Misplaced Pages

User talk:Explicit: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:07, 29 November 2024 editDavidgoodheart (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users152,985 edits Deleted articles← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:50, 5 January 2025 edit undoDavidgoodheart (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users152,985 edits A WAM Barnstar for you! 
(178 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
|} |}


== File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg ==
==Deleted articles==
Can I please see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::Can I please see the deleted ]. ] (]) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 06:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Please let me see the deleted ]. ] (]) 05:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 05:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Can I please see the deleted ] article. ] (]) 05:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 05:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Can I please see the deleted article ]. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . It is a promotional mess, but perhaps the sources may be of value. ]] 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Can I please see deleted article ]. ] (]) 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 00:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please can I see deleted article ]. ] (]) 06:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


Hi,
== File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg ==


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)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at ]? All of this user's uploads so far have been screenshots from YouTube videos released under YT's standard licensing; so, I've tagged them for speedy deletion per F9. This particular file is also a screenshot but it's via {{url|https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-sixth-starship-but-aborts-booster-landing/|this website}}, and unlike the others i'm wondering whether it might be possible to convert to a non-free license given the way it's being used in ]. I'm a bit hesitant though because ] seems to indicate that a free image of these SpaceX launches might be possible. SpaceX, itself, could even provide some acceptably licensed images if it wants. Is it then in your opinion even worth converting this to non-free per ]? -- ] (]) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, I've deleted all the video screenshots as copyright violations. Aside from the most recent flight test, ] is the only other in the series that does not contain freely licensed media. It's unlikely that an image for either article would qualify by Misplaced Pages's fair use standards, unless a particular image ''itself'' (and not the flight test in general) is subject to sourced critical commentary in accordance with ] or considered significant enough for {{tl|Non-free historic image}}. As flight test 6 is incredibly fresh, free media may became available in the coming days or weeks. ]] 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) :{{Reply to|Whpq}} Very well, I have restored the file. ]] 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for checking on these. Do you suggest tagging the remaining file for speedy deletion per F9 or just letting it be deleted for not having a copyright license per F4? -- ] (]) 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ::Thanks -- ] (]) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} My rule of thumb is to just let these types of files meet their fate. Regardless of the process, the end result is usually the same. ]] 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's probably the best thing to do in this case. Thanks again. -- ] (]) 21:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


== Why was this deleted? == == File:Bokontayev.jpg ==


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)
Hello, I have noticed and a fair few others that I’ve spoken to in person that you deleted the page of “Aleksei Kulashko”? I was confused why as even to this day he has participating in events and even been invited to light the chess olympics torch in New Zealand. So my request is for this page to be undeleted as it’s still significant to this day and there has not been any issue with it up until now. ] (]) 07:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


==Happy Holidays!==
:{{tpw}} ]. ] (]) 08:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
And happy new year as well! ] (]) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::<!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - soft --> ]] 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


== You've got mail == == You Deleted a Page but it's still online. ==


@] 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)
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=<span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 09:58, 21 November 2024 (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 ] ==
:@] I emailed you hours ago explaining the situation, and have just had to go to Oversight ''again'' to request suppression of the ANI thread where you and @] disclosed the supressed username. Utterly stupid behaviour. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 13:18, 21 November 2024 (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)
::{{Reply to|Qcne}} I'm pretty sure I did not mention the username in my followup response. In fact, I did everything to avoid mentioning or linking it again. I couldn't do much about the initial mention, as your email came in after that. I don't think I could have done much for that. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::You mentioned the username in your ''first'' ANI post. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Qcne}} ...Yes, that's why I just said. "I couldn't do much about the initial mention" because your email came afterwards. Like I stated at ANI, I was not aware of the distinction between account suppression and username suppression, given the original case I linked. ]] 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just would have thought you'd have immediately requested oversight once my email had gone through, instead of waiting hours and continuing the ANI thread. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=Utterly stupid behaviour}}<br>That's a nasty way to talk to somebody. Please be kinder! <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== You may want to go for ARB ==


<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)
Hi, another way for solve this, if needed, is trying for an Arbcom case instead of being so angered on AN/I. Please calm down or just take a break for a few hours, which might be better. ] 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
and</s>Happy New Year! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Lemonaka}} {{ec}} I honestly can not be bothered to tread through the politics of Misplaced Pages. I have enough work to do around here and mountains of page creations to do on Commons. I'd rather spend my time doing those things. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the thread has now been suppressed, just to let you know (if you didn't see it) that I removed your two personal attacks on Liz (the second one was so egregious, especially to a female editor, that I seriously considered blocking you). Please don't do that again. ] 13:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Black Kite}} Noted. For the record, I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not. Viewing the world with a different lens and all, but thanks for the context reminder. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::Allow me to introduce you to the phrase, "get off my back." It means the same thing except no one has to think about your dick. Wins all around. ] (]) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't understand how "get off my dick" means something different in a non-hetronormative context and indeed when I looked into this phrase I found examples of it being used against gay men by straight men. I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz. I seriously considered pressing the block button myself. I didn't become an admin to block people and since I respect Black Kite's assessmment that he would have done the same for any user with your editing/block history I didn't take him up on his permission for someone else to do it. But for what it's worth I actually think there is a ''better'' case to block an admin for it since there is a higher expectation in these regards. ] (]) 17:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz.}} Why though? It's pretty obviously offensive and incredibly disrespectful. ] (]) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::As I said I felt disgust upon seeing it and I left my message because I find {{tqq|I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not}} in adequate. However, when looking into it there do seem to be certain communities (at least online ones) which use it rather than far more reasonable and acceptable "get off my back" and it appears explicit is a part of them. ] (]) 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not just online communities. It's a common phrase men say to each other, at least in the US (or at least in the parts where I've been), stemming from "stepping on my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stepping on my toes", and thus "get off my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stop stepping on my toes" or "get off my back" or "get off my ass". But a man should ''never'' say "get off my dick" to a woman, because it obviously has a very different connotation in that context. Even where the phrase is common, a man saying it to a woman would be a major faux pas. It was a dumb and offensive thing for Explicit to say to Liz. ] (]) 19:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I concur. Saying something like "hop off " is something commonly used as slang in the US to mean like "stop annoying me", but I will admit that there's times it shouldn't be used, especially in this context. Usually it's just a more innapropriate way of saying "leave me alone", but I can't speak on behalf of everyone. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Barkeep49}} Fair enough. Not being heterosexual myself I found the "heteronormative train of thought" excuse pretty poor. ] (]) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It unfortunately shows the (general, I have no personal issue with Barkeep49) pisspoor way editors who identify as female are treated here. The insult, the report, and the timing from Explicit are an extremely poor showing from a long term admin. (And to head off any questions, no it's not recall worthy and I don't believe in forced apologies) ] ] 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::lol at much of this discussion. Several different universes here, but Explicit lived up to their name and should have thought a smidge more, especially during the next several minutes, and edited and spellchecked the thing. If I were an admin I'd give Explicit a justified 4 hours in the penalty box, although assume good faith seems to enter into all viewpoints of this. ] (]) 02:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Explicit, you're lucky other people got there first. If I had gotten there first, I can tell you with certainty that I would not have exhibited the hesitation that {{u|Black Kite}} and {{u|Barkeep49}} showed with the block button. ] ] 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:Explicit, I agree with Roy Smith. I was asleep when this was reported. Had I been awake and watching ANI, you would be blocked and it would not have been for four hours. Keep your sexualized insults to yourself. ] (]) 18:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Tzamplakon family == == 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)
Hi User:Explicit, I think the article ] was deleted once, but is now renewed. May you explain this case to me. Thanks. ] (]) ] (]) 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Jingiby}} Hi, the article was draftified in early October and the resulting redirect was deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion criterion regarding ]. The draft was submitted by the author and accepted by a reviewer a little over two weeks later, so it was moved back into mainspace. ]] 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC) :{{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)


== Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser) ==
==AlgoSec==
Can I please see the deleted article ]. This is a notable cybersecurity firm, with hundreds of global customers https://www.algosec.com/our-customers and should not be deleted. You can see some of the news coverage they have received https://www.algosec.com/news ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{Reply to|Amechad}} Are you affiliated with the company? Would you like to disclose any ]? ]] 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am a former employee so am knowledge but am not employed currently nor in any way affiliated on a freelance or contract basis. Regarded, this is a notable company and therefore should have a reputable and quality page according to Misplaced Pages guidelines ] (]) 08:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


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|Kvng}} This is a ]. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== File:Rafi malik.jpg ==
I bookmarked this a while ago with a note to myself (possibly PD). It's since been deleted, but could you take a look? I remember nothing of the file beyond the note I left to myself. <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|JayCubby}} The cover in question can be found . ] currently uses a different image. ]] 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! The portrait is PD and the cover text is by no means a literary work, so couldn't this be below TOO? <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|JayCubby}} The textured background is pretty complex, so I suspect that would push this cover above the threshold of originality. ]] 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Good point! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} {{tpw}} Hi {{u|JayCubby}}. You might be able to argue as much, but it probably would be better to ask about this at ] because that's really where this file should be if the cover art is truly PD. It seems to me that there wouldn't be much point in restoring the file here on Misplaced Pages if it's ultimately only going to end up at Commons anyway, and there's no point in getting it restored locally if Commons can't host the file. Finally, although being PD means the file doesn't need to be treated as non-free and thus isn't subject to deletion per ], there could still be encyclopedic or contextual reasons unrelated to copyright as to why the image currently being used in the main infobox of the article might still be considered by others as preferable to this particular one. That's something that you probably would need to resolve through article talk page discussion. One thing you might want to ask about here on Misplaced Pages at either ] or ] is whether ] needs to be treated as non-free since it seems to be a pretty clear case of ] given that the file comes from ] (page 7). -- ] (]) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (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)
== File:Gladiator_20th_Anniversary_Edition.jpg ==
:{{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 ==
Hello, I saw you deleted the subject. Had you actually seen the talk pages? How is it a violation when it's low resolution enough? Thx ] (]) 06:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Supermann}} Hi, the file was not deleted based on its resolution, it was deleted due to its failure to adhere to the ] policy. The difference between the deleted file and ] were minimal; the only real difference was the addition of the text "20th Anniversary Edition" underneath the title. This is not sufficient to pass ]a, which dictates that {{xt|"Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."}} The text at ] suffices. ]] 06:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Happy new year!
::Alrighty. Many thanks for the explanation. I guess a picture is not worth 1000 words after all. ] (]) 16:36, 26 November 2024 (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)
:{{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 ] ==
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... ==

] 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)
:{{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)
::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 ==
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)
: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)
:{{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 ==

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)
:{{Reply to|Skyerise}} Hi, I've userfied the page as requested. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks muchly! ] (]) 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 {{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)
:{{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)
::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)

== File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg ==

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)
:{{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! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|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'''
|-
|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)
|}

==Deleted article==
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
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55



This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 1:13 PM where this user lives (South Korea).

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)