User talk:Explicit/Archive 43

Re your edit here , with the summary "Declined speedy - U5 no longer applies once a warning is issued". It's all a bit confusing.

The user had posted the same thing on User Page and User Talk Page.

• So I put a "db-u5" on the User page
• put a "not web host" notice on the User talk page (referring to the User page)
• then put a "db-u5" on the User talk page (referring to the User talk page itself) because it had the same web hosty stuff on it
• and didn't put a "not web host" notice on the User talk page about the "db-u5" on the User talk page because it was all becoming a little Escher-like.

Anyway, address the "db-u5" or not for the User talk page, as you see fit. My head hurts. (and "Don't type Google into Google", Jen Barber, IT department head, Reynholm Industries^[1]) _signed, Willondon (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amudhey. 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. DareshMohan (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the votes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Tamil Nadu medical cases by district/doc, it looks like you forgot to also delete the parent templates and their talk pages:

• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Tamil Nadu medical cases by district
• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nepal PCR tests by laboratory
• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nepal medical cases by province and district

Jroberson108 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jroberson108: Hi, those templates were neither listed nor tagged for deletion. Deleting them would have been out of process. They will need a separate nomination. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

By the time I added a comment for the RfD, it was closed. Do you think any of the alternatives are worth? Jay (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jay: Hi, after looking at the terms you suggested, I'm not "forum invasion" is quite captured by them. "Flame wars" can occur among established users in community, while "forum spam" and "shitposting" only require a single user, so they all seemingly fall short of the "invasion" aspect. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@J.A.R. Huygebaert: Hi, the page was no deleted, but moved into draftspace here: Draft:Richard Swan (writer). Richard Swan (writer) was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#R2 as a cross-namespace redirect. The page was moved by Styyx, who may be able to offer more information as to why he did so. ✗plicit 00:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Maybe you did not have email notifications enabled, so I had to put this message. I have emailed you yesterday, maybe you have not seen it yet. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Hi, I actually responded a few minutes after I received your email. You didn't receive anything? ✗plicit 14:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I found it out now. You may check your email again. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You can find the AFD-discussion for Apptix / Carasent here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apptix. It's linked right at the top of the discussion page. Tholme (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can I have Draft:TimescaleDB restored? I'm on a project to add sources indicating notability. thank you! riffic (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Riffic:  Done, draft restored. ✗plicit 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you kindly! riffic (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello sir, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Ingale Here are people of same grup to give support. check people's IP once Cinzia007 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

>Jsah258 >Priyatungi The connection of these two people will find you in this articales > Siddhant Cinevision

Manish R Goswami In this article the connection of these two will be found ( Zgz.or, Jsah258 )

( Jsah258, Zgz.or) And both of these made same name article ( Sachin Patil)

Hi,

you have deleted as Admin the Template:Canon RF Mount Lenses Timeline Is it possible to get the source code of the Template? I have missed the discussion about the deletion of the template, and I like to put the information into the article. Maybe you can put it on my personal page or as sub page / draft area.

By the way: is it in the english Wikipedia not common to invite the main authors to a discussion for deletion? I have seen today, that the Template was deleted, but have missed the discussion totally.

--GodeNehler (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@GodeNehler: Hi, a copy of the source code will be available here for one week before expiring. The page author was Dut227 and they received a message about the template's forthcoming deletion. Other contributors are generally not notified. ✗plicit 00:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you for the quick response. I made a copy of the source to my private area. --GodeNehler (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I noticed you declined speedy deletion of some pages I had nominated. You are right that Peytonweth had not been blocked yet at time of the page creations. However their sock Sanreoid was already blocked on 8 January 2022 for vandalism (block log). So I believe the pages were created in violation of a block, and are eligible for speedy deletion. Sorry that it might've not been clear based on Peytonweth's only recently blocked. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Njd-de: Hi, thanks for pointing out Sanreoid's block, it wasn't immediately clear that the account was blocked since January 8 UTC at first glance. You're correct that G5 does apply to anything created after that point in time, so I have deleted the pages I had originally declined. ✗plicit 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you recently deleted Anchimolius, but I think it should be kept. Nominator said that the article has "no real lasting notability other than other historians repeating what Herodotus wrote" and "probably incapable of expansion", but there are four full pages of discussions about him and his expedition in Simon Hornblower, Herodotus Histories book V (pp. 186-189, plus a comment on his name p. 24); Paul Cartledge (Sparta and Lakonia, p. 126) suggests he was the first Spartan navarch. Anchimolius led Sparta's first war against Athens. All this makes him notable enough.

I was not informed of the deletion, otherwise I would have voted against it. T8612 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: see Anchimolus. Avilich (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

When you closed the "Abkhazia AfD" (kudos for this!), something went wrong on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel page. Anything after is now closed, including an unrelated AfD. Maybe you can take a look? It occurs also on the other deletion sorting pages. Maybe somewhere "}}" missing? gidonb (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gidonb: Whoops! I forgot to add {{afd bottom}} at the end of the discussion. Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. ✗plicit 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for fixing! I already started to experiment with solutions but did not know what was missing. A simple script adds all for me. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you add the deletion rationale at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Kevin Sellers? I had also requested for it during my renomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kevin Sellers. Jay (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you declined two of my PRODs (List of postal codes in Russia and List of postal codes of Paraguay) on the basis that they'd already been prodded. I did check the talk page first, and they didn't set off Twinkle (I guess because there was nothing on the talk page), so it didn't occur to me to look elsewhere - how did you find these diffs? Checking the history manually? Or is there some easier way to do this? Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Hi, I found them by manually checking the respective page histories. If there were an easier way, I'd definitely want to know about it! ✗plicit 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

I saw that Avataro Sentai Donbrothers was re-published from the original draft, and has since been G4'd by you as a re-creation. I just thought I'd point out that part of the AfD points were that the deleted version did not properly attribute edits to the draft, and that only the mainspace article be deleted while the draft continues the development. Now that someone moved the draft to main and it was G4'd, all the prior history was lost. I thought I'd point this out in case you feel it prudent to restore the article and send it back to draft space in place of outright deletion. (Based on the AfD, I'm sure it will get re-created again in the near future.)

Regards, 2pou (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You deleted Template:World War I infobox, but I wonder if in this case, because it has been merged into an article, it needs preserving somehow for its history? Srnec (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deplike Guitar FX page was for Music Software company Deplike LTD. We were working as a team to publish the page but when it was published we got 'there's no significant coverage in reliable sources because it has no historical impact' message and got deletion. Now we want to edit the page to mention about company history and its applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fretmaswter (talk • contribs) 11:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fretmaswter: As the page was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion, I can not unilaterally undelete the page. You may want to try creating going through the Articles for creation process to address the issues brought up at the deletion debate. ✗plicit 12:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Before requesting undeletion and then transfer to Commons, I would like to ask you whether the logo itself is above either c:COM:TOO US or c:COM:TOO France. As I found out, it was previously used for Template:Michelin green star. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho: This image is the clover in this logo. It's likely above the threshold of originality in France, but I'm not sure about the U.S. ✗plicit 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit - I'm here to inform you that I have just confirmed that two of the accounts !voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parde Mein Rehne Do were in fact the same user. Please consider whether that would have affected your evaluation of the discussion, and whether it should be relisted. (I don't have a view, I haven't read the discussion, this is just FYI really). Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! 6 years ago, you deleted File:Magicroundabout hemel.gif per this discussion. However, unless I am mistaken, File:Magicroundabout hemel.svg is a derivative work of the deleted file. As there was minimal participation in the discussion (one !voter besides the nominator), I am requesting that this file be undeleted and subsequently moved to the Commons for attribution. HouseBlaster^talk 19:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: Hi, I have restored the file and transferred it to Commons. Cheers, ✗plicit 01:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Howdy Explicit. Just wanted to drop a hopefully helpful note about a page you deleted: Neha Pendse. It appears its deletion was mistaken, but was the result of a comedy of errors. Neha Pendse was the original page, which an editor incompetently copy and paste moved to Nehha Pendse Bayas. Then someone tagged it as a copyvio, which was in a sense true, but not of the external site cited (it was just a Wikipedia mirror, at the bottom of the article it said "source: Wikipedia"). Another admin then deleted the Bayas version, and then you deleted the Neha Pendse redirect. However, it had 700 edits and 50k views a month. A comedy of errors indeed. I have gone and fixed it all up, but the main point I'd like to leave you with is: while most dead redirects are easily deleted, not all are. Check carefully. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Hi, I'm quite surprised this one slipped past me, as things like this usually don't. Thanks for the notice. ✗plicit 01:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Term (time) as delete looks reasonable based on the discussion there. If I'd known about it, I would have supported keeping it a bluelink in some form, but I don't think I have a strong enough new-info for a successful DR. But deleting it left two dangling red-links that need to be resolved. One is a hatnote of Contractual term. The distinguish/not-to-be-confused aspect in that article seems important enough to explain in the lede (with link to...something?) if there's no viable place to point the hatnote. It seems weird to have a hatnote with a verbose distinguishment to wikt or simple prose. The other is as a section-header in Template:Types of capital. I'm not sure what the proper replacement is there:( Any ideas welcome. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks: Hi, I removed the red links for the time being, as there's not much sense in leading readers to a non-existent page. Looking at the deleted content again, it definitely reads as a dicdef and I'm finding it difficult to think of broader term to plausibly redirect this title to—two of the four mentioned in the lead sentence are links to Wiktionary. We're kind of stuck in a corner with this one. ✗plicit 01:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree (obviously) that a redlink is not useful for improving readers' understanding, and that the deleted page was not ever going to be a viable full article. I would have been looking for a wiktionary-redirect solely because it's a technical term with a technical meaning not really covered elsewhere. DMacks (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like this TFD wasn't closed, or, at least, I'm getting an error message ("XFDcloser loading") on the page. But maybe it's my internet connection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Explicit, would you want to close some of the 20 discussions from October and December 2021? They are long overdue. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Hope you are keeping well. I observe sometime back you deleted my article on Ravindra Telang. As cadre of Indian Administrative Service he held many important portfolios in Government of India and Government of Sikkim and is of much value as Informational purpose for general public. Request you to kindly restore it or suggest the changes to move it to the main space. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: As the page was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion, I can not unilaterally undelete the page. You may want to try creating going through the Articles for creation process or work on it in your sandbox to address the issues brought up at the deletion debate. ✗plicit 13:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've recently closed an RFD so I bring this to you. I noticed that an RFD I participated in, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Abeceda, was closed (less than 24 hours after the RFD was initiated) by a non-admin who had also !voted in the discussion. As I understand it from WP:NAC, only uninvolved editors are supposed to close discussions. Should it be reopened? Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Hi, the nominator converted the redirect into a disambiguation page based on the other comments and rendered the discussion moot. In this particular case, this was a procedural close. ✗plicit 13:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, Appreciate your good work on Wikipedia. Just for your information the article 4 Morant (Better Luck Next Time) you recently moved into a draft is live again in the mainspace. 4 Morant (Better Luck Next Time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMySon (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

This article had already been PROD'd before so I restored it and untagged it. Just FYI. We all make mistakes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg and File:Tank Man, Tiananmen Uprising.jpeg since it's not clear why two are needed or whether the size difference really matters. If the newer version is OK to keep, then maybe it would be better to merge the histories of the two since the older one has quite a lot of comments about it posted on its file talk page and it was discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've merge the file histories and moved it back to its original name at File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these files and doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit. B B Deepika (talk · contribs) made some bizzare moves today while trying to move Draft:Sree Leela to mainspace. They first moved it to Wikipedia:Sree Leela, and then to Talk:Sree Leela. I had placed a technical request to revert these moves but withdrew it after noticing that you've handled it. However, the original draft (which was draftified following an AfD) seems to have been lost in this process. Could you restore this draft back to Draft:Sree Leela? Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This was also requested at WP:Requests for undeletion#Talk:Sree Leela. Jay (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207:  Done, the content is now available as Draft:Sree Leela. ✗plicit 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ab207 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to request the restoration of the deleted page Cryptex, which had this note: "Expired PROD, concern was: No demonstration of notability via reliable sources that this is a valid standalone topic from Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code." My rationale is that the term has expanded quite a lot in the past 20 years outside of the Da Vinci Code. While it coined in the book, it was later developed into a device that is very commonly used in escape rooms, as art pieces, and as a type of lock. Cryptexes have been used in a number of TV shows and movies other than the Da Vinci Code. Please let me know what can be done to improve the article to get it restored Thank you so much!Watsign (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Watsign

@Watsign: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 12:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!73.109.33.206 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Watsign

Can you restore this please. I was about to deprod it as the topic is without doubt notable and we should have a page. I left it overnight because I was considering whether the flimsy material on the page wouldn't be better off as a portal. On reflection, a list of links to relevant articles is better than nothing and gives a framework for anyone inclined to expand it. SpinningSpark 07:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:  Done, the page has been restored. ✗plicit 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou. SpinningSpark 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please can you move Graham Phillips (blogger) to Graham Phillips (journalist) per the BBC source? I think the Courier bio has him pass GNG. Thanks. LondonIP (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP: I have unprotected the target page and you are now free to move it to that title. ✗plicit 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't believe he is a real journalist, but that's what the BBC called him. LondonIP (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

File:BBC One Threetime ident.gif was deleted because it was unused in a now-deleted article. I want to reupload it now for use in another article. Is there any way to view and recover this deleted file, since I don't have the source file anymore myself? --Jf81 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jf81: Hi, per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, non-free logos are generally only allowed to be used in the infobox or lead section of the article about the subject. If not used in BBC Three idents, how would its use be justified elsewhere in accordance with WP:NFCC policy? ✗plicit 13:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My idea was to use that file within the context/section of BBC Three's history. --Jf81 (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Also @Explicit:, the other logos currently on the article are free as it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Considering this ident is pretty much the same (BBC logos), wouldn't that qualify as well? --Jf81 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Priyanka Choudhary. 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.Commonedits (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this article: List of Sahitya Akademi Translation Prize winners for Rajasthani was recently deleted since it was created by a blocked user. Is there any way I can see the actual article before it was deleted and thereafter recreate it with proper sources? This is an article of general importance in Rajasthani language related topics. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Krayon95: Hi, I've pasted a copy of the page before it was deleted here. You are free to recreate it if you feel that the content is worthwhile. ✗plicit 12:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Possible for you to restore and delete it again? The file description can still be seen. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the page Institute of Certified Practising Accountants but did not follow that up by removing backlinks from other pages, which is best practice. On this occasion, I have made follow-up edits already. If you normally do this but overlooked it on this occasion, please forgive me contacting you about it. Otherwise, I hope this is a helpful reminder. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"known mononymously as Sungyeol" 2600:1700:BAD0:23C0:4966:7176:B648:9BE0 (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:SURNAME: "If they use their mononym or pseudonym exclusively, then use that name". That is clearly not the case. ✗plicit 12:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

what about blackpink jisoo or bts jungkook? 2607:F380:828:FB00:0:0:0:156E (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! You have deleted this title in 2018. I write to ask you to revive it, so I can rewrite it as the English Wiki equivalent for a relatively amply developed article in the Persian Wikipedia: fa:چهارراه (نمایشنامه), a play by Bahram Beyzai. With 25 different references in the Persian version, this one, I'm sure, meets the notability criteria.Mirza gashamsham (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mirza gashamsham: Hi, I restored the page per WP:CONTESTED, but moved it into draftspace at Draft:Crossroads (play) as it is only contains one unsourced sentence. Feel free to move it back into mainspace when your work is done. ✗plicit 00:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.Mirza gashamsham (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! You recently deleted this file for what I think was "lack of licensing information." The article it was for was later reverted to an incorrect image of the character in question (on an article for Sadako Yamamura, a picture of Samara Morgan is used, which is not exactly the same character); I was wondering how I can go about getting this file restored and properly documented so that it can be used. Thanks! Delukiel (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Delukiel: Hi, the image was deleted due to its lack of licensing information. As noted at WP:NFC#Implementation, non-free media files, as in this case, must contain a copyright license template and a non-free rationale to avoid deletion under the aforementioned criterion. The relevant information is linked there.

In regards to the actual article, it seems that you believe the main image should be changed from displaying Samara Morgan to Sadako Yamamura. I see that you have initiated a discussion on the talk page, which is a good start. You may want to wait a bit for a response from other editors watching the page, as they may be able to help you with the process, or perhaps provide reasons they are against the idea. ✗plicit 01:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you for the reply! I will follow the steps that you've listed. Unfortunately, it seems the talk page is pretty dead. The first comment on the page regards the very same image, and it's from almost a decade ago. I figure it may just be better to change it, given that no others have chimed in except to express the same desire.Delukiel (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Delukiel: If there is no response for at least 24 hours, you can always be bold and go through with your proposed change. ✗plicit 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Done! I hope I did the licensing information correctly. The image "to the uploader" section requests that I add a non-free use rationale to the article—do you know where I would put that? Sorry for bothering you again! Edit: Whoops, never mind, I read it wrong. Delukiel (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I find the serif font here hard to read and the reply tool doesn't work, presumably because of what you have done to add the font. I think this is bad for accesibility. Would you consider removing teh font? NemesisAT (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: Hi, I just removed the formatting all together. Somehow, a new problem always arises despite its static nature and it's not worth the trouble. Regards, ✗plicit 23:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for removing it and sorry if my tone was a bit abrupt in my initial message. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you relist? I was literally typing a keep and got an edit conflict while you closed it.

• Keep - there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Wow, talk about timing! I have reverted the "soft delete" closure and relisted the discussion. ✗plicit 23:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, weird timing, given it was only the second page I'd touched in a few days! Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know how that draft didn't meet either G1 or G2, as from what I can tell, it is meaningless math-jargon word salad, with no actual meaning, and seemed to me to be a very good example of what G1 is for. Is there something I'm missing? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I will elaborate a bit further, first, the "Constanta number" doesn't exist. Second, it seems unlikely for it to have been supposed to read as "constant" as it is apparently also exponential. Third, "prove all subjects were mathematics" makes utterly no sense whatsoever. Hence why I thought it was patent nonsense. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Thank you for elaborating, the application of G1 makes sense to me now. I have gone ahead and deleted the page as such. ✗plicit 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it seems you closed the discussion on Lagos State Sports Commission right as I was typing my comment! My comment on redirecting was important because I was pointing out that the target article suggested by another user was not actually a redirect itself, which could've meant a different consensus. Please advise Ironmatic1 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ironmatic1: Hi, Lagos State Sports Commission has never existed, so I'm not sure which page you're referring to. ✗plicit 05:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_27#Lagos_State_Sport_Commission Ironmatic1 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ironmatic1: Was any of the content suitable to be merged into that page? If not, Lagos State Sport Commission can be created as a redirect without needing to reopen the debate. ✗plicit 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just gonna agree with him that it should be a redirect, so I've gone ahead and recreated it as a redirect. Thanks Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I'm the founder of Webreep, and developer of the webreep model, which is published in an international peer reviewed journal. It seems you deleted the Wikipedia page about this, rather than editing it. Can you please return the wikipedia entry and make appropriate edits rather than simply deleting. Thank you. Dr Brent Coker University of Melbourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisony (talk • contribs) 06:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Trisony: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 13:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Trisony. Based upon what you posted above, I think you should take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to your connection to the subject of article. I've added some information about this to your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:AnnVeronicaJanssens.jpg? It's essentially a re-upload of File:AnnVeronicaJanssens-portrait.jpg which you deleted a few days ago. The user who uploaded it is an SPA who doesn't seem to understand why it was deleted the first time around. For some odd reason, they simultaneously tagged the file for F7 speedy deletion as replaceable use and then contested the tag, but they didn't provide a copyright license for the file. An F7 deletion gives them two days before the file is deleted, but an F4 deletion will give them five days. Do you think there's any point in tagging this with {{nsdnld}} or {{nld}} or maybe even {{npd}}. FWIW, the article itself seems to have COI editing (including possible UPE) editing as well that are separate from the image issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, I'm not seeing much of a need for any additional effort to be put on our part. The notices on the uploader's talk page explain the issue pretty well. There may be other issues to address with them, but those are best taken to the relevant noticeboards. ✗plicit 11:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough and thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I find everything about the deletion process here confusing. 1) I didn't create the original version of the page but I created the modern iteration and I wasn't notified. 2) To be honest, I've never seen a deletion discussion closed on the back of a single vote and a weak one at that 3) Why wasn't it relisted? If there was a need to have a verdict, why not no consensus? 4) The notability of the company isn't a question. There are plenty of articles about it. If needed, put a tag on it in order to improve it, but to delete it due to one weak vote?? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anchil Oral Arjunan. 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. DareshMohan (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review and publish draft Draft:Vettuva_Gounder117.246.204.162 (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not review drafts, so you will need to wait until a reviewer comes along. In any case, you have yet to submit it for review. This can be done by adding {{AfC submission}} to the top of the draft page. ✗plicit 11:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to request the restoration of the deleted page Ketto, which had this note: " The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC).^{[1] [2]}

My rationale is that Ketto pioneers the efforts of crowdfunding for healthcare and marginalised individuals in India. The concept of crowdfunding and fundraising to ensure healthcare is accessible to all in India was introduced by Ketto and its founders. Their efforts to create change at the very roots of the Indian culture is in itself a mammoth task. They deserve an article on Wikipedia like the many others that strive hard to bring about social change through their work. I understand through the AfD; there is a lot required to align this article to meet Wiki Policies WP:NCORP and avoid further deletion requests. I request you to restore the article or allow me a chance to improve it. I will ensure to contribute my best towards this article so it meets and exceeds Wikipedia guidelines.

P.S. I have noticed [] is a fairly new user on Wikipedia and their log consists mainly of activity to delete articles. Contributions made by @@@XyX require moderation to ensure Wikipedia remains safe and notable articles and pages are not deleted or modified based on an individual's prejudices.

User page Even though you're not a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer, then why have you even mentioned the same on your user page? Why such falsity?! I would request you to kindly update your user page, state accurate details and stay faithful towards Wikipedia and its community. ManaliJain (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ketto_(3rd_nomination)

24x7magic (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@24x7magic: No can do. Nine other users also determined that the subject did not meet notability guidelines to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. ✗plicit 11:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@24x7magic: Jumping in here to note the advertorial nature of your post here. (Waves at Explicit). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Hope you are keeping well. Posting this message as reminder to move this article to draft space so that I can make requisite changes to qualify for main space. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: Reminder from... which discussion? This alternative was not suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravindra Telang. ✗plicit 11:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didnt mean part of any discussion but just as reminder for my earlier request not answered by you. As I see number of articles of persons in similar positions, so thought of requesting you to move it to draft space so that I can modify it. Thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring the article history under the redirect that TAnthony recreated? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: The content was unsourced and none of it was merged into the target article. For what reason should the AFD that unanimously decided to delete the page be overturned without consensus to do so? ✗plicit 11:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The content was indeed currently, and presumably chronically, unsourced, but redirectable, and in fact the title was re-created as a redirect less than 3 hours after you deleted it. As you might have noticed in the logs, a similar undeletion under the redirect was done to preserve history by BD2412 back in 2011. WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-R are the controlling policies here: while everyone is agreed that the article in its current state should not exist in mainspace, our policies expect that an article that can and should be merged or turned into a redirect, is. Thus, straight deletion of the content is in fact not the appropriate policy-based outcome. The obvious benefit to redirecting is that an editor can come along in the future and use the history to craft a better article than the one which was deleted. While the AfD was indeed unanimous, it was also only three people including the nominator--one less, and it would have been eligible for a soft deletion. Of note, no one said "delete and don't redirect" which would be a valid option if accompanied by a reasonable rationale. At any rate, I doubt QueenofBithynia, Piotrus, or Blakesmith11 would object to a redirect, since none of them have yet objected to the recreated redirect. It might be prudent to protect the redirect to keep a drive-by un-redirection from restoring the article in its lousy previous state, but there's no good reason for the content in the history to be concealed from non-admins, is there? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I certainly would not object to a redirect, nor to a SOFTDELETE (restoring the history before a redirect). If a redirect is created, really, there is no reason to delete the previous history. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why no redirect so that content could be merged? As of right now, it looks like there was a copy/paste by an editor into the merge target here, so I believe per WP:CWW the original redirect should remain, even if you don't agree that it was the more policy compliant outcome per WP:ATD. (And no, I don't care one way or another about the content; just trying to keep us all copyright- and policy-compliant) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: The delete !votes indicated that it was not appropriate to include the list in the parent article as its contents was dependent on primary sources and may have been too fancrufty to be considered encyclopedic. It appears that Rtkat3 decided to add that one section in Power Rangers RPM as an attempt to circumvent the AFD result as consensus grew to support outright deletion. ✗plicit 01:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that notability concerns do not determine the content of articles, correct? To the extent that there existed a notable (or at least not currently contested) merge target, the fact that an article up for deletion only included non-notable content did not impair the appropriateness of a merge. Did you misapprehend this and as such discount the possibility of such a merger and/or given undue consideration to deletion !votes that did not discuss a potential merger? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Where in my response did I address notability? The nominator specifically cited WP:NOT#PLOT and the delete !votes made reference of varying degrees to it as well. This policy directly addresses content of articles. The keep !votes cited other articles, but failed to address how merging the list would alleviate the aforementioned WP:NOT concerns. ✗plicit 04:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

One other participant explicitly agreed with NOT#PLOT. No one objected to a redirection or merger, although certainly characterizing content merger edits as "an attempt to circumvent the AFD result as consensus grew to support outright deletion" is a problematic statement: The potential use of content which can be appropriately integrated elsewhere is why WP:ATD-M exists. Right now, there is an attribution problem, for which the quickest fix is to restore the character list and redirect it to the series article. You could protect it if you really thought there was a significant risk of disruption, I suppose. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason to not do this. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As a side note to your discussion, I asked Rtkat3 not to merge or copy during AfD, per the last item in WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't even aware that existed. I edited it to be a bit more AGF, and link to ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your change. Please see WT:Guide to deletion#Merging or copying during live discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

My wikipedia talk content titled 'Princess Pat Akpabio' was deleted by you. I understand that this was as a result of my inactivity for several months. I humbly request that this deletion be reversed so I can submit the content for review. Supremebosslife (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Handled at WP:RFU. Regards SoWhy 09:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. I am writing to request for the un-deletion of File:Hong_Kong_Progressive_Alliance_old_logo.svg. Thanks. ~~ J. Dann 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cypp0847: As this was deleted in accordance to WP:CSD#G5, the file should remain deleted. However, I have uploaded a copy here, which you free to re-upload. The source on the file's description page was this PDF. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ~~ J. Dann 06:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm dropping my request here as well:

• File:Asociación de Scouts de Venezuela.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When you do, could you restore this version of the article?

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 03:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evrik:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is what "French" means. We do have Category:7th-century Frankish bishops--but "Frankish" doesn't mean the same thing as "French", semantically: "France" points at country, but "Franks" points at a people (probably not an ethnicity). I see we have a populated category for the 9th century; Ealdgyth, can we speak of "France" in the 9th century? What do you think? BTW Explicit I didn't realize I had made this category--I must have had something in mind! Drmies (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: The "X-century French foo" categories were renamed to "X-century Frankish foo" up until the 8th century as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:6th century in France. Perhaps this category should be redirected to Category:7th-century Frankish bishops? The category intends to cover the people of Francia. ✗plicit 03:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it--thanks. I see the complications in that discussion; we're trying to capture a complex reality in simple categories. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Explicit. I think the deletions were incorrect. I don't think that WP:RFD#GeneReviews(®) should have been decided by a vote. It's not a question of opinion. In this case the nominator and Delete voters based their votes upon a legal argument. I and Edcolins raised the fact that this legal argument is unlikely and no documentation was provided for this legal argument. This was an effort to perform WMF's legal function through an RFD and it failed to do that correctly. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. The discussion wasn't decided by votes, it was decided by arguments. I assume Explicit didn't think that your and Edcolins's argument was very strong. And "based upon a legal argument" is not correct: for instance, "Literally nobody is typing in the registered trademark symbol" is not a legal argument. I would have decided it the same way; I don't understand your last sentence, where it's not even clear what "This" is in reference to. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This = the RFD. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's sad that no-one looked at the edit histories. That's rather important at RFD. Had they done, the people claiming that people asserting brand trademarks isn't happening at all would have been brought up short by Special:Diff/496168116 and the people claiming that this is all the work of such people would have been brought up short by Special:Diff/390390966. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assisi Convent School (Noida). 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. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 06:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have started on the lengthy job of splitting Glossary of nautical terms as it was too large for the technology. There are a huge number of gli links and links from other articles. I made one typo in the name of the new article Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) with the closing bracket missing (very angry with me for that). I felt I had to fix that immediately as a lot of the work being done would have to be redone with the correction. There have now been a whole load of page deletions that stop continuation of this work. I am more of an "article content" person than a technical Wikipedia person - so I am working at my limits. At a minimum I guess that I need Glossary of nautical terms reinstated, plus the several articles like Depth of hold (that you have already reinstated). Is this something you can take care of, or do I need to look elsewhere for assistance?

My next job is to go through "what links here" on Glossary of nautical terms and change the links to the correct article (A-L / M-Z) - and there are a few other glossary related tidy ups to do at the same time as that. Then I will change Glossary of nautical terms to a redirect to the A-L article.

Any hints on how I could have handled this better (other than not making typos) would be welcome.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

OK - see that you have just done some of this - I think I have plenty to get on with for today. Then I need to get my head round anything else that needs fixing. Thanks.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just in case you need to know, I have been working my way through the links from Glossary of nautical terms. A few do not actually have a target term in the glossary, which seems weird - so there has been some puzzling over exactly how to fix those. Some target terms in the glossary have problems, and I have fixed a few. This is going to be a long job. I am taking a break now.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I was able to pick up on what happened and changed the targets of the redirects to point to the A–Z or M–Z list, whichever was relevant. I didn't pay too much mind as to whether the terms were actually mentioned on those pages, as they had pointed to the original target before the move anyway. These can be nominated for discussion at WP:RFD if there's merit to do so.

Glossary of nautical terms shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, but that fault lies on the person who deleted it without checking related page histories. I am not surprised in the slightest by the culprit. For now, I have redirected it to Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) to save the remaining 16 double redirects that currently point to it, though I'm surprised a bot hasn't come along and fixed those yet as of this writing. Fixing the incoming links is a separate, complex issue which, unfortunately, may not be something a bot can handle and requires manual work. Enlisting help from related WikiProjects, namely WP:SHIP and WP:SAIL, may lighten the load.

Something needs to be done with Glossary of nautical terms, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps converting it into a set index article? ✗plicit 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above. The 16 double redirects were of concern to me. The remaining problems are (1) the content of the glossary - much of which is unreferenced and often wrong - so that really slows me down with (2) revising all the links to Glossary of nautical terms, because there are often obvious errors (such as when the article containing the link uses a correct meaning that is not actually one given for the term in the glossary) and (3) not sure what you mean by "something needs to be done with Glossary of nautical terms" - I am guessing that if it stays there as a redirect, any editor who doesn't check that a term actually exists (and work under (1) suggests that this is common) will get a message on their talk page. That would be useful. Anyway, all these problems are probably just for those who edit in the subject area. I am reluctant to recruit volunteers to help with the link cleanup, as it is an opportunity to weed out some errors. I might think differently after another 100 or so edits, but we are plagued with keen editors in the article who do not seem to believe in references. But that's just me being precious.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steph Jones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Jones until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SL93 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the BLP for Derek Moneyberg was removed due to Promotional BLP article. Can we get the page to be undeleted? If not, what would we have to change from the draft to get it back up.

Thanks! 2601:681:601:86F0:0:0:0:836A (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have undeleted the article and merged its history with Draft:Derek Moneyberg in accordance with attribution requirements. As the message atop the page suggests, the user who reviewed the draft believes that the content as it is written contains a promotional tone. You may want to contact the reviewer directly for a better understanding of what concerns they have about the language used on page. ✗plicit 01:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It says my damn user page was deleted for "vandalism". Son, I can't vandalize my own page! SusImposter49 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@SusImposter49: Hi, I've gone ahead and restored your userpage. The use of Big Chungus on Wikipedia is often used for vandalism, so perhaps it may be understandable as to why your userpage was viewed in such a manner. However, I'm assuming good faith per your request here. ✗plicit 01:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for taking up your time. I tried to do it myself (Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#No information about how to request a simple G7 deletion request?) but can't find any procedure for G7 requests. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Hi, I have gone ahead and deleted the two categories in question in accordance with WP:CSD#G7. As long as it meets the criteria, you can tag any page you create with {{db-g7}}. ✗plicit 11:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring User:ZLEA/sandbox/US missiles? It's come up in a discussion and I think I requested its deletion a bit too soon. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA:  Done, page restored. ✗plicit 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, I saw that you deleted my opinion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Igor_Janev&action=edit&redlink=1 . Instead of denying existence of that person Igor Janev, someone should perhaps try to create an Article-BLP on him. Best Regards,Academician.NYAS (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hii... I saw you delete some official website links here, may I know why you delete it? Is that harmful to the page? I'm kinda new here. I put other official website links because the official KR one is not up-to-date and friendly to the new fans since they renewed their homepage. The JP website is more informative and up-to-date about the new photo teasers or schedules. Can't I put two official website links there? Thanks..Forverivery (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Forverivery: Hi, please see Template:Infobox musical artist#website: "The single web address for the act's primary official website." As the documentation dictates, there should only be one link to the group's website in the infobox. ✗plicit 00:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)