User talk:Explicit

It is approximately 12:58 AM where this user lives (South Korea). []

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers RPM characters

Out of curiosity, why no redirect so that content could be merged? As of right now, it looks like there was a copy/paste by an editor into the merge target here, so I believe per WP:CWW the original redirect should remain, even if you don't agree that it was the more policy compliant outcome per WP:ATD. (And no, I don't care one way or another about the content; just trying to keep us all copyright- and policy-compliant) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: The delete !votes indicated that it was not appropriate to include the list in the parent article as its contents was dependent on primary sources and may have been too fancrufty to be considered encyclopedic. It appears that Rtkat3 decided to add that one section in Power Rangers RPM as an attempt to circumvent the AFD result as consensus grew to support outright deletion. ✗plicit 01:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that notability concerns do not determine the content of articles, correct? To the extent that there existed a notable (or at least not currently contested) merge target, the fact that an article up for deletion only included non-notable content did not impair the appropriateness of a merge. Did you misapprehend this and as such discount the possibility of such a merger and/or given undue consideration to deletion !votes that did not discuss a potential merger? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Where in my response did I address notability? The nominator specifically cited WP:NOT#PLOT and the delete !votes made reference of varying degrees to it as well. This policy directly addresses content of articles. The keep !votes cited other articles, but failed to address how merging the list would alleviate the aforementioned WP:NOT concerns. ✗plicit 04:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

One other participant explicitly agreed with NOT#PLOT. No one objected to a redirection or merger, although certainly characterizing content merger edits as "an attempt to circumvent the AFD result as consensus grew to support outright deletion" is a problematic statement: The potential use of content which can be appropriately integrated elsewhere is why WP:ATD-M exists. Right now, there is an attribution problem, for which the quickest fix is to restore the character list and redirect it to the series article. You could protect it if you really thought there was a significant risk of disruption, I suppose. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason to not do this. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As a side note to your discussion, I asked Rtkat3 not to merge or copy during AfD, per the last item in WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't even aware that existed. I edited it to be a bit more AGF, and link to ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your change. Please see WT:Guide to deletion#Merging or copying during live discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to reverse my deleted Wikipedia content

My wikipedia talk content titled 'Princess Pat Akpabio' was deleted by you. I understand that this was as a result of my inactivity for several months. I humbly request that this deletion be reversed so I can submit the content for review. Supremebosslife (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Handled at WP:RFU. Regards SoWhy 09:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Undeleting file

Greetings. I am writing to request for the un-deletion of File:Hong_Kong_Progressive_Alliance_old_logo.svg. Thanks. ~~ J. Dann 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cypp0847: As this was deleted in accordance to WP:CSD#G5, the file should remain deleted. However, I have uploaded a copy here, which you free to re-upload. The source on the file's description page was this PDF. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ~~ J. Dann 06:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm dropping my request here as well:

• File:Asociación de Scouts de Venezuela.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When you do, could you restore this version of the article?

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 03:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evrik:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:7th-century French bishops

I guess the question is what "French" means. We do have Category:7th-century Frankish bishops--but "Frankish" doesn't mean the same thing as "French", semantically: "France" points at country, but "Franks" points at a people (probably not an ethnicity). I see we have a populated category for the 9th century; Ealdgyth, can we speak of "France" in the 9th century? What do you think? BTW Explicit I didn't realize I had made this category--I must have had something in mind! Drmies (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: The "X-century French foo" categories were renamed to "X-century Frankish foo" up until the 8th century as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:6th century in France. Perhaps this category should be redirected to Category:7th-century Frankish bishops? The category intends to cover the people of Francia. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it--thanks. I see the complications in that discussion; we're trying to capture a complex reality in simple categories. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Trademark deletion

Hello Explicit. I think the deletions were incorrect. I don't think that WP:RFD#GeneReviews(®) should have been decided by a vote. It's not a question of opinion. In this case the nominator and Delete voters based their votes upon a legal argument. I and Edcolins raised the fact that this legal argument is unlikely and no documentation was provided for this legal argument. This was an effort to perform WMF's legal function through an RFD and it failed to do that correctly. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. The discussion wasn't decided by votes, it was decided by arguments. I assume Explicit didn't think that your and Edcolins's argument was very strong. And "based upon a legal argument" is not correct: for instance, "Literally nobody is typing in the registered trademark symbol" is not a legal argument. I would have decided it the same way; I don't understand your last sentence, where it's not even clear what "This" is in reference to. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This = the RFD. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's sad that no-one looked at the edit histories. That's rather important at RFD. Had they done, the people claiming that people asserting brand trademarks isn't happening at all would have been brought up short by Special:Diff/496168116 and the people claiming that this is all the work of such people would have been brought up short by Special:Diff/390390966. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You are a very good man. Greenpickles987 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Assisi Convent School (Noida)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assisi Convent School (Noida). 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. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 06:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms

I have started on the lengthy job of splitting Glossary of nautical terms as it was too large for the technology. There are a huge number of gli links and links from other articles. I made one typo in the name of the new article Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) with the closing bracket missing (very angry with me for that). I felt I had to fix that immediately as a lot of the work being done would have to be redone with the correction. There have now been a whole load of page deletions that stop continuation of this work. I am more of an "article content" person than a technical Wikipedia person - so I am working at my limits. At a minimum I guess that I need Glossary of nautical terms reinstated, plus the several articles like Depth of hold (that you have already reinstated). Is this something you can take care of, or do I need to look elsewhere for assistance?

My next job is to go through "what links here" on Glossary of nautical terms and change the links to the correct article (A-L / M-Z) - and there are a few other glossary related tidy ups to do at the same time as that. Then I will change Glossary of nautical terms to a redirect to the A-L article.

Any hints on how I could have handled this better (other than not making typos) would be welcome.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

OK - see that you have just done some of this - I think I have plenty to get on with for today. Then I need to get my head round anything else that needs fixing. Thanks.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just in case you need to know, I have been working my way through the links from Glossary of nautical terms. A few do not actually have a target term in the glossary, which seems weird - so there has been some puzzling over exactly how to fix those. Some target terms in the glossary have problems, and I have fixed a few. This is going to be a long job. I am taking a break now.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I was able to pick up on what happened and changed the targets of the redirects to point to the A–Z or M–Z list, whichever was relevant. I didn't pay too much mind as to whether the terms were actually mentioned on those pages, as they had pointed to the original target before the move anyway. These can be nominated for discussion at WP:RFD if there's merit to do so.

Glossary of nautical terms shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, but that fault lies on the person who deleted it without checking related page histories. I am not surprised in the slightest by the culprit. For now, I have redirected it to Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) to save the remaining 16 double redirects that currently point to it, though I'm surprised a bot hasn't come along and fixed those yet as of this writing. Fixing the incoming links is a separate, complex issue which, unfortunately, may not be something a bot can handle and requires manual work. Enlisting help from related WikiProjects, namely WP:SHIP and WP:SAIL, may lighten the load.

Something needs to be done with Glossary of nautical terms, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps converting it into a set index article? ✗plicit 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above. The 16 double redirects were of concern to me. The remaining problems are (1) the content of the glossary - much of which is unreferenced and often wrong - so that really slows me down with (2) revising all the links to Glossary of nautical terms, because there are often obvious errors (such as when the article containing the link uses a correct meaning that is not actually one given for the term in the glossary) and (3) not sure what you mean by "something needs to be done with Glossary of nautical terms" - I am guessing that if it stays there as a redirect, any editor who doesn't check that a term actually exists (and work under (1) suggests that this is common) will get a message on their talk page. That would be useful. Anyway, all these problems are probably just for those who edit in the subject area. I am reluctant to recruit volunteers to help with the link cleanup, as it is an opportunity to weed out some errors. I might think differently after another 100 or so edits, but we are plagued with keen editors in the article who do not seem to believe in references. But that's just me being precious.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion of a BLP

Hello, the BLP for Derek Moneyberg was removed due to Promotional BLP article. Can we get the page to be undeleted? If not, what would we have to change from the draft to get it back up.

Thanks! 2601:681:601:86F0:0:0:0:836A (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have undeleted the article and merged its history with Draft:Derek Moneyberg in accordance with attribution requirements. As the message atop the page suggests, the user who reviewed the draft believes that the content as it is written contains a promotional tone. You may want to contact the reviewer directly for a better understanding of what concerns they have about the language used on page. ✗plicit 01:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you please un-delete my user page?

It says my damn user page was deleted for "vandalism". Son, I can't vandalize my own page! SusImposter49 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@SusImposter49: Hi, I've gone ahead and restored your userpage. The use of Big Chungus on Wikipedia is often used for vandalism, so perhaps it may be understandable as to why your userpage was viewed in such a manner. However, I'm assuming good faith per your request here. ✗plicit 01:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Steph Jones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steph Jones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Jones until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SL93 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My two empty categories marked for deletion

Thank you and apologies for taking up your time. I tried to do it myself (Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#No information about how to request a simple G7 deletion request?) but can't find any procedure for G7 requests. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Hi, I have gone ahead and deleted the two categories in question in accordance with WP:CSD#G7. As long as it meets the criteria, you can tag any page you create with {{db-g7}}. ✗plicit 11:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Refund

Would you mind restoring User:ZLEA/sandbox/US missiles? It's come up in a discussion and I think I requested its deletion a bit too soon. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA:  Done, page restored. ✗plicit 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

reverted

Hi Explicit, I saw that you deleted my opinion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Igor_Janev&action=edit&redlink=1 . Instead of denying existence of that person Igor Janev, someone should perhaps try to create an Article-BLP on him. Best Regards,Academician.NYAS (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Website link

Hii... I saw you delete some official website links here, may I know why you delete it? Is that harmful to the page? I'm kinda new here. I put other official website links because the official KR one is not up-to-date and friendly to the new fans since they renewed their homepage. The JP website is more informative and up-to-date about the new photo teasers or schedules. Can't I put two official website links there? Thanks..Forverivery (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Forverivery: Hi, please see Template:Infobox musical artist#website: "The single web address for the act's primary official website." As the documentation dictates, there should only be one link to the group's website in the infobox. ✗plicit 00:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Young Dubliners deletion

I'd like to respectfully request un-deletion of the Young Dubliners page which was removed yesterday, April 16. The page was marked for not meeting style and notability guidelines and significant portions of it had already been removed. However, I believe the band meets multiple notability criteria, including an album on Billboard's world chart for 115 weeks, touring nationally and internationally with major acts like Jethro Tull, multiple national television appearances, etc. I started a major revision a few weeks ago, which I've been drafting in Word so I could do some of it at work. I believe I can bring the page substantially into compliance. However, I've never attempted something on this scale and it's much slower going than I anticipated. I am respectfully asking for a stay of execution while I continue to work on it. Thank you for your consideration Restlessinbfe (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Restlessinbfe: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Restlessinbfe (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to un-delete an image -- Legislative Assembly of Ontario page

I just noticed that on April 16 at 00:00, you deleted the image File:Shield of arms - Ontario Leg.jpg , with the reason being "F5: Unused non-free media file" (see here). That image has been used for many years at the top of the infobox on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario page. However, it appears that a user removed that image from the infobox with no explanation (see here) and replaced it with a different arms image that is not the unique arms of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. If I had noticed this earlier, I would have restored the original image right away, and I would still like to do that now. However, since this image has been deleted, I am no longer able to so that myself. Thus, I'd like to respectfully request un-deletion of the image File:Shield of arms - Ontario Leg.jpg which was deleted on April 16. I will then be able to restore that image to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario page where it belongs. Thank you for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blairall:  Done, File:Shield of arms - Ontario Leg.jpg has been restored. ✗plicit 23:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. -- Blairall (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

PathAI

Good afternoon, I am writing in regard to the article PathAI that was deleted on April 13. Is it possible to get back the full text of the content that was deleted as the editor would like to make some modifications and the version that was moved to mainspace was the complete draft version. Thank you in advance for any assistance you are able to provide. Amyc29 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amyc29: Hi, I have moved to the deleted content to Draft:PathAI. ✗plicit 12:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Koenig Institute

You closed this today as a soft delete, and the page creator said (here) that he was late to respond. The article has been undeleted. Can you relist the AfD? Jay (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jay:  Done, the discussion has been relisted. ✗plicit 23:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Kyle McMahon

Greetings from Delaware, User:Explicit You had deleted as page KyleMcmahon that I had created in conjunction with the editors and admins in The Teahouse over two years ago working with them to get it up to par as my first entry. My other work consists of Delaware related and Entertainment related edits, clarifications, etc.

I was pinged by an editor who marked it AfD where there was one vote to delete by a user who seems to have a personal vendetta against the subject looking at this notes and personal attacks, but unfortunately was offline the past month due to a death in the family so just saw it today.

Talked with the original editor who marked AfD discussion who had suggested I contact you since it has now been closed.

Reviewing again, there were numerous editors and admins that contributed to and cleaned up the subject page over the span of two years - I believe it was 22 users / editors / admins. Traffic reports show there was traffic to the page as well. Additionally, the subject meets three of our qualifications for notability from being an on Air host / DJ on numerous major market stations across the country through I Heart Radio, including New York City LITE FM & KISS FM Los Angeles, who we cite as the two largest stations in the US; secondly being the subject of an Emmy winning television series (Oprah) and finally hosting a major podcast on I Heart Radio with high level guests, which itself has articles written about news that broke in the interviews - such as with Zack Snyder regarding his Justice League film.

Thanks for your consideration on the other side of Planet Earth FRANKY (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mariela Anchipi

Hello, I wanted to ask you what is the reason for the deletion of the page Mariela Anchipi Augusto M Pilla (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I ask to improve my way of editing. Augusto M Pilla (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WHY

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY SANDBOX! Please tell me why. MoyaiViper (talk)