User talk:Explicit/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 |
Page deletion - Roopdhyan Meditation
Hi, the page Roopdhyan Meditation was deleted citing G8. I had put in a lot of work behind it brother. Although it already had several references, I can update the page as per requirements if it's restored. Time-is-wealth (talk)
- @Time-is-wealth: Hi, the page was moved to Draft:Roopdhyan by Kuru with the edit summary, "SEO/PR refs, promotional - needs work". You will need to ask them to expand upon the concerns they have. ✗plicit
Question
When are you going to add the new picture of Canada's Coat of Arms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.214.53 (talk)
- When are you going to add the new picture of Canada's Coat of Arms? 173.56.214.53 (talk)
Railway Empire 2
This is a major game and I realized there is no article for it. Apparently you deleted a draft for it in 2023. What was the reason? I wouldn't mind creating one, but I don't want to put work in it only for it to be rejected. Storkenleg (talk)
- @Storkenleg: Draft:Railway Empire 2 was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G13 for being a draft that went unedited for six months. If you'd like, I can restore the draft. ✗plicit
- Sure, I'd love to take a look and work on it. Storkenleg (talk)
- @Storkenleg:
Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit
- @Storkenleg:
- Sure, I'd love to take a look and work on it. Storkenleg (talk)
Jordan & Bek Ge'ez
I decided to create Wikipedia page about Jordan & Bek Ge'ez please can we collaborate creating it alone there is empty road to me. or notify me to go to younger generation to help me Lirress 3 (talk)
- @Lirress 3: Hi, if you require assistance in regards to creating a new article, you can pose your questions at the Teahouse, where experienced editors can guide you along the process. ✗plicit
War 2 (2025 film)
Hi Explicit. At 6.47 this morning User:CNMall41 moved War 2 (2025 film) to Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 5, leaving a redirect.
At 6.28/29 you deleted several draft versions, and the redirect at War 2 (2025 film). At 08.24 an EC user recreated War 2 (2025 film) - this has less information + references than the moved draft. Could we either move the draft back over the main article, albeit that User:CNMall41 doesn't think it is suitable, or delete the article and, given that it was recreated by an EC user, fully protect its recreation? Many thanks - Arjayay (talk)
- @Arjayay: Hi, whew, that was a mess to untangle. I eventually caught on that War 2 (2025 film) was an unattributed copy of Draft:War 2, so I merged the page histories, moved it back to draftspace, and salted the mainspace title. ✗plicit
- Thanks - I'm just wondering what name they will come up with to circumvent the protection - I am a natural pessimist. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk)
- Sorry it came to that. Unfortunately, the bludgeoning is unlikely to stop. Next instance of it being moved (especially by the last user who did so numerous times despite being warned - then moved it again under a different disambiguation) it will go to ANI. It has become more than disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk)
- Based on this, I'd say the next disambiguation attempts will be War II, War II (film), War II (2025 film), etc. --CNMall41 (talk)
- @Explicit: Pinging you here since its archived. Cannot make this up - See War 2 (2025) now moved to Draft:War 2 (2025) 2. --CNMall41 (talk)
- Sorry it came to that. Unfortunately, the bludgeoning is unlikely to stop. Next instance of it being moved (especially by the last user who did so numerous times despite being warned - then moved it again under a different disambiguation) it will go to ANI. It has become more than disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk)
Hi Explicit, and thank you for your contributions. I see that you deleted a page about Connect User group in 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connect_(users_group)
I work for Connect and would like to provide you with whatever additional sources regarding Connect's legitimacy you would like, including from hpe.com (such as https://www.hpe.com/us/en/communities.html - we are linked in the bottom right box.) We are the independent technology user group for HPE. Our publications have been produced for over 30 years, one (the connection- connect2nonstop.com) in print until just 2018 before going entirely digital. We host the annual NonStop Technology and Business Conference (formerly technical boot camp) attended by 300+ for over a decade, and have over a dozen regional chapters, many with their own websites and events referencing us. Please let me know how to best provide you with the information you need to restore the article. Thanks. ConnectWorldwide (talk)
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. That was me who created that draft – I just forgot to log in when I made it. After that, I contributed to it further while logged in. I can even log out now and post a message here verifying that the IP there is mine. Thanks for being mindful, though. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝
- Of course, if you think it might merit an article, we can keep it around for a little bit. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝
- @Balsam Cottonwood: Hi, since you say you created the page while logged out, I went ahead and deleted it the page as requested. Some users will sometimes tag pages with G7 for being major contributors, so I thought this was another case of that. ✗plicit
- Thanks. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝
- Thanks. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝
- @Balsam Cottonwood: Hi, since you say you created the page while logged out, I went ahead and deleted it the page as requested. Some users will sometimes tag pages with G7 for being major contributors, so I thought this was another case of that. ✗plicit
Hi Explicit, I'm just curious to know what the state of the subject article was before you deleted it to make room for another page move (G6). I cannot see which page was moved, only that the Isoteinon bruno article/redirect was deleted for it. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk)
- @Loopy30: Hi, this redirect was tagged by Sjl197 with the intent to move Astictopterus bruno to that title. ✗plicit
- Very good then. Where did the redirect point to? Loopy30 (talk)
- @Loopy30:. The request was for speedy deletion of a simple redirect from this now empty page of Isoteinon bruno. Beforehand, that redirect was Isoteinon bruno -> Astictopterus bruno. And yes, as per above the intent was/is to move Astictopterus bruno into Isoteinon then make a few updates the page for that species. Also to move some other "Astictopterus" spp into Isoteinon, then fix the genus page for Astictopterus to reflect that now it's essentially just Astictopterus jama remaining (but i won't make that formalised as monotypic due to some recent debate whether some of its "subspecies" are valid distinct species or not).
- Generally, for the record i'll edit stuff on Wikispecies before delving into changes here on enwiki, for this case see Isoteinon bruno on Wikispecies. Essence being that Isoteinon bruno Evans, 1937 is the protonym, despite what several online resources reflect, and that combination is the linked Zhang et al., 2023 genomic study. Actually, i can't find any good sources for the recombination Astictopterus bruno, if you know any then please say! Sjl197 (talk)
- Very good then. Where did the redirect point to? Loopy30 (talk)
Some baklava for you!
|
You've been working so hard. You deserve this Vinizex94🌍 |
Questions on photography
I'm interested in photograohy, but I do not know where to start. I know there are a lot of experienced photographers on Wikipedia, but after reading your userpage, I decided to talk to you. Can you please guide me through on how you got into photography and where you started?. Also did you take photos of those korean/foreign footballers by going to their matches?. I'd really appreciate it if you could reply. Even though it's not a question heavily related to Wikipedia. Thanks... Vinizex94🌍
- @Vinizex94: Hmm, it's hard to pinpoint when I took interest in photography. Maybe it started around the time I got a Nikon Coolpix S70 (don't remember why) and took some crappy photos of One Ok Rock (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The band had announced a free live performance, and since it wasn't particular common for Japanese acts to hold concerts outside of Japan, I guess I felt the need to document it somehow.
- I didn't truly pick up photography until 2018, when I visited home and bought a Nikon D5600, an entry-level camera. With the help of tutorials on YouTube, I simply kept showing up at free public events to take photos to develop my skills. You can see the progression of my photography at c:Category:Photographs taken by Explicit, as it is mostly sorted by date. My subjects of interest have shifted a lot over the years. I bought a Nikon D850 in 2020, right before COVID hit, so that was a great way to let the camera gather dust for two and a half years. Learning how to maneuver that camera was a learning curve for me.
- Yes, I'm pretty much at every FC Seoul home game these days. I do want to take photos of other subjects, but it's hard to find the time and interest. ✗plicit
Photo deletion question
Hello Explicit! I hope your day has been well 🙂 I have a question about the fair use file you recently deleted "File:Denys Davydov channel profile.jpg", which was used in the infobox as the channel profile for journalist and YouTuber Denys Davydov, which can only be found on his YouTube page. You deleted it because it "violates non-free content criterion #1", but I don't believe it does? If there is a free alternative of this photo or any photo of him for that matter can you please show me so I can include some kind of illustration on the page? Otherwise, can you explain why this photo couldn't be used, because I don't understand how it didn't meet criteria. Cheers! Johnson524
- @Johnson524: Hi, Wikipedia policy generally does not allow the use of non-free photos of living people, even if a freely licensed photo does not exist at the moment. Because the subject is alive and active, it fails to meet the first criterion of the NFCC policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." ✗plicit
Declined deletion file has been again nominated for deletion
The file File:Tamil Genocide acts, Mullivaikkal Massacre, Displacement.png was nominated for speedy deletion for no reason by user ÆthelflædofMercia, even when fair use rationale was given as its really necessary and important for the illustration for the said article Tamil Genocide and for its encyclopedic discussion, the use of it is limited and is in low resolution and
It cannot be replaced with free media as there is no similar or related images of it that's released under creative commons licenses and now the same user has nominated the page again for deletion with different deletion notice, as the previous attempt of deleting the file failed, now spamming notices to do anything to remove anything related to Tamil genocide on Wikipedia, with twisting the integrity of the image, when all of images' context are confirmed in the linked US state department file and it being related to Tamil Genocide, which is established with extensive sources in the article itself with detailed sourced explanation of the depictions and illustrations that is shown in image, which is why the main rational being for its use is for encyclopedic discussion of the article, the new user has been non stop going around Wikipedia doing the same to remove anything Tamil Genocide, so requesting to take action against it and protect the image page against vandalism. Yarohj (talk)
- @Yarohj: I have removed the tag, but only because the file's deletion would not be uncontroversial. I can not see how their request for deletion is disruptive. As I stated in my edit summary, the issue requires further discussion, and I have directed the user to WP:FFD. ✗plicit
removal of File:Australian Distinguished Service Cross.png
Good afternoon, you removed File:Australian Distinguished Service Cross.png despite the correct licencing being on the file as per F11 "Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated", and the original uploader (me) not being notified with the prerequisite 7 days notice of any issue? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)
- @Nford24: Hi, while it is highly encouraged to notify a page creator of an impending deletion, they are not required by policy. I gave this another look and restored the file while amending the source link. ✗plicit
Redirects
I think the redirects are the correct critea. However, you probably no more than me. Bottom line is, these redirects are useless, needless, and the editor that created all of them either is trying to artifically inflate their edit count, something to do with WP:FANCRUFT, or simply got carried away in the excitement of creating them.
I previously asked an administrator what the correct speedy deletion critea (I think that's what it is) and he said WP:R3. If that's incorrct, could you tell me which would be the correct one? Lemonademan22 (talk)
- @Lemonademan22: The redirects you tagged were not eligible for speedy deletion. You are free to nominate them for discussion at WP:RFD. ✗plicit
100W
Please undelete shortcuts and any other meaningful G8'd pages linking to Wikipedia:One hundred words, a new page that I've created. —Alalch E.
Luke Nichols
Hello Explicit,
Since you were the administrator that deleted the Luke Nichols article, I figured I would contact you here.
Nichols runs a viral YouTube channel by the name of Outdoor Boys. His recent "Goodbye" video generated a lot of significant coverage (as seen here and here), with major sources like Business Insider and Men's Journal covering it. Thus, if there is any way to recover the work that had already been done, could you draftify what had been deleted so I can make improvements to the article?
Thanks! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk)
- @KnowledgeIsPower9281: Hi, I have restored the page and it is available at Draft:Luke Nichols. ✗plicit
- Sounds good! Thank you for letting me know! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk)
- Sounds good! Thank you for letting me know! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk)
Biology redirects
Hello, i was investigating some redirects that Galactikapedia made and found the redirects for deletion pages that you started, which are much appreciated. I was just gonna say that there are quite a few more pages like that (including an entire family of flatworms) so i'm going to link the list here. Perhaps you can notify Wikipedia:Tree of Life for help with this continuing issue. Thanks for starting the work to fixing these. Anthropophoca (talk)
- @Anthropophoca: Hi, those redirects were deleted as a result of discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1. I did not nominate them personally. Additional redirects need to be nominated there as well. ✗plicit
- I am aware of that page. I'm still thanking you for bringing it up there and starting the initiative. Anthropophoca (talk)
- I am aware of that page. I'm still thanking you for bringing it up there and starting the initiative. Anthropophoca (talk)
Request for review
Hello @Explicit,
I'm seeking your assistance regarding a user who recently left messages on my Talk Page. For context, you can view the conversation here.
My concern is that this user referenced a few editors and pages, but after checking, they don’t appear to exist. I also attempted to search for them manually, but with no success. Could you please verify this?
Additionally, if possible, I would appreciate it if you could review the user's edit history, particularly their changes to the R. Donahue Peebles and Peebles Corporation pages. Now that the user has raised a COI (Conflict of Interest) issue, I believe their own editing behavior warrants closer examination. The tone of their contributions appears unusually negative, which raises the possibility that they may be a competitor or someone previously associated with Peebles.
Since they’ve questioned my edits, I will refrain from making further changes to these pages and leave the matter in your hands for review. I would be grateful if you could also look into the user’s activity.
Thank you for your time and support. Axeia.aksaya (talk)
- @Axeia.aksaya: Hi, in regards to the messages on your talk page, it appears that a single person is trying to intimidate you by posing as several different editors—they certainly don't exist. I would take them with a grain of salt.
- Regarding their edits in other articles, it's difficult to take any action as the IP has not edited for two weeks now. Any further resumption of problematic editing should be report at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. ✗plicit
Help
Hey there.
I am new to the AfDs and I have nominated an article, not sure whether the format is right or not. It would be great if you help me! The article is Chuknagar massacre. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
- @Lt.gen.zephyr: Hi, it seems that the only step you missed was to transclude the deletion discussion page onto the daily log at WP:AFD. Luckily, there's a bot that has taken care of that. You may want to consider installing Twinkle, as it can help streamline the deletion process across various deletion venues. ✗plicit
Backdoor deletions
You moved two articles from draft space back to user space and removed their speedy tags with the comment "no backdoor deletions":[1][2]
In reviewing articles at CAT:CSD yesterday, both of these had {{db-g13}} tags.[3][4] Both looked like they might be notable, so I removed the G13 tags, then moved them to draft space for further review. It became clear that the Bromogatos309/sandbox article was hopeless and there was already a Donald O. Clifton article so I restored the G13 tags with these edit summaries:
"{Db-g13}: I temporarily removed the db-g13 tag yesterday to further investigate. I have not edited it other than to add tags. A Donald O. Clifton article exists."
[5]
"{db-g13}. This was an abandoned user space page tagged for G13 deletion. I draftified it and temporarily removed the G13 tag pending investigation of its potential as an article. It's a dud. I have not edited except for adding templates"
[6]
Whatever the procedural errors of my actions were, please understand my intent was not to attempt bad faith, backdoor deletions.
Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)
- @A. B.: I do not fault your actions in these instances. The editor who originally tagged them for deletion as G13 had done so without properly understanding the criterion—it does not apply to drafts in userspace that are not tagged as AFC submissions. I believe their actions gave you the wrong impression, as it had done to the admin who mistakenly deleted several similarly tagged userspace drafts. No harm done on your part. ✗plicit
- Thanks. I was a little worried what you might think.
- I appreciate all the thoughtful work you do with deletions - a great example for all of us. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)
War 2 - again
Sorry to bother you again - We have another article just started by an account created on 25 May account (suspect not a new account from their editing ability). Could you please delete or redirect and salt?
We also still have Draft:War 2, Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 2, Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 4 and Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 5 - is there a way of consolidating these? - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk)
- @Arjayay: I've merged the page history with Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 3. If you suspect sockpuppetry is at play here, you should consider filing a case at WP:SPI. If these creations are coming from sockpuppets of a blocked user, every new version that comes along can be deleted as G5 instead of making additional drafts. Due to all the parallel page histories, there's not much to be done except redirect all the copies into a single drafts. ✗plicit
- Thanks for that User:Explicit, but as the title is not salted, whereas War 2 is E/C protected, War 2 (2025) has been recreated, yet again. Could you please delete and salt this title? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk)
- War 2 (2025) has been now moved to draft-space, but E/C protection would be appreciated - Arjayay (talk)
- @Arjayay: I have salted this title as well. In case you missed the ping, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adw.x.hs has been opened. ✗plicit
- Thanks for the salting and the link to the SPI (although I'm not convinced, and neither have ever been blocked) - User:Kailash29792 has since unilaterally redirected 4 of the drafts to Draft:War 2 (2025) - let's see if they re-appear. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk)
- Thanks for the salting and the link to the SPI (although I'm not convinced, and neither have ever been blocked) - User:Kailash29792 has since unilaterally redirected 4 of the drafts to Draft:War 2 (2025) - let's see if they re-appear. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk)
- @Arjayay: I have salted this title as well. In case you missed the ping, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adw.x.hs has been opened. ✗plicit
- War 2 (2025) has been now moved to draft-space, but E/C protection would be appreciated - Arjayay (talk)
- Thanks for that User:Explicit, but as the title is not salted, whereas War 2 is E/C protected, War 2 (2025) has been recreated, yet again. Could you please delete and salt this title? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Sony Bravia televisions. 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. Punkt64 (talk)
- Hello @Explicit,
- I made the DRV because I want to share my point of view on the deletion of this article. As I mentioned there, I am not a frequent user but I have contributed heavily on some select articles like the one that was deleted here. The AfD process seems to have a limit of one week until the article is permanently deleted which is decided upon the consensus of the discussion. However, I see a fatal flaw in this because it completely disregards the argumentations of infrequent users or just users who happen to not be online in their Wikipedia account within the one week in which the AfD author chooses to compose their AfD. I think of this like court rulings. At least in my country, when new evidence is brought up or new witnesses want to testify, the case can be opened again. But I have not found any way to open a case again yet on Wikipedia, and the users in the deletion review did not point me to such a way either. So I'm writing you directly with the request to see the discussion in the deletion review and my argumentation to re-evaluate the decision to delete the article.
- Thank you Punkt64 (talk)
Hey Explicit! You deleted this file a few months ago under CSD F5 after the Miyazakiworld article was merged elsewhere. Well, the article's rewritten and split back out! Would you mind undeleting? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh)
- @TechnoSquirrel69: Done, file restored. ✗plicit
Image deletion
Hello Explicit. I wanted to follow up with you on something. You recently deleted this image. However, that image was already actively being discussed here, where the only 2 formal responses were "keep". I wanted to check and see if you were willing to re-open for further discussion? I'm not really seeing a consensus there, and if I'm reading it right, it looks like it was present at the time of the article's promotion from GA to FA, so I would think its been scrutinized in the past too. Let me know. If you are, I'm willing to neutrally notify WP:VG of the discussion for further discussion too. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me
- @Sergecross73: Hi, to claim that two editors argued keeping the file is a bit disingenuous, as you made your comments were made nearly an hour after I had already deleted the file (for the record, I don't manually close discussions at FFD because AnomieBOT can do that when the result is "delete" and the file linked in the header).
- Irrespective of that detail, neither of you adequately addressed the WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion: "In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally leaked and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia. This is not a consensus issue, it's a legal concern. Is there any evidence the copyright holder eventually published this particular screenshot? ✗plicit
- I simply commented on an open discussion I stumbled upon. Was that wrong? This feels like a rather rude response to someone who nicely asked if you would consider relisting if I did the legwork in scrounging up further discussion. Have I done something to upset you in the past or something? Because I can't make any sense of this sort of response otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me
- @Sergecross73: I have no idea how you interpreted that as a rude response. You commented on a deletion discussion where the file had already been deleted, meaning that a decision was made and the debate had concluded. My decision to delete the file was based on a single "keep" !vote which failed to address the previous publication clause WP:NFCC#4, which the nominator pointed out that leaks not only fail to constitute previous publication, but that they also should not be included on Wikipedia. You implied that I considered two keep !votes when coming to a decision, when that was not the case.
- Your comment there did not address nom's concern, nor did your original message here. Consensus is based on the merits of the arguments, not head count. The failure of not satisfying even a single criterion of NFCC leads to a non-free media file's deletion. ✗plicit
- I mean, you immediately accused me of being disingenuous, and you have "no idea" how that comes off as rude? I simply came here to see if you would consider a realist, as is a courtesy before heading to DRV. Even in your scenario where I "commented too late" or whatever, there was still very little participation in that discussion. Sergecross73 msg me
- @Sergecross73: Do you still stand by your claim that there were two keep !votes for consideration at the time I deleted the file, despite me explaining the timeline to you?
- Seeing as you have yet to address NFCC#4, you have not provided an adequate reason to reconsider my decision. You are free to take this to DRV. ✗plicit
- My stance is, as mentioned before, that more discussion is in order, because there were few participants, and because the image was present for its FA review/promotion, and been in the article for many years since. I know that doesn't necessarily make it right, but I do believe it, at the very least, warrants further evaluation. Your insistence in arguing image policy with me rather than considering a simple relist certainly doesn't help with my concerns of a supervote situation though. Sergecross73 msg me
- @Sergecross73: You can expand on your accusations of supervoting at DRV, then. ✗plicit
- ...I know...? Sergecross73 msg me
- ...I know...? Sergecross73 msg me
- @Sergecross73: You can expand on your accusations of supervoting at DRV, then. ✗plicit
- My stance is, as mentioned before, that more discussion is in order, because there were few participants, and because the image was present for its FA review/promotion, and been in the article for many years since. I know that doesn't necessarily make it right, but I do believe it, at the very least, warrants further evaluation. Your insistence in arguing image policy with me rather than considering a simple relist certainly doesn't help with my concerns of a supervote situation though. Sergecross73 msg me
- I mean, you immediately accused me of being disingenuous, and you have "no idea" how that comes off as rude? I simply came here to see if you would consider a realist, as is a courtesy before heading to DRV. Even in your scenario where I "commented too late" or whatever, there was still very little participation in that discussion. Sergecross73 msg me
- I simply commented on an open discussion I stumbled upon. Was that wrong? This feels like a rather rude response to someone who nicely asked if you would consider relisting if I did the legwork in scrounging up further discussion. Have I done something to upset you in the past or something? Because I can't make any sense of this sort of response otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me
Page Protection
Hello Explicit, The protection status for the Mohammed Hijab needs to be reconsidered. I have drafted a new version of the article. Could you please take a look at it? Thank you.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ
- @Owais Al Qarni: Hi, I have unprotected the title. ✗plicit
AfD with a possible sock-puppet
Hi Explicit,
I have gotten myself involved in the WP:Articles for deletion/Senkoukai discussion and it appears that the author of the article has been contributing large paragraphs of possible llm nonsense which makes it very hard for other editors to see the substantial discussion there. And then I was just made aware this morning that the author is also a suspected sock(meat?) puppet of Kumar, the founder of the organization in the article
I have previously seen some AfD's where llm bludgeoning was collapsed, so I was wondering if there is any appropriate remedy in this case.
(p.s. whales are cute 🐋)
Moritoriko (talk)
- @Moritoriko: Hi, I have collapsed the the LLM responses in accordance with WP:AITALK. Based on their userpage, the editor in question may be engaging in undisclosed paid editing, but I can't say for sure. If you or another editor suspect sock or meatpuppetry, it's worth exploring the matter and filing a report at WP:SPI. ✗plicit
- Thank, I had assumed that since the category existed it was already under investigation but I'll file a report anyways Moritoriko (talk)
- Thank, I had assumed that since the category existed it was already under investigation but I'll file a report anyways Moritoriko (talk)
Hello, I was wondering if you could be of assistance with the redirect you deleted following an RfD, Future FIFA Club World Cup (China). The page was previously titled "2021 FIFA Club World Cup", but was moved around after getting postponed and then later cancelled. While the redirect title itself no longer makes sense and was rightly deleted, I was wondering if the former page history could be retained, for example at 2021 FIFA Club World Cup (China) or something like Cancelled FIFA Club World Cup in China, with the page acting as a redirect to the target FIFA Club World Cup#Expansion. I wanted to use some of the text that previously existed on that article to write a more detailed section on the cancelled tournament while providing attribution, but of course I can't see any of the history. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, S.A. Julio (talk)
- @S.A. Julio: Done. ✗plicit
Draft:Rick Ferrari
Hello Explicit, I'm writing regarding the following page which was deleted to see if you can bring it back so I can resume editing? I was working on it but then had to go off line again for many months. Thank you Explicit talk contribs deleted page Draft:Rick Ferrari BuddhaBassist (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBassist (talk • contribs)
- @BuddhaBassist: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit
Hi, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 in 60 metres (2nd nomination). Can you please undelete 2020–21 in 60 metres to project space at Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks/2020–21 in 60 metres? The reason is it's a helpful red link list similar to the other lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks. --Habst (talk)
Image undeletion request: File:Superboy (Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version).png
Hi Explicit, I noticed that the File:Superboy (Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version).png was recently deleted under F5 after the "Superboy (Kal-El)" article was redirected according to this deletion discussion, and that you were the user who properly deleted the file.
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
However, the non-admin closure in the deletion discussion also supported merging content to the main Superboy article (preferably, I suppose, at the relevant Clark Kent section), per WP:PRESERVE. I'd like to reuse the image there, as it illustrates the Earth-One Superboy and was in long-standing use with a valid fair use rationale.
Would you consider restoring the file so that it can be readily used appropriately in that context? Red Shogun412 (talk)
- @Red Shogun412: Hi, the addition of this file to Superboy is not supported by WP:NFCC. In fact, most of the images in the article appear to violate policy. Using a non-free media file in multiple sections of an article is inadvisable. ✗plicit
- Appreciate the insight—totally fair points. I agree that most of the current images (especially the two in the "Publication history" section) aren't doing much to meet NFCC, and I'm happy to clean those up. I’ll also go ahead and remove the Superboy-Prime image to reduce the overall non-free load in the article.
- In exchange, I'd still like to see the Clark Kent Superboy file restored for use at a single, focused spot—ideally at the list's Clark Kent entry—to serve as a minimal visual identifier. The image had a valid rationale in its previous use (which I am more than happy to update myself), and I think this would keep us on solid ground with NFCC#1 and #3, while staying mindful of WP:NFLISTS by avoiding cluttering the page with unnecessary or excessive visuals.
- If you're open to restoring the file under that understanding, or if there's a better way you’d recommend approaching it, either would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Red Shogun412 (talk)
- I've removed the aforementioned images from the article in this edit Red Shogun412 (talk)
- @Red Shogun412: Very well, I have restored the file. Please note that since the original deletion was uncontroversial, I'm being a bit more lenient in this case. It can still be subject to deletion if another editor nominates it for discussion. ✗plicit
- Thank you. I completely understand and accept that as a very real possibility. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciated your help on this matter. Red Shogun412 (talk)
- Thank you. I completely understand and accept that as a very real possibility. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciated your help on this matter. Red Shogun412 (talk)
- @Red Shogun412: Very well, I have restored the file. Please note that since the original deletion was uncontroversial, I'm being a bit more lenient in this case. It can still be subject to deletion if another editor nominates it for discussion. ✗plicit
- I've removed the aforementioned images from the article in this edit Red Shogun412 (talk)
User:Salmaci123
Hi Explicit. I think Boxingdetroit might be back as Salmaci123. Do you think this warrants a new SPI? -- Marchjuly (talk)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, the block I imposed was quite a while ago, so I don't remember this user or situation at all. An SPI report would have to depend on behavioral evidence as activity to justify CheckUser would be long stale. ✗plicit
- That's OK Explict. Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, the original account Taricksalmaci was only soft-blocked for username reasons; so, the same person can just create another account if they want. The other accounts were blocked per SOCK mainly because they were also being disruptive. So, I guess as long as this new account avoids stuff like that, they'll be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk)
- That's OK Explict. Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, the original account Taricksalmaci was only soft-blocked for username reasons; so, the same person can just create another account if they want. The other accounts were blocked per SOCK mainly because they were also being disruptive. So, I guess as long as this new account avoids stuff like that, they'll be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk)
Can you restore it to my sandbox, so I can work to improve it? TIA Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
- @Piotrus: Done, now available at User:Piotrus/Zbigniew Bąk. ✗plicit
Hi! Just flagging this following my restoration should you wish to weigh in. There was no issue with your close as he hadn't yet been blocked then. Star Mississippi
- @Star Mississippi: Hi, that's fine. I would have closed the AFD as speedy keep had the nominator been blocked before closure. ✗plicit
- Thanks @Explicit. Didn't run it past you before restoration since it was less contesting your close and more implementing the closed you'd have done with all factors on the table. Star Mississippi
- Thanks @Explicit. Didn't run it past you before restoration since it was less contesting your close and more implementing the closed you'd have done with all factors on the table. Star Mississippi