Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 |
I see that you had closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 4 as delete but for some reason, maybe the script malfunctioning or forgetting to press the delete button, the page has not been deleted. Please delete or enlighten me on what you intend to do with the page. Lightoil (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether there is a bot task or other process that follows up on deletion of Portal pages, such as Portal:World War II (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:World War II). Deletion of that page, which has 13,000 incoming links (yikes), has caused a large batch of pages to be added to Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals, such as 4th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). That page links to the deleted page from a template in External links, and it needs individual intervention, as opposed to removing a link from a navbox that is transcluded in many pages.
I'm not suggesting that you are obliged to make any edits just because you closed the MfD; I wouldn't want that burden. I'm more curious about whether this situation has appeared in the past, leading to someone creating a bot or script to handle it. It seems like a big task for AWB if many thousands of individual edits are required. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I'm not sure if there is a bot to handle this situation specifically, but there is SporkBot that deals with templates. Perhaps the bot operator may be able to assist with the task. Pinging Schierbecker, who may be more familiar with this process. ✗plicit 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl used to replace dead portal links with live ones (e.g. Portal:Tanks → Portal:War) with WP:AWB. Alas, she's banned now. As Portal:War has been deleted, I'm not sure what the next bucket would be. If there is none it might be better to just replace the link with nothing (delete it). I could do this, but be warned, the last time I tried using AWB I got yelled at by BHG for having bad regex. @Robert McClenon:. Schierbecker (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Should the bot replace these with Portal:War? I could have my bot work on it if there is a well-defined task. User:Primefac could probably help as well. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think Task 30 of my bot is suitable for this task, as it is removing an invalid parameter from a template call following "an update". From the wording of the category and the few pages I'm seeing, it sounds like all that is necessary is removing "World War II" from {{portal}}, {{subject bar}}, and {{portal bar}}, yes?Primefac (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think removal is probably the right course. I think it would be strange to have a link to the generic Portal:War at a very specific article like 4th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). A note: There may be edge cases in which removal of "World War II" would remove the only remaining portal link, in which case a big red "Error: please specify at least 1 portal" would appear, along with Category:Portal templates with too few portals. Caveat bot-op. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Portal:War was also deleted. Let's give Portal:Peace a chance. Schierbecker (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think removal is probably the right course. I think it would be strange to have a link to the generic Portal:War at a very specific article like 4th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). A note: There may be edge cases in which removal of "World War II" would remove the only remaining portal link, in which case a big red "Error: please specify at least 1 portal" would appear, along with Category:Portal templates with too few portals. Caveat bot-op. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think Task 30 of my bot is suitable for this task, as it is removing an invalid parameter from a template call following "an update". From the wording of the category and the few pages I'm seeing, it sounds like all that is necessary is removing "World War II" from {{portal}}, {{subject bar}}, and {{portal bar}}, yes?Primefac (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Should the bot replace these with Portal:War? I could have my bot work on it if there is a well-defined task. User:Primefac could probably help as well. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl used to replace dead portal links with live ones (e.g. Portal:Tanks → Portal:War) with WP:AWB. Alas, she's banned now. As Portal:War has been deleted, I'm not sure what the next bucket would be. If there is none it might be better to just replace the link with nothing (delete it). I could do this, but be warned, the last time I tried using AWB I got yelled at by BHG for having bad regex. @Robert McClenon:. Schierbecker (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_invention#Proposed_title_change No need to block, but it would be nice if you could explain things. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it took ages, but there is hope that we finally understand eachother somewhat. Consider it
Done boss. Polygnotus (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello admin, The image [[File:Amrita-vishwa-vidyapeetham-color-logo.png]] is duplicate/older version of the latest version file [[File:Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham - Logo.svg]] . Latest version is high resolution and in svg file format. It is more appropriate to keep 2nd one and delete the first one. Also append all the tags, license description from the former to the later one. Please do it yourself helping wikiusers. I am not well informed about speedy deletion etc. 17289ha (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- @17289ha: Hi, first you orphan the png file by replacing it in the article with the svg file. A bot will eventually tag the former as orphaned, which will result in its deletion after seven days. ✗plicit 12:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I have done that. Please tag that for auto-deletion 17289ha (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You may think that Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle is not a valid term, however, this page needs to be redirected back to 2022 Peach Bowl because there are similar sentences for that term. Besides, it was a Midnight Miracle for the Georgia Bulldogs because Noah Ruggles of the Ohio State Buckeyes missed the game-winning field goal and it was midnight when that happened. Also, it was the end of the game. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Explicit, I have a request. A user created two articles as drafts, which I have improved with his permission. This user has been banned, along with those two articles have been deleted. Articles are important, so it is necessary to restore. The names of the two articles are, Dujan Dujonar and Chachchu Amar Chachchu. Please help me. 🙏🙏🙏 নবাব (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I see you went G5 with the talk page. Did you mean the main page? Just checking. CNMall41 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The Portals World War II , War, and Military could also be deleted on your run removing Military of Germany Lyndaship (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell me which page A.P. (Ace) Borger used to redirect to? Kk.urban (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This page was deleted citing no sources to support and I was wondering if there was anyway to review this page with you so it could be restored? Or is there another way to get this page restored? Mmagagna (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mmagagna: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, hope you're doing great!
I noticed you've deleted the page Shanaas based on G5 policy. However, I want to work on that page and it was edited my multiple users I believe (besides the sockpuppet) so if you can restore it, I'll be grateful. As the concerned subject was well written and was in line with Wikipedia standards. Thanks! 182.182.4.50 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. You seem to be moderating the currently proposed deletion of SapientX. I was alerted to the deletion by a person claiming to be a respected Wikipedia contributor. He encouraged my to join the conversation which I did. Then he asked me to hire his friend to address the deletion. I was turned off by this and did not hire his friend. Now he is threatening me that unless I hire his friend he will post deletion comments. Surely this must be against Wikipedia rules. How should I address this situation please? Thank you. David DavidColleen (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
restore my page Anujch 2011 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Christian Lapointe as delete - which on the surface make sense. However I'm just looking to see what happened, and despite me putting forth a comment in support of keeping the article, and noting that it's a keep in the edit summary, I typed delete. As such could you reopen for further debate, as there's not actually a consensus. Sorry for my confusion! Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Hope you’re fine. I’m thinking to start WikiProject Sufism, i just gone through and saw that it was once created by a Banned user and was deleted by you, if you allow then I’ll start it. As you can check my user page, I’m working for Sufism at the global level. — QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 10:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @QuadriSyedSahab: Hi, feel free to create the WikiProject. G5 only applies to the sockpuppet's edits and has no bearing on that of others. ✗plicit 11:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Explicit Okay, i was confused regarding this. — QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
You deleted this redirect. What was the target page and why was it deleted? Srnec (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Srnec: The target was Al-Samawa District, which was draftified. ✗plicit 04:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I just noticed a portal that I've linked a dozen or so times, Portal:Methodism, was deleted about a week ago. About a month ago, I began planning on spending some time this week and next redoing it and constructing a Portal:Anglicanism using some of the bones of the Methodism portal. I was hoping that Portal:Methodism could be restored as an item in my userspace with the standard six-month limitation. I can also make this request at the general undeletion page if you think that's more appropriate. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit you deleted the article Draft:Diffusion Fundamentals on 11:59, November 9, 2023 because sources were missing. The sources are now available to me and I could add them to the text. Unfortunately I no longer have the text. Could you please restore the text of Draft:Diffusion Fundamentals so I can add the missing sources. With many thanks in advance. Martin Geisler (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Martin Geisler: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 01:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Asjad Raza Khan has been wrongly draftified twice despite it being kept in two previous AfDs. I see draftifying as a wrong and illogical way here. This should be AfDed rather. The user restored copy-pasted content on Draft:Asjad Raza Khan. I request restoration and AfDing it since there appears some kind of dispute and since I can't see the history but this edit seems to show some disputes/vandalism or else. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can see: it has been moved to Draft:Asjaad Raza Khan. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Aafi is a paid editor per his disclosure at User:TheAafi/COI. I am damn sure that Aafi is hired by the banned sockpuppets to promote this Mufti. Please see the latest AFD on this subject, two voters who voted keep were banned sockpuppets. Aafi, stop move warring. Khwiser (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is you who is move-warring. Per what is at WP:ATD-I (policy) draftification is wrong here. This article should go to AfD. I even posted you a message stating that I'm willing to do it for you. I hope you do it procedurally. I don't want to go for warring. Reverting two times is too much and if you don't want to learn then don't. Allegations don't matter to me. I neither know this Mufti nor am I concerned with who else could be. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you are getting thousands of dollars from this Mufti you could not have act aggressively or move warred with me or work on behalf of banned sockpuppets to promote this Mufti. This is your second time where you have moved this draft to article namespace. User:QuadriSyedSahab is blocked now as far as I can see for UPE, and I will argue that my incubation of this article is correct as an Anti Spam measure per WP:SPAM. You should desist now as you are on admin's talk page. Also this article has a long history of abuse by LTA accounts. Khwiser (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD." - WP:ATD-I. But I leave your reasoning to admins. The first AfD on this article has substantial comments from established editors. I ask you to find that payslip that paid me "thousands of dollars from this Mufti". I have not been agressive. I reverted your inappropriate draftification per deletion policy and even told you to AfD it. You should have AfDed it at the first instance because QuadriSyedSahab is not its major contributor and this article has survived a previous AfD. AfD is procedural. My revert is not aggressive or suggestive of paid-editing (or even COI) but a policy-based revert. Even at this point I'd ask you to AfD it. If you don't do it, I don't really care because I don't like engaging in edit-wars and don't want you either to go for edit-wars. I leave it to an admin's discretion. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you are getting thousands of dollars from this Mufti you could not have act aggressively or move warred with me or work on behalf of banned sockpuppets to promote this Mufti. This is your second time where you have moved this draft to article namespace. User:QuadriSyedSahab is blocked now as far as I can see for UPE, and I will argue that my incubation of this article is correct as an Anti Spam measure per WP:SPAM. You should desist now as you are on admin's talk page. Also this article has a long history of abuse by LTA accounts. Khwiser (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is you who is move-warring. Per what is at WP:ATD-I (policy) draftification is wrong here. This article should go to AfD. I even posted you a message stating that I'm willing to do it for you. I hope you do it procedurally. I don't want to go for warring. Reverting two times is too much and if you don't want to learn then don't. Allegations don't matter to me. I neither know this Mufti nor am I concerned with who else could be. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Aafi is a paid editor per his disclosure at User:TheAafi/COI. I am damn sure that Aafi is hired by the banned sockpuppets to promote this Mufti. Please see the latest AFD on this subject, two voters who voted keep were banned sockpuppets. Aafi, stop move warring. Khwiser (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This was a draft that I had worked on, but I see that you have deleted it due to inactivity. However, I was under the impression that it was merely waiting to be approved as an article. Was the draft not approved due to it failing to meet Wikipedia's standards in some way? If so, would it be possible for me to know why and to have the draft restored so I could continue working on it? Apologies if these are ignorant questions, as I am new to editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Agron776 (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Agron776: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 00:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The deletion of this portal has left a lot of category pages coming up as errors in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals. As these are through templates this is beyond me to sort. I am wondering if this is something you are familiar with or if you can direct me to an editor who may be able to help. Alternatively would creating a redirect on this portal to Portal:Germany be acceptable? Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: There are bots that can take care of this. There is some discussion regarding a similar matter at User talk:Explicit/Archive 51#Curious about follow-up to deletion of Portal:World War II and two users there are able to help with the matter. ✗plicit 00:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, why did you delete the page for the Kingdom of Kitara? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! You can find more information at the article for deletion discussion. You can request its undeletion with the link found in the "result" at the very top of the discussion. Hope this helps. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I am curious about this policy. The image you deleted was File:Portrait of Richard T. Burke.jpg. My reasoning for uploading the image is that even though he is a living person, it is likely fair use in the sense that it is extremely unlikely future photographs will be taken of him that will be released to the public. The fair use policy seems to not allow any photos of living persons, since a photo always could be created. For example, if someone were incarcerated for life, technically someone could break into the prison, snap a photo, and then release it under a free license. However the page foundation:Wikimedia Licensing Policy seems to take a more liberal stance, in that it carves out an exemption for cases where a free media being created is unreasonable. I am a bit confused on how to interpret this. Sagflaps (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reşit Inceoğlu. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Styyx (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you please restore my blog, its informative vlog, its really hurt me if you will not restore Itsmozblogger (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Itsmozblogger: Please see the user page guidelines. As it states there, you are allowed to host content related to Wikipedia and a small amount of suitable unrelated material. Wikipedia is not a blog service. ✗plicit 14:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to recreate a page about footballer Habil Akbar. Can you help me? Thank you in advance! N.prophet97 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @N.prophet97: You are free to recreate the article, but per WP:BMB, the deleted content should not be restored. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my god, does that mean I have to create the page from scratch? I think it can be restored. Okay thanks. N.prophet97 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit! My page for "OSRC Network" was deleted by you. Apologies if I have violated some publishing criteria. It was just an informational content. I request you to kindly let me restore that page. Or I would highly appreciate it if you could drop some suggestions so I can never get it deleted again. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alammusa (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit (talk · contribs), I was wondering if you could help me out. I am trying to delete the page Lynn Murray who is wishing page removed under article 17 of the UK GDPR law (Right to be forgotten). I noticed you had declined the request to delete the page and I am aware I may have used the wrong method. As the author of this page, can you tell me how i can go about deleting this page? Many thanks TheDeadRat (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDeadRat: Hi, as I mentioned in my edit summary, you can cite WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to delete the article through a different method. As this page has previously been nominated for deletion by WP:PROD, this is no longer an option. The next step is to nominate the page for deletion at WP:AFD for the community's input. Given the discussion on the talk page, this might be an uphill battle. ✗plicit 12:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I ask you to restore the page you deleted by mistake, so that the administrators' comments can be corrected. All links and sources are original. This page will also soon be translated into Polish and other languages. Please correct your mistake. Thanks in advance. Jegi Angelski (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jegi Angelski: Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms was not deleted by "mistake", it was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms. I cannot unilaterally undelete the page. ✗plicit 00:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you reopen the deletion discussion for Jason Perlow? I think there is enough out there to demonstrate GNG which I would like to add to the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to User:Kalimaword.
Did you mean to not tag Eastern but not so Middle with {{sockmaster}} or something similar? Awesome Aasim 02:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: I have added a tag to the userpage. ✗plicit 10:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit,
I have started to work on an article about the tour series Persistence Tour in the German Wikipedia. There used to be an article in the English Wikipedia, but you deleted it on February 15. Would it perhaps be possible for you to mail me the source text (or put it into my user space here for day) so that I can have a look if there's any useful sources and/or information in it?
Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grueslayer: Hi, since the article was soft deleted, I have userfied the page at User:Grueslayer/Persistence Tour. ✗plicit 10:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's actually nothing, so I'll start from scratch. Which is fine for me, research is half the fun. ;-) Thanks again, and cheers, Grueslayer 11:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Explicit I had a few pages deleted on the 17th of January, which have now been restored, and they contained non-free images which got deleted after 5 days since they were not longer linked to an article. I just wanted to find out if it's okay to re-add add the logo's since the articles are back up e.g. File:The UJ Sports logo.jpg? Mcwamcwa (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mcwamcwa: I have restored the file linked above. If you link the others, I can restore them as well. ✗plicit 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Explicit Thank you, the other two are: File:The logo of Copperbelt Ladies.jpg. and File:The logo of First Touch F.C.png. Mcwamcwa (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! You closed the AFD for this article as "delete". Additional sources have been located, so I was wondering if you would be willing to restore the article? If that is not quite enough for an overturn, would you be willing to move to Draft space? Thanks for taking a look! :) BOZ (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At User_talk:DMacks#Images, we are discussing some images that I had tagged as disputed-fairuse. The uploader has an improved the rationale, which I now support as sufficient, but that you have deleted. They have re-uploaded the images (at the same filenames) and added the new rationale. As deleting admin, could you give an additional set of eyes? And if it's sufficient, should the deleted versions be un-deleted so there is a complete history? Though we'd need to rev-del the actual older uploads as unused fair-use. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you deleted the draft page of Southern Guild which I submitted for publishing. I'm a newbie to this and would so appreciate you letting me know what I did wrong and how I can edit it in line with Wikipedia standards?
Hoping you can help! thanks so much in advance. TGGcomgal (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TGGcomgal: Hi, Draft:Southern Guild went without any edits for six consecutive months. It was a routine deletion in accordance with the speedy deletion criterion regarding abandoned drafts. Would you like it to be restored once again? ✗plicit 12:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes please - would so appreciate that. TGGcomgal (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TGGcomgal: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TGGcomgal:
- Yes please - would so appreciate that. TGGcomgal (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
small thing
will you close the discussion on peeko today or tomorrow?
just gotta check before i add it back cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You may wish to review the AIV board Cahk (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
this one was to go instead of the one it redirected towards. Nonetheless, the deletion is also fine as I happen to cleanup subpages in my old/new userspace. Please take care of this one as well. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Can you restore Batya Ungar-Sargon to draft space? I think there is enough out there now to meet notability. Thriley (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand that the Template:Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto sidebar was created by a blocked user, but it is extremely important to the Pakistani politics page, he is one of, if not the most important politician in Pakistan’s history, and he has to have a separate sidebar, is there any way you can reverse the deletion of the template? Titan2456 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Explicit! I am currently writing an article on Pavlo Arie, and I just found out it has been deleted today due to a sock puppetry case. To avoid any confusion, mistaken identity, or misunderstanding, could you please give me the green light to work on the article? I'm writing this article due to my participation in Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024. Thank you. Pangalau (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pangalau: Hi, feel free to work on the page. G5 only applies to the sockpuppet's edits and has no bearing on that of others. ✗plicit 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift response! Pangalau (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pangalau: Did you copy the prior article text into the page? It looks that way to me. If so, this is a copyright violation problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Bri. I appreciate the concern you have regarding the article. You should take a closer look at my sandbox's history to see that my editing patterns for any of my articles would be impractical for me if I'm just copying another person's work. Additionally, I have no access to the history of the previous (deleted) article, which makes it twice as unlikely. The only suspicion I get is because I recreated the same article on the same day as it was deleted. This is because I'm closely monitoring the suggest articles section of Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024 I'm taking part in. Thank you. Pangalau (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pangalau: Did you copy the prior article text into the page? It looks that way to me. If so, this is a copyright violation problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift response! Pangalau (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Contributer Team, Kindly create page of Gaurav Dewasi as per google knowledge panel. https://g.co/kgs/oR11DEU 103.162.178.238 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your work as an admin and for promptly processing the CSD nominations :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the U5 nom here, I missed that it was created by a different editor to whose userspace it's in. AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Darkstalkers-felicia.png and File:Felicia concept arts.png ? They were unused for a while because the article they were in was redireted without due process (no AFD/PROD, just bold redirecting). I've restored the article and until there is consensus at AfD it should not exist, the images can be returned there (Felicia (Darkstalkers)). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted File:2018 Memorial Cup commemorative postage stamp.jpg, with the rationale (F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1). I contested its deletion and provided an explanation on the image's page, explaining why I felt that image had "no free equivalent" and was "minimal usage". Please explain in your own words why the image failed criterion #1 and #3. Your edit summary was not helpful in understanding your rationale. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: In order to meet the "No free equivalent" criterion, the file in question needs to passs two tests. In the second question outlined at WP:FREER, it fails the second: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" The text in the article adequately described the image: "The CHL and Canada Post produced a 100th anniversary postage stamp, released on May 18, 2018, which featured two Regina players from the inaugural 1919 Memorial Cup." ✗plicit 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I could not find a link from WP:NFCC#1 to WP:FREER. It is possible to place such a link? Flibirigit (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Hmm, I wonder if linking "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" would suffice? ✗plicit 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will trust your judgment there. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Hmm, I wonder if linking "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" would suffice? ✗plicit 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I could not find a link from WP:NFCC#1 to WP:FREER. It is possible to place such a link? Flibirigit (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit,
On 1/27 you deleted my page (11:09, 27 January 2024 Explicit talk contribs deleted page User:DrJsStph/sandbox (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page).
I am now trying to resubmit the article after making the requested edits. The system is telling me to contact you first. I'd be happy to share my changes, if needed.
Let me know.
Thank you. DrJsStph (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! @Explicit, you're invited to join the discussion for article deletion Bitsaeon. Aidillia (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Re: speedy deletion of Draft:Black market in wartime France/translation in progress -- Yeah, could you undelete? The article has been live for months and I think this is something a confused NPPer did, but since you mention it I may as well make sure that I didn't leave anything out by when I was moved text in. I thought he took care of this though. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- PS: You can send email or move to a sandbox. Your choice. Just don't overwrite the real article is all I ask ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 06:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby:
Eh ok I know you had to read me the script. Thank you. It's a backup I didn't make and didn't ask for, but since I now know it exists, I might as well check it to see if something got left out... When I am done with it, the syntax is {{prod}}, is that right? Appreciate your time Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: PROD can not be applied to drafts. If any of the content will be merged into an existing article, it should be redirected there for attribution purposes. If not, it can simply be deleted after no edits are made for six continuous months in accordance with WP:CSD#G13. ✗plicit 12:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I requested deletion of the Template:Order of the Solar Temple, which you deleted per this discussion. There was one other deletion participant, who gave the rationale "per nomination". After working on this page and related pages (as well as working on making several) I have realized that my initial impression that this was a topic that could not have more than the few pages it had then was mistaken, and there are additional pages currently in existence that would be in scope for it. Given that my arguments for deletion were the only rationale given, and it was incorrect, I'd appreciate if the template was undeleted. Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Done, I have undeleted the template. ✗plicit 11:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Explicit,
first of all thank you for making Wikipedia a better place! About a year ago I created a draft that has never reached the standard it needed to have. You deleted it because of G8. I have now finished a new article about the same topic, making sure to link and reference everything to the best of my ability.
Would you possibly be so kind as to review this new draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ren%C3%A9_Heinzl I would like to leave high quality content, but I am still fairly inexperienced. Thank you very much!
IzzyAsThat (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in looking at this edit. Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi - you deleted this file, which had a fair use justification. I engaged with the original filer that I did not view this as a valid F7 claim - AFAIA there was no reponse to my second reply. Did you see the discussion? Was there a further reply to my second response? (I did not see this if there was). Many thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn: Hi, I read the discussion, which did not receive any additional responses after yours, and found it unconvincing in regards to the contextual significance criterion. You argued that by seeing the word "independence" on the stamp, it showed "Rhodesia's retention of the monarchy following the UDI" and that the absence of the stamp would be detrimental to understanding that. But is this aspect not fulfilled by the text in the History section of the article, which describes Southern Rhodesia's unilateral declaration from the UK but loyalty to Elizabeth II? Or even the freely licensed image of the UDI itself? I did not see a particularly strong argue demonstrating how a non-free image of a stamp is capable of conveying information that the freely licensed content in the article does not already. ✗plicit 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Please reopen the discussion which was attended by 1 Keep and 3 Delete comments, as the deletion request was mistaken as to scope. The "bloat" of the template is in the use of the authors names when the template should just list the article names without author attribution. This is an important difference in the nomination and deletion comments, the navbox is being easily fixed (see User:Randy Kryn/Christmas literature navbox work in progress) and the topic is well-covered in media (Christmas literature is a common and readily found holiday topic). This obvious fix could have been done pre-nomination. In addition, WP:CLN focuses on the complimentary status of categories, lists, and navboxes, they are not in opposition. As for the nomination saying the articles are "tangentially related", ?, they are all Christmas literature! How is this tangential. Anyway, before this gets too bloated itself, this one should be kindly reopened and hopefully you will take a look at the misinformed "bloating" to see what I'm talking about. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- ping to Woodensuperman, WikiCleanerMan, Jonesey95, and Izno, please see the edited version User:Randy Kryn/Christmas literature navbox. I agree it was way too bloated and malformed by adding the author's names, have fixed that. Maybe reconsider your nom and deletes due to this new version, thanks (and to all a good night). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest, if returned, it be renamed "Christmas literature" which is presently an empty navbox title. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: If you don't mind, I'd like to wait until at least two users who !voted "delete" to chime in before considering this request. Their opinion may not be swayed, but we'll have to wait and see. ✗plicit 12:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wish I'd known about the nomination and would have done the edits sooner. Here is the original booed, drawn-and-quartered deleted version ({{Christmas-themed literature}} compared to the streamlined Santa-and-Tiny-Tim approved version for quick comparison. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I still don't think Randy's revised version is suitable. This is definitely more appropriate for category navigation. --woodensuperman 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- May I ask, in the spirit of Virginia, why it's not suitable? Seems to have addressed the concerns. Thanks. And a reminder from WP:CLN "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.", and "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." (that wording is like a package under a tree) Randy Kryn (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Inclusion is too subjective. And just because you can navigate in different ways doesn't mean that you should navigate in every possible way. Sometimes one method is more appropriate than another. And that's what we have here. --woodensuperman 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Inclusion includes the objective subject "Christmas literature". Indeed, the subject seems an objective closed loop, writings about Christmas as a celebrated holiday. Anyway, this is a discussion that should be at a nomination itself, and this one could logically be reopened because of the new formation of the navbox, a collab creative effort which directly addresses the concerns expressed by participants. Also, notification to interested pages and Wikiprojects did not occur (i.e. List of Christmas-themed literature, Wikprojects Holidays and Christianity) which should be an important step when wanting to delete such a major holiday-themed Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just use the list and the category. We don't need a navbox too. --woodensuperman 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some readers read lists, others read categories, and still others use navboxes as their map. That's where "Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." comes in: is the topic worthy of all three? The topic "Christmas literature" is, easily argued, worthy of all three. More than literally a handful of editors should weigh your good faith interest in not allowing even the trimmed-down version to what others experience as a useful and functional holiday navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- If a Festivus miracle pccurs and the navbox is returned, either soon or the night before Christmas, it should probably be collapsed (except on List of Christmas-themed literature where it would exhibit the full page-principal map). On the others it would appear too large for autocollapse. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just use the list and the category. We don't need a navbox too. --woodensuperman 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Inclusion includes the objective subject "Christmas literature". Indeed, the subject seems an objective closed loop, writings about Christmas as a celebrated holiday. Anyway, this is a discussion that should be at a nomination itself, and this one could logically be reopened because of the new formation of the navbox, a collab creative effort which directly addresses the concerns expressed by participants. Also, notification to interested pages and Wikiprojects did not occur (i.e. List of Christmas-themed literature, Wikprojects Holidays and Christianity) which should be an important step when wanting to delete such a major holiday-themed Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Inclusion is too subjective. And just because you can navigate in different ways doesn't mean that you should navigate in every possible way. Sometimes one method is more appropriate than another. And that's what we have here. --woodensuperman 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- May I ask, in the spirit of Virginia, why it's not suitable? Seems to have addressed the concerns. Thanks. And a reminder from WP:CLN "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.", and "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." (that wording is like a package under a tree) Randy Kryn (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: If you don't mind, I'd like to wait until at least two users who !voted "delete" to chime in before considering this request. Their opinion may not be swayed, but we'll have to wait and see. ✗plicit 12:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest, if returned, it be renamed "Christmas literature" which is presently an empty navbox title. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I do not know what the previous "Category:Endangered languages of Indonesia" page looked like, but I was considering re-making it. There is already a list page (List of endangered languages in Indonesia), but I notice that India, for instance, has both a list page (List of endangered languages in India) and a category page ("Category:Endangered languages of India"). Right now the only category to put endangered languages of Indonesia in is "Category:Endangered languages of Asia" which seems too broad to be very useful. Is there some reason not to re-make the "Category:Endangered languages of Indonesia" page? BlakeALee (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Someone (not me) has started a deletion review of one of your closes at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 28.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please restore this. Can't believe a user can go this far. Check mine and theirs recent contributions. They are triggered by my action of submitting some of their articles for AFD, and now targeting other articles with foolish reasons. Pretty sure user is trying to push POV, as seen in the editing pattern. I've reported for sockpuppetry (see my contributions) because of the similarity with an other sockmaster. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 11:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ImperialAficionado: Hi, it seems that another user has already reverted that particular edit. Everything should be in order now. ✗plicit 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the template you deleted was a different template from the one that was deleted per the deletion discussion. Not that you need to undelete it; I'm fine with it deleted anyway. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Wright. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You have been closing some discussions but not this one. I was notified, and I was the only one to comment. I have several proposed solutions but assumed I'd have to act based on consensus. Although if no one else is contributing but the person who nominated, I guess whatever I want is consensus.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: I have relisted the discussion on today's log for further input. ✗plicit 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. You deleted File:Nikki Grahame.jpeg per F7, which is fine since I'm the one who tagged it as such. I'm wondering if you (since you're also a Commons admin) would mind taking a quick look at File:Nikki Grahame (headshot).jpg that I referred to on File talk:Nikki Grahame.jpeg. The crop is from c:File:Nikki Grahame.jpg which was actually deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikki Grahame.jpg. Could this just be an miss by the deleting admin and the crop also needs to go, or is it OK for the reason given in the crop's description? It looks like the non-free was uploaded a few days after the Common's file was deleted, but the uploader might not have been aware that a crop also existed. If the crop does need to go, then maybe the non-free should be restored? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, the headshot crop was uploaded about two hours before the original file was nominated for deletion and it seems that everyone in the discussion just missed it. The "The source image was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image, like a derivative work which is not a part of this cropped image." message appears to be automatically generated by the template when the source file is deleted. In any case, I've deleted the headshot and cited the DR. The local file was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so WP:CSD#G5 would also apply. It's best for someone else to upload a new file. ✗plicit 02:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I notice that you've removed the discussion from your talk page. Please have a fresh read of it (the main concern was its size and rambling nature, which had been fixed since with my new navbox draft), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this was mentioned in the archived section, but the talk page of List of Christmas-themed literature was not alerted or made aware in any way that the navbox deletion attempt was occurring. The principal page navbox for that list, the only notice was that very tiny message that's applied automatically just above the navbox (which means page editors had no direct notice on their watch list). The editors of the page should have been fully alerted, which occurs on the talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)
- @Randy Kryn: I didn't remove the thread, it was automatically archived by a bot for being inactive for seven days. Perhaps you should just drop the stick. ✗plicit 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- A seven-day archived is pretty quick, but apologize for my rush to judgement. As for 'drop the stick', that's really a jump from me taking the concerns of the very few editors who commented on the deletion to heart and trimming the navbox to specifications, from pointing out how notice was not given at the talk page of the principal page, etc. I came to you as the closer, have addressed the concerns present in the discusion, so please take another look and maybe at least relist, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: In the previous thread, you pinged every participant who favored deletion at the RFD discussion. Only one responded to reiterate their stance despite the adjustments you made. Perhaps the others did not see your ping. Conversely, perhaps they saw it, were equally unswayed, and decided to not respond. You are free to take your argument to DRV, but I am not seeing much justification for reopening and relisting the debate itself. ✗plicit 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- And perhaps they didn't respond for other reasons. Woodensuperman was the nominator, and came to protect his deletion intent, so no surprise there. As for no justification, the concern was fixed and there is no new concern as far as I know. The DRV is a time sink, which is probably one reason why the guidelines ask us to take things like this to the closer, and I can see little reason not to reopen (low attendance, concern expressed and remedy applied, no notice at the principal page for the topic, etc.). Let's see if woodensuperman gives a blessing (hoping that Christmas cheer might be a factor). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: In the previous thread, you pinged every participant who favored deletion at the RFD discussion. Only one responded to reiterate their stance despite the adjustments you made. Perhaps the others did not see your ping. Conversely, perhaps they saw it, were equally unswayed, and decided to not respond. You are free to take your argument to DRV, but I am not seeing much justification for reopening and relisting the debate itself. ✗plicit 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- A seven-day archived is pretty quick, but apologize for my rush to judgement. As for 'drop the stick', that's really a jump from me taking the concerns of the very few editors who commented on the deletion to heart and trimming the navbox to specifications, from pointing out how notice was not given at the talk page of the principal page, etc. I came to you as the closer, have addressed the concerns present in the discusion, so please take another look and maybe at least relist, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I didn't remove the thread, it was automatically archived by a bot for being inactive for seven days. Perhaps you should just drop the stick. ✗plicit 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging for comments and to view the trimmed version. Three delete editors, WikiCleanerMan, Jonesey95, Izno, and the editor who left the extensive Keep comment, Allixpeeke. Here is the navbox before the trimming (its size and odd format was a concern in the discussion) and then here is the trimmed and edited version User:Randy Kryn/Christmas literature navbox. Please also read WP:CLN, which explains why navboxes, lists, and categories are complimentary to each other on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is still definitely better suited to a list and a category. A navbox is still inappropriate in this case. They might be complimentary, but not every method is appropriate in every case. Just because a category exists/is appropriate does not mean we also need a corresponding navbox. Overproliferation of navboxes causes clutter. I think you need to consider the spirit of WP:CLN more carefully, namely:
The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods.
WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- The sentences you quote support the inclusion of this navbox, as does most of the text of WP:CLN. Hopefully the closer will notice that you have changed from arguing the quality of the navbox to an "I don't like it" attitude. This is an overall map of Wikipedia's collection of Christmas literature for God's sake (literally), not a throw-away navbox about ways to make peanut butter sandwiches or bumps in a particular road (or visa versa). And as for me beating a dead horse, please notice that this horse is fully alive, able to run free, and although currently corralled has its eye on the terrain on the other side of the fence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're not changing my mind on this. This is category and list territory, not a suitable topic for a navbox. A good navbox should be a defined set, not just things that happen to be written about Christmas. This is fine if you are categorising something, but not if you are making a navbox about it. The conection betweeen The Other Wise Man and Family Guy: Peter Griffin's Guide to the Holidays is purely tangential. --woodensuperman 12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not trying to change your mind, that, from past experience, is a fool's errand, am rather appealing to the closer that the close should be relisted because of several factors outlined above. I have no idea why you bring up a connection between those two entries, or why you think they are tangential - they are both Christmas literature and thus both are included per the navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Look Randy, it was deleted fairly in a deletion discussion, and no-one has leapt to your defence. I'm not wasting any more time on this. You do this over and over again with your flowery language trying to "sell" your romantic idea of navboxes, every time you don't like the outcome of a navbox discussion, but all I'm really getting from you is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Accept consensus and accept that you may not have the same idea as most editors as to what makes a good navbox and WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Romantic idea of navboxes? I don't know what you're getting at. The "I can't hear you" is coming from your end. Flowery language? Thorns of plenty. As for carrying the stick, there is no dead horse, the horse is alive and ready to be let out of the gate. Remember, the only in-depth analysis in the deletion discussion was by a Keep editor, the other concerns have been addressed by the trimmed down navbox linked above, which is why the closer has a good option here to at least reopen. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The three deletion editors seem to be shy about revisiting their concern about the size of the navbox even after it has been trimmed and provides relief to their initial opinions. Reopening the nomination for more comments would present the trimmed version to the community as well as to rectify the lack of notifications by notifying the List of Christmas-themed literature talk page, the WikiProjects, and other Christmas and literature editors. Saying that a dead horse exists serves to close-down a discussion, but in this case the topic is so central to the historical forms and societal presentation of Christmas as a holiday and tradition, and as a navbox its new rendition (linked above) concisely guides readers through the topic and its timeline. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Romantic idea of navboxes? I don't know what you're getting at. The "I can't hear you" is coming from your end. Flowery language? Thorns of plenty. As for carrying the stick, there is no dead horse, the horse is alive and ready to be let out of the gate. Remember, the only in-depth analysis in the deletion discussion was by a Keep editor, the other concerns have been addressed by the trimmed down navbox linked above, which is why the closer has a good option here to at least reopen. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Look Randy, it was deleted fairly in a deletion discussion, and no-one has leapt to your defence. I'm not wasting any more time on this. You do this over and over again with your flowery language trying to "sell" your romantic idea of navboxes, every time you don't like the outcome of a navbox discussion, but all I'm really getting from you is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Accept consensus and accept that you may not have the same idea as most editors as to what makes a good navbox and WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not trying to change your mind, that, from past experience, is a fool's errand, am rather appealing to the closer that the close should be relisted because of several factors outlined above. I have no idea why you bring up a connection between those two entries, or why you think they are tangential - they are both Christmas literature and thus both are included per the navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're not changing my mind on this. This is category and list territory, not a suitable topic for a navbox. A good navbox should be a defined set, not just things that happen to be written about Christmas. This is fine if you are categorising something, but not if you are making a navbox about it. The conection betweeen The Other Wise Man and Family Guy: Peter Griffin's Guide to the Holidays is purely tangential. --woodensuperman 12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sentences you quote support the inclusion of this navbox, as does most of the text of WP:CLN. Hopefully the closer will notice that you have changed from arguing the quality of the navbox to an "I don't like it" attitude. This is an overall map of Wikipedia's collection of Christmas literature for God's sake (literally), not a throw-away navbox about ways to make peanut butter sandwiches or bumps in a particular road (or visa versa). And as for me beating a dead horse, please notice that this horse is fully alive, able to run free, and although currently corralled has its eye on the terrain on the other side of the fence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png as a result of this discussion. The reason was that it was deleted for being a generic logo of the ACC Asia Cup and not the 2023 Asia Cup.
The image had a "Super 11" on it; as the particular 2023 edition of the tournament was sponsored by Super 11. Further online research from me as well showed that this was the only official logo released by the Asian Cricket Council, for the tournament as opposed to the generic logo of the tournament. Hence, I request that the file be undeleted. Thanks and regards. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pharaoh496: Hi, I've restored the file based on your comment as it checks out with the article's content. Pinging Joseph2302 and Fhsig13 so they are aware of this. ✗plicit 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just because it includes a sponsor name, that doesn't mean it's a logo just for the 2023 edition. If Super 11 is the sponsor again in 2025 (or any future edition), they could use that logo again. It's a logo that could be used for more than one season, so isn't demonstrably a 2023 specific logo in my opinion. Also, WP:REFUND doesn't seem like the correct process for this (and it was rejected there an hour ago), as it wasn't an uncontroversial deletion, and so WP:DRV would have been better, so this could have been debated more easily. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Even If it is the same sponsor again, I am sure the Asian Cricket Council would take care to make a different logo by adding name/year. That anyways is a future what if; the matter remains currently that this logo was made for the 2023 edition.
- Ill keep DRV in mind for future.
- Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just because it includes a sponsor name, that doesn't mean it's a logo just for the 2023 edition. If Super 11 is the sponsor again in 2025 (or any future edition), they could use that logo again. It's a logo that could be used for more than one season, so isn't demonstrably a 2023 specific logo in my opinion. Also, WP:REFUND doesn't seem like the correct process for this (and it was rejected there an hour ago), as it wasn't an uncontroversial deletion, and so WP:DRV would have been better, so this could have been debated more easily. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Your edits to remove links to PureMVC (failed PROD) have an edit-summary that states "undefined" instead of details about the target or basis for removal (example: . And some of those are list-entries, which seem like they should be removed altogether rather than simply unlinked (I didn't look closely though). DMacks (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Explicit,
When I first saw the deletion discussion for [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Israel], there was a note from the initiator of the deletion request that, upon being advised it was better, they wanted to withdraw the deletion request to consolidate it with the deletion request for dozens of other sports broadcasting pages at [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. And so, I put my keep comment in the Serbia discussion, and I limited the comment to generic points relevant to the broader category of sports broadcasting contracts. Some users agreed with it, and at least one did not. In any case, after following the broader deletion discussion, which resulted in a procedural keep, I came back to the Israel sports broadcasting page, only to learn that it had been deleted the same day as the broader procedural keep. The deletion request had apparently kept going, but I do not feel that for a full seven days (the typical minimum for deletion discussions) that users reading it would have understood that it was still a separate, active deletion discussion. It was reasonable for me to think I should go elsewhere with my comments, and also not make comments specific to the Israel page. I was led to the wrong discussion, and others may have been as well. Would you please consider undoing the deletion, at least to allow a few more days of conversation and/or edits to the article to improve it?
The same issue exists with the deletions of the [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Australia] and [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Japan], but I leave it to you to decide whether to treat all the same. In any case, having overlapping deletion discussions (one to a broad category of changes, and others for specific pages) is very confusing and is not a process designed to achieve a fair outcome.
You may have seen my conversation on this point in connection with the deletion decision (a procedural keep) on [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. In any case, I am happy to explain any points in further detail if that would be of help to you.
Thank you for your consideration. Coining (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Coining: Hi, I'll try my best to address each of your points. First, "procedural keep" is not the same as "keep". Participants in the bundled nomination were !voting to avoid a potential train wreck disaster as there were too many pages that, if nominated separately from the beginning, would have all led to different conclusions. Only the Israel AFD mentioned the bundled nomination, but not Australia's or Japan's. Only one user !voted "delete" across these three debates and the bundled nomination (BrigadierG), while another argued for deletion in the two of the three solo nominations (MaskedSinger). Two users !voted "procedural keep" in the bundled nominated first, then !voted "delete" in Israel's (GiantSnowman and Anwegmann). The remaining contributor (LibStar) took part in one solo nominations and did not participate in the bundled discussion. It does not seem like the notice on the Israel AFD made much of a difference, and the other two solo noms were not affected at all since there was no notice. I'm also in agreement with Hey man im josh in regards to the three users who !voted to outright "keep" all the articles. None of them addressed WP:NOTGUIDE, which is policy. ✗plicit 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Explicit why did you delete the page sports broadcasting contracts in australia there was nothing wrong with it, I want it back because I was using it to check the various sporting comps and their broadcasters associated with it. I have already contacted wikipedia to complain about the deletion so please restore it. :) SocceroosMatildasfan4ever (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Explicit for the reply. Here are my responses:
- - First, the bundled nominations and associated AFD withdrawal by nominator requests were mentioned in the [Australia] and [Japan] AFDs, it's just that those mentions were deleted from the discussions a couple of days after they were posted. Please see the edit histories linked to above for evidence of that.
- - Combined with the Articles for Deletion guideline that "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively," it was reasonable for users like me, especially those who viewed the entries when the AFD withdrawal requests were posted to think that the deletion discussion was being redirected to the broader discussion at [Serbia].
- - The context of the broader discussion matters to the individual page discussions. If dozens of other similar country-based broadcasting contract pages are viewed by many Wikipedians as notable, one has to wonder what makes these particular pages not worthy of Wikipedia. The fact that some users thought other pages were appropriate, but only not Israel's, actually risks this deletion decision becoming another entry in the recent research report on [The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia].
- - This is a perfect opportunity to utilize the procedures at Wikipedia:RELIST
- - If you relist the Australia AFD discussion, you'll be able to direct @SocceroosMatildasfan4ever to make a case for that page there.
- Coining (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- == Deletion review for Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel ==
Coining has asked for a deletion review of Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coining (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Explicit, you deleted this fair-use image per F5 as it wasn't being used in the Al Franken article. An IP user had deleted the image in what was apparently vandalism. I reverted the vandalism, but the link is now red and doesn't lead to anything. Could you restore/undelete the image? Thanks. Bremps... 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png? You closed the FFD about it here, but it's been added (yet again) to the indvidual team article. This has happened in the past as well, and I've removed the image when it has (leaving an edit summary explaining why). Maybe a WP:HIDDEN note should be added to the infobox's |image= parameter or an WP:EDITNOTICE to the top of the page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I have removed the logo once again. I took look at the page history and noticed that two sockpuppets of BouwMaster had restored the logo in the past. Sure enough, a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BouwMaster was listed some hours ago, so this may be resolved soon. ✗plicit 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't need to be notified of such deletions - they are a special case. I will point out that it's worth checking how these categories have become empty. It seems perfectly possible to "merge" album and song articles into artist articles, and then claim that since the artist has no notable albums their article should be deleted. Of course this could be perfectly true, however if there has been no significant effort to find sources for the album, then they may just get deleted without anyone ever doing a WP:BEFORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC).
A while back, you deleted the article for Concrete TV over concerns about its notability. However, the show's official site includes quotations about the show from High Times, Rolling Stone, New York Magazine, BlackBook, Boing Boing, and Time Out New York: . As far as public-access television goes, this show is about as notable as it gets. Is there any chance that we could give this article a second chance?--LadybugStardust (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @LadybugStardust: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. My new additions to the page will hopefully be enough to fend off the notability police.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, thank you for work. You CSDed Bakti (apparently created by a banned user). I seem to remember to have edited the page (substantially? sourced it? I honestly can't rembember). Would you mind sending me the text so that I can rework it? (Draft/User space, as you wish) It was in my watchlist, so I suppose that at one point I found it notable. Thank you very much. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank: Hi, a copy of the article before its deletion can be found here. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. That's very kind. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a quick question: I just saw that Bakti is now back in main space, but with a history truncated to where Mushy Yank recovered it. Shouldn't the old history be restored too to satisfy the attribution requirements? Felix QW (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. That's very kind. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw you deleted the image for not having a source, but the source was listed as "UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections", which should be adequate, as we don't require an URL for sources (many images from books, etc, don't have URLs if the editor scanned it, for instance.) I think tagging and deleting was a mistake, but didn't want to just undelete it without discussing first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Hi, after taking another look and seeing that the image caption reads, "first publicly released picture of Genie", I have decided to restore the image. I wasn't sure if WP:NFCC#4 was satisfied when I originally looked at it, but it does appear to meet the "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" condition of policy. ✗plicit 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you please explain this rationale to me and why it doesn't apply to all non-free content? I'm perplexed. Thanks J04n(talk page) 00:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @J04n: Hi, the nominator was referring to the final paragraph of WP:FREER. Unlike The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, for example, the image is of the album cover only. There is one element of copyright to consider. One the other hand, File:The Beatles Stereo Box Set Image.png was a photo of the contents of the box set. Here, there are two elements of copyright: the design of the box set's contents and that of the person who took the photo. While the box set materials can not be freely licensed, a photograph of them can be taken and freely licensed.
- Hopefully, this explanations makes some sort of sense. If not, you can consider File:Bracero Monument, Los Angeles.jpg. The statue is copyrighted, but a photo of the statue is freely licensed, hence the dual licensing. This file satisfies FREER to that extent. ✗plicit 06:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, im asking ur permission to recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin. I already read the deletion page and it says the page was deleted because it failed WP:GNG but recently i found more sources about him on internet archive which I think can solve the previous problem. I promise I will do the rework as best as possible, thank you very much. N. Alicia J (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello again Explicit, i've recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin using an additional sources from Google Books, Internet Archive, and some articles that mention about him on web search. Maybe u can check if it already pass WP:GNG. Thank you very much. N. Alicia J (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The file has been restored to the page from which it as removed. Could you please undelete it and the talk page? --evrik (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I know I put the wrong deletion tag, but nonetheless could you please delete the redirect Abdur Rahim (politician). The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. Thank you and best regards,Crampcomes (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Crampcomes: Hi, this redirect simply does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. You are free to nominate it for discussion at WP:RFD. ✗plicit 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I got permission from English Teacher and the photographer to use the image that was at:
This is related to The band English Teacher, photo for their "This Could Be Texas" debut album tour, April 2024.png
So how I can put up a photo that's copyrighted when it's with everybody's permission? Thanks! Vajzë Blu (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Vajzë Blu: Hi, please follow the directions given at C:COM:ET. ✗plicit 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks! Vajzë Blu (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The photo is copyrighted by the photographer so I can't upload it by those directions. Even though that's the image the band most wants used. But I uploaded another image of the band that's under a different license. Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Vajzë Blu: The entity who owns the copyright of the image, which is usually the photographer, is the only person who can release their work under a free license. Even if the band itself wants a specific photo used and provide it, the original photographer's consent is required. Otherwise, the rights of their work is being infringed. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of the license claim for File:English Teacher-The Best Tears of Your Life.png. ✗plicit 05:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Vajzë Blu. I've posted some more about this on your user talk page (as well as about some other things). Please take a look at it for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I’m curious why Valeriy Angelopol’s page was deleted. Can you share any information as to why that happened? 2601:441:4200:FC00:3970:E445:6CD0:6C73 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Can I at least have the source of my user page that you deleted? I would like to preserve it on a txt file on my PC. I promise to not use it for my user page again... The Prophet of Sovereignty (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
... why would I want to further store or ever again edit my article which was submitted to delete discussion immediately after publication and subsequently deleted - one could actually start believing in all kinds of conspiracy theories here. "Not relevant". Uuummmpppffff. The respective series of articles on The Guardian is still up and running, counting by now 48 contributions . But that deleting is none of your personal doing, I would believe. So (genuinely) thank you for your (or your bot's?) message ! MistaPPPP (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Explicit, please could you undelete/merge Draft:Karolina Protsenko (if there is any content worth saving?). (Reviewing wikidata:Q91313507, there are 14 Wikipedia articles; just not on the English Wikipedia…). —Sladen (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar |
| For closing the MM AfD! Babysharkboss2 was here!! Hold me like a Grudge 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hello. I am writing to enquire if the entry "Jeanette Ashe" can be restored. The log states it was deleted by Explicit April 17.This is unfortunate as Jeanette Ashe is an active educator, author, and politician currently publishing and standing for office in the upcoming British Columbia Provincial election. Happy to provide more information to help reverse this deletion decision. Politicsandmusic (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Politicsandmusic: Hi, since the page was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion, I cannot unilaterally undelete the page. If you'd like, I can restore it into draftspace, where you can add these sources and submit your work for review. ✗plicit 00:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be great thanks. I am new to this so appreciate the help. Politicsandmusic (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit, would you mind providing the refs used in the article? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Hydronium Hydroxide: Hi, here are the two references:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://texas.hometownlocator.com/maps/feature-map,ftc,1,fid,1367903,n,scroggins%20draw.cfm|title=Scroggins Draw in Reeves County TX}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mytopo.com/locations/index.cfm?fid=1367903|title=USGS Place Name: Scroggins Draw}}</ref>- ✗plicit 06:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
