Revision as of 12:06, 11 December 2024 editMarchjuly (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users111,769 edits →File:Baume-les-messieurs.jpg: Added one more← 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! | ||
(119 intermediate revisions by 43 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) | |||
:::::::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 06:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::@]@]@] | |||
::::::::::::::Hello brillliant minds - perhaps if you wanted for the page to be complete you'd get the gist of things than just rushing to delete the page with empty content. Unlike most of you lucky chaps in developed countries, I had a power outage before I could even complete the page. | |||
::::::::::::::So, if possible, heroes of Misplaced Pages, i would like to finish updating the page and only then can you decide to proceed with the deletion. | |||
::::::::::::::I'll wait to hear from you masters of the uniververse. | |||
::::::::::::::Cheers. ] (]) 11:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} {{Reply to|Aatsol2007}} Hi, which page are you referring to exactly? ]] 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hi, | |||
:@] {{tpw}} Perhaps, under your circumstances, you should start out writing a draft, perhaps in ] and then move it to mainspace when you're done, or if you want someone else to check the draft over before it's an article, ]ion. Though I have to agree with Explicit above. Knowing which article we're talking about will help greatly. ] ] ] 06:37, 5 December 2024 (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) | |||
== Flag photo == | |||
:{{Reply to|Whpq}} Very well, I have restored the file. ]] 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks -- ] (]) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The keep local tag was removed by ], and on a bunch of other files too. I've reverted the ones that haven't been deleted yet, but most have been. Explicit, since you probably deleted them all (at least, you did for all the ones where I looked at the logs), would you rather I compile a list, or undelete them myself as I find them? —] 09:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{Reply to|Godsy|Cryptic}} Oh, what a naughty IP. {{Frown}} I went through their deleted contributions and found that most of their edits that resulted in subtracted bytes to the page were replacing {{tl|keep local}} with {{tl|mtc}}. I've restored a few more files. ]] 11:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I've restored ], where {{tl|keep local}} was replaced with {{tl|move to Commons}} and so added bytes instead. —] 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Does being tagged with "keep local" mean that a file can't be moved to Commons? Adding "keep local" seems to just be a request that a local copy be kept, not that the file not be moved to Commons, right? A local file that has the same name as a Commons file will be used on Misplaced Pages (it shadows out the Commons file), but the Commons file can still be used by other WMF projects, right? I'm not suggesting the IP was correct in removing the "Keep local" template, but wondering whether the restored files could still be tagged for a move to Commons. -- ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{tl|Keep local}} is a request that a file not be moved to Commons - a move, by definition, means that it won't be in the original place anymore. It can still be ''copied'' to Commons. There's a {{tl|copy to Commons}} template specifically for that, though it wouldn't have surprised me if there hadn't been. —] 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::My bad. I meant "copy" to Commons, but thanks for clarifying. -- ] (]) 02:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* This reminds me of a similar problematic IP edit which I spotted in October, see ]. Did the other IP tag any keep local files which have been deleted? --] (]) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:No; their only deleted edits were to ], a scaled-down version of ] that was tagged as non-free. —] 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 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) | |||
==Happy Holidays!== | |||
== File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf == | |||
And happy new year as well! ] (]) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== You Deleted a Page but it's still online. == | |||
Hi Explicit. You just deleted "File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf" per ], but it was shadowing ] uploaded by the same uploader under the same name. The Commons file was actually uploaded after the local file started being discussed at ] and concerns were raised about its licensing, but under a different license. Since you're also a Commons admin, perhaps you could advise on the best way to deal with the Commons file. ]? ]? -- ] (]) 11:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I missed that the file was also on Commons. I've tagged it for lacking permission. ]] 11:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I didn't notice it myself until after the local file had been deleted. -- ] (]) 21:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
@] 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) | |||
== File:Michael Ruetz (1).jpg == | |||
:{{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 ] == | |||
Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? It looks like the source for the image might be some kind of German commercial photo/press agency based on , but I'm not sure. -- ] (]) 07:37, 4 December 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|Marchjuly}} Hi, I tracked down the , where they cite "dpa/A3818 Klaus-Dietmar Gabbert" as the source. I can't determine if either of them are photo agencies. I did a quick spot check of other articles on the website and they use a mix of images from photo agencies and other sources. ]] 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for doing that. Do you think this is OK then per F7? -- ] (]) 00:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} This would still technically violate ]. While ] doesn't mention this directly (it really should), there is an implicit consensus that the recent death of an individual does not automatically grant a waiver for the replaceability aspect of policy. ]] 03:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yes, it's implicitly assumed by many that the moment someone dies doesn't mean ] it met; a reasonable attempt still is expected to be made t find a free equivalent. Of course, just as many assume otherwise which is why you'll find non-free images sometimes being uploaded the same day some dies. There have numerous discussions about this at ], but they mostly end up getting nowhere because nobody can agree on the meaning of "reasonable attempt" or whether such an attempt is even necessary, and there are different ideas as to whether a bright-line time period after death should be specified or what it should be if one is specified. So, things are sort of stuck with the status quo where such images need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. For many, the default is a non-free is OK in such cases until a free equivalent shows up regardless, even if there are F7b issues involved. Many, after all, still think "WP:NFC = fair use" and use the terms interchangeably even though that doesn't seem to have ever been intended to be the case or at least not the case since WP:NFCC became policy. -- ] (]) 05:10, 5 December 2024 (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) | |||
Hi Explicit. Do you think there's any point in discussing ] at FFD or can they be tagged for speedy deletion per F3, F9 or F11? I don't see any way to convert their licensing to non-free per F7 and discussing such a thing is unlikely to change that. I'm sure they were uploaded in good faith, but they're not "PD-USGov" eligible works. -- ] (]) 01:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
and</s>Happy New Year! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, the noncommercial disclaimer is a textbook violates of F3, so I have deleted them as such. ]] 03:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (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) | |||
Hi Explicit. Would you mind watching ]. These file's most likely qualify for speedy deletion per F3, but I figured I give the uploader a chance to sort things out. If there's no response within a day or so, or they respond negatively, perhaps the files should be deleted per F3. -- ] (]) 07:55, 5 December 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) == | |||
==DYK for Kang Ju-hyeok== | |||
{{ivmbox | |||
|image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
|imagesize=40px | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that ''']''' ''(pictured)'' became the youngest player in ]'s history at the age of 17 years, 9 months, and 6 days?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] ] 00:02, 6 December 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) | |||
== Arambegama == | |||
:{{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 saw your edit on ] (as it is still listed as having dab pages), but it appears to have no content after your edit - should it be deleted?— ] <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Rodw}} {{Done}}. ]] 00:20, 9 December 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) | |||
==Kassia St. Clair== | |||
:{{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) | |||
Could I please have a copy of ] (which you deleted), as I had only recently added a photo to it. ] (]) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with {{tlx|npd}}. -- ] (]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Edwardx}} . There isn't much content. ]] 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion of Akidearest article == | |||
== File:Invicta Old Logo.gif == | |||
Happy new year! | |||
Why is ] deleted? I have already altered the non-free use rationale to comply with the guidelines? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:08, 9 December 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|Marcnut1996}} I have restored the image. If {{U|Iruka13}} wishes to pursue it further, they should go to ]. ]] 00:20, 9 December 2024 (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) | |||
:: Thanks for that. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:27, 9 December 2024 (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) | |||
== ] == | |||
== File:Baume-les-messieurs.jpg == | |||
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 ] == | |||
Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? It was uploaded without a copyright license or any real source information, but the EXIF data indicates it might be Getty Images stock photo. I tried searching for the image and found it on Getty page in Korean, but I can't find how the file's being licensed. -- ] (]) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
:https://www.istockphoto.com/en/%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84/%EB%B4%84-%EB%A0%88-%EB%A9%94%EC%8B%9C%EC%99%B8%EB%A5%B4-%EC%9E%88%EB%8A%94-%EC%A3%BC%EB%9D%BC-gm178824413-25187314 —] 09:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for that {{u|Cryptic}}. I thought the file might be eligible for speedy deletion per F9, but you deleting the file for that reason takes care of that too. -- ] (]) 10:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== In a case like this... == | |||
::{{ping|Cryptic|Explicit}} ] is another one uploaded (by a different uploader though) that has no copyright license and is sourced to some kind of social media site. I explained the issue (at least what I perceive to be the issue) with this file to the uploader on ], but they haven't responded yet. FWIW, I'm not seeing any way for Misplaced Pages to keep this absent an acceptable free license or VRT verification since I don't think it can be converted to non-free. I suggested to the uploader that they tag the file for speedy deletion per G7, but this probably also meets F9. -- ] (]) 12:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
] 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 |
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)
- @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)
- @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)