User talk:Explicit/Archive 46
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Verónica Segura
Explicit, please provide your rationale for deleting the page via WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#Verónica Segura, or what was your consideration of the restore vote. Jay 💬 23:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jay: Where is this "restore" !vote you speak of? "If notable, restore pre-BLAR revision." Was this comment supposed to be that argument despite the zero effort made to prove so? ✗plicit 23:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the vote, and it was not a comment. Let me know if you thought so because I started the sentence with "Note". I don't understand the "zero effort" part. I did not have to make any effort, as multiple voters felt the subject is notable. Let me know if you felt the subject is not notable. Jay 💬 02:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jay: All the comments above yours !voted to delete the redirects. I don't see how that can be construed as other participants believing the subject is notable. Pppery wrote, "If this is kept, the current target is best", which would have been based on consensus determining to keep the titles as redirects. Mellohi! stated, "let an article take its place when appropriate", indicating that they do not see it as appropriate at this time, and Sonic678 supported deletion "to encourage article creation when appropriate", which echoes Mellohi!'s comment. You supported restoring the article "If notable". You did not argue that the subject was notable, nor did anyone else. ✗plicit 02:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Different voters gave different rationales for deletion. You are yet to reply to what was
your rationale for deleting the page
. What do you think they meant bywhen appropriate
? I saw it as "when there is content available" and not as "when she becomes notable", and my point was if she's notable, then content is already available, and all it takes is to restore it. Jay 💬 02:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)- @Jay: Yes, different rationales which include her not being mentioned in one target (Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones), mentioned in two others that are separate topics (List of Star Wars characters#Cordé, 7 mujeres, 1 homosexual y Carlos, and my search just now also revealed a third—Bandido (2004 film)), and to encourage article creation when appropriate. These arguments combined are my rationale for closing the discussion as "delete" as there was consensus to do so. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to interpret these comments as being about content when no such thing is mentioned, and even yours which clearly states it's about notability? ✗plicit 03:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You have not replied to the question of
What do you think they meant by "when appropriate"?
. Also you did not reply toLet me know if you felt the subject is not notable.
A deletion rationale ofencourage article creation when appropriate
either implies no content or not notable. If you are suggesting "not notable", how did you reach that conclusion, when none of the voters said so? Jay 💬 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)- @Jay: I do not have a view on the subject's notability as I have no idea who she is, nor did I determine when it is or isn't appropriate to create an article. That conclusion was reached by the participants. The point of the matter is that the other three !voted "delete" and that's what they meant. Regarding "A deletion rationale of 'encourage article creation when appropriate' either implies no content or not notable", well, that's your binary view on the matter. As I mentioned in my response directly above, there was several other factors at play which resulted in my closure. ✗plicit 04:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Voters may state Delete and provide any reason, but it is the closer who has to tie it to a deletion criteria. Delete to
encourage article creation when appropriate
is not a deletion criteria. If it was WP:R#D10, you'll have to say how this deletion fit that. The onus is on you to provide a rationale other than that multiple voters used the word "Delete". You may interpret voter's words but also be convincing when the close is objected to. You can always revert and/or relist and let another closer take a call. Jay 💬 04:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)- @Jay: I have explained as much as possible and you simply do not agree, so we have reached an impasse. DRV is that way. ✗plicit 12:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary I have had to prod a lot to get answers from you. And you are yet to answer the first question
what was your consideration of the restore vote.
You either consider or do not consider my vote depending on whether the subject is notable. And you have stated you don't have a view on the subject's notability. However, if you read the discussion right, and made the right call in the end, that is all that matters for now. Pinging Mellohi! and Sonic678 to know what they meant bywhen appropriate
. Jay 💬 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)- I do not believe that targeting an actor to a film they appeared in is appropriate, especially if they appeared in multiple unrelated films. Deletion is fine. By "when appropriate", I mean if they are notable to have an article in the first place. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in the same boat at Mellohi! By my !vote I mean when she is deemed notable enough to have an article, and we can find reliable sources-it might WP:ASTONISH people if they're searching for an article about the person herself. Deletion is another option if that doesn't work. Regards, SONIC678 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary I have had to prod a lot to get answers from you. And you are yet to answer the first question
- @Jay: I have explained as much as possible and you simply do not agree, so we have reached an impasse. DRV is that way. ✗plicit 12:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Voters may state Delete and provide any reason, but it is the closer who has to tie it to a deletion criteria. Delete to
- @Jay: I do not have a view on the subject's notability as I have no idea who she is, nor did I determine when it is or isn't appropriate to create an article. That conclusion was reached by the participants. The point of the matter is that the other three !voted "delete" and that's what they meant. Regarding "A deletion rationale of 'encourage article creation when appropriate' either implies no content or not notable", well, that's your binary view on the matter. As I mentioned in my response directly above, there was several other factors at play which resulted in my closure. ✗plicit 04:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You have not replied to the question of
- @Jay: Yes, different rationales which include her not being mentioned in one target (Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones), mentioned in two others that are separate topics (List of Star Wars characters#Cordé, 7 mujeres, 1 homosexual y Carlos, and my search just now also revealed a third—Bandido (2004 film)), and to encourage article creation when appropriate. These arguments combined are my rationale for closing the discussion as "delete" as there was consensus to do so. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to interpret these comments as being about content when no such thing is mentioned, and even yours which clearly states it's about notability? ✗plicit 03:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Different voters gave different rationales for deletion. You are yet to reply to what was
- @Jay: All the comments above yours !voted to delete the redirects. I don't see how that can be construed as other participants believing the subject is notable. Pppery wrote, "If this is kept, the current target is best", which would have been based on consensus determining to keep the titles as redirects. Mellohi! stated, "let an article take its place when appropriate", indicating that they do not see it as appropriate at this time, and Sonic678 supported deletion "to encourage article creation when appropriate", which echoes Mellohi!'s comment. You supported restoring the article "If notable". You did not argue that the subject was notable, nor did anyone else. ✗plicit 02:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the vote, and it was not a comment. Let me know if you thought so because I started the sentence with "Note". I don't understand the "zero effort" part. I did not have to make any effort, as multiple voters felt the subject is notable. Let me know if you felt the subject is not notable. Jay 💬 02:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Mellohi! and Sonic678, thanks. So you meant when notable
by when appropriate
. While voting, did you verify whether the subject is notable, and concluded that she is not notable as of now; or did you want that decision of notability to be taken by others? I know that I did not check while voting, which is why my If notable
condition. If not then, have you happened to check whether the subject satisfies notability now that we are reviewing the subject again? Jay 💬 08:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted draft
I was not even finished with the first paragraph. Could you please provide a suitable reason for why you deleted the draft “Larrikins”?
P.S. I am new to Wikipedia so sorry if I’m in the wrong here Lightning Studi Boo (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Explicit! I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to send you a note to let you know that I've undeleted the file in the title, as the uploading user discussed it with me on IRC and let me know that they're going to use it on Yashomati Maiyaa Ke Nandlala here shortly. If you have questions or objections, please let me know as soon as possible (ping me if you respond here) so that we can discuss it. Thanks, and I hope you have a great rest of your day! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Hi, thanks for the notice. I have removed the {{di-orphaned non-free use}} tag. ✗plicit 11:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Explicit - You're welcome! :-) I figured that you'd be fine with it, but I always leave a note to an administrator if I reverse one of their actions, even if I know that they won't care. If anything, it's courteous (since they might want to know why out of curiosity), and it might save my bacon if I overlooked something and if they tell me why what I did was not a good idea. ;-) Thanks for removing the tag as well. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. Until we meet again... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
IfItsX: Please do not delete me, I'm real and I'm here
I am not a frequent contributor. However, I do on occasion make a contribution by editing a page that is of interest to me and that contains erroneous links. I am concerned especially with the misinformation on the Lady Justice page which asserts that somehow Roman culture appeared before Hesiod and the Classical Greeks. I respect that our Wiki community of users requires people with the type of dedication that your have made. However, please respect my right and need to participate, as well. IfItsX IfItsX (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Sarigamalu
I was in process of updating references in Sarigamalu, kindly dont delete sourced pages without discussion. It takes lot of time, and internet charges, and man hours to create articles. I have added refimprove tag. Fostera12 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Fostera12: Sarigamalu was deleted as a result of an uncontested WP:PROD, which does not require discussion. The effort it takes to write an article is not a sufficient reason to keep pages around if they do not meet the notability criteria. Pinging DareshMohan, who originally nominated the article for deletion, in case they are interested in take this to WP:AFD. ✗plicit 14:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It was a film released theatrically and was an official remake of a malayalam film called sargam with same actors casted in a different language Telugu, with a screenplay and story by T. Hariharan, who directed the original malayalam version, and how come it doesnt come under notability ? It is one of the notable films directed by prolific filmmaker of the region Kranthi Kumar. KIndly listen and see here use your best brain also here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2iBafrwvQY), and who is this half brain DareshMohan to decide on its notability, blindly deleting all new film articles, it is wikipedia that decides notability. It is a publicly released film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BjhkkMdqBI) and it is notable. And more citations will be added by me soon. And how can u speak so abusively, irresponsibly and disrespectfully towards fellow editor by saying editors effort is not important in creating and improving quality of wikipedia articles ? Use your common sense and your mind when reviewing articles for their notability. Kindly Do not rent or lease Daresh mohan's brain, personal and biased opinions. I am not simply mad and brainless editor to create non notable film article. I just checked Daresh Mohan's talk page, and all most all pages senselessly nominated by him for deletion have been recreated. He is simply wasting wikipedia resources and time by recklessly nominating articles for deletion. Please advise to stop his non sense, and abusive behavior. Looks like he is totally confused with notability vs additional citations. Fostera12 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:ANI#Personal attacks by User:Fostera12 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sarigamalu has been recreated despite the PROD. Since the last source is something, maybe send it to AfD? DareshMohan (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Payame Afghan TV.jpg
Greetings. This image was deleted by you for F9 but I forgot to put a valid fair use license after exporting to Commons. Can you restore the image? WR 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Weaveravel: Hi, where do you plan to use this logo? Payam-e-Afghan has a different logo in the infobox and policy only allows one non-free logo per article. ✗plicit 23:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- That article as an old logo. I believe it qualifies as PD-textlogo under US law. --WR 23:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Weaveravel: I hadn't realized that logo was hosted on Commons; it is definitely too complex to qualify for PD-textlogo, so I have nominated it for deletion there. So File:Payame Afghan TV.jpg will be used in the infobox instead of the current file, correct? ✗plicit 00:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The idea was to have that deleted JPG logo on the article as an old logo of the channel in question (on Commons under PD-textlogo) alongside the current channel logo which is the PNG one (and which you've just nominated). I thought they would both be below the threshold, but if the current logo (the PNG) fails at that and is deleted from Commons, it will have to be reuploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free logo type license image.--WR 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Weaveravel: I think your best bet would be to upload the infobox logo here on Wikipedia as fair use. This can be done before deletion of the Commons file takes place. ✗plicit 00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Weaveravel. Just going to add that the non-free use of former logos tends to be quite hard to justify as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFCC#3a. Generally, simply wanting readers of the article to see the former logo is not considered a sufficient justification for non-free use and the logo itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary found somewhere in the article. So, even though it's technically possible to use multiple non-free logos in the same article, it's quite hard to do so since most of the time there's no policy compliant justification for doing so; this is why "only one non-free logo per article" has sort of become common practice. Now, if you can find some sourced critical commentary about the other logo or perhaps about the station's change in branding which direct discusses the other logo and how or why it was being changed, then maybe there would be a way to justify the other logos use in the article. Without any kind of sourced critical commentary, I doubt a consensus could be established in favor of using multiple logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for informing. In that case the current logo should just be moved to Wikipedia as a non-free. --WR 20:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The idea was to have that deleted JPG logo on the article as an old logo of the channel in question (on Commons under PD-textlogo) alongside the current channel logo which is the PNG one (and which you've just nominated). I thought they would both be below the threshold, but if the current logo (the PNG) fails at that and is deleted from Commons, it will have to be reuploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free logo type license image.--WR 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Weaveravel: I hadn't realized that logo was hosted on Commons; it is definitely too complex to qualify for PD-textlogo, so I have nominated it for deletion there. So File:Payame Afghan TV.jpg will be used in the infobox instead of the current file, correct? ✗plicit 00:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- That article as an old logo. I believe it qualifies as PD-textlogo under US law. --WR 23:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, I would like to have a look at the deleted article about the figure skater Andreas Nordebäck. He won a bronze medal at the 2022 CS Finlandia Trophy (international senior-level event in Wikipedia:NSKATE) this Friday. --Kallichore (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kallichore: Hi, a copy of the contents is available here. Please let me know if you'd like the article to be restored. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. Yes, I would like the article to be restored. I can add the success at the 2022 CS Finlandia Trophy then, which in my opinion shows the notability. --Kallichore (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kallichore:
Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 00:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kallichore:
- Thanks for the answer. Yes, I would like the article to be restored. I can add the success at the 2022 CS Finlandia Trophy then, which in my opinion shows the notability. --Kallichore (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Restore
Hi, please restore this file for Karwan-e-Zindagi. Thanks.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 06:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Owais Al Qarni: Done, file restored. ✗plicit 06:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Rfd close
Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_3#Delaware_River_Valley, while I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion, I'm not sure there is sufficient consensus for deletion if a nominator proposes retargeting and a single other participant favors deletion. I would have liked to have seen more discussion and would think a relist would have been the best move here. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Does this meet CSD?
I would like your thoughts on whether User:ChikkOr meets the speedy deletion criterion. It belongs to the same LTA that created four other accounts whose userpages you deleted under U5 (User:EitherTiger, User:EidosEither, User:CommodoreOr, User:CrownOr), but unlike the others, this one isn't explicitly about disrupting Wikipedia. Would it meet U5 anyway because the user was editing in bad faith? G5 might apply, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to formally prove that. Just blanking feels weird, and I'd rather not bother with MfD; I'd appreciate your thoughts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: I'm not sure there's much reason to take any action with this userpage if that's the case. I think leaving it alone is perfectly fine. ✗plicit 03:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Eastern Michigan University College of Arts and Sciences
Hi Explicit! I noticed you deleted Eastern Michigan University College of Arts and Sciences after an expired PROD. I think it'd be more appropriate to redirect it to the parent organization; would you be able to restore it as a redirect? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Hi, yup! I have restored the page and redirected it as suggested. ✗plicit 04:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Washington State University seal.svg
Hi Explicit. You deleted File:Washington State University seal.svg for F5 reasons about a week ago and it somehow seems to be related to what's being asked about at WP:MCQ#Washington State University logo. Was the file that you deleted any one of these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, the deleted file is a copy of the logo found here under the "Seal" heading. Should this be restored? ✗plicit 04:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. It was removed and replaced with File:Washington State Cougars logo.svg, which is what's being asked about at MCQ. File:Washington State University signature.svg is also being used in the article about the university; so, perhaps the thing to do would just be to move that to the top of the infobox. Perhaps the person who asked about this at MCQ will reply and clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Request: undelete Category:October 2022 events in China
Hi, I noticed that you deleted Category:October 2022 events in China at 01:06, 8 October 2022 for it was an empty category (C1). Now 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has been added to this category. It would be great if you could undelete it. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Neo-Jay: Done, category restored. ✗plicit 11:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
License review - Commons
Hello @Explicit, Hope you're doing well. Can you do the license review for Vaishali Takkar. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- @C1K98V: Done, files reviewed. ✗plicit 06:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Happy with your quick G7 and file review. Hope you enjoyed! Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Please restore this. It's in use again, after rollback of copyvio upload. (UPD: will be in use immediately, some vigorous user keeps removing file link until the file is available). Xunks (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Xunks: Done, the file has been restored. ✗plicit 11:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of Indigo heights - Hotel & Suites
I was going to add advert tag at the top of the article after going through the notice. But before I did this, the article was deleted. Can you revert it so I can add advert tag. Zain Developer (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Deletion: Ashley Crawford (Journalist)
Hi. you deleted the page. What is the process to continue working on it, eg including the citations needed? Viraload (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Viraload: Hi, if you'd like, I can move the article's contents to draftspace. You can continue working on the page there and submit it through the articles for creation process, where the page can be reviewed by experienced editors who can accept the submission or comment on what needs to be done in order to get it moved into mainspace. ✗plicit 23:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- terrific. yes please Viraload (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Viraload: Done, it is now available at Draft:Ashley Crawford (journalist). ✗plicit 07:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Viraload:
- terrific. yes please Viraload (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hi Explicit. Just a heads-up, your edit summary when using XFDcloser to remove links is "Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)", which link to what seems like an irrelevant dab page (and appears with bright yellow on my screen but that's my problem). Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Muhandes: Hi, this is a known issue. After a year and half after it was brought up, a solution does not seem forthcoming. ✗plicit 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed this page was deleted due to "In violation of a ban or block". Is it possible to recover the deleted page to continue working on it? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @PerryPerryD: Hi, this page was created as a redirect to List of The Boys characters#Other G-Men. There is no other content in the history. ✗plicit 23:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting, Thank you for letting me know. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
File:NoWaytoTreatanAnimal
I've just created the above file for the infobox at No Way to Treat an Animal. I now see that the article's creator had tried to add an infobox photo File:Spacey Jane - No Way to Treat an Animal.jpeg which was deleted due to incorrectly applied or non-existent Non-free media information and use rationale.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar: The original image was uploaded while the page was still in draftspace, but the use of non-free media files is restricted to mainspace only. JJMC89 bot removed it and the file was deleted as orphaned. ✗plicit 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Skatcat.jpg
Can you please reinstate File:Skatcat.jpg? The file was added back to MC Skat Cat at 18:57, [1] and then the orphaned fair use template was removed at 18:57 and it was no longer in the category for orphaned file, but you then deleted the file at 19:00. Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deletion: Joanna Arida
Hi! I've noticed that you've deleted my page. I went through your attached lists and do not understand the misuse that I've conducted. I have added valid references along with external links. Is there anything that I could do to better my article? Should I add more references/external links which are available?
Having said this, could you please retrieve the deleted material so that I can have it for future reference or improvement? Thank you for your time. JoannaArida (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
G13 notices
Hello, Explicit,
I just noticed tonight that Firefly Bot stopped posting 5 month notices on September 27th so draft creators haven't been receiving any notices that their drafts were going to be deleted. So, they don't know that they might be deleted or that they can go to WP:REFUND to get them restored.
Until this issue with FireflyBot gets fixed (which might be a while since Firefly is out of town), could you please post a deletion notice on the talk page of page creators when you delete an expiring draft? You can easily set up Twinkle Preferences so this just happens automatically when you delete a stale draft. Thanks for considering this. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like Firefly Bot is back at work! Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- You've been absent today. I hope everything is okay with you. The news reports are pretty horrifying and I hope you weren't caught up in this disaster. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz: Thank you for the concern. I was in fact in Itaewon last night, but I wasn't in the alley where the incident took place. I heard about the death toll as it was happening and didn't expect it to rise so dramatically from 13. I spent my entire day there today and arrived home about half an hour ago. Despite the sunshine, it was a really dark day for us. We're shaken up by the whole situation. ✗plicit 11:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you're OK Explicit. It was really terrible what happened, but I didn't even think about it in terms of Wikipedia people until after seeing Liz's post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz: Thank you for the concern. I was in fact in Itaewon last night, but I wasn't in the alley where the incident took place. I heard about the death toll as it was happening and didn't expect it to rise so dramatically from 13. I spent my entire day there today and arrived home about half an hour ago. Despite the sunshine, it was a really dark day for us. We're shaken up by the whole situation. ✗plicit 11:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- You've been absent today. I hope everything is okay with you. The news reports are pretty horrifying and I hope you weren't caught up in this disaster. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted File:Zimin Foundation logo.jpg
Hello. You have deleted the file as an "unused non-free media file". It is a company logo - and I studied logos of other companies and tried to do similar, sorry that I failed ( Could you please tell me what I should do with the logo not to be deleted? BTW the logo was changed a bit, so it would be even good to upload another file - but how to do it, with which license? Should I write a letter to VRTS in advance? Thank you, Mlarisa (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlarisa: Hi, now that the article has been restored, so has the file. ✗plicit 14:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Mlarisa. Even though the deleted content was restored, it was only restored as Draft:Zimin Foundation (2) so that you can continue to work on it. This, however, means that you can't really use the logo file just quite yet because non-free content isn't allowed to be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9 (see also WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts). So, the file will likely end up deleted per speedy deletion criterion F5 and non-free content use criterion #7 if it remains "orphaned non-free use" for more than seven days since it was tagged for deletion. This is quite common, though, and you shouldn't have any problems getting the file WP:REFUNDed if your draft is someday accepted as an article. So, there's no need to panic an reupload the logo if it ends up deleted. All you need to do is request that it be restored once the draft has been accepted. As for emailing "VRT", you can do that if you are the copyright holder of the logo or officially represent the copyright holder of the logo. What is needed in this case is for the copyright holder to send their WP:CONSENT or c:COM:CONSENT to the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for verification purposes as explained in c:COM:VRT. Before, you or the copyright holder takes such a step, however, you might want to carefully read through WP:COPY, c:COM:L, c:COM:LRV and c:COM:ENFORCE for reference because Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only accept certain types of free content licenses and these tend to have only minimal restrictions placed on reuse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
redirect
Please stop deleting the redirects I create for the articles about Italian regiments I am creating. It's annoying to spend hours making sure the articles are linked and then having them deleted before I can finish the articles they link to. Thank you. noclador (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Noclador: You need to create the articles before attempting to create the redirects for them. They were deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G8 as redirects to targets that never existed. ✗plicit 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Kixx.png
Hi Explicit. I would like you're input on something. File:Kixx.png and File:PhiladelphiaKixx96.GIF were being used as icons in Philadelphia KiXX#Year-by-year before I removed them for various NFCCP problems. Neither logo was also being used in the main infobox; so, my removing of the files made them orphans. It looks like "File:Kixx.png" was being used in the main infobox until someone tried to replace it with File:New KiXX logo.png, but that was uploaded to Commons and subsequently deleted. Can you tell whether the "new" KiXX logo is the same as the "old" KiXX logo? If it is, then perhaps all that is needed is for the older version of the local non-free file to be restored so that the file can re-added to the main infobox. If it's not, then perhaps the "new" version could be uploaded locally as non-free content and used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, the Commons upload was a copy the local file, but of much better quality. I have uploaded it on Imgur. I am currently at work, so I don't have the means to reduce the image and overwrite the file myself. ✗plicit 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Happy Thirteenth Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 | Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Explicit! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |  |
Unattached talk page
You speedily deleted Talk:Kharkhuda, Meerut as a talk page of a nonexistent page, but before being moved today it was Talk:Kharkhoda, Meerut, the talk page of Kharkhoda, Meerut. Could you please restore the talk-page content as of 30 May 2018 (what there is of it) at Talk:Kharkhoda, Meerut, overwriting the redirect that was left there by the move? (I could do this myself, but it seems better not to step on the action of a fellow admin.) Deor (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind. Noticing what time it is where you are, I did it myself. If you have any objection, bring it up at my talk page. Deor (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, any chance that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystic_Deckchairs can be "undeleted"? Is there some way we can add references or tags to get it back live? Thanks in advance. Sim0n (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sim0n: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sim0n (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Approval of editathon in Fountain?
Hi!. I saw in Wikipedia talk:Asian Month that you could approve new editathon in the Fountain-tool. I organize the Swedish edition of Wikipedia Asian Month, and I am trying to create a new editathon i the Fountain-tool (https://fountain.toolforge.org/editathons/wam-2022-sw/ "Wikipedias Asien-månad 2022"). Can you approve this? ...or do you know who I should contact to get the approval? Thank You in advance! BR --Bairuilong (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Bairuilong: Hi, is there any chance that you could provide a direct link to the approval page similar to the one ZI Jony posted? It's quite difficult to navigate the Fountain and the one you posted here doesn't load for me. ✗plicit 05:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fast replay! As far as I can see is the link you mention "general" (https://fountain.toolforge.org/personal/approval). I am not sure if this lead you to "my" editathon? BR/--Bairuilong (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Bairuilong: Unfortunately, it doesn't. I am only able to view the current and previous editions of WAM from the English Wikipedia. Perhaps ZI Jony, the organizer of this year's WAM, may be able to provide better assistance. ✗plicit 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok - Thank you for your answers and effort! I will try to contact ZI Jony. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Bairuilong: Unfortunately, it doesn't. I am only able to view the current and previous editions of WAM from the English Wikipedia. Perhaps ZI Jony, the organizer of this year's WAM, may be able to provide better assistance. ✗plicit 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fast replay! As far as I can see is the link you mention "general" (https://fountain.toolforge.org/personal/approval). I am not sure if this lead you to "my" editathon? BR/--Bairuilong (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of 2023 North Texas FC season
Thank you for your work deleting this page. As a new editor I discovered I should heave redirected it to the properly named page, but unfortunately did not know that until after I copy and pasted my work. Thank you for fixing the error by deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demt1298 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Demt1298: No worries! You can tag pages for speedy deletion with {{db-author}} in the future if you create a page in error. ✗plicit 00:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Request
Hi. Would you please delete Taylor Swift (label) (which was created by blocked user Notsammyray) and S. Carter Records (probably original research).183.171.120.152 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neither of these pages are eligible for speedy deletion. You will need to nominate them for deletion at WP:RFD and WP:AFD, respectively. ✗plicit 03:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Explicit:, could you please review this draft I summited of English actress Elspeth Dudgeon? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi IP 190.219.168.53. You've just submitted your draft to WP:AFC for review; so, it's probably best to wait for an AFC reviewer to get to it. There are really WP:NODEADLINES for something like this. Is there some reason why you don't want to wait until some AfC reviewer assesses the draft? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
AfD clerking
Good morning! For the first time in a few days, I think we managed to avoid edit conflicting on our closes! Always makes me laugh when we do. And also, love your whale edit notice. Have a great day Star Mississippi 15:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Vyas Saurav
Hi! I've noticed that you've deleted my page. I went through your attached lists and do not understand the misuse that I've conducted. I have added valid references along with external links. Is there anything that I could do to better my article? Should I add more references/external links which are available? Vyas Saurav 13:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Explicit, I've blocked this user for incessant self promotion separate from this. If you have a history with them and are convinced they'll edit on something unrelated, feel free to adjust the block without further discussion with me. Star Mississippi 16:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Explicit: I put a prod on this, which you have rejected as "declined PROD - previously deleted via PROD, ineligible again". Since when is a prod ineligible on a completely brand new article. Is that a new process? This is new article that was rewritten from scratch by a new editor and has never proded or xfd'd. When did this rule come into existance? Are you tell me because the previously written article was proded, then new articles can't be proded? It seems a bit weird. scope_creepTalk 02:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Hi, it is not a new process. The recreation of an article deleted by PROD is considered contesting the deletion. Please see WP:PROD##cite_note-8: Any page deleted via this process and then recreated is not subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4, as recreation is a way of contesting the proposed deletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't G4 I used. I wasn't csd. It was Prod. Is a prod considered the same as G4? scope_creepTalk 10:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) The link Explicit provided has an extra number sign, and it should be WP:PROD#cite_note-8 instead. My reading of that particular note is that "any page deleted via Prod and then created is not subject to speedy deletion under G4". I think it explicitly only mentions G4 because by definition an article can only be prodded for deletion once so there's no need to explicitly state the obvious. An article which has been deleted via prod which is subsequently recreated is, in my opinion, essentially no different form an article being de-prodded prior to being deleted. Prod deletions are considered to be WP:SOFTDELETEs and soft-deleted articles can be restored upon request or simply recreated if someone wants to do so, even in bad faith. So, unless there are any other CSD reasons for deletion the second time around, policy seems to imply that the article should go to AfD. I try to think of this as follows: G4 is sort of like a "prod" for recreated articles previously deleted via AfD; so, if G4 isn't applicable, then a re-prodding wouldn't also be applicable. In other words, someone prods an article for deletion for whatever reason, but someone else then subsequently de-prods it. At that point, regardless of whether the de-prodder intends to improve the article, it's no longer eligible to be prodded again. It could possibly be deleted for some other CSD reason, but it can't be prodded again. The same reasoning does, in my opinion, also apply to the recreation of a previously prod deleted article. Even if the recreation still has the same issues as the original, it still would be no longer eligible to be prodded again and would need to be deleted for some other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Marchjuly:, @Explicit: There seems to be some confusion here, I'm definitely confused. It seems to be a slightly different version of the comment on the article to comment above. I think it needs clear consensus, since I've not seen this anywhere else. I can't get access to the previous article that was deleted via whatever (prod possibly) but the comment on the article by technotalk states it's a brand new article. I can't see anything to say its been brought back. I'm going to ask a question at WP:VPP to clarify in relation to this comment. I really don't mind sending it to Afd at all, in any other situation it would already be done. But I'm really not sure what applies here, As far as I'm concerned it's a brand new article, that has its own state and prod is a perfectly valid move. I've done hundreds of prods in a similar situation and have not heard of any change to csd or prod. I can't see the previously deleted version obviously, but I need clear consensus. I'll post the note when I'm finished work and then give you both a shout. scope_creepTalk 14:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- A prod deletion can be deprodded for any reason or no reason at all and an article can't be reprodded once it's been deprodded. So, I guess you could look treat a decline like Explicit's as a deprod even if you think the decline was wrong because you feel the recreation makes the article "new". That would mean that there is no alternative left to AfD or finding some other relevant reason for requesting that the article be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Marchjuly:, @Explicit: There seems to be some confusion here, I'm definitely confused. It seems to be a slightly different version of the comment on the article to comment above. I think it needs clear consensus, since I've not seen this anywhere else. I can't get access to the previous article that was deleted via whatever (prod possibly) but the comment on the article by technotalk states it's a brand new article. I can't see anything to say its been brought back. I'm going to ask a question at WP:VPP to clarify in relation to this comment. I really don't mind sending it to Afd at all, in any other situation it would already be done. But I'm really not sure what applies here, As far as I'm concerned it's a brand new article, that has its own state and prod is a perfectly valid move. I've done hundreds of prods in a similar situation and have not heard of any change to csd or prod. I can't see the previously deleted version obviously, but I need clear consensus. I'll post the note when I'm finished work and then give you both a shout. scope_creepTalk 14:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) The link Explicit provided has an extra number sign, and it should be WP:PROD#cite_note-8 instead. My reading of that particular note is that "any page deleted via Prod and then created is not subject to speedy deletion under G4". I think it explicitly only mentions G4 because by definition an article can only be prodded for deletion once so there's no need to explicitly state the obvious. An article which has been deleted via prod which is subsequently recreated is, in my opinion, essentially no different form an article being de-prodded prior to being deleted. Prod deletions are considered to be WP:SOFTDELETEs and soft-deleted articles can be restored upon request or simply recreated if someone wants to do so, even in bad faith. So, unless there are any other CSD reasons for deletion the second time around, policy seems to imply that the article should go to AfD. I try to think of this as follows: G4 is sort of like a "prod" for recreated articles previously deleted via AfD; so, if G4 isn't applicable, then a re-prodding wouldn't also be applicable. In other words, someone prods an article for deletion for whatever reason, but someone else then subsequently de-prods it. At that point, regardless of whether the de-prodder intends to improve the article, it's no longer eligible to be prodded again. It could possibly be deleted for some other CSD reason, but it can't be prodded again. The same reasoning does, in my opinion, also apply to the recreation of a previously prod deleted article. Even if the recreation still has the same issues as the original, it still would be no longer eligible to be prodded again and would need to be deleted for some other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't G4 I used. I wasn't csd. It was Prod. Is a prod considered the same as G4? scope_creepTalk 10:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Byrne
Hello. Ric Byrne is my father and I was doing my check in on his Wikipedia article just to make sure it was not destroyed in any way, and I found out it was deleted. I reviewed your deletion notes, and I am here to please ask you restore the page. It means a lot to him and I and I don't want to lose this piece of his legacy, considering he can no longer wrestle. I appreciate your time. Swavest (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Swavest: Hi, the page was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion, so I cannot unilaterally undelete the page. You will need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Byrne and prove that the subject meets notability guidelines. ✗plicit 04:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Query
Why "Quran translations into Hebrew Language" is nominated for deletation? জাবিরটটক (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @জাবিরটটক: The reason can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran translations into Hebrew language. ✗plicit 00:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion Blockfi
Why was BlockFi deleted on November 12th? 166.205.87.1 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- BlockFi is live again after being moved to draftspace. ✗plicit 00:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
F8 review request
Hi Explicit. Would you mind looking at File:Flag of Joliet, Illinois.svg and c:File:Flag of Joliet, Illinois.svg. I'm assuming you deleted the local file because someone had uplaoded the same file to Commons, but the Commons file was deleted earlier today and I can no longer see it. FWIW, I came upon these files via WP:MCQ#Why did my flags with seals on them don't comply with criteria 3a? since the Joliet flag file on Commons was being used as part of an WP:OTHERIMAGE type of argument. If the local file you deleted was pretty much the same as File:Seal of Joliet, Illinois.svg, then perhaps there's no need to restore it unless you feel further discussion about how 3a applies to these things should take place at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, the local deleted file is indeed just File:Seal of Joliet, Illinois.svg set to a white background and its use would not comply with 3a. ✗plicit 05:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Can you check to see whether the uploader of either of the two files was Frank Zigler or TheVexillologistofKingwood? For reference, those accounts are the same person; however, it appears to be an attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART and not an attempt to WP:SOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It was neither; the uploader was Jack Ryan Morris. ✗plicit 12:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It was neither; the uploader was Jack Ryan Morris. ✗plicit 12:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Can you check to see whether the uploader of either of the two files was Frank Zigler or TheVexillologistofKingwood? For reference, those accounts are the same person; however, it appears to be an attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART and not an attempt to WP:SOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Michael B. Lavery inquiry
I know this is rather out of the blue and its been almost 3 years since you deleted the page but why was the Michael B. Lavery page deleted? The reason given was he failed to reach notability. However, the notability requirements for Politicians and judges is as follows:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
Notice the state/province–wide office section. Lavery held statewide office as the Chairman of the New Jersey Republican State Committee.
I am going to be re-creating this page sometime in the near future. Do you have any objections to this? Scu ba (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Scu ba: The article was nominated for deletion by another user and remained uncontested after seven days, leading to its deletion. As a neutral party, I do not oppose its recreation. There is also the option to have it restored by request as outlined at WP:CONTESTED. Is this something you'd be interested in? ✗plicit 13:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've never actually gone through a restoration request. I was just thinking of making the article from scratch again later in the afternoon. Thanks for the quick reply! Scu ba (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Paul Carson (actor)
Doubtful but is there any way this page can be restored. I have come across an article from The Sunday Mercury in 1962 entitled "The 'Englishman' from Texas" which gives some more more background on his earlier life such as beginning his acting career aged 6 in several films and radio broadcasts only to give it up to join the American Air Force but come back to it. Dunno if it's any more substantial.Silurian25 (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Silurian25: Hi, the page was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion, so I cannot unilaterally undelete the page. However, I can restore the article as a draft, where you can work on the page and submit it through the articles for creation process if and when you feel it's ready. ✗plicit 11:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Explicit: Alrighty.Silurian25 (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:CoSup_(Conseil_Sup%C3%A9rieur_des_El%C3%A8ves)
Hey could you restore this page? It suffered from a lack of sources and inactivity on my part but i want to start working on it again. Beunhaasje (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Beunhaasje: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 13:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! i will Beunhaasje (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Why did you delete my portfolio? Why are your photos better than mine? You are a god? Delete your page man
why deleted? ?? ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DenTrasher just wtf? DenTrasher (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DenTrasher: Content on your userpage must be about you as contributor to Wikipedia, it is not a personal page for your portfolio. Please see the userpage guideline for further information. ✗plicit 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- my contribution to wikipedia is that I fill out pages about myself, my company and products. this is my portfolio. what else do you need? you also wrote how awesome you are and posted your pictures. don't waste your hard drive space. delete yourself DenTrasher (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Looney Tunes Super Stars' Sylvester and Hippety Hopper: Marsupial Mayhem
I disagree with the decision to remove this article's webpage. Since there is no comprehensive Looney Tunes set- it is important for animation collector's to know where you can find each individual cartoon. This set is one of the most important Looney Tunes sets since it is one of the few that contain a character's entire filmography - in this case, Hippety Hopper and Sylvester Jr. If lack of sources is the problem I've also found another source from Jerry Beck at Cartoon Brew from 2013. [[2]] —Luxoman237 (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Luxoman237: Done – as a contested soft deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Explicit. You might want to take a look at this again since the article you restored has been boldly redirected to Looney Tunes Golden Collection. It would seem that if the soft delete was contentious, then a bold redirect would also be contentious and perhaps a new AfD is needed per WP:BLAR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Explicit You have still not restored the article- it's just been redirected to Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Please do the job properly as you said you would. Luxoman237 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Luxoman237: The article was redirected by Onel5969, so you will have to take the issue up with them. Learn how to handle situations. ✗plicit 02:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Strange non-admin closure of TfD
Hiya. I was just looking around to see what time/date templates are outputting semantic markup i.e. <time>...</time> (sadly it seems none worth mention although I am a tad blurry right now) and found only the rather sad and pointless {{time element}} which was apparently submitted for discussion then closed as "speedy keep" by Q28 after no real discussion and for no apparent reason. I should have been sleeping a couple of hours ago already, so I'm fly tipping this on your doorstep and running away. Enjoy ;) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
109.178.232.14
user:109.178.232.14 is block evading from user:109.178.209.161 and removing my AIV report. 2601:240:CD07:12A2:9D24:7DC8:9D31:A477 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- IP blocked, thanks. ✗plicit 13:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Laura Del-Rivo
Hi, you deleted Talk:Laura Del-Rivo where I had placed some notes in preparation for writing an article. It would be much appreciated if you could retrieve these notes and place them here, on my talk page, or on a sub-page of User:Kellen as appropriate. I do not have the appropriate permissions. Cheers KellenT 23:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kellen: Hi, the content is now avaiable at User:Kellen/Laura Del-Rivo. ✗plicit 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! KellenT 01:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of User:Ndalana
Dear Explicit You have just deleted my username page - I am creating it as part of q:en:Wikiquote:SheSaid event in Cape Town South Africa with User:Islahaddow. Please clarify as to why this deletion was necessary? If I made the edit in the incorrect space, I apologise, just point me in the correct direction. Ndalana (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would love to read your answer Explicit. Thanks. Anthere (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ndalana: Content on your userpage must be about you as contributor to Wikipedia and the deleted version did not contain any mention of Wikiquote. It is not appropriate to write about your blog, your job history, and your organizations. Please see WP:UP#GOALS for further guidance. ✗plicit 00:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Help
I currently used a photo File:Salazar Store 1947 San Luis Valley.png that wasn't approved by the owner and this journey led me to you. I am in hopes to recieve your promission to use the photo because my family is from San Luis Valley and I love history so I wanted to correct and add a few details. Please allow me to share this photo it would mean so much to me?? Let me know if I have your approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Nicole85 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @F.Nicole85: Where was this image originally published and who holds the copyright to this image? Only that person is allowed to modify the licensing terms. On the file's description page, you linked a Pinterest post, which is not particularly helpful in finding this information. ✗plicit 00:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @✗plicit I reached out to directly to Pinterest and requested if they can reach out to the user of the photo but they haven't received a reply from the user SangreNHA and they said it didn't appear to belong to him either so they were not a help. I tried messaging the Pinterest user myself and no still reply. So I was in hopes that I could use this since ther is no owner for the photo... I did a web search and that's the only picture my web browser could find. So do you think I could use it?? F.Nicole85 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @F.Nicole85: Unfortunately, without the appropriate copyright information, I'm afraid this image can not be used at this time. ✗plicit 06:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @✗plicit I reached out to directly to Pinterest and requested if they can reach out to the user of the photo but they haven't received a reply from the user SangreNHA and they said it didn't appear to belong to him either so they were not a help. I tried messaging the Pinterest user myself and no still reply. So I was in hopes that I could use this since ther is no owner for the photo... I did a web search and that's the only picture my web browser could find. So do you think I could use it?? F.Nicole85 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, I hope you're doing well. Can you please restore the above image file, I will use in article Qala (film). Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @C1K98V: Done, file restored. ✗plicit 06:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This article has been deleted by you on 24 February 2022 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primeshow Entertainment) but someone recreated the article and there is no change in it's condition. I have tagged it with WP:CSD G4. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Problem with deleted user page
It should not be possible for anyone else but the original owner to recreate the page. The redirect was proper. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fortidens&redirect=no. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean: I guess you're referring to the deletion of User:Fortidens? You created this as a redirect to User:Lee E Harding, which does not exist. Accordingly, it was deleted per WP:CSD#G8. ✗plicit 03:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- The editor exists. He just hasn't yet edited his user page. The old talk page correctly redirects to the new talk page, and the old user page should also redirect to the new user page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean: The userpage doesn't exist and any redirect that points to it meets the speedy deletion criterion cited above. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. ✗plicit 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Currently, anyone can start using Fortidens as a username, even though it is tied to the existing editor User:Lee E Harding. You don't see that as problematic? The talk page was automatically redirected to User talk:Lee E Harding, and so should the user page. Anyone who started using Fortidens as an account wouldn't have a talk page, creating a very odd situation. All existing mentions of Fortidens and Talk:Fortidens should redirect to Harding's new account name. Although there aren't a ton of such mentions, they do exist. I've been here since 2003, and since 2005 as a registered user, and I'm on my third user name. My previous usernames are not available for use by anyone else, are protected, and I could start using them as legitimate socks if I chose to do so. (See User:Fyslee and User:BullRangifer). Harding should also enjoy those same rights. Just because a user page is red does not mean it doesn't "exist". It just hasn't been edited by its owner. Both User:Fortidens and User:Lee E Harding are red because he hasn't edited them, yet they still exist as his property. Such pages are usually semi-protected. The current situation at User:Fortidens creates broken links. That can be fixed by making the page back into a redirect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- A new development. Harding has now edited his user page, so it is no longer red. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Should I re-direct the Fortidens user page? How (I tried but didn't see how)? Lee E Harding (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lee E Harding, I already did it for you. When you click on User:Fortidens, the redirect happens instantly, but right under your name at Lee E Harding, you'll see that you were redirected, and, if you click that, it will take you back to User:Fortidens. Then look at the history and the code (click the edit link). Everything works fine now. Because you changed usernames in the proper manner, the contribution history was moved/transferred to the new name. Any instances where your old signature exists will now automatically redirect to your new name. That's why your old name must be preserved as a redirect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Should I re-direct the Fortidens user page? How (I tried but didn't see how)? Lee E Harding (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- A new development. Harding has now edited his user page, so it is no longer red. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Currently, anyone can start using Fortidens as a username, even though it is tied to the existing editor User:Lee E Harding. You don't see that as problematic? The talk page was automatically redirected to User talk:Lee E Harding, and so should the user page. Anyone who started using Fortidens as an account wouldn't have a talk page, creating a very odd situation. All existing mentions of Fortidens and Talk:Fortidens should redirect to Harding's new account name. Although there aren't a ton of such mentions, they do exist. I've been here since 2003, and since 2005 as a registered user, and I'm on my third user name. My previous usernames are not available for use by anyone else, are protected, and I could start using them as legitimate socks if I chose to do so. (See User:Fyslee and User:BullRangifer). Harding should also enjoy those same rights. Just because a user page is red does not mean it doesn't "exist". It just hasn't been edited by its owner. Both User:Fortidens and User:Lee E Harding are red because he hasn't edited them, yet they still exist as his property. Such pages are usually semi-protected. The current situation at User:Fortidens creates broken links. That can be fixed by making the page back into a redirect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean: The userpage doesn't exist and any redirect that points to it meets the speedy deletion criterion cited above. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. ✗plicit 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- The editor exists. He just hasn't yet edited his user page. The old talk page correctly redirects to the new talk page, and the old user page should also redirect to the new user page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Explicit, could you please restore this above mentioned file, export it to the Wikimedia Commons and then delete it again locally here? We have received a VRT ticket:2022120210001485. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tulsi: Done, file is now on Commons. ✗plicit 13:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Explicit: There was strong consensus to delete Shahzad Dana but the editor has recreated the article on WP, the exact same article. I've put a speedy G4 on it. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of DFINITY
Why did you delete DFINITY? It had no reason to be deleted at all. What is your reasoning? 156.57.73.23 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- As the deletion summary states, it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dfinity. However, since the discussion had low participation and was deleted in accordance to WP:SOFTDELETE, I have restored the page and reopened the discussion for further consideration. ✗plicit 14:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Question
Thanks for the speedy deletion of those articles by that Join Instagram at Under 13 sock. However, on one of them, it was unclear if it was vandalism at first until you scrolled down and saw the childish whining by COPPA, GDPR, etc. Is there a template to add a comment next to a speedy deletion tag explaining that you need to scroll down slightly to see that the page was created only for vandalism, and wasn't a mistake? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Among Us for POTUS: Hi, the content of the page doesn't necessarily matter if it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user in violation of a block. WP:CSD#G5 applies to any page created by a CD -32 9396SSE sock, regardless of how useful (or useless) the content is. ✗plicit 00:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah I see, thanks. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft page deleted
Hello, I was working on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danilo_Breschi) that I didn't create, but I saw that it was suddenly deleted. You shouldn't delete a page because its creator has been blocked or banned. A page is not tied to the fate of the user who created it. I want to go back to work on that page to try and make it encyclopedic. Could you please restore it? Feliskun (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Feliskun: You weren't "working" on that draft. You made zero edits to it. Indeed, you've only made two edits on Wikipedia, this post, and one to the Talk page of another user on November 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Instead I was working on improving that page, even though I hadn't made any changes yet. Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia Rules, a Draft page should be kept active for at least 6 months. It makes no sense to delete it first. Feliskun (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Creation of an article on Wikipedia
Hello!
I really like the articles you create, publish and edit on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could write an article about Oskar Hartmann, entrepreneur, business angel and international investor, and publish it in the German or English version of Wikipedia.
The article should reflect his professional career, his investments and his philosophy of life.
My name is Emma Rogers
I look forward to hearing from you. Can you take on a task like this? Are you interested in describing Hartmann's biography as an authour? RogEmma (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Zsolt Rózsahegyi
Hi, I'm Zsolt Rózsahegyi, a newly registered and I would like to request the undeletion of my profile deleted by your script. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Rózsahegyi Zsolt 08:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Rozsahegyi.zsolt: Hi, that's going to be a "no" from me. Content on your userpage must be about you as contributor to Wikipedia and the deleted version links to your LinkedIn profile and companies which you founded. This is not appropriate content for userpages; Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Please see WP:UP#GOALS for further guidance. ✗plicit 12:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Explicit, To show that I'm experienced in the topics I will contribute I thought it is important to show my experience. Shouldn't my experiences (eg. the companies I found in this niche market) mentioned or the links were the problems? Rózsahegyi Zsolt 23:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozsahegyi.zsolt (talk • contribs)
Post.news AfD
Hi Explicit! Following up from the undeletion request here, the references I've added at Draft:Post.news should be sufficient to establish WP:NCORP, and would presumably have led to a different outcome at the AfD you closed had they been available/added at the time. Would you mind restoring the draft to mainspace? You may also wish to undelete the talk page there. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Hi, not too long after you posted this message, the draft you were working on was declined by Scope creep for reading like an advertisement. As I only determined consensus based on the discussion, I am not able to unilaterally decide whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines. This is now up to AFC reviewers to decide. ✗plicit 12:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep, with respect (and as an AfC reviewer myself), I think that was a poor decline. You declined it because of reading like an advertisement when the entire draft consists of an infobox and the sentence "Post is a microblogging, social networking service founded by Noam Bardin, former Google employee and founder of Waze." In your comment, you write that "It is all startup type coverage", which is, uh, what I would expect to find for a startup. If your argument is that the sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, I disagree — The Wrap's 900-word explainer is clearly long enough to consistute SIGCOV even by NCORP standards and includes critical commentary not just regurgitating a press release. Nieman Lab's analysis is even more in-depth, at 2000 words, and includes criticism (e.g. "There are a few questionable statements here...") that establishes clear independence.
- I'll chalk all this up to AfC's tendency to be overly strict and plan to restore it to mainspace myself unless I hear reason not to. At that point, anyone who still questions its suitability will be free to launch another AfD if they wish. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: The company is a startup that is still in Beta testing phase. There is nothing that it produces that is notable in terms of WP:NCORP that makes it standout as a notable company. The Nieman Lab article is a detailed description of how the software works and is typical of the type of article that very early stage startups produce to explain what they're product is and how it works. It is a classic example of the early stage PR. The reason the article was refunded from Afd, 2 mins after the discussion was finished with eight folk, is because it hopes to be a replacement for Twitter, so they're look to advertise on here, so folk can see. It is a plain as that, and its nothing else. The only reason it's getting notice is because of the on-going problems at Twitter. If that didn't happen, that company would be absolutely invisible. That is the test. If it comes to mainspace, I will need to send it back to Afd. If it gets to the Baltimore Times, the LA Times, the Telegraph or the Guardian in five years time and had 50 million users, then an article would be notable, but not a company in beta testing. Its an advert. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I would suggest resubmitting it and somebody else will review it. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: The company is a startup that is still in Beta testing phase. There is nothing that it produces that is notable in terms of WP:NCORP that makes it standout as a notable company. The Nieman Lab article is a detailed description of how the software works and is typical of the type of article that very early stage startups produce to explain what they're product is and how it works. It is a classic example of the early stage PR. The reason the article was refunded from Afd, 2 mins after the discussion was finished with eight folk, is because it hopes to be a replacement for Twitter, so they're look to advertise on here, so folk can see. It is a plain as that, and its nothing else. The only reason it's getting notice is because of the on-going problems at Twitter. If that didn't happen, that company would be absolutely invisible. That is the test. If it comes to mainspace, I will need to send it back to Afd. If it gets to the Baltimore Times, the LA Times, the Telegraph or the Guardian in five years time and had 50 million users, then an article would be notable, but not a company in beta testing. Its an advert. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Pardon me, but can you explain how the FUR was insufficient? EEng 02:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: Per WP:NFCI, the following is allowed: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." The image linked above was used in the article about John Wayne Gacy, not Piest. Failing that, the photo itself would require critical commentary, which it also lacked. ✗plicit 03:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Except NFCI is a list of examples of acceptable usage; it's not exclusive or exhaustive. Are you saying you didn't consider the question of the FUR's conformance to WP:NFCCP? EEng 05:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: You mean that lazy FUR that didn't address anything? That is the only thing I considered. ✗plicit 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which of the 10 NFCCs was deficient? Since it's no longer visible, can you quote it/them please? EEng 13:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: This was the FUR prior to deletion. Pretty much boilerplate text that can be used for any file. ✗plicit 00:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm going to need to ask you to look more closely. As it happens I wrote the Purpose text, and I hardly see how
One of the few images available of Gacy's victims, which together help the reader appreciate the type of victim Gacy tended to select
is "boilerplate text that can be used for any file". EEng 00:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)- @EEng: Yeah, I'm still not seeing how this image satisfies the contextual significance criterion as it lacks sourced critical commentary. May as well go to WP:DRV. ✗plicit 01:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm going to need to ask you to look more closely. As it happens I wrote the Purpose text, and I hardly see how
- @EEng: This was the FUR prior to deletion. Pretty much boilerplate text that can be used for any file. ✗plicit 00:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which of the 10 NFCCs was deficient? Since it's no longer visible, can you quote it/them please? EEng 13:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: You mean that lazy FUR that didn't address anything? That is the only thing I considered. ✗plicit 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Except NFCI is a list of examples of acceptable usage; it's not exclusive or exhaustive. Are you saying you didn't consider the question of the FUR's conformance to WP:NFCCP? EEng 05:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the shifts in your reasoning.
- First you said that if a photo of a person is used outside an article about that person, then it must have critical commentary, which isn't true.
- Then you said there was a "lazy FUR that didn't address anything", which is debatable at the very least, since it specifically addressed the photo's function in the article.
- Then you said the FUR (quoted above) was "boilerplate text that can be used for any file", which is obviously untrue.
- Now you're back to saying that the contextual significance criterion requires "sourced critical commentary", which is patently untrue as well.
I'm not saying this FUR is the best, but you seem to be dismissing it outright based on misinterpretation of policy and guidelines. Pinging David Eppstein for a 3O. EEng 04:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem that both the WP:NFCI line "The following list is not exhaustive" and WP:COMMONSENSE are relevant here. If an article on a murderer would be made more informative by a photo of one of the victims, and no free image is available, then it is not possible to produce one for the same reason that it is not possible for the portrait of the subject of an article. The same rationale that the image adds depth of content that would not be possible for text, and is not merely decorative, would seem to apply. And this seems a rare enough case that it is unsurprising for it to be missing from a non-exhaustive list of non-rare cases. The counterargument is not about fair use at all, but rather: the subject of the photo is already a victim, and by exhibiting their photo in an encyclopedia we are in some way making them more a victim. Is that what we should be doing? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. Re your last point, as you mention that's not related to the fair-use question, but rather would need to be resolved on the article's talk page by the editors involved, not by an admin. EEng 05:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) None of this discussion is really related to any "fair-use question" because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. How does seeing that particular image in that section of the article meet WP:NFC#CS because that's seems to be the issue that needs to be resolved for the non-free use to not be considered WP:DECORATIVE. The justification for the image's use given in the rationale seems nice, except it also doesn't seem to the article content in that particular section. There's nothing that I'm seeing in that particular section that would support the purpose given for the image's non-free use; so, it's not clear how not seeing it would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the content about Piest in that section. Anyway, none this seems to matter now, since a freely-licensed image of Piest has been added to the article. That image was uploaded to Commons back in December 2018, which means a non-free one of Piest hasn't satisfied WP:FREER for almost four years now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- There are voluminous detailed sources on Gacy, his crimes, and his victims, and there's little doubt something appropriate could be added to the article. This file was one of seven deleted together by Explicit in this one article alone, and my concern in opening this thread was that an injudicious, blunderbuss approach to deletion is being used, as seen in the above colloquy. I'm therefore concerned that Explicit is deleting files that shouldn't be deleted, and even more concerned that he's failed to comment since I enumerated the shifting and contradictory deletion rationales he's put forth in this particular case. Unfortunately, since the FURs for deleted files are no longer visible to us peons, it's hard to know how widespread the problem might be. EEng 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: As I have previously suggested, you are free to go to DRV. I'd also like to encourage you to take me to WP:ANI. I'm sure your concerns are backed by ample evidence. ✗plicit 01:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Instead of naah-naah-nuh-naah-naah double-daring me to go to mommy and daddy, how about you respond here and now -- substantively, per WP:ADMINACCT -- to what I've said above, and will now repeat: you gave a series of four completely inapplicable rationales for deletion, and another admin has confirmed that. I've been asking you nicely, and you're responding with minimalist disdain.The outcome I'm looking for is not to get you into trouble, but for you to either explain what I'm misunderstanding, or to have the humility to acknowledge that maybe you should slow down and give more careful consideration in the future. EEng 03:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Explicit in case he didn't see the question, and David Eppstein (again -- poor David Eppstein) on the possibility he'll want to counsel his colleague to respond to my genuine concerns about his use of administrative tools. EEng 02:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hello? Earth calling. EEng 23:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. Well, I guess we're left to conclude that your response to having your judgment questioned is just pretend your hearing is defective. EEng 20:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hello? Earth calling. EEng 23:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: As I have previously suggested, you are free to go to DRV. I'd also like to encourage you to take me to WP:ANI. I'm sure your concerns are backed by ample evidence. ✗plicit 01:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- There are voluminous detailed sources on Gacy, his crimes, and his victims, and there's little doubt something appropriate could be added to the article. This file was one of seven deleted together by Explicit in this one article alone, and my concern in opening this thread was that an injudicious, blunderbuss approach to deletion is being used, as seen in the above colloquy. I'm therefore concerned that Explicit is deleting files that shouldn't be deleted, and even more concerned that he's failed to comment since I enumerated the shifting and contradictory deletion rationales he's put forth in this particular case. Unfortunately, since the FURs for deleted files are no longer visible to us peons, it's hard to know how widespread the problem might be. EEng 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) None of this discussion is really related to any "fair-use question" because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. How does seeing that particular image in that section of the article meet WP:NFC#CS because that's seems to be the issue that needs to be resolved for the non-free use to not be considered WP:DECORATIVE. The justification for the image's use given in the rationale seems nice, except it also doesn't seem to the article content in that particular section. There's nothing that I'm seeing in that particular section that would support the purpose given for the image's non-free use; so, it's not clear how not seeing it would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the content about Piest in that section. Anyway, none this seems to matter now, since a freely-licensed image of Piest has been added to the article. That image was uploaded to Commons back in December 2018, which means a non-free one of Piest hasn't satisfied WP:FREER for almost four years now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. Re your last point, as you mention that's not related to the fair-use question, but rather would need to be resolved on the article's talk page by the editors involved, not by an admin. EEng 05:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Possible reupload of F7 deletion
Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Acaballero.jpg and checking to see whether it's just a reupload of File:A.caballero.jpg? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just want to update that the file in question was deleted per F7; so, nothing more needs to be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
AFD nomination withdrawn
Hello Explicit. At the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Cwaik discussion, I withdrew my AFD nomination on 11 December. Unfortunately it looks like this was missed, since the discussion was relisted after a week. So I was wondering if you could please close the discussion as "nomination withdrawn"? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
SPI
Hi! You recently blocked Ricardo Flavio Badoer, who is almost surely a sock of Ricardo Badoer. I've also noticed another likely sock, H118A118. Since the oldest account is stale and you've already blocked another, is a SPI worth the effort? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Drm310: Hi, it probably isn't worth the effort since both accounts would probably be deemed stale. It may be best to wait to see if either account becomes active again or if a new one pops up. ✗plicit 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Why did you delete the film page, Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean?
It seems that you are busy deleting pages. This film is on Amazon Prime. Please reinstate this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capulet1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Capulet1: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 06:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)