| Revision as of 05:45, 30 September 2021 edit45.249.83.52 (talk) →Redeletion of Annwesha Hazra: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:50, 5 January 2025 edit undoDavidgoodheart (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users152,980 edits →A WAM Barnstar for you! | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator}} | {{administrator}} | ||
| {{User:Explicit/Userpage}} | |||
| {{archive box|image=]|search=yes|auto=yes}} | {{archive box|image=]|search=yes|auto=yes}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 55 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Explicit/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Explicit/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| You seem to have closed the discussion as delete, but not actually deleted the redirect. Is this intentional? ] <sub> '']''</sub> 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Hog Farm}} Somehow, the script managed to skip the action to delete. I have done so now. ]] 23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Looks like it happened at ] - I wonder if the WT namespace is somehow causing the script to have bugs. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 05:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Hog Farm}} Oof, XFDcloser fails to strike again. I'll write a note about it at ]. ]] 06:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I only got back to editing Misplaced Pages today, and read the file talk page a little earlier. It was only later in the day that I have time to do some editing and was planning to convert the deletion request to an FFD as the uploader (]) was quite passionate in his defence of the image. Would you be willing to restore so I can take it to FFD? -- ] (]) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Unilateral restoration of other user's pages deleted under U1 speedy criterion == | |||
| :{{Reply to|Whpq}} Very well, I have restored the file. ]] 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks -- ] (]) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Bokontayev.jpg == | |||
| For what it's worth, I do not feel that was justified. I don't know how much of that you've been doing. If a user wants a page that {{Em|they}} created in {{Em|their}} user space gone per ], then it should stay gone. I've been cleaning up thousands of broken userbox transclusions and don't mind doing so, but to force a user to keep something that they did in their user space beyond the time frame in which they feel passionate about it strikes me as wrong. For example, their position on an issue may have changed, and they no longer want to be associated with that opinion. I have seen several instances where users voiced controversial or spiteful opinions (esp. in userboxes), and later voluntarily requested it be deleted with U1. | |||
| Hi Explicit. Can you take a look at ]? This is another file that you've previously deleted twice before (once per F4 and once per F11) that could be a reupload or a new file with the same name. -- ] (]) 07:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If being transcluded was a legitimate reason not to U1 something, then policy would say that. All it does say is, "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page," but this is the first I'm seeing transclusions being claimed as such a "rare" rational (assuming that was your interpretation). I have seen (and cleaned up) hundreds of other such cases where that has not posed an impediment. – <kbd>]]</kbd> 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Holidays!== | |||
| :{{Reply to|voidxor}} Hi, that restoration was based on my understanding that transcluded pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. Although not formally encoded in policy, there was a discussion that took place some time ago regarding the matter at ]. The consensus was that G7—and by extension, U1—does not apply to transcluded content. I believe this is still the current practice, though I can stand to be corrected. If there is perhaps another userbox with the same message, I would not mind replacing instances of this user subpage and re-deleting it. That is the only userbox I remember restoring—I don't recall how I came across it, though. ]] 00:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| And happy new year as well! ] (]) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You Deleted a Page but it's still online. == | |||
| Thank you for pointing me to that discussion about G7. However, I somewhat disagree with the assertion that it applies to U1 by extension. That goes back to what I said about a user not wanting something they created in their space anymore. Also, strictly speaking, I'd say "templates" are in template space; userboxes in user space are not templates, per se, even though they are transcluded. | |||
| @] I was going to nominate a page for deletion but discovered it had been nominated in the past and ended as delete. I am surprised that the page (] is still online. What's happening? ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If transcluding users really want to keep a userbox (and they probably won't feel passionate about it, as there are a million userboxes), I'd look to ] as the answer. I have seen that done dozens of times for userboxes deleted with U1 or G7. If you don't object, I'll move this userbox out of the user's space, and update the transclusions. Thanks. – <kbd>]]</kbd> 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}}{{ping|Joseph4real1995}} It appears the article was recreated per ]. There appears to have been a disagreement as to whether ] applied to the recreation. I can't see the original article that was deleted, but Explicit can. I'm sure Explicit will figure out whether the article needs to go to AfD again or meets the criteria for G4. -- ] (]) 14:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| :{{Reply to|voidxor}} That sounds reasonable. Please feel free to ping me if deletion of the resulting redirect is needed. ]] 00:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 15:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I updated the 66 transclusions, so you can delete that redirect if you want. I guess U1 still applies. I'd just mention the refund to ] in your deletion summary so that others can manually follow the move. Thanks again. – <kbd>]]</kbd> 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article ], as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, ] (]) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==User Pirhayati== | |||
| and</s>Happy New Year! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Dear '''Explicit''', Please nominad ] for deletion for violating Misplaced Pages rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (''']''', ''']''' and ''']'''), based on ''']'''. Also in '''Persian Misplaced Pages''', '''''' '''deleted 4 times''' by ''']''' and '''''' just nominated for deletion by a admin. According by ''']''' He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. ] (]) 05:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|MMA Kid}} As {{np|Nardog}} ] to you, you will need to report the user at ] or ]. ]] 10:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Prod on ] == | ||
| Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found ], which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (''Boston Globe'') and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, ] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] should not have been deleted it has the proper rationale for free usage and I was tired of arguing with a bot that kept removing it from the page. The bot's owner finally fixed the bot and stopped marking it as not having proper rationale. I was about to put it back in the article it was originally placed in. Please undelete it, I don't feel like uploading it again.] (]) 05:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to| |
:{{Reply to|Espresso Addict}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :{{tpw}} Hi Explicit. You might want to take another look at this since there is also ]. The png seems to have replaced the jpg in ], which is what the rationale is for on the jpg's page. {{u|JJMC89}}'s bot was correctly removing the jpg from ] because there was no non-free use rationale provided for that particular use. There's no need for both a png and jpg file, and it seems unlikely, IMO, that a valid rational can be written for the "Amusement Today" article per item 6 of ] and ]; I guess JIACEer can try and add one if he feels differently but he probably should add it to the png's page. My guess though is that it would be hard to establish a consensus for such a thing at FFD. -- ] (]) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is a dated ticket (2020) so it is not the same. The ticket I uploaded is non-dated (VIP on both sides). Item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:JUSTONE do not apply because the image of a generic nondated ticket does not have its own article. There is no page titled Golden Ticket Awards. If someone wants to convert that jpeg to a PNG or an SVG, feel free, but please don't delete it. The ticket was intended to be used on the ] however, it is probably appropriate on the ] page as well. The PNG file really has no justification for its use. The PNG image is of a generic 2020 ticket, and "Best New Ride" was discontinued after 2018. There were actual tickets for "best new ride," (see ) designed every year but it is not the image that is displayed on the page titled ].] (]) 19:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Reply to|Explicit}} Thank you for taking care of this so quickly.] (]) 20:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JlACEer}} When you want to use a non-free file in multiple ways (e.g. multiple times in the same article or a single use each in different articles), you need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for '''each use''' as explained in ] and ]. The bot keeps removing the file every time you add it to ] because you keep adding said file to that article without adding a corresponding rationale for that particular use to the file's page. It makes no difference that you replaced the png in ] with the jpg Explicit restored; you still need to add a separate specific rationale for the file's use in "Amusement Today". Continuing to re-add the file without also adding the corresponding rationale isn't {{tq|arguing with a bot}} as you posted above; it's ] (even if you don't meant to do so) with a bot and is something that may lead to you being ]ed if you keep on doing. Bots don't argue; they just keep doing what they've been tasked to do and removing non-free files per ] is what {{u|JJMC89 bot}} has been tasked to do. So, the bot is correctly doing what {{u|JJMC89}} tasked it to do and it's leaving edit summaries explaining why; the only way to stop it is for you (i.e. as the person who wants to use the file) to add the required missing rationale to the file's page for that use.{{pb}}As for the other stuff about the differences between the two files, thank you for clarifying them. What you posted may be true or it may be something needed to be figured out through further discussion; however, you've now made the png file an orphaned non-free file by replacing it which means it will shortly be tagged for speedy deletion per ]. A non-free file can be used in multiple articles as long as each use complies with all ten ]; a non-free file, however, needs to be used in at least one article for it to avoid be tagged for speedy deletion per ]. If you don't want to png to end up deleted, you should find another acceptable non-free use for the file so that it's no longer orphaned. The person who uploaded the png file will receive a notification that it's going to be deleted. If they or anyone else disagrees with your assessment of the file's use in the "Golden Ticket" article, you will be expected to resolve things through discussion.{{pb}}Finally, even if you provide a non-free use rationale for the jpgs use in "Amusement Today", that rationale can still be challenged by another editor who disagrees with your assessment. Therefore, I suggest you should make sure to clarify why the jpg file meets all ten NFCCP in the rationales provided for each of its uses on the file's page. You might also want to consider adding sourced critical commentary about jpg ticket itself, particularly to the "Amusement Today" page to strengthen it's justification for non-free use per ]. Each non-free use needs to meet all ten NFCCP, and failing even ] means the non-free use isn't compliant. Adding a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant. By replacing the png file in the "Golden Ticket Award" article with the jpg, you've actually made a case in favor of applying item 6 of ] to the file's use in "Amusement Today" and this is something you should address in the rationale you provide for that particular use.-- ] (]) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser) == | |||
| == Close the Crystal Paras deletion discussion == | |||
| You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~] (]) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to| |
:{{Reply to|Kvng}} This is a ]. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == |
== File:Rafi malik.jpg == | ||
| Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actress ] to Misplaced Pages Commons?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{Done}}, file transferred. ]] 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of ]? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found ? Do you think this meets ] or should it be tagged with {{tlx|npd}}? -- ] (]) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted file == | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with {{tlx|npd}}. -- ] (]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of Akidearest article == | |||
| Hi Explicit. On March 13, 2021 ] was deleted by you because the article ] was redirected and its content deleted. The content was restored on September 5, 2021 based on a successful appeal. Can you please restore the Lothlorien logo file so I can use it in the article. Thank you ] (]) | |||
| :{{Done}}, file restored. ]] 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Happy new year! | |||
| ::: Great! Thank you ] (]) 01:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. ] (]) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Maehii}} Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an ] submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples: | |||
| ::https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/ | |||
| ::https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest | |||
| ::https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest | |||
| ::https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man) | |||
| ::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) ] (]) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Maehii}} The content is now available at ]. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks so much! ] (]) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (] was missing). I ] the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ] (]) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actor ] to Misplaced Pages Commons?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| : |
:{{Reply to|WikiOriginal-9}} The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| == Mohammad El Medawar == | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. 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.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == In a case like this... == | |||
| Dear Explicit, | |||
| I understand very well your deletion of my article. | |||
| ] was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. ] (]) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The text that I wrote is exactly the same as the text written in this Misplaced Pages article below | |||
| :{{Reply to|BusterD}} When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Langston | |||
| ::Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... ] (]) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|BusterD}} I usually use short-term protection if a page is recreated three times in quick succession, like in a month, as I suspect the person loses interest if they are unable to create a page three to six months down the line. You're correct that EC editors can recreate a page if protection is set that way. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ffdc template bot == | |||
| Mr. Michael works as a professor at a university, and I work also as a lecturer in a reputable university. | |||
| Hello. I am currently working on Fatily's task, to remove ffdc templates which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD (]). I came across some cases where your input would be appreciated. eg, ] where the template is incomplete: <code><nowiki>{{ffdc|log=2019 May 3|date=September 2019}}</nowiki></code> (no file name), and ] <code><nowiki>{{FFDC|file_name.ext|log=2024 December 28 |date=December 2024}}</nowiki></code> (incorrect file name). Currently, I have programmed the bot to skip such instances (). What should be done? skip it (no action), or to remove these templates? Courtesy ping to {{ping|CX Zoom|Marchjuly}}, as they were involved in the original bot request/BRFA. —usernamekiran ] 04:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Mr. Michael work in research field of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, and I work also in the research field of the same topics. | |||
| :I just removed the ffdc templates and associated captions from ]. I don't think it was a case of the template being incomplete or otherwise used incorrectly; it's just that everybody forgot to remove it and its associated caption from the article after the FFD related to the relevant file was closed as "Delete". It seems like something a bot should be able to do, but removing the templates is actually something mentioned in point 7.2 of ] as post of the post close cleanup; there are, however, so few admins working at FFD these days that it's probably something that slips through the cracks every now and then. FWIW, I try to go back and check for these templates when I notice the file they're related to has been deleted and will remove them myself, but I probably miss some too. I'm not sure whether there are enough of these cases to warrant tasking the job to a bot, but I'm also not sure how to otherwise find them, except perhpaps digging through the results of a "What links here" search for the template. The problem with the template used in ] seems to be a combination of two user errors, and I've fixed that as well: the person who nominated the file for discussion just forgot to add the template, and the person who subsequently added the template just forgot to add the file's name. I don't know whether those types of errors can be resolved entirely by a bot, and probably some type of human review is also necessary for such cases. However, even when there's no file name provided, the malformed template should still link to the correct date of the FFD discussion; so, its use still sort of works as intended. -- ] (]) 09:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Mr. Michael has multiple publications and he mentioned only 1 reference, and also I have multiple publications and I mentioned 1 reference. | |||
| :{{ping|usernamekiran}} Why did KiranBOt remove ]? The relevant FFD discussion is still ongoing. Is a syntax issue? A false positive? Are you going around checking on KiranBot's removal of these template to make sure it hasn't prematurely removed any of them? -- ] (]) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Marchjuly}} I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to ]? It is transcluded on ] to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran ] 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps {{u|JJMC89}} might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can code the bot any way that you'd like. I mean, dont think about technicalities, I want opinion from you guys about what the bot should remove/update/keep as it is. —usernamekiran ] 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted article IPSOS == | |||
| May I know why my article is deleted while the article of Mr. Michael is available online. | |||
| Hi! Could you please userify this at ]? I've been intending to write an article on the book from which this word was sourced. Kinda weird there was an article on the word but not the book, since there are way more sources on the latter than the former. As I am likely to include some portion of the content of the deleted article, I'd like to make sure the edit history is preserved for that content, unless you think it would be better to restore the article and make it a redirect for that purpose... ] (]) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm willing to listen to you, know what wrong I am doing and to correct my mistakes. | |||
| :{{Reply to|Skyerise}} Hi, I've userfied the page as requested. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My ultimate goal is to have my profile published on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::Thanks muchly! ] (]) 00:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I truly believe that my article is notable (unique), I am not advertising myself, and I have an important award, and a very notable invention in the field of education. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == File:Sankranthiki Vasthunnam Release Date(2).jpg == | |||
| :It looks like a few of the admins you contacted have responded to your questions. My response would be similar, and I don't think I will provide you with any new information. ]] 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The file does not show for me. When I click on the file image or thumbnail image, I get {{tpq|File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.a8/a/a8/Sankranthiki_Vasthunnam_Release_Date%282%29.jpg}}. Do yuou know what would cause this? -- ] (]) 15:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Nikolay Zak == | |||
| :{{Reply to|Whpq}} The image displays normally for me when I click on the file and thumbnail image. Does the error message persist even now? ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{revisions|Nikolay Zak}} | |||
| ::Yes, I am still getting this error. I have tried it on my desktop and tablet which are both on my home network. I tried it from my phone after disconnecting from my home network and it still shows as an error. All of these are from some form of Chrome browser with me logged in. I tried from my desktop while logged out and it still has the error. I tried using an online web-based emulator emulating Opera under Win10. It still does not show. -- ] (]) 01:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Explicit, | |||
| == File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg == | |||
| Last month, three contributors agreed to delete the article of this mathematician who has interesting claims about ], the longevity record holder. But none of the handful of people involved in ] were pinged. I feel like we haven't had a proper debate. | |||
| Hi, you deleted ] as "F8: Media file available on Commons" but the version on commons was deleted hours later as "CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus)". Can the file be undeleted as it is causing errors on a large number fo pages ( more than 100, closer to 700+). Cheers ] (]) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am currently writing a ]. If un-deletions are not possible, I'd like to have the dead article's wikitext in ], so that I can integrate the exact references in the draft article. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 01:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to| |
:{{Reply to|KylieTastic}} {{Done}}, file restored. The relevant discussion is ]. Based on the admin's closing rationale, the licensing of the image may still have unresolved issues. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
::Thanks ] (]) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == A WAM Barnstar for you! == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actress ] as the character of ] to Misplaced Pages Commons?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{Done}}. ]] 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| == File:The Bs from the Beth B and Scott B, Black Box and G-Man, Flyer, 1978.jpg == | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024 contest''' | |||
| Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at ]? You just deleted ] for F7 reasons and I've tried to explain to this user at ] that non-free images of living persons are pretty much never allowed after a number of their other uploads were deleted for F7 reasons. Some concerns about some of their other images claimed as "own work" were raised as well, but their response was that they're basically too busy to deal with them. That's fine, but they seem to have enough time to upload another image that is questionable for FREER reasons. I'm not trying to give them a hard time, but I'm not sure how to try and explain things any other way than NFCC#1 pretty much never allows non-free images of still living persons. -- ] (]) 12:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, the deleted file shows , which is quite different from the new upload. The best course of action is to proceed to FFD. Ditto for the images with questionable own-work claims. ]] 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | '''Explicit''' Thank you for your additions in ].{{#if:5|5 of your articles have been accepted.}} Warm Regards, ] ] 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apologies Explicit since my post was a bit unclear. I know the two files aren't the same. My concern is that this editor keeps uploading non-free photos of still-living people despite six different files being tagged with {{tl|rfu}} and deleted for F7 reasons since the middle of this past August. Their argument each and every time has been the same: "only image available of the subject". I was going to tag the latest with {{tl|rfu}} as well, but thought I'd ask you about it first since you are actually the admin who actually deleted the other six files, and most likely would be the one who deletes this one as well if tagged as such. -- ] (]) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Ah, I see now. I will leave a note on the user's talk page shortly. ]] 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for taking another look at this. -- ] (]) 01:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeletion of "Van Lindberg" article == | |||
| Hi Explicit, it appears that this article was the result of a soft delete without substantive discussion. I noticed it when I was going to edit the article "Comparison of free and open-source software licences" to include the Cryptographic Autonomy License which was approved by the OSI last year. Other authors of similar licenses are also listed there. The CAL was also uniquely controversial, leading to Bruce Perens' leaving of the OSI due to conflict with Lindberg. Can this article be restored? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request. ]] 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Exlpicit, I found this on ebay of American actor ] and I don't know if it's a public domain image or a copyrighted image, so can you check it to verify it please?, and in the case it is a public domain image can you please upload it into Misplaced Pages Commons? ] (]) 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Ham2703}} Hi, the listing for this item doesn't contain enough information of the photograph to determine its copyright status. You will need to contact the seller directly and inquire for further information. ]] 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy Deletion of ] == | |||
| You seem to have contested the Speedy Deletion of ]. | |||
| There is no such college with the name ]. It is a small course under ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :{{Reply to|AkshayKakkar}} I did not contest the speedy deletion, I declined it. The ] is very narrowly defined and this particular page did not meet any of them. As stated in my edit summary, you are free to nominate the page for deletion using ] or ]. ]] 00:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Recover text, please == | |||
| Ni! Hello, you recently deleted a draft I was interested in, ], marking it as CSD G13. I tried following the procedure to reinstate it, but the editors on the Requests for Undeletion page refused to reinstate the draft alleging that the page was deleted under G11. I tried to reason with them but they don't seem to listen. Can you please check that out ? to the removal of my request. And, as a last resort, could I have a copy of the old contents of the page and the talk page, please? Thank you! ] (]) 09:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Solstag}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a ] or ] submission deleted under ], the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.<!-- End Template:UND - g13 --> | |||
| :I have no idea why it wasn't restored. It has its problems, but nothing that fits the strict definition of ]. If it was truly spam or advertising, it wouldn't have survived five years of being hosted, nor would have it gone through at least four reviewers. I apologize on behalf of the amateurs that don't understand policy and refused to restore the draft. ]] 09:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Redeletion of Annwesha Hazra == | |||
| ==Deleted article== | |||
| Hi, I found that long back you deleted a page Annwesha Hazra, because of sockpuppetry, and because of conflict of interest, and because there was not enough sources to qualify for a wiki page. However, now she has gained widespread popularity, and now she has many articles on her across Google. I want you to recover the page, so that I can modify it, but however I do not have any COI of her. Please do the needful. | |||
| Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:50, 5 January 2025
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg
Hi,
I only got back to editing Misplaced Pages today, and read the file talk page a little earlier. It was only later in the day that I have time to do some editing and was planning to convert the deletion request to an FFD as the uploader (User:Jheald) was quite passionate in his defence of the image. Would you be willing to restore so I can take it to FFD? -- Whpq (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Whpq: Very well, I have restored the file. ✗plicit 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Bokontayev.jpg
Hi Explicit. Can you take a look at File:Bokontayev.jpg? This is another file that you've previously deleted twice before (once per F4 and once per F11) that could be a reupload or a new file with the same name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
And happy new year as well! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You Deleted a Page but it's still online.
@Explicit I was going to nominate a page for deletion but discovered it had been nominated in the past and ended as delete. I am surprised that the page (this page) is still online. What's happening? Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@Joseph4real1995: It appears the article was recreated per User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/October#Speedy deletion nomination of Oyebanji Akins. There appears to have been a disagreement as to whether WP:G4 applied to the recreation. I can't see the original article that was deleted, but Explicit can. I'm sure Explicit will figure out whether the article needs to go to AfD again or meets the criteria for G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Deletion review for Patrik Kincl
Clariniie has asked for a deletion review of Patrik Kincl. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 15:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Bathwala
Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article here, as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
andHappy New Year! Ingratis (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. Ingratis (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Prod on Wordhunt
Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found Wordhunt, which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (Boston Globe) and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict:
Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)
You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~Kvng (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kvng: This is a known issue. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Rafi malik.jpg
Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of File:Rafi malik.jpg? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found here? Do you think this meets WP:F9 or should it be tagged with {{npd}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
{{npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
Deletion of Akidearest article
Happy new year! I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. Maehii (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an Articles for creation submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples:
- https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/
- https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest
- https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest
- https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) Maehii (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: The content is now available at Draft:Akidearest. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Maehii (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: The content is now available at Draft:Akidearest. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Template:Colorado Crush starting quarterback navbox
Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (Bobby Pesavento was missing). I asked the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiOriginal-9: The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Category:Fulbright Scholars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fulbright Scholars. 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. RubyEmpress (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
In a case like this...
Tafajjal Hossain was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD: When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD: I usually use short-term protection if a page is recreated three times in quick succession, like in a month, as I suspect the person loses interest if they are unable to create a page three to six months down the line. You're correct that EC editors can recreate a page if protection is set that way. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
ffdc template bot
Hello. I am currently working on Fatily's task, to remove ffdc templates which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD (BRFA). I came across some cases where your input would be appreciated. eg, Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) where the template is incomplete: {{ffdc|log=2019 May 3|date=September 2019}} (no file name), and The Computer Programme {{FFDC|file_name.ext|log=2024 December 28 |date=December 2024}} (incorrect file name). Currently, I have programmed the bot to skip such instances (sample edits). What should be done? skip it (no action), or to remove these templates? Courtesy ping to @CX Zoom and Marchjuly:, as they were involved in the original bot request/BRFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just removed the ffdc templates and associated captions from Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. I don't think it was a case of the template being incomplete or otherwise used incorrectly; it's just that everybody forgot to remove it and its associated caption from the article after the FFD related to the relevant file was closed as "Delete". It seems like something a bot should be able to do, but removing the templates is actually something mentioned in point 7.2 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines as post of the post close cleanup; there are, however, so few admins working at FFD these days that it's probably something that slips through the cracks every now and then. FWIW, I try to go back and check for these templates when I notice the file they're related to has been deleted and will remove them myself, but I probably miss some too. I'm not sure whether there are enough of these cases to warrant tasking the job to a bot, but I'm also not sure how to otherwise find them, except perhpaps digging through the results of a "What links here" search for the template. The problem with the template used in The Computer Programme#Book seems to be a combination of two user errors, and I've fixed that as well: the person who nominated the file for discussion just forgot to add the template, and the person who subsequently added the template just forgot to add the file's name. I don't know whether those types of errors can be resolved entirely by a bot, and probably some type of human review is also necessary for such cases. However, even when there's no file name provided, the malformed template should still link to the correct date of the FFD discussion; so, its use still sort of works as intended. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: Why did KiranBOt remove this ffdc template? The relevant FFD discussion is still ongoing. Is a syntax issue? A false positive? Are you going around checking on KiranBot's removal of these template to make sure it hasn't prematurely removed any of them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to User:KiranBOT/List of mismatched QID? It is transcluded on Category talk:Infobox person Wikidata using qid to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps JJMC89 might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can code the bot any way that you'd like. I mean, dont think about technicalities, I want opinion from you guys about what the bot should remove/update/keep as it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps JJMC89 might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to User:KiranBOT/List of mismatched QID? It is transcluded on Category talk:Infobox person Wikidata using qid to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Deleted article IPSOS
Hi! Could you please userify this at User:Skyerise/sandbox/Liber Pennae Praenumbra? I've been intending to write an article on the book from which this word was sourced. Kinda weird there was an article on the word but not the book, since there are way more sources on the latter than the former. As I am likely to include some portion of the content of the deleted article, I'd like to make sure the edit history is preserved for that content, unless you think it would be better to restore the article and make it a redirect for that purpose... Skyerise (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: Hi, I've userfied the page as requested. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly! Skyerise (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Sankranthiki Vasthunnam Release Date(2).jpg
The file does not show for me. When I click on the file image or thumbnail image, I get File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.a8/a/a8/Sankranthiki_Vasthunnam_Release_Date%282%29.jpg
. Do yuou know what would cause this? -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Whpq: The image displays normally for me when I click on the file and thumbnail image. Does the error message persist even now? ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am still getting this error. I have tried it on my desktop and tablet which are both on my home network. I tried it from my phone after disconnecting from my home network and it still shows as an error. All of these are from some form of Chrome browser with me logged in. I tried from my desktop while logged out and it still has the error. I tried using an online web-based emulator emulating Opera under Win10. It still does not show. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg
Hi, you deleted File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg as "F8: Media file available on Commons" but the version on commons was deleted hours later as "CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus)". Can the file be undeleted as it is causing errors on a large number fo pages ( more than 100, closer to 700+). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @KylieTastic: Done, file restored. The relevant discussion is c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg. Based on the admin's closing rationale, the licensing of the image may still have unresolved issues. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks KylieTastic (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
A WAM Barnstar for you!
|
Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024 contest |
| Explicit Thank you for your additions in Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024.5 of your articles have been accepted. Warm Regards, ZI Jony 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
Deleted article
Please can I see the deleted article List of missing people from Nepal. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)