Jump to content

User talk:Explicit/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

File:Beth Porter.jpg

You deleted a local file with this name in 2019. I discovered that there is a file on Commons with the same name which was uploaded some time later. Is that the same image? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Yes, it's the same image. It was tagged for deletion by a VRT agent and there's the related ticket:2019022110006086 which did not provide sufficient permission. ✗plicit 11:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
So then I presume it should be tagged for deletion on Commons too? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stefan2: That's correct, as it does not appear that permission was confirmed at any point. ✗plicit 12:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
There was sufficient permisson. I took this photo many years ago and stated it at the time. What further information do you now need that wasn't already given in the past??? Lizabetha (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lizabetha: Not accoridng to the VRT agent who handled the ticket. Please continue discussing the matter at the deletion request on Commons. ✗plicit 02:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The Exchange TRX

This article was recreated less then 24 hours after you deleted it per the AFD ruling. Does this have to be nominated again?4meter4 (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello?

I stated a clear and valid rationale to not delete those two files, File:Dry curacao.jpg and File:Nocino bottles.jpg, why would you not start a discussion, or even present any evidence against my argument? And is this really the normal process for deleting nonfree files? Most image deletion conflicts get a discussion if a user contests the nomination. ɱ (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ɱ: The relevant information is stated at WP:FREER. There are two copyrighted elements in play here: the label and the photograph itself. While obtaining a freely licensed version of a complex label is likely not possible, the same does not hold true for the photograph. In this sense, we could have a "freer" image of the same product with the non-free label. Also, for what it's worth, the label of File:Nocino bottles.jpg is not complex in the United States, so a freely licensed file can be uploaded and accompanied by {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Austria}}.
It is not required to list contested deletions for discussion, as indicated by {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, especially in clear cases like these. ✗plicit 03:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
It may not be required, but I'd expect as a user in good standing for well over a decade, with over 100,000 global contributions, you'd be willing respond to the argument I posted before acting. ɱ (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would even use the FREER argument, it's pointless as the image will be nonfree regardless. Why should I bother setting up lights and a lightbox and photographing these bottles when I have to license it as nonfree, and have a small file regardless? It's not worth all the bother. This rule guideline hurts Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) If the file was being used in a stand-alone article about a particular brand of Curaçao (liqueur), then perhaps it might be possible to justify the non-free use of the label in such an article for primary identification purposes, but there's really no way per FREER (at least in my opinion) to justify such a non-free use in a general article about the liqueur. There's no reason to use any non-free image of any particular brand of Curaçao is such an article. So, either a free equivalent image needs to be used or no image should be used. FWIW, File:ElPicu Curaçao.jpg also has problems per c:COM:PACKAGING and there's a good chance it will also end up deleted. File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg, on the other hand, seems to be OK (at least at first glance) since the label is quite simple and might be considered PD, particularly in the US. So, if the Bos Blue file is OK for Commons (which isn't quite clear because the country of origin is unclear), then there's no way to justify a non-free one for general information purpose per FREER since a free equivalent exists to serve that same encyclopedic purpose. FREER might be a guideline per se, but WP:NFCCP is policy and FREER just provides some background on how WP:NFCC#1 is gnerally applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Greetings Explicit. I accidentally acted on a move request at WP:RMTR where the page is move protected. Anthony Appleyard isn't available now and the move needs to be finished. If you will please visit that page and move the "Fried chicken" page to "Southern fried chicken", as requested, I would greatly appreciate it. I'll do all the rest of the cleanup if you will. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: Hi, I'm not so sure that this would qualify as an uncontroversial move request. The original proposal called to split the article, not move it. The thread at Talk:Fried chicken#Rescoping is likely insufficient to consider it a consensus to approve the action. The page title probably needs a full discussion per WP:RM#CM. ✗plicit 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand. I'll put the redirect back, and leave it for an admin to reply. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

About a page you deleted

In case the ping didn't work, you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#I have been deleted???. DuncanHill (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pratishtha Sharma

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pratishtha Sharma. 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. Hi i have requested for a review regarding deletion of article Pratishtha Sharma as i have seen the discussion. kindly look into it. its a very old article with earlier had more than 100 supporting independent links which was deleted by Chiswick chap with out discussion and reported by me at that time and i putup the matter to admin page as well. i can understand that i am not very much active editor and user but i can understand that it is a deserving article which can be updated with new links. i could not repond in time but one user Nomadicghumakkad supported it. you can check with earlier history and you will find all the details. i can add many news articles in support of her notability. kindly look into it thanksRusianejohn (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Undelete the page: Noora, Bihar - Wikipedia

Please undelete the page: Noora, Bihar - Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinghTheRahul (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SinghTheRahul: Pages deleted via deletion discussion, as Noora, Bihar was from the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noora, Bihar, can not be undeleted by request, especially without an attempt to address the concerns brought up there. ✗plicit 00:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know the proceed of undeleting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinghTheRahul (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@SinghTheRahul: I would suggest going through the articles for creation process and submitting a draft page. You will need to address all the concerns brought up in the deletion discussion to be considered seriously. ✗plicit 08:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we discourage more nonsense?

Hi mate, any chance you'd consider protecting or semi-protecting David Donovan now that you've closed that AFD? Given the enthusiasm for righting great wrongs (as his supporters see it), it might be good to have a small hurdle in place to discourage more nonsense. St★lwart111 02:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Hi, salting the page might be jumping the gun a bit. The first deletion was through a PROD twelve years ago, which is supposed to be uncontroversial. If recreation by a sockpuppet or by another user in spite of the AFD results persists, then it can be protected. ✗plicit 08:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. St★lwart111 23:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Canada by longevity

This should be relisted. With only two people weighing in since the AFD started, with opposing views, there's not consensus. Please relist. Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Hi, your comment did not come across as opposition. As it was pointed out, the AFD you cited covers a different topic (age) than the one at being discussed at this AFD (longevity). If your position was to keep based on the age list, then it was off the mark.
Additionally, my closure reflects the recently set precedence to delete longevity lists:
Are the circumstances regarding a list of prime ministers of Canada by longevity different from those linked above? ✗plicit 06:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
None of those other things were discussed in the debate. Also I never saw the question comment until it was closed. The close was premature. Nfitz (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nfitz: What other things? And what question from which debate (I don't see a question in the AFD closure you're contesting)? You'll have to be a bit more elaborate here. ✗plicit 07:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant comment, not question. Those AFDs you raise above weren't mentioned or even linked in the debate (well other than Bulgaria). Though that's beside the point really - it's very unusual to close a debate after one delete, and one comment that's not in favour of deletion. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nfitz: Both the heads of state of Bulgaria and German presidents lists were linked in the nomination statement. As I'm sure you're aware, the result of deletion debates are weighed by the strength of the arguments made, not by headcount. Your comment pointed to a discussion regarding a list of prime ministers of the UK by age that was resoundingly kept, as consensus determined it was neither trivial nor original research. The AFD you took part in concerned a list of prime ministers of Canada by longevity, where the nominator linked two previous discussions that did regard these types of lists as trivial that contained original research, which is further bolstered by the additional AFD links I've provided above which resulted in "delete".
While I understand the logic in citing the by age discussion, the comment ultimately conflates two similar but distinct topics. Your position ultimately did not provide any new arguments that would have either merited a relisting of the discussion or brought the result of the previous AFDs into question. If the Canada list was the first of its kind go through the deletion process, I would have naturally relisted it for further analysis, but seeing as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it would not have benefited the community to extend the time frame of the discussion—especially when the arguments in favor of deletion of this page were not refuted. ✗plicit 03:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not refuting the decision (head-count is irrelevant). I'm objecting to that it was even closed at all, before a consensus was reached - this is a procedural objection. It's unusual to close based on simply one person piping up "delete" - let alone when others are questioning it. Though, given that you are making arguments for deletion yourself, rather than simply weighing what was said in the discussion - it'd think you should be reclusing yourself! Look at other deletion discussions in the project - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Canada - this not being relisted is not in sync with other discussions. Nfitz (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Chisato Inoue

Hi, could you return the content of deleted page Chisato Inoue to draft? She has now satisfied WP:NFOOTY as of today and I'd like to work on the page before publishing. Thanks! Seany91 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Seany91:  Done, the page is now available at Draft:Chisato Inoue. ✗plicit 09:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Apollo Chamber Players

Greetings! A page was submitted for Apollo Chamber Players years ago, which you deleted at that time for a lack of notability. I did not have anything to do with the previous page, but I have created a new page for this group, and asking permission to allow that page to be reviewed. Thanks for all of your help across the WikiWorld! Wayneashleymusic (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wayneashleymusic: Hi, to submit Draft:Apollo Chamber Players for review, please add {{AfC submission}} to the top of the page and a reviewer will give it a look. ✗plicit 01:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
{{AfC submission}} has been added. Thanks so much!!-- Wayneashleymusic (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Chacha

Hi, I would just like to tell you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Chacha has been nominated for deletion for the past 2 weeks and there was no answers if the said subject should be deleted or not. This is under WP:NOQUORUM. Will there be an action for this? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: Hi, looks like another administrator has already relisted it again. If no objections arise and there continues to be a lack participation by the end of next week, it will likely just be soft deleted. ✗plicit 13:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies - should have read the fine print

Hi Explicit, sorry for wasting your time a bit there - I took the G5 description at face value and didn't realise that it was directed towards pages created by sockpuppets and did not apply to content created by banned users before their bans. I'll read the criteria more thoroughly in future. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Hey, don't worry about it. You've learned something new and can confidently apply this knowledge the next time it comes around. ✗plicit 13:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Module talk:Find sources/Archive 1

Please restore this page. There was no good reason to delete it, especially since the page was recreated less than an hour later. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery: Hi, Sawol was the user who requested the page to be deleted in the first place and then recreated it. The history contains a redirect only, as the page was moved to Template talk:Find sources/Archive 1. Is this redirect desired? ✗plicit 00:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
No, the page shouldn't be a redirect (the current content is fine), but there's no good reason for the redirect to have been deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: I have restore the history. ✗plicit 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing the debate, and Deleting Navbox US military utility vehicles has several issues !

Dear Explicit,

I'm rather new to this, but after Primefac closed the discussion on deleting NavBox US military utility vehicles on 16 October, you proceeded to actually delete it ?

Were you aware that discussion towards consensus on How to split the template was still ongoing !?

Does such a deletion proposal during the ongoing debate on replacing the navbox not run counter to WP:MULTI, i.e. starting the same discussion on multiple pages ? —
Is it really fair game to propose deletion of a thing, while consensus on proper replacement has not yet been reached ??

Furthermore, it was stated: "Please make sure any extant uses that are not also covered by the split templates are replaced and not just orphaned."
Are you aware, that user Cavalryman's template {{Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles}} covers only 50 of the roughly 76 post‑1945 articles that were included in the now deleted navbox – orphaning some 26 of them, the way I understand it..?

And finally: I had higher hopes regarding the quality of the debate on deletion... I had expected it to respect WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and instead focus more on sound arguments, and reasonable application of logic... — Thus, much more than just: users x and y are in favor, and only user z is against, therefore, the conclusion is: "delete" ?

I'm unsure I should bring this to your attention in this way. If I'm erroneous, would you please be willing to point me to the proper procedure to find answers to these issues ?

Thank you in advance, and with respectful regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeeTeeBee: Hi, the template was also being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell before I removed it from there and, based on the commentary there, I was under the impression the work had been completed. Apologies if that was not the case. I have restored it for further attention. If it is ready for deletion, or when it does become ready for deletion, please feel free to ping me.
Regarding the closure itself, if you feel that the closer misinterpreted consensus, the first step would be to discuss the result of the discussion with the closing administrator first. If their response does not alleviate your concerns, WP:DRV would be next. ✗plicit 00:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, thank you so much for your action and swift reply !!
The Devil was partly in Timing, as I did indeed address the deletion debate closer, Primefac, yesterday at 14:42 — whereas you deleted the debated template at 14:44...
I must also correct myself – the deletion "only" resulted in under a dozen "hard" cases of orphaning. But one of the main points being debated was, what mattered more: the introduction year of the equipment (others' view) – versus the U.S. service life of it ? (my view).
And in this "softer" meaning, a LOT of equipment now all got lumped into one, simplistic post-1945, soft-skinned US equipment navbox – instead of the great idea of the initiator, Cavalryman, to offer readers separate, split navboxes for at least the Cold War, versus the post‑1990 to present era – a view on which he inexplicably, and unfortunately made a U-turn, and my effort to actually build these distinct navboxes for WW II through 1990 and for post 1990 through present – although completed and debugged, was rejected...
Thanks and regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

Good morning dear user. I just saw that you completely deleted my article on "Misho Amoli". An article that I had been working on for a long time with a lot of references and news. I had already talked to other moderators and they told me I was on the right track. That I will add more details and that it will soon be reviewed for approval and today I am going to add more details and I see that you have decided to delete it only judging your own criteria. I think Wikipedia is there so that more users can contribute new articles and information and not vandalize and erase the work of others because they are new users. It makes me very sad to see that attitude sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafariBoyz (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@SafariBoyz: Misho Amoli was not deleted by my "own criteria", it was as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misho Amoli. Participants resoundingly determined that the subject was not notable by Wikipedia's standards and there was a clear consensus to delete the page. I see that you recreated it again, so I have just deleted it under speedy deletion criteria for the recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and protected the title from recreation. I suggest you drop it and move on to something else before your behavior leads you down the road to a block. ✗plicit 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You could perfectly have told me about the bugs in the article and of course I would have been happy to work to fix it. Do not belittle the work of others. And honestly, I'm not the least bit worried about being blocked. I am not worried about not being part of a group of people who do not respect the work of others and threaten to block and erase, believing they are superior for being able to do so. It is very sad to see how Wikipedia has basically been turned into a mafia by people with such an attitude. What I recommend to you is that you try to learn how to deal with people and be something more constructive instead of resorting to threat. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafariBoyz (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Postscript: I uploaded the article again with more corrections, new references from world-famous newspapers and more information but you decided to delete it and block the edition without even having looked at, read and consulted it. That perfectly describes your way of acting, disrespecting and belittling others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafariBoyz (talk • contribs) 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk page font size

Hey, you might already know this but the text size on your talk page makes it really hard to read. I see that you are using both "Batik Regular" and a font size of "95%". When I tested on my browser removing one of those it becomes much easier to read. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Hi, I have adjusted the font size and it now displays at 100%. I personally don't see a difference, but I hope the text is now easier to read. ✗plicit 09:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Huge difference, thanks :) --Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

CSD G13s & Talk Page Notifications

Hello, Explicit,

I may be a little assertive in handling stale drafts, CSD G13s, but that is because I think it is very important to leave a talk page notice for page creators when their pages are deleted or tagged for deletion informing them a) that their draft has been deleted, b) why their draft has been deleted (because it has been 6 months since the last edit) and c) how they can get their draft back (by going to WP:REFUND). Because you rarely leave these talk page notices, I am probably a little more assertive than I should be in handling these pages because I feel very strongly that page creators should be notified about these deletions.

You may think that editors are notified about impending draft deletions through FireflyBot but as you can see in talk page discussions, FireflyBot is not consistent and often skips notices for certain drafts depending on how they are categorized or if the editor has ever received a message about the draft in the past, even when that previous notice was posted years ago. Talk page notification is even more important for drafts which were last edited by a bot, like User:CommonsDelinker or User:FrescoBot because there is no chance that these page creators would have received a 5 month notice from Firefly Bot. Without a talk page notice, these editors have no way of knowing they could request their draft could be restored at REFUND.

It would help draft creators if, when you deleted stale draft G13s, you would use Twinkle to delete them and set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator" so that these editors would be notified. I know I would be less adamant about handling them if I knew that these, mostly new editors, were being informed about the situation with G13s. I've already communicated with many of the editors doing CSD page tagging to be sure they post these talk page notices. Thank you for considering this request. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Xpansiv

Hi Explicit. It seems you have deleted a draft I was working on. I reviewed the deletion log and could not understand why the draft was deleted? Could you restore the draft as well as advise me as to why it was deleted so I could avoid this in the future? Many thanks for your time. EDIT: I followed the directions on the large yellow banner I didn't initially read, and found out, it was deleted because it was created by someone who is banned. I'm the unfortunate guy who was foolish enough to trust that company to write my article. Once I realized they ripped me off, I started to edit the article to make it right. I would be greatly appreciative if you could/would recover the work so that I may complete it under my account. --AnAdmnUsr (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@AnAdmnUsr: Hi, pages created by banned users are generally not allowed to be restored in order to deter them from returning to the project. However, I have made a copy of the draft's contents that will be available here for one week if you would like to create the draft anew. ✗plicit 03:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Explicit: Thank you so much, this resolves my issue. I'm very grateful for your time and effort.

--AnAdmnUsr (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Cover

Hello. You removed File:PleaseDontGo.jpg but even if album has similar cover they are two different covers. Eurohunter (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Hi, the general rule is that only one non-free item is allowed to depict a prominent aspect of the subject as stated at WP:NFC#CS. Perhaps you may prefer the deleted image over the one currently in use, but that is an editorial discussion to be had on the article's talk page or with George Ho, who nominated the file for deletion. ✗plicit 03:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
If Eurohunter insists that the picture sleeve be reused, then let's take it to FFD. Otherwise, the US vinyl should be adequate enough. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There is "Alternative cover" parameter which allows us to add two different covers for in one infobox. Eurohunter (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
What's your answer: do to you want to take the deleted file undeleted and then taken to WP:FFD? --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC); modified, 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

PRODs

You might want to go back and look at these two articles you deleted, Har Hamor & Yashlatz. The PRODs were removed, in both cases, less than 2 hours after they were placed and then restored today. The PROD template was not on the article for 7 days as required by policy to allow interested parties to object. ~ GB fan 10:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@GB fan: Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I somehow glossed over the fact that the sockpuppet had removed the PROD on the day it was proposed. I have restored the pages and reset the timers. ✗plicit 10:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

CfD backlog

Good morning. Would you have time to close some CfD discussions again - especially some of the older ones from September? The number of admin closures in the past month is close to zero (not counting my own non-admin closures). Thank you in advance. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Will do. CFD seemed to be well kept not too long ago, so the activity must have sadly depleted in a matter a weeks. ✗plicit 09:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What was the problem with Yeshiva Pachad Yitzchok?

Hi, I missed this Proposed_deletion_of_Yeshiva_Pachad_Yitzchok. It is a well-known established yeshiva in Jerusalem. Why did you target this article/stub for deletion? IZAK (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@IZAK: Hi, can you please provide evidence that I "targeted" the article and did not simply follow WP:PROD procedure as I do everyday? The article was tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since February 2007, so that may be a start. ✗plicit 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Expilicit. I have struck that comment. I did not know you had nothing to do with it beyond applying rules. It was @Yaakovaryeh: who did the targeting as he has a record of singling out Orthodox Judaism articles. The problem is that it was at least a good WP:Stub. The Yeshiva Pachad Yitzchok in Israel was founded by Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner, hence its name, it is headed by Rabbi Yonasan David Hutner's son in law, and it is an affiliated branch of the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin in America, and at a minimum the information that was deleted could have been rerouted to either one of those three articles. But preferably, User Yaakovaryeh could have contacted me to help out with some references or asked for help with improving the article from Jewish editors familiar with the subject matter, or even just asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for input instead of attacking the article by using rules that only deleted an important subject. Could you please restore the article and I will try to work on improving it, or redirecting its information to either the Yitzchok Hutner article or the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin article or the Yonasan David article, so that there not be a glaring gap to these four related articles. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@IZAK: I understand that you disagree with the deletion, but personal attacks & ad-homs are unwarranted (WP:Etiquette) and irrelevant. All that is relevant are the Wikipedia policies & guidelines (which I have followed), not who is applying them. As far as the arguments made here, see WP:INHERITORG (on the WP:ORG page that I linked to) which states explicitly: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yaakovaryeh: It was just a STUB and not an article, and as such it is entitled to unlimited time to be built up. Not sure what you have against it. IZAK (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@IZAK: I'm not sure what that has to do with the policy that I quoted, unless you're saying that STUBs have some sort of immunity against deletion.?.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@IZAK: I have restored the page upon your request, as directed by WP:CONTESTED. The time to improve the article or redirect it to a relevant subject would be now. As Yaakovaryeh has stated above, it is best to refrain from making unnecessary commentary about the editor who nominated the page for deletion instead of the page's content. Doing so is in breach of WP:NPA, and it certainly does not facilitate a collaborative environment. If you share a difference of opinion, discuss the matter at the relevant forums. ✗plicit 07:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Explicit: Thank you so much. I will try to work on it. IZAK (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind watching India national cricket team for a bit? File:Cricket India Crest.svg contiues to be re-added by IPs to the infobox each time it's removed. Most of the IPs begin with the same three numbers so there's a chance it's the same person. I did respond to a query about the file's use at Talk:India national cricket team#Why there is no BCCI logo ? and have no problem if someone wants to start another discussion about this at FFD, though it does seem from the latest discussion on UUI#17 that there's not been much of a change in how the NFCC is interpreted to apply to this type of logo use. The last time an IP re-added the logo it was removed by JJMC89's bot and the bot has done the same in previous similar cases, but the bot is removing the file for NFCC#10c reasons and no mention is made of the FFD in the edit summaries it leaves. That is possibly leading some to believe that all that they need to do is add a rationale to the file's page like this and this and things will be OK. So, I'm wondering whether there's a way for bots to tell whether a file is simply missing a rationale or whether it actually had been removed per a FFD discussion, and then leave an edit summary reflecting that instead of a generic one for 10c issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, after looking through the page history, I saw that the article is subject to persistent disruptive editing even without taking this logo situation into the account. This is reflected in the protection log for the article, so it seemed best to semi-protect it for a year. ✗plicit 09:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for takng a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The PP probably will stop the IPs, but it doesn't seem to have stopped others from trying to re-add the logo. Once again the file was removed by JJMC89 bot, but the bot makes no mention of the FFD discussion. I'm not sure if there's a way around this. Maybe a WP:HIDDEN note, but those are often just ignored and removed as well. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I wouldn't be surprised if this user was the logged out IP restoring the logo in the first place. As CheckUers generally doesn't comment on IPs, I have just left a message on their user talk page about the matter. If they continue this behavior, they could face a block. ✗plicit 01:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Witness (memoir)

Explicit: Thank you for adding a rating to the Talk:Witness (memoir) page for the new entry I created for the memoir Witness. I see that the original entry received a "C" rating. Question: Do edits made since then (nearly 25% more content) help it merit a higher rating? I ask because: (1) I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Books to add content and even change some headers, (2) there is additional information that (IMO) exceeds what appears in most other entries for memoirs, and (3) I would like to learn how to compose better and better entries, having created +300 new entries on Wikipedia so ar. Sincerely - Aboudaqn (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: Hi, no worries at all. The quality scale for books can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment#Quality scale, and the article must meet all the criteria to assessed under the "B" rating. You may want to inquire at WT:BOOK for further analysis by interested parties of the WikiProject. ✗plicit 01:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Userfying templates from TfD

I thought an admin was going to userfy the templates that were deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 13#Template:1938–39 NBL Western Division standings.

I'm assuming you're an admin since you closed that discussion. Can you dig up those templates from the deletion history and put them into User:SportsGuy789/NBL standings? SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@SportsGuy789: As seen in the page logs, the templates were userfied to User:SportsGuy789/1938–39 NBL Western Division standings and User:SportsGuy789/1939–40 NBL Western Division standings. ✗plicit 01:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your G5 deletion

Hi, User:Julio1906 is not a sock of Remitbuber.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hi, the SPI case was confusing read. The sockmaster, based on your comments, should probably be Agustin03072005, which was locked in April, right? ✗plicit 02:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure you understood that Remitbuber wasn't the master as that was what you had in your deletion. Even if this were a more straightforward case, we don't usually bother to delete userpages per g5. That said, it's not a big deal one way or the other. At some point the userpage will be recreated with a sock tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thank you for the explanation, and I will keep that in mind for the future. There are a few other pages I deleted that cite Remitbuber in the deletion summary, which I don't mind updating to point to the correct sockmaster. I'll keep an eye on the case so I can go back and update those summaries accordingly. ✗plicit 02:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

stop with the hotel deletions please

Please stop deleting the historic hotels of America hotels. It causes work for them to be undeleted. Could you please undelete them. you could have asked instead. --Doncram (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact, for your information, all these are valid articles, part of a larger batch all moved to Draft, about 1/2 of which have been promoted back to Mainspace. They are all significant historic places. It is not valid to simply delete drafts which are, in broad terms, being worked on. Consult with the user instead. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you please restore the following historic hotel articles which you just deleted. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Draft:Belleview Inn Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Belleview Inn".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Greystone Hotel Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greystone Hotel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Norwich Inn Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Norwich Inn".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:National Hotel (Miami Beach, Florida) Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Hotel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Newport Beach Hotel & Suites Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Newport Beach Hotel & Suites".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Royal Palms Resort and Spa Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Royal Palms Resort and Spa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Terrace Hotel (Lakeland, Florida) Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Terrace Hotel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tubac Golf Resort and Spa Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tubac Golf Resort and Spa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kings Courtyard Inn Hello, Doncram. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kings Courtyard Inn".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: Hi, I have restored all the drafts that were listed on your talk page. Please note that they all met the conditions WP:CSD#G13 as they went without any edits for six consecutive months, which is why they were deleted. You may want to consider moving these drafts, and others if they exist, into your userspace to avoid being subject to G13. ✗plicit 03:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the restorations and the information. I see that Draft:Greystone Hotel, for one example, was indeed 6 months without an edit. There do exist numerous other articles started by me that are in Draftspace, including in fact 28 historic hotel ones indexed at Talk:Historic Hotels of America/Draft articles (which also shows that 25 such articles have been promoted, out of 53 that were moved to Draft all at once). I also do receive bot notices at, I think, the 5 month point, which has prompted me to go and make edits. Hmm, yes in fact i received such a notice for Draft:Greystone Hotel back in April and did then make an edit. How does it work? Do I just get one 5 month notice, not another one 5 months after it has been edited? This is all a bother, but I appreciate you providing info and hope you can further advise. All of these historic hotel ones are valid topics, and should not have been moved to Draftspace IMHO, but I was on the losing end of a nasty wp:ANI proceeding about them. There are also other valid topics on NRHP-listed places which I started and which are still in Draftspace. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Doncram: FireflyBot sends a notice one month ahead a draft's scheduled deletion only once. I think that is how the bot is meant to operate. If you'd like, I can move all these drafts into your userspace and do the same with others when I come across them. ✗plicit 02:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Ronald Schill in the Bundestag.jpg

You deleted File:Ronald Schill in the Bundestag.jpg even though there was an active discussion and I objected to the deletion and still do as in my view it doesn't fall under F7. You did not engage in a discussion, why did you delete it? I will restore the file if necessary as per visual identification of the subject discussed in the article. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@KamikazeMatrix26Juni: This was a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. The criterion has two conditions that must be met: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). While a freely licensed image may not exist now, one could conceivably be created at any point in the future while the subject is still alive. ✗plicit 02:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division).png

I am the original uploader of this logo file and it was deleted by you because it was unused in an article. It was meant to be used in Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) but, an unexperienced user then replaced this with a different logo uploaded with Commons, which has since been deleted (for copyright reasons). I would like you to reinstate the image file so I can reinsert it back into the main article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marcnut1996:  Done, the file has been restored. ✗plicit 02:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Big G5 deletion run - huh?

I noticed that you'd deleted a fairly big run of pages under CSD G5, presumably mostly tagged by @Onel5969: (from the ones I can see). Of course, I can't see all of them, but the couple I can (i.e. this one, which had been edited by a few people after the blocked user) look fine to me -- is this standard practice for G5s or what? jp×g 00:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Hi, in order for a page to not qualify for speedy deletion under G5, a page must "have no substantial edits by other". It seems that Ritchie333 also happened to restore the content from the previous two G5 deletions in 2019, which were naturally not part of the history when I reviewed the page. Among edits by other users, three were stub sorting and the others dealt with coordinates. I did not delete all nominated pages, as I declined the deletions of others including Hill County Sheriff's Office, Eeva Putro, and Stone, South Yorkshire. ✗plicit 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Faran Digital Studio

Explicit can i create Faran Digital Studio page — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmdAsjad (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@AhmdAsjad: If you're here to promote your company, as your talk page indicates, then no. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. ✗plicit 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Logo.png

Regarding the image, Tottenham have the logo copyrighted, I don't know about TradeMark, but a lot of their content images are TM'ed. At the same time, the club have emailed me in the past on a number of images they allow or won't allow. No permissions have been given from the club for the image use on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Copyright holder authorization is not really needed for files uploaded as non-free content; it's nice perhaps, but not necessary. en:Trademark and en:copyright are too different concepts; easily mixed up but still different nonetheless. The only time copyright holder permission is really needed for non-free content is as explained in WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. That's primarily intended to prevent phony copyrighted content from being uploaded or yet to be announced copyrighted content from being uploaded. So, if the team has already publically announced this logo or it has been used in reports about the stadium by major media outlets, then there's no real reason why it cannot be used on Wikipedia as long as it's use meets WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I don't remember seeing the image used anywhere else other than the Tottenham website. The website it was uploaded from to me seems like a red-flag. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
If the team “published” (i.e. revealed) the logo on its stadium website, any of its other websites, or provided the logo to someone to use in a news report or PR announcement, then that information can be used to show that WP:NFCC#4 is met. If the team has not yet published the logo and someone inappropriately obtained a copy of it and then published it without the team’s permission (e.g. posted it on some blog or forum), then we shouldn’t really being using that file. Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy doesn’t (at least based on anything I’ve ever seen) require copyright holder permission to use a non-free trademarked logo in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia just wants us to make sure we aren’t uploading any phony logos or inappropriately obtained logos. That’s why the best sites for logo sources are almost always official websites where there’s never any doubt about copyright holder intent. If you can find such a site showing the same logo, then it should be OK to keep and use this file if we can do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. All that may need to be done in that case us to change the source link provided for the file in its non-free use rationale — Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Guatemalan tenors has been nominated for merging

Category:Guatemalan tenors has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Guatemalan singers by voice type has been nominated for merging

Category:Guatemalan singers by voice type has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Explicit a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Soft deletes at TFD

While I would prefer for TFD to operate the way you've closed some things in the past few days, given that PROD doesn't exist for templates, I don't think it's appropriate to be dropping "soft delete" on TFDs given that for NOQUORUM deletes "the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD". The whole guideline section uses "article" for the most part, with only the one use of "XFD" to even imply that non-articles fall under the criterion, leading me to believe that "soft delete" basically doesn't apply.

Let me know what you think. Izno (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: I have always interpreted WP:SOFTDELETE as applying to any namespace where discussion was not forthcoming. The "treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD" bit indicated to me that the deleted page could be restored by request, and not so much about applying PROD to a page outside of mainspace. Perhaps the guideline needs to be reworded for broader use, or the admins at TFD should avoid ticking that box on XFDcloser—if the latter, Primefac may be interested in this discussion, as I took note from their closures at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 21 before applying soft deletion at TFD. Either way, I imagine not much of a difference in handling a contested "delete" outcome where no one other than the nominator opined.
Oddly, if I close a discussion at AFD with low participation as "delete" as opposed to "soft delete", DRV treats such occurrences as "soft delete" anyway (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 12#Morteza Kazemian, for example), so I wonder if the wording carries any weight when headcount is considered. ✗plicit 06:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the concern is - that we're saying "treating it like an expired PROD" or that we're saying "soft deletion". When I see the former, I think "oh, it sat around with zero participation and so now can be deleted without issue, just like a PROD!" For the latter, whether you say "it's a soft deletion" or - as I used to do before WP:XFDC started including the tick box - typing it out manually that there was little or no participation and that I would refund and/or reopen the discussion on request, it's all the same end result.
In other words, saying something is "like" something else doesn't mean it "is" something else. I don't think there are any hard-nosed individuals running to DRV saying "because PROD is invalid in the Template space, a template cannot be deleted based on a PROD-like close". (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
​I don't think closing a TFD as a no quorum/"PROD light" is supported by deletion guideline at its fundamental level because we don't have a PROD for templates. If you call it soft deletion, then what you're doing is still referencing that section in the guideline, which doesn't seem to give the TFD venue that luxury. As for "no one is running to DRV", I think that's because no-one cares about TFD, not because there are no hard-nosed XFDers. :^) Fundamentally, I like operations to be above the board and TFD does not feel like it is when specific discussions are closed that way. (Again, even if I would personally like to close TFDs as soft deletes.) --Izno (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If we think that section supports the practice, I'm sure a BOLD edit will work out changing "articles" to "pages". :') --Izno (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac and Izno: I will bring the issue up at WT:DPR shortly and suggest modifying the wording to be more inclusive. ✗plicit 03:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
One other thing I thought of just now is that this could mean an NAC could close a TFD as delete without any participation in the discussion. While I appreciate the role of NACs at TFD deeply, that feels not-great either. --Izno (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I need help with a page

Hello, The page I created was deleted yesterday George_Cervantes_ Can you please add it to draft mode. I want to work on the page and correct all the mistakes to get the page ready to go. Thank you in advance. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marcorubiocali: Hi, the last time you created the page, you moved the page from Draft:George Cervantes to George Cervantes without going through the appropriate measures of having the draft submitted, reviewed, and approved/declined by a reviewer. Before that, the draft was deleted twice as unambiguous promotion. What will be different this time? ✗plicit 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I will spend time creating a draft that will fulfill Wikipedia's standards and will not submit the draft until going through the appropiate measures of having it review by an admin. This time will be different and you have my word. Thank you in advance. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC) I will contact you directly after I get done working on the draft. This will ensure that it meets all the requirements. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marcorubiocali: The page is now available at Draft:George Cervantes. There is no need to contact me directly, simply follow the instructions of the tag I have added atop of the page to submit your draft for review. ✗plicit 03:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I will follow the instructions. Thanks again. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL

Hey, Explicit. I'm currently working on video game-related new page patrol, and one of the articles is The Indigo Parallel. I was wondering if you'd mind closing out the AfD discussion on the basis of WP:SNOWBALL. Up to you; I know it's not actually a guideline or policy, but there's literally no way the discussion is going to sway to something even resembling contention. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Hi, I'm not seeing a particularly strong case to delete this article per WP:SNOW at the moment. While it will easily result in delete, participation isn't at a level where I personally see a need to end the debate a little early. ✗plicit 09:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Explicit: Fair enough. I've turned an AfD discussion around before too, so I see no issue with letting this one go gently into that good night with the slimmest possibility that someone could come along and turn the debate on its head. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

PRODs

I noticed there was no Wikipedia page for the Institute of Art and Ideas so I started creating a draft, but then found your comment in the deletion log. I've tried to understand this because it seemed to me the IAI is clearly a notable organisation. The website has leading academics from many fields and is a research resource for students. They also organise a philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn Festival (I've been to the festival and other IAI events several times). There is surely value in the public understanding of the organisation, especially given the academic nature of the content and its use by students (I know someone whose university subscribes to the IAI) and other educational platforms. I see you mentioned a lack of good sources for the page. I’d like to have a go at this - there are a great many sources that could be cited. The IAI site itself of course carries a very large amount of content in video and article form and I would’ve thought this is evidence of what the IAI does. As your proposed deletion has now expired, would you recommend that I contest the deletion, or should I initiate a new IAI page? KnowledgeSpreader843 (talk) 16:24 03 November 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@KnowledgeSpreader843: Hi, whether you want to contest the deletion is up to you. Per WP:CONTESTED, any page deleted by PROD can be restored upon request, so reverting the action would be uncontroversial. If you happened to use the content from the deleted page as a foundation for your draft, it should be restored because attribution is legally required. I could perform a history merge of the two pages if needed. ✗plicit 02:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your assistance. All very helpful. In line with your recommendation, I will request restoration of the page as a draft. I will then make improvements to the page and post to the mainspace. KnowledgeSpreader843 (talk) 14:26 05 November 2021

Deleted redirects

I removed the links to Rites of Spring Festival [redirect] which you deleted. Since I don't have access to deleted pages, you can provide me a list of them. Sikonmina (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sikonmina: Hi, these are the other redirects which I also deleted: RoSfest, ROSfest, Vanderbilt university's rites of spring, Rites of Spring Music Festival (Vanderbilt University), and Rites of Spring (Vanderbilt University). ✗plicit 02:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

JackTheWaldo Request for User Rights

Hey there Explicit. Please receive an admin rights to JackTheWaldo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackTheWaldo (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Neal Ludevig

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neal Ludevig. 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! After this the deleted page still has backlinks. Do you remove them or should I? Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Geschichte: Hi, I have unlinked the page just now. I remember accidentally exiting a tab after closing a discussion a few hours ago, but because I was in incognito mode at the time, I ended up losing which one it was exactly. Thanks for finding it! ✗plicit 09:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I was also wondering about the ethnicity pages you deleted five hours ago? Want me to clean up the backlinks? Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

SDZeroBot G13 soon list for 11/8/21

Hello, Explicit,

I just wanted to give you a head's up about tomorrow's G13 list. In spring 2021, editor Fram had questions about another editor's many articles about geographic locations and draftified all of their page creations. Months later, editor 1234qwer1234qwer4, using the AWB tool, made a mass edit that affected a great many drafts, including those draftified by Fram. Due to this mass draftification and this mass AWB edit, tomorrow's G13 soon list is enormous, 512 drafts in total, with 165 drafts expiring during the 10:00 UTC hour and another 56 drafts during the 15:00 UTC hour.

When I saw this last week, I was concerned that this would mean that it wouldn't be possible to properly evaluate all of these drafts to see if they were worthwhile and so I've been doing minor edits to some of them to postpone their deletion for another 6 months, so they wouldn't all be expiring at the same time. In hindsight, I'm not sure this was the best decision but I don't think this situation, a mass draftification and a mass AWB edit affecting drafts, will happen again any time in the future. But I wanted to let you know that when you review SDZeroBot's G13 list for tomorrow, a lot of these drafts will have edits that postpone their deletion until next spring. Even with these edits, it will still be a large list of expiring drafts.

Thank you and I hope all is well in your life. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sze-Piao Yang

So, nothing about my response on the talk page of Sze-Piao Yang? SilverserenC 00:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Hi, your argument was about notability, but that wasn't the concern. G5 is meant to deter sockpuppets from coming back, as their edits are no longer welcomed in the community. I have copied the page's contents here, and you are free to recreate the article. If there are other copies of pages you would like, feel free to let me know. ✗plicit 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Charles Kerff...

I guess this mass deletion of articles created by the Sander sock SportsOlympic is needful but is it possible to move this deleted content to Draft space so I could take a look at it and work on getting it into an article? The sourcing on many of these early cyclists might be somewhat sparse but they and their names are important to the history and gestalt/ethos of the sport of cycling. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also posted about this general issue over at User talk:Materialscientist#Re: Patricia Pepper.... Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hi, restoring the page into draftspace would ultimately not solve the G5 issue. Instead, I have copied the page's contents here if you'd like to start a draft or just re-publish the article. ✗plicit 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - am working on it. Shearonink (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

All in the Family Wait

I think I messed up, should I re-create and redirect the index links ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Or I could edit the index page and replace with correct links. This sounds better, unless there's something about index pages I don't know. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Or the bot will update the links on its next run. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@FlightTime: This has been a very confusing talk page experience. 😀 ✗plicit 00:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Sunder Deep Group of Institutions (2nd nomination)

Can you revisit your recent close here? Shortly after your close it turned out that the nominator and first poster were blocked as a sock puppet. I'd think it should be a procedural keep, with no valid nomination. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I have reverted my closure. However, per WP:SK#4, debates that receive good-faith comments from other editors are usually not closed as speedy keep. For this reason, I have relisted the nomination instead. ✗plicit 00:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Not exactly a stellar article I see ... What a mess - if it's really worth deleting, why use sockpuppets to get it done? Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Photo

Hey, I hope you are doing well. I need a help. Actually first time I have created an article about film named Ganapath so I don't know how to upload film photo. So please help me by adding the film photo. Trakinwiki (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Long-ago deleted non-free book cover

Hi Explicit. Is there any way you can restore this image of the book cover for Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s? I had replaced it with what I presumed to have been a free image, but that was wrong and it ended up getting deleted recently... Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.:  Done, file restored and re-added to the article. ✗plicit 23:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I need help with a page

You proposed and subsequently deleted a page in October for a game designer and writer that I need to site that no longer exists. It's unclear why it was deleted as he's very easy to find on the internet. Maybe the links became outdated? Stephen_Dinehart. Please restore it at your soonest convenience with any notes about specific issuses. Happy to update any links if need be. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garygygaxjr (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Garygygaxjr: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Albert Bers

Hi - I didn't agree with your deletion of Albert Bers, especially since I (not the article creator) removed the speedy deletion tag in good faith. Please could you either undelete the article or restore it to my user space? Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Hi, the speedy tag was re-added to the page by the original nominator about 18 minutes after you had removed it. Albert Bers was a textbook violation of WP:CSD#G5, so restoring it in any capacity would ultimately not resolve the matter. Instead, I have copied the page's contents here if you would like to re-publish the article. ✗plicit 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

World of Comedy Film Festival

Hi Explicit, you closed the deletion discussion about World of Comedy Film Festival recently. I've asked for a deletion review since I think the AfD missed some source material which may mean the subject passes GNG. Here's the DRV in case you want to comment. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Re:_User:MattKirby/sandbox

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spencer#Re:_User:MattKirby/sandbox Img Backup: https://share.getcloudapp.com/4guPNnpO

Hello Explicit, thank you very much for your time..

I'm hoping to have my sandbox restored so that I may adjust the copy to read as more neutral and become more compliant with WikiPedias publishing standards. The above links chronicle the discussion I had with Spencer, regarding the context of my speedy deletion.

In summary, I want nothing more than to be compliant with Wikipedias standards and the initial draft admittedly have some biased/promotional copy in the intro, but the infobox and the history and acquisition section were bulleted, objective, single-sentence lines that were supported by numerous and diverse sources.

I'm not looking for hand-holding, nor am I trying to rush this page out for completion, there is a lot of documentation to go through and I am working diligently to be adherent to WikiPedias standards, so I am simply asking for a second chance to revise and re-work the material to be stringent to Wikipedia's standards. 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattKirby (talk • contribs)

United Football Club

Hello Explicit, would you consider revising your close for this AfD from deletion to redirection (to Adelaide Plains Football League) as per Nelertasta's suggestion as a suitable alternative to deletion, consistent with the several similar Australian football club AfDs that have been closed recently? Thanks – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Teratix: Hi, seems like a reasonable request, so I have restored the page and redirected it to Adelaide Plains Football League as suggested. Cheers. ✗plicit 12:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of File:Palm Beach Atlantic Univ. logo.png

About a month ago, you deleted File:Palm Beach Atlantic Univ. logo.png as it was an unused fair-use image. Apparently it was removed from Palm Beach Atlantic University by a vandal. Can you please undelete the file so we can place it back in the infobox of that article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you very much! ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh crap

I didn't realize I reverted DumbBot. That must've been a misclick on my watchlist. Thanks for undoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I figured that might have been the case. No harm done! ✗plicit 01:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia).jpg

This file File:Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia).jpg, which was uploaded by me here on Wikipedia, had a much higher resolution than the one that has been uploaded on Commons by the same name somebody else. My file was deleted because of the other one being available on Commons. Also, I can't go to Commons and upload a new version of it, as I am bloched there. Please tell me what to do. Peter Ormond 💬 02:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 03:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: No worries. Had a slight struggle with FileImporter not working with me, but I got it done. ✗plicit 03:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

i dont know

  • I am the one who uploaded the image on kim seon ho article

i am not clear on how to say about the replacable thingamajiggy - NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@NelsonLee20042020: Hi, please see Wikipedia's guideline regarding non-free content. Basically, we are generally not allowed to upload fair-use images of people if they are still alive, like you did with Kim Seon-ho. As policy states, our mission is to use as little copyrighted content as possible, so we rely on free content when it's available. This article already has a freely licensed image, and there are four others available at the moment. These should be used instead. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you do not mind, but i want to know clearer on what do you mean? --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding User:Tim Hudson - Actor

You may want to watch User:TimDavidHudson seems to be connected. Mako001 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Alternate Mako: Hi, I've deleted the userpage as U5 and blocked the new account as well. I will be leaving the original account a notice. Please feel free to launch a sockpuppet investigation should the abuse of multiple accounts continue. ✗plicit 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible COI? Unclear

Hi Explicit. I was wondering if you could help me sort out some stuff with the editors Հայկուհի Կարապետյան and Արմենուհի Կարապետյան. I think there is a possibility of some COI and maybe undisclosed paid editing, but I don't know if the evidence is solid enough.

Both editors have been active in creating/editing the articles Galaxy Group of Companies and Gurgen Khachatryan (one of the business's founders). The usernames seem to be real names in Armenian; if you search on the surname along with Galaxy Group, you will find a connection with one of the company's executives. It should also be noted that the draft article Draft:Galaxy Group of Companies was declined, and that you deleted Draft:Gurgen Khachatryan (entrepreneur)... but despite this, Հայկուհի Կարապետյան created Gurgen Khachatryan in the mainspace anyway, and also moved a user subpage of Արմենուհի Կարապետյան (User:Արմենուհի Կարապետյան/Galaxy Group of Companies) to the mainspace as Galaxy Group of Companies.

Both editors have been left with conflict of interest notices; Հայկուհի Կարապետյան has continued without offering any kind of disclosure, or communication of any kind for that matter. I concede this evidence is pretty circumstantial so I don't know if it's enough to raise concerns at WP:COIN. What do you think? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drm310: Hi, it seems to me that there is enough here to warrant a thread at WP:COIN, especially as previous attempts to communicate with both accounts about their potential COI have fallen on deaf ears. As the introduction of COIN states: "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." This holds especially true if you believe that UPE may be occurring. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Jatoi

Hi! I see that Jatoi tribe, Jatoi (tribe) and Jatoi (Baloch tribe) were deleted per G8. I can't see what's gong on there, but could it be that some of these got redirected somewhere odd in the recent past, and that there actually was a more sensible state of affairs before that? – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Hi, Jats of Balochistan was recently moved into draftspace by Mccapra at Draft:Jats of Balochistan. Its redirect was suppressed in compliance with WP:CSD#R2, leaving these three redirects pointing to that red-linked page. The first and third redirected to Baloch people at one point, while the history of the second and third shows that they were once articles; the former contained one source before being redirected and the latter was unsourced, gutted, and then redirected. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Jats of Balochistan was created a few months ago, while the redirects had been around for years. I don't think we should end up deleting them because of what looks like a completely unrelated article. Would you mind undeleting them, so I can take it from there? I plan to restore the oldest article, retarget the others to it, and then have a look for sources (from what I see so far, the tribe exists). If I don't find anything substantial, I'll send it to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Uanfala:  Done, all three restored. ✗plicit 00:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles by MrInfo2012

Hi, I noticed that user Materialscientist deleted the pages created by the MrInfo2012. The reason is that the blocked user has created pages in violation of rules and created a fake account. I wanted to ask you for guidance in this regard and request that the deleted pages be returned. This user's argument is generally wrong and the user MrInfo2012 has not used sockpuppet account and the deleted articles were created before the user was blocked and are not subject to G5 rule. Thanks 46.209.112.178 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explicit/Archive_41&oldid=1059386139"