer me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was offline. You can email me by clicking here. — Σxplicit 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

please let me know if you got my email —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Will reply shortly. — Σxplicit 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

did you get my email with the attachments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, got it. Replying shortly. — Σxplicit 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I just sent another email. isn't there some realtime chat thing on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just emails and talk pages. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that the bot doesn't run around my talk page so much. — Σxplicit 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

hey did you ever get a chance to listen to the mp3 in my email? also how do you stop people from constantly changing a page?

Musicmaker1 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will download the files now (my internet is being really unstable right now). There's no way to stop people from editing pages if there isn't vandalism or edit warring going on. — Σxplicit 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear User, you have made many constructive edits, please can you add your opinion to the following discussion. thanks (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your previous mediation, i hate to ask but could you comment on the following discussion as well, to help reach a consensus. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Replied on the talk page. — Σxplicit 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the article deserves to be FA? I did my best with it. Could you take a brief look? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will give it a look over shortly. — Σxplicit 04:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The cover I uploaded is an official single cover for the song. I believe from the UK release but I'm not sure. I simply changed it because the version you reverted it to looks far too similar to the B'Day deluxe edition cover. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason but this cover just as accurately shows the official single cover while not confusing me with which cover I'm looking at. RatiziOne 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted back to the original cover was because the version you uploaded seemed like a cropped, distorted version of the current cover, so there isn't that much difference. I don't believe that uploading a similar—but distorted—cover due to similarity to the album cover is any reason to replace it. — Σxplicit 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It can seem like a cropped version but it is in fact the actual appearance of the cover. If you googled it or looked up the different releases of the song you would see this cover on several sites. Most notably, here and here on amazon's official listing of the single. RatiziOne 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I searched for the image and it did come up, but I personally feel the prior image was better. If I'm not mistaken, the cover in use now is an import. Shouldn't we be using the original cover art? — Σxplicit 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the prior image was also an Import. Although I don't know which cover is the original, the version used here in America was the simple white one with the bumble bee one her logo. But I still prefer this image because it has the proper accents and it doesn't resemble the album cover completely. RatiziOne 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you keep an eye on the user? Is bordering on intolerance and forum-like conversations in the Talk:Sticky & Sweet Tour page and providing hidden download links and threats. I'm afraid I had to remove the whole section because it was purely violating WP:NOTFORUM. I haven't warned the editors involved, but if they start reverting then I'll warn. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that discussion violates WP:FORUM as it was about the music samples. I would like to point out that Josemrdj (talk · contribs) claiming which sample was used for what songs without backing up the claim with reference is original research, which seems to be the main problem. — Σxplicit 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the amount of WP:OR in the article is tremendous. That's why I'm fearing to go and develop it for GA. The reverting will be tremendous I guess. Anyways another problem is coming up at Bedtime Stories (Madonna album). User:ElPilotoDi is adding an alternate album cover which is failing WP:NFCC#3a. Problem is when I removed the image, the user is adding it back again. His contributions show that most of the images he uploaded are without rationale or violates fair-use for images of living people. Me and User:Stifle have explained it to him numerous times to go through WP:NFCC but I guess our pleadings are falling on deaf ears. What do you suppose can be done in these cases? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the alternate cover for deletion. Hopefully it doesn't get too troublesome from here. — Σxplicit 04:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do members with userboxes always appear to be conceited? Blackwing388 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that userboxes automatically make someone conceited? And conceited how? — Σxplicit 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All they seem to do is announce some centered idea about the user to people, like you intend to brag about something that is indifferent to everyone else. Blackwing388 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe they're used to let others know about the person, their interests and contributions to Wikipedia. I'll take my userpage for example, which has five userboxes. In order, the userboxes let you know: how long I've been here, how many edits I've made since being here, indicating that I have Rollback rights, how many good articles I've written, how many featured lists I've written. None of these are meant to used for bragging rights, just to show my contributions to Wikipedia for those who are interested. I certainly don't think I'm better than any other user (or that any user is better than another, for that matter). — Σxplicit 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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 ForteTuba, 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) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaliyah's worldwide album sales have never been officially released by the r.i.a.a ,billboard.com or her record label,blackground records.Only her album sales in the United States have been released(8.1 million) but her worldwide sales have never been officially released.Also her worldwide records sales of 32 million have been released but it's not known how much of of her record sales came from her singles or album sales,so please change 24 million as her worldwide album sales and only state her Unite States album sales until a reliable source releases her worldwide album sales.Thanks!

-joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.105.232 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What you just told me contradicts itself. "Aaliyah's worldwide album sales have never been officially released" and "Also her worldwide records sales of 32 million have been released". It's either one or the other. We have a source that clearly indicates 24 million records (combination of album sales, single sales, DVDs, etc.), so that's in the article. If you can provide a published secondary reliable source, we can update it, but it will remain at 24 million records until then. You may interested at taking a look at this section of talk page of Aaliyah. — Σxplicit 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No you misunderstood what I said.Aaliyah's worldwide album sales have not been released.A combination of Aaliyah's singles and albums have been released.Here's a valid source [[11]] watch the whole video and it cleary states she sold 32 million.It's a very reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.105.232 (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this issue. To begin with, we can not use YouTube as a source. Specifically, this video was uploaded by someone who does not have copyright to the video, and therefore is a copyright violation in and of itself; Wikipedia can not and does not link to violations of copyright. Second, the video claims that Aaliyah sold 32 million albums worldwide—in context, that does not include singles, DVDs or anything else aside albums. Another issue that I brought up on the talk page of the article was that the video claims she was signed at 14, when we have sources in the article state she was signed at age 12. This brings into question the factual accuracy, and most importantly, the reliability of the entire clip. Considering the anniversary of her death is right around the corner, there will probably be a few stories published about it, hopefully with updated record sales. As it stands, there are no reliable sources verifying 32 million albums sold worldwide and they will not be changed unless and only if a reliable source publishes it. — Σxplicit 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NO,AALIYAH WAS SIGNED TO HER UNCLE'S LABEL(BLACKGROUND) WHEN SHE WAS 12,AND SHE SIGNED TO JIVE RECORDS,HER DISTRIBUTION LABEL WHEN SHE WAS 14.AND MANY COMPANY'S CONSIDER SINGLES, AS ALBUMS.ACTUALLY AALIYAH'S SINGLES ARE CLASSIFIED AS ALBUMS BY THE RIAA,SO THAT JUST FURTHER PROVES MY POINT AALIYAH SOLD 32 MILLION RECORDS OR ALBUMS,SO PLEASE CHANGE THAT INCORRECT PIECE OF INFORMATION ON AALIYAH'S PAGE.THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.105.232 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not expecting to see results with all caps? Like I said, we can't use the video as it is copyright infringement and you've yet to provide any published sourced of the 32 million albums sold. "Actually Aaliyah's singles are classified as albums by the RIAA…" I would really like evidence to this claim and why this rule only seems to apply to Aaliyah. — Σxplicit 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NO,MANY ARTIST' SINGLES ARE LISTED AS ALBUMS BY THE RIAA SUCH AS BRANDY AND MONICA.AND I CAN TYPE IN CAPS IF I WANT TO,MAYBE YOU SHOULD WATCH YOUR ATITUDE AND BE MORE MATURE! AND THE VIDEO IS ALSO ON TV ONE ACCESS' WEBSITE.YOU JUST HATE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AALIYAH SOLD 32 MILLION RECORDS,BUT DON'T WORRY I'LL HAVE SOME ONE ELSE CHANGE IT SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE VERY STUBBORN AND IGNORANT.I WILL NOT BE CHECKING BACK TO READ YOUR CHILDISH RESPONSE.HAVE A NICE DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.105.232 (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello as a major/regular contributor to the article it would be appreciated if you could voice your opinion regarding some proposed changed to resolve issues which have been tagged. find the proposals at: Talk:Pussycat Dolls#IMPORTANT AUG 2009 - Article Changes (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For obvious reasons, in my opinion. :)

Why thank you! Really appreciate it. — Σxplicit 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are online please reply here else an edit war can begin I fear. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Explicit, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Ashanti (singer) - a page you tagged - because: No reason given. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, it's a talk page that redirects to another after a page move. It's no more than housekeeping. — Σxplicit 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The page was tagged {{db-g6}}, as a deletion that is asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. Talk pages of redirects that are left after a page move are routinely deleted under this criterion. decltype (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then. I have always left the talk pages of redirects as redirects. I see no reason to delete them, but you are welcome to do so if you feel that that is the correct thing to do. NW (Talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, my comment was not intended as a criticism of your decision, I just wanted to let Explicit know that the tagging was in line with policy. Of course, it's difficult to do that without making an implicit assertion that you were wrong in telling him that it was a bad tagging. Sorry about that :) decltype (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding you concern, File:Forever King.jpg was uploaded as the first one for the article, that is prior to another one. At the same time, as far as I know, the usage of alternative covers is acceptable. Brand[t] 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Brandmeister. I tagged the image for deletion in accordance with WP:NFCC#3a, which states: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Because the images are not significantly different, I tagged File:Forever King.jpg because it wasn't the one in the main cover in the infobox. I suppose it doesn't matter which one is used, but both can't, as non-free content would be in excessive use. — Σxplicit 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I found some references for the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Looking over those links, it doesn't seem to be particularity about KRCA itself. Some talk about someone involved in the organization, others about it awarding something to a person, etc. There's really very little—if anything—that can be written about the organization itself. — Σxplicit 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor commenting on the genre/subgenre issue of the article Straight Outta Compton is interested in advice for a resolution. Do u mind checking it out? (See Talk:Straight Outta Compton) Dan56 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will reply on the talk page shortly. — Σxplicit 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please remove that sockpuppetting tag now please. I don't have multiple accounts =S I have made very few edits over the past month and would appreciate it greatly if you could remove the tag and not bother me in future =) Thanks. Have a nice day =P =P =P JonathanLGardner (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from your userpage. You're free to remove the notice from your talk page if you'd like. Regards. — Σxplicit 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Just a note that I de-prodded Kawartha Region Conservation Authority but I have no intention of templating you with {{Deprod}}. I'm certain the subject meets GNG and I am in the process of gathering some RS material. If you wish, I don't mind it being taken to AfD if you notice me dragging my feet and not providing these sources.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like copyright infringement took care of this. — Σxplicit 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Aaliyah has been placed on hold for seven days. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Legolas, thanks for reviewing the article. Sorry for the lack of activity and the late reply, I haven't had access to the internet since September 2, but I'm all set now. I will work on the issues soon enough. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping :) We are almost there. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! The article has passed! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way. A small help. I have listed "4 Minutes" for FA again. Can you check it out and then support or oppose the nomination based on your decision? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. I'll give "4 Minutes" a look later on today. — Σxplicit 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed at the FAR. Please take a looky :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced that link with the one from People magazine. Take a looky :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

← Looks like it's on its way. Good work with the article. — Σxplicit 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I uploaded a new version of this image (from the Amazon.co.uk site) at both File:Jess.jpg & File:Keri Hilson - In a Perfect World.jpg the it rendered correctly on "Keri Hilson", but not on "Jess" - strange! I had used a second browser to check this, as it appeared that there was a caching problem in Firefox, as they rendered identically in Chrome. As they're identical, I deleted Jess & kept Keri. I'm also putting up the "generic" image on Jess, as the file name is too generic. Thanks! Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Any chance I could ask you to take a second look at the format of this nom? Throughout you use the '→' character - generally in cfd discussions, unusual characters and templates are strongly deprecated. This is in the interests of bot readability - cfd bots will only recognise nominations in the format 'Category:YYYY to Category:ZZZZ'.

Thanks, Xdamr^talk 10:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I wasn't aware bots wouldn't read that format. I'll change it shortly. Thanks for letting me know. — ξ^xplicit 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for that. --Xdamr^talk 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mention it at WP:SPI, but I use "welcomed by Explicit" as a telltale sign.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So in a way, I am helping. Still, at the end, welcoming sockpuppets is sort of a letdown; it feels better welcoming potential editors. — ξ^xplicit 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Then don't waste your time with Havingatypicalemotionalupset.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I didn't welcome that sock. — ξ^xplicit 20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Nice sign dude! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is again regarding User:ElPilotoDi. A number of requests and warnings by me and User:Stifle have fallen on deaf ears. The user is continuously uploading deleted images and violating WP:NFCC inspite of repeatedly being asked not to. Stifle had given him short blocks so that he will learn his lessons, but alas, the user fails to listen. I believe an indefinite block is necessary in this case. This is seriously getting out of hand. I came to you since Stifle is on leave. See t-h-i-s. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left the user a note. All we can do for now is hope for it to sink in. — ξ^xplicit 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Diversity, As the IP User who recieved your complaint on an edit to an Annie Bolton article, I can say I am not the person that actually did the unnamed alterations to the Annie Bolton article. I've never edited Annie Bolton articles. I beleive that this misidentification issue with regards to IP Users is fairly common on Wiki. Cheers,121.217.228.11 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, that warning I left was well over a year ago (back when my username was DiverseMentality). The unconstructive edit was made here. Since then, the user originally behind your IP must have long been reassigned, which is why you received the warning. I wouldn't worry about it, though. Kind regards. — ξ^xplicit 05:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy As a non-grammatician, I have to admit that I cannot say whether or not "but" is a coordinating conjunction in this title, nonetheless it is shorter than four letters (and it is not at the beginning or end of the phrase), so it should not be capitalized. Please explain on my talk if there is something I am missing here (which is entirely possible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Touché You are--obviously--correct that "it" is capitalized, as it is a noun. My recollection was that only nouns and verbs were exempt from the minimal-length rule, but I suppose I was mistaken on this matter as well. It is clearly more complicated than I first realized and I don't know that I have anything to add to the discussion. :-/ Thanks for educating me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to change the part on the article that says CMYK (cyan mangenta yellow and black) because the K stands for key and not black as it says in the article for CMYK. I'm not doing any act of vandalism. If you don't let me, please edit it yourself.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.198.230 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm not too familiar with this topic, you may want to bring this up on the article's talk page. Googling the term "CMYK" seems to bring up both key and black and is best to start up a discussion. — ξ^xplicit 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and help in promoting "4 Minutes" to FA. Thanks a lot. I believe there never has been a more complete article on songs than this one. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A big congratulations to you for your hard work and dedication! You should be proud of that FA. — ξ^xplicit 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• You put in page Outta Control Remix a request to histmerge it with itself. Please, what did you want to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I can't believe I messed up that simple request. All fixed. Sorry for the trouble. — ξ^xplicit 06:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! I've blocked the user for three months, considering their constant disruption despite my warning. Sorry I couldn't act sooner; I was at work. Anyway, hopefully everything works out now; give me a shout if they come back in IP form. And keep up the good work! Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Admins are lazy creatures; most will avoid the more-complicated cases because they involve more work. Just kidding, I'm assuming that a dramatic case buried your topic and nobody got to see it.

Anyway, I'm betting that we'll have a case of the sock IPs here, so yeah, drop me a line if you need protection (or better yet, WP:RFPP; I'm a full-time student, so there are periods where I get busy). Cheers! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. I've blocked for 31 hours. Thanks! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there ξ, I am confused (partially because of the heteronyms of "read") by your statement at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#User:Kanye Swift that: I read that as articles can't be redirected to non-article space, not vice-versa, but correct me if I'm wrong. I read your comment as saying you understood (or understand) that rule not to apply to this case (as the page redirects from non-article space) but nominated it anyhow. What am I missing?

BTW, while I don't think this is eligible for RFD, I wouldn't think anything wrong with you blanking the page with an edit summary stating that such redirects can be confusing. Cheers! -- ToE^T 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading back what I wrote, I honestly don't know what I was trying to get across. My bad. I generally don't like editing others' userpages unless I'm reverting vandalism, tagging it for deletion, removing non-free files or improper categories, which is why I hadn't touched this one. The redirect from userspace to article space still seems pretty improper, which is why I took it too RfD in the first place. It doesn't seem like a helpful redirect, as shown in this table. I suppose it doesn't matter what venue it goes through, but the redirect itself just doesn't sit right with me. — ξ^xplicit 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not all helpful, and is mildly disruptive -- a touch more so than myspace style user pages covered in hundreds of userboxen and a touch less so than "You have new messages" spoofs. I was certain that I saw mention somewhere about how such redirects need not be referred to RfD as they can simply be reverted (or blanked where there is no prior history) but I can't find it now. Perhaps it specifically dealt with inappropriate redirects from one user's page to another (or perhaps I was dreaming). -- ToE^T 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I snooped around a bit and I think I located what you were talking about, which is at WP:UP#Deleting user pages and subpages, second paragraph. If that's the case, I may boldly blank it and withdraw the nomination. — ξ^xplicit 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That may well be it. It is ironic that the paragraph ends, "... or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page." (Of course that is addressing subpages, but the cross-namespace redirection recommendation still gave me a chuckle.) I you do blank it, the edit should be accompanied by a polite, explanatory note about how the redirect can be confusing for other editor expecting to see a main user page. Given the page name, the current note on the talk page could easily be misinterpreted by a new user as a nomination of the user account itself, not just the redirect. Then again, redirection is a fairly sophisticated first edit. -- ToE^T 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Will make sure to leave the user a note. Thanks for the help. — ξ^xplicit 02:53, 11 October 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.