1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
|
CSD G13s
Hey, Explicit,
I think you are deleting these a bit early. I know in the U.S., there is an hour time difference between the time of the last edit in November and the time today in May because of Daylight Savings Time changes. I'm not sure if this applies to where you are at. But I had to let a stale draft page tagger know about the time difference earlier today because he was tagging page for deletion an hour before they were eligible. Any way, have a good Tuesday...happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Liz: Hi Liz, I took another look and realized that this was caused by Draft:Abby Jimenez, which was sandwiched between Draft:Ground golf and Draft:Carribean Fragoza. It had already been deleted five days ago as spam, so I didn't look at its time stamp. My brain decided that the time difference between Draft:Ground golf and Draft:Carribean Fragoza was five minutes, when in reality it was an hour and five minutes, which caused a domino effect thereafter. Thanks for pointing this out to me. ✗plicit 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
GW Student Association Deletion
Hello, I see you deleted the GW Student Association page, while stating that "There isn't a single reliable independent source on this article." This not true, as the Hatchet, which is one of the oldest publications in DC, regularly and independently covers many events related to the GWSA. Although most orgs and association do not count as notable, this particular page also includes much history with regards to the record of student body presidents and history at GW. I request that you un-delete this page if possible. JustinDiamond (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JustinDiamond: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article George Washington University Student Association has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 06:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For all your good works pertaining patrolling G13. It’s an arduous task to be honest so once again thank you for assisting out diligently there. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:After School (band) EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:After School (band) EPs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Deletion: Dawn Gifford Engle
Hello, this page was deleted. Could you please re-instate it?
13:19, 22 May 2021 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Dawn Gifford Engle (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) Tag: Twinkle (thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs)
Wroeththo (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Wroeththo
Deletion: One Billion Acts of Peace
Hello, this page was deleted for G8. Please re-instate this page.
13:19, 22 May 2021 Explicit talk contribs deleted page One Billion Acts of Peace (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
Wroeththo (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Wroeththo
- @Wroeththo: Not done, the content was revdel'd as a copyright violation. ✗plicit 00:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty, thank you for pointing that out. Is it possible to receive the article in draft mode, where I may remove the material in question? Are you able to determine what part of the article was flagged for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wroeththo: Copyright violations are not allowed to be restored, even as a draft, for legal reasons. A Google search suggests that part of the text was copied from here. On a side note, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Explicit: Thank you for elaborating. Would a copyright release from the owner of the other site address the issue, also, is it possible that that content was copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around? The site states the person worked for the organization in question. And I am sorry I do not address moderators often.
Wroeththo (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting a file I recently uploaded
I just wished to thank you for deleting a file I recently uploaded. I see what was wrong with it now. I am sorry for any truble I may have caused. I am also sorry if this is not the right talk page to bring this up on, I was a little confused by the warning. Thank you, Rfkatz2005 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
AfD on an article I created, may be ready for deletion if you agree
Hi Explicit! I saw you've deleted a lot of pages lately so I just thought I'd let you know that this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Dattani on an article I created, resulted in a few reputable users recommending to delete based on failing WP:NPROF and COI edits in the revision history (for example an IP constantly reverting an admin's edits here and changing "Kyoto University" to "Kyoto Women's University" when the reference being cited actually says "Kyoto University"). I agree that passing NPROF is borderline, and the COI edits do look bad and the project would benefit from a blanking. It can always be created by someone else later if the notability becomes more "indisputable" later.
Unfortunately I should not do a non-admin closure because I was involved in the AfD discussion. However I was one of the only keep !votes remaining, and I changed my vote to !delete, so if you would like to do it, I for one would appreciate it!
Thanks for doing everything you're doing !!! Dr. Universe (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr. Universe: Hi, that AFD is not scheduled to be closed for at least another three hours, so it should remain open until then. It will likely take longer than that as it looks particularly complex. When the time lapses, any administrator will be able to assess consensus and close the discussion. ✗plicit 02:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kamsahamnida! I had looked at other AfDs and saw some of them close early, so I thought it might be okay in this case. Anyway, 7 full days have passed now, so with my "keep" retracted there's now only one left which was the user that said "keep per Dr. Universe" and they haven't been active for the last 6.5 days. It seems there's a consensus, do you know of any reason why closure should be held up? Dr. Universe (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again! I have so many times told JoelleJay that I'm feeling badgered, and I have even changed my !vote from "keep" to "speedy delete" because not only am I getting overwhelmed with all the replies and pings I was getting, but also if that user is so adamant about deleting the article, the article may benefit from waiting some time until the notability criteria are more "indisputably" passed. However even after changing my !vote to delete, which is what JJ was pushing for, I keep getting badgered further and told something like "if you don't want to be badgered then don't reply to me". The user left some scathing remarks in two responses last night but I didn't reply to them because I was hoping the page could get deleted sooner rather than later, in order for the badgering to stop. I said on their talk page that I would be okay for the article to get deleted (which is what they want), and asked in what I thought was a nice way "if I don't reply to your last two pages, can we call it a night and let the article get deleted?" and now they accused me of HOUNDING (in the AfD discussion rather than elsewhere, which I also thought was off-topic). If you look at what I wrote on their talk page, and the one 8-word comment I left on another AfD where I just said "JoelleJay, be careful not to badger the user", I hardly think you would think this is HOUNDING since it was just one AfD discussion which I happened to come across myself (I participated in a lot of them recently!). I also didn't even know what HOUNDING was at the time. I would very much appreciate if the AfD could be closed now since with my "keep" retracted, it seems everyone is okay with "delete" including me (the article's author). The article can be created later when (and if) the notability becomes undeniable. I would also like the user to stop badgering me. I would just like to move on and not have that user keep investigating every single thing I'm saying. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kamsahamnida! I had looked at other AfDs and saw some of them close early, so I thought it might be okay in this case. Anyway, 7 full days have passed now, so with my "keep" retracted there's now only one left which was the user that said "keep per Dr. Universe" and they haven't been active for the last 6.5 days. It seems there's a consensus, do you know of any reason why closure should be held up? Dr. Universe (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. I'm feeling harassed by two users (one of them is the one I complained about above, on 27 May) who I feel have been bullying me for about 2 weeks and have been thanking each other on one of their talk pages. I've been losing sleep and having trouble eating and digesting food, for the last 2 weeks. It's affecting other members of my family. Unfortunately these two users are very regular, experienced users, so know how to "get to me" in a way that circumvents looking like policy violations to most people (I unfortunately don't know much about how Wikipedia works because I've been a "casual" user since 2008, having only made a few edits per year: even though I now have 1000+ edits, 500 of them were in the last two weeks). I don't want to use the noticeboards, because I am finding them extremely overwhelming. These 2 users have both "hounded" me on some noticeboards, and I am finding that process extremely bad for my mental health. I have repeatedly told both users: "please be more gentle with me", "go easy on me please", "I don't want to get into another 1-on-1 lengthy debate with you", "Can we please call a truce?" (x2), and they keep on replying again and again and again. I can't "disengage" because these users have made accusations against me publicly. I feel that if these accusations were true, then other Wikipedians would be able to make them (these 2 users don't have to keep initiating everything against me). In 13 years of being on Wikipedia, I'm new to all this drama and it's extremely disturbing to me. These users seem like they're on here full-time, and I can't compete with that because I have other work and other interests and family. My edit history will make it look like I'm on here full-time too, but that's only been in the last 2 weeks because of these users badgering me and sealioning me and digging up edits from years ago (some of them were even commented out using and still they're digging these up from years ago). Are you able to help me please? I told JoellJay to stop WP:Badgering and Sealioning me over and over and over, and recently asked for a truce and offered not to interact with them on AfD discussions if we can both agree not to interact with each other anymore, but they replied to me with more accusations. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Review requests, may I?
Hi! Can I ask for your review on these pages I made here?
Thank you in advance! Byy2 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Plies - Da REAList.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Plies - Da REAList.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Deletion: REAZN Group
Hello, this page was deleted in May. Could you explain the reasons in detail?
"Advertising for the company" & "lack of relevance of the topic" are listed as reasons. The article describes the company in terms of its history, organizational structure and products. There is no evaluation, highlighting or use of promotional language. The article does not differ in any way from a number of articles that deal with companies. Here are just two prominent examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH.
Therefore, I do not understand the deletion and would like to know concrete starting points. What is incorrectly worded here?
It is also stated that the article does not contain a relevant topic. The article deals in one abstract with the topic "sustainability". That by recycling zinc, emissions are saved and the amount of scrap is also reduced. If the entire industry did this, global warming would be only half as bad. If this topic is not relevant, which one is it?
I ask for a discussion of the points I have made. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Lambert 93 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Joel Lambert 93: Hi, first: did you or do you expect payment for your contributions on Wikipedia? If yes, please see the policy page paid-contribution disclosure, as you are required to disclose this information (and how to do so is explained here). If not, are you in any way affiliated to REAZN Group? If yes, please see the conflict of interest guideline, as it is strongly discouraged to edit pages where you have a relation to the subject.
- REAZN Group was deleted for being promotional. When the page content begins to describe how the company interacts with their customers and suppliers, and when it describes the company as having a "leading position" in a certain market, the intent of the page becomes evident, but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or publicity.
- Regarding notability, the pertinent information is the notability guideline for organizations and companies. ✗plicit 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Explicit, first of all, thanks for the fast feedback. Regarding the "leading position". Due to the fact that REAZN UK is producing the amount mentioned in the article, the company is one of the biggest player in this business. There are only a few other companies which produce zinc alloys at this level. But I understand that without a deeper knowledge of this specific industry the sentence could sound promotional, I will go without it, no problem.
Regarding "the page content begins to describe how the company interacts with their customers and suppliers": I do not understand in which way I describe an interaction between company & customer. I only mentioned that REAZN S.A., as one subsidiary of the REAZN Group, is responsible for the customer contact. Just like other subsidiaries are responsible for production. With part is not objective and in an unbiased style?
Are there other abstracts or sentences that are not objective according to the guidelines? I checked the article again but apart from the sentence mentioned above, I can not find another violation.
According to guideline for "Notability" a "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I do not understand which of the sources used in the article violate against this guideline? Due to the fact that the article was deleted I only could check the sources I had in a backup. Could you please mention the critical sources?
Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Lambert 93 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Joel Lambert 93: Please respond to the first two questions posed at the beginning of my initial response regarding your relationship with REAZN Group, as this is essential to how to adequately respond to your queries. ✗plicit 06:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of IP user pages
I note that you deleted the use pages of several IPs at their request. It happens that those IPs have been used by an LTA based in Brescia, Italy. See [1], I haven't written up an LTA page for them yet. I'm not sure if those user pages held any pertinent material in terms of identifying and controlling this vandal/disrupter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Hi, those IP pages were actually created by you when you placed {{AN3-notice}} on their userpages instead of their talk pages. You then blanked the userpages likely upon realizing the misplacement and moved the notice to their talk page, as you did here. Other than that, the userpages contained no other content. ✗plicit 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for that, that's almost certainly precisely what happened. I'll withdraw by REFUND requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
CfD backlog
There are currently 7 open discussions at WP:CFD dating from April. Would you be willing to close (some of) them? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Done, all but one taken care of. ✗plicit 08:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
St. Marys Bay French
I was wondering if you could restore St. Marys Bay French, even if just as a sandbox article for revision so that it can be improved and eventually restored. The page was deleted before I had a chance to add sources to it and improve the quality. —Firespeaker (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Firespeaker: Done, now available at User:Firespeaker/St. Marys Bay French. ✗plicit 14:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! (Sorry for the edit conflict on this page..) —Firespeaker (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm working to add a few more sources still (I've requested a few through my library), but I think perhaps the page might be in shape to be restored at this point. What do you think? —Firespeaker (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Firespeaker: If you feel that it's ready for mainspace, you are free to move the page. The current version now at least addresses the original PROD concern. ✗plicit 02:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- So apparently there was some feeling that the article wasn't ready for mainspace, but the same issue (lack of reliable sources) is being cited now. Do you have any suggestions for what more I can do (besides adding more citations once my library is able to obtain the sources I
receivedrequested)? I feel like the article is in a better situation than quite a few articles... —Firespeaker (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)- @Firespeaker: You may want to get in touch with Onel5969 and inquire about what the issue is, because I don't quite see it either. I wonder if he saw the {{Unreferenced}} template, but missed the references you've provided. ✗plicit 03:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- So apparently there was some feeling that the article wasn't ready for mainspace, but the same issue (lack of reliable sources) is being cited now. Do you have any suggestions for what more I can do (besides adding more citations once my library is able to obtain the sources I
- @Firespeaker: If you feel that it's ready for mainspace, you are free to move the page. The current version now at least addresses the original PROD concern. ✗plicit 02:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm working to add a few more sources still (I've requested a few through my library), but I think perhaps the page might be in shape to be restored at this point. What do you think? —Firespeaker (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! (Sorry for the edit conflict on this page..) —Firespeaker (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Katharbatcha Muthuramalingam article
the above article is true and this is belongs to the state legislature member of Ramanathapuram constituency and the details mentioned is 100 percent true and I have added reference and citations Rakeshia1410 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
PhotoIreland logo deletion
Hi, I had previously loaded this to help identify this Irish arts organisation. It was used in the Infobox. The page was edited a little over a week ago a few times by a user with the same name as the organisation's founder and the Infobox was removed. About half a dozen images were added in its place. Pretty clear self promotion, but baffled why he removed the infobox other than aesthetics. I've replaced it now and moved the page to its correct name PhotoIreland. Hoping to upload their current logo. Let me know your thoughts. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hesperian Nguyen: Hi, I have restored File:PhotoIreland logo.jpeg and moved it to Commons for being a simple text logo. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh cool! Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
shubhankar tawde
You've just deleted this page. This page has a lot of national newspaper sources, but I can understand why you deleted this page. Gocorona (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template deletion of {{Murtaza ali}}
Thank you. But I do hope there wasn't a misunderstanding here. #G7 is "Author requests deletion" and I most certainly was not the author. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Philip Trueman: Hi, yes, it was understood that the actual author Akibmir88 blanked the page. Anyone can tag it for speedy deletion as G7 in such cases. ✗plicit 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Mufid-E-Aam Inter College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh and User:List of Inter College in Agra
You just blocked the first. You might want to block User:List of Inter College in Agra, who actually made the edit on the talk page. It's an obvious sockpuppet, I was watching it for the next edits because I was not sure it violated the socking policy, yet. Pikavoom (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Jagannath Rural Municipality
Hello, recently you removed deletion tag from Jagannath Rural Municipality. May be you already noticed, I created that page myself. If you go through the reference listed in Pandav Gufa Rural Municipality, you will notice that Jagannath Rural Municipality does not exist.Probably you could not read the reference because it is in Nepali. Basically, I made mistake because there existed Jagannath, Bajura village development at the same place which has a similar name, hence the error. In short, there is nothing called Jagannath Rural Municipality, so it can be deleted. Happy to translate if you need any such help. Best regards! nirmal (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Nirmaljoshi: Hi, is Jagannath Rural Municipality a result of a translation error? The best course of action would probably be to restore the original content and simply propose its deletion. With a well-explained rationale, it would help future readers understand why the article was deleted in the first place. ✗plicit 06:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Hungarian Testing Board
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hungarian Testing Board. 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. Sldn37 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Criteria for speedy deletion
Hello, I added the G5 tags to the drafts, Lanre Olabisi, Somewhere in the Middle, and August the First, and the now-banned user's alternate sockpuppet accounts sandbox pages. You reverted them for the reason the pages weren't created while the user wasn't circumventing a ban. I intended to nominate these again for speedy deletion. Under what criteria would these pages be categorized, G8, G11, G12, or G13? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: Hi, these drafts are not eligible for speedy deletion under any criterion at this time. Assuming that these subjects are deemed not notable, your best bet would be to leave them untouched for six months. The pages would be eligible for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G13 in December. ✗plicit 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Does that include the sandboxes as well? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: G13 only applies to sandboxes if they are tagged with {{AfC submission}}. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Those sandboxes have some of the qualifications for the speedy deletion critera. Some of the them seem to be promotional for a business or a certain individual and one of the sandboxes subject matter already exists as a Wikipedia article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Explicit, those sandboxes qualify for speedy deletion. If not G13, then which critera? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: The sandboxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. Otherwise, I would have deleted them. Drop the stick. ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think you should consider otherwise because as I stated above they seem to be promotional for a business or a certain individual. The one user who created them with his various accounts has come under question for creating articles in exchange for payment. There is a case to delete them. When you get a chance, take another careful look at them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: The sandboxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. Otherwise, I would have deleted them. Drop the stick. ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: G13 only applies to sandboxes if they are tagged with {{AfC submission}}. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Does that include the sandboxes as well? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Forget about checking them for a speedy delete. I've decided to nominate them under an MfD group discussion. You're welcome to participate. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Article Deletion rewrite proposal (follow up)
Hello, I just wanted to follow up on my previous request to rewrite an article you deleted (VISIONx): I received a notification that the article I wrote a long time ago was deleted on May 13. Looking back at the content, I agree with the decision... it could have used a lot of work. I would like to propose rewriting the article entirely. We have a number of substantial sources to cite and significant content that would well-fit the Wikipedia guidelines for material. I have a team that is well-versed in these types of edits I have found to help me produce this. How could I proceed to recover this page and effect the proposed edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcvisi2009 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Babak Khorramdin.jpg
Hi Explicit. You deleted File:Babak Khorramdin.jpg a few days ago per WP:F6. After checking the log, I noticed a file under the same name has been deleted before way back in 2007 for what looks like WP:F4 or WP:F10 reasons, but I can't see if it's the same file or the same uploader (though I doubt it is in either case) and it was seems to have been deleted per an ANI discussion back in 2007 (which might pre-date FFD). Anyway, the editor who uploaded the version you deleted has reuploaded the same file as File:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg and this time they've provided a rationale. They've also, however, simply stated the source is Persian Wikipedia which is almost certainly not the original source at all. I think the Persian Wikipedia file is fa:پرونده:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg, but I can't read Persian and can't see any urls which might be to the original source anywhere on that file's page. I've tried explaining this to the uploader at User talk:Khadempour322#File:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg, but this editor never seems to respond to any talk page posts except just to archive them. The same editor is also active on Commons, but they never seem to respond there as well. I think this editor might have difficultly communicating with others in English since the only talk page posts they make over at Commons are in Persian, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Babak Khorramdin (director) is dead so a non-free image of him is completely not out of the question; he only recently died though and which means that NFCC#1 might be an issue, but that's a different issue from F4 and F6. Do you know whether the version you deleted had a proper source that might be work for this latest version as well? Do you think the rationale provided for this file together with that source could be applied to the version you deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just to update, Khadempour322 did respond to my post this time and did provide a source for the image; so, things seem to be in the process of being sorted out. I'm still not sure about the file's name though, but that's something that's fairly easy to resolve if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion: top sprinters
Hi, Explicit. I saw you deleted List of men's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters and List of women's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters, and restored the latter one, because it was not tagged. I created both articles, and I accepted the deletion nomination of them. Thanks! :) --Phikia (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't break the links
Changansa is a redirect used by many articles, Korean_Buddhist_temples among them. And therefore, this redirect is needed. Pldx1 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Pldx1: Changansa redirected to Jangansa, which was a red link after John B123 moved it to Draft:Jangansa and suppressed the redirect. The deletion abided by policy when it occurred. ✗plicit 09:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Rename an uploaded file on Commons
Good day. As I understood, you're also an administrator on Commons. Could you please help me with renaming this file to just "Lokalise_logo.png" or something like that? Thing is, I forgot to adjust the name when uploading and now it looks quite lame. Thank you! --Evacat (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Evacat: Done, file renamed. A bot will replace the original file name with the new one shortly. ✗plicit 11:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete
Hello, I want you to bring back our article named Emil Şahin, I don't understand why it was deletedRza835 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rza835: Emil Şahin was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Şahin. Participants determined that the subject did not fulfill the notability guidelines and the page was deleted in accordance with the consensus. Please do not recreate the page. ✗plicit 09:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The article also has no spam content. References have been received and will be enriched. Please help me to bring it back.Rza835 (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
can i call youRza835 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You deserve it for your tireless service Ratnahastintalk 10:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
Wuhan flu close
Hi! I'm a bit perplexed at this close. The "keep" arguments were that the redirect was unambiguous and that it had history. However, it was shown early on that there isn't any useful history, and as I pointed out there, the redirect isn't really unambiguous. I also argued that the redirect is structurally harmful, and that argument hasn't been addressed. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: Hi, while you may feel that the term is not unambiguous, three contributors before you expressed the exact opposite view despite the inaccuracy in using the term "flu". The discussion was split as to whether it was a structurally plausible search term to begin with, and neither side was particularly more convincing than the other. While WP:RNEUTRAL was cited by a few of the keep arguments for the use of "Wuhan Flu", there was no mention of any guideline or policy for the use of "Wuhan Flu Timeline" specifically. Convictions alone could not tip the scale. The arguments about the page history held no weight in my closure, as attribution is only relevant to actual written content. In determining the outcome, I did not see a strong case from either side to result in anything other than no consensus. ✗plicit 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Yes, three editors claimed the redirects was unambiguous, but that only happened before I pointed out the ambiguity, and no-one made any argument against that ambiguity. WP:RNEUTRAL is a red herring here: it simply states that redirects don't have to be neutral and it was used to pre-empt arguments based on the redirect's non-neutrality. But the major delete arguments didn't have to do with neutrality. Also, the argument about preserving the history didn't have to do with attribution, but with the fact that the redirect was for a time the title of an article and so could have incoming links. I also have to clarify my use of the term "structural" here: I was referring to the relationship between this redirect and other similar redirects, and how the existence of this redirect can shape reader expectations. I don't think anyone else made any structural arguments (in this sense of the word), and the plausibility was asserted only of the phrase "Wuhan flu" on its own. I didn't express any opinion about the plausibility (and editors before me were split on that), but the structural argument scales with this plausibility: the more likely the redirect is to be encountered by readers, the more overall harm it can do. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't seme like you're interested in reconsidering the close in light of my explanation. I'm not going to take this any further, mostly because I believe inexperienced editors should be given some leeway. I'm going to offer one piece of advice though, even if it's unasked for. Before starting to close discussions at a new venue, it's almost always a good idea to first gain some experience as a participant or an observer: you'll get a feel for what sorts of arguments normally get made and how they're weighted by closers. This will make your own closes better informed, once you start making them. – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Yes, three editors claimed the redirects was unambiguous, but that only happened before I pointed out the ambiguity, and no-one made any argument against that ambiguity. WP:RNEUTRAL is a red herring here: it simply states that redirects don't have to be neutral and it was used to pre-empt arguments based on the redirect's non-neutrality. But the major delete arguments didn't have to do with neutrality. Also, the argument about preserving the history didn't have to do with attribution, but with the fact that the redirect was for a time the title of an article and so could have incoming links. I also have to clarify my use of the term "structural" here: I was referring to the relationship between this redirect and other similar redirects, and how the existence of this redirect can shape reader expectations. I don't think anyone else made any structural arguments (in this sense of the word), and the plausibility was asserted only of the phrase "Wuhan flu" on its own. I didn't express any opinion about the plausibility (and editors before me were split on that), but the structural argument scales with this plausibility: the more likely the redirect is to be encountered by readers, the more overall harm it can do. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alex Wilson70
Dear Mr/Ms, On 25.05.2021 a tag was placed on my user page Alex Wilson70, requesting that it be speedily deleted as it did not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Following your instructions, I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future improvement, fully compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All your suggestions about what I should do in order not to violate the Wikipedia rules are warmly welcomed! Best regards.
Draft:Rajeev Nigam
Hey, I was about to accept this article but then I saw it was deleted by you and another editor few years ago. Seems notable to me; there is more outside of what is cited in the article including [2], [3], [4]. I think there should be more in Hindi that are not appearing in searches. I wanted to ping you and seek your opinion before accepting it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nomadicghumakkad: Hi, Rajeev Nigam was only deleted in compliance with WP:CSD#R2, as an editor moved the article into draftspace. I have no opinion on the page itself. ✗plicit 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
CFD April 23
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Holocaust denying media. However, as the category pages/talk pages have not yet been edited, please would you consider revising the close as rename to the hyphenated forms? This was the nominator's fallback option, and seems to be required by WP:C2A anyway. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Huh, I could have sworn I removed the tags. Will get on the C2A rename shortly. ✗plicit 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Pats cap.png
Hi Explicit. I've got a question about Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Pats cap.png. I wondering whether it my be a good idea for this file to be restored based upon what'S happening in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 5#Files in Category:Cap logos because it seems as if the same issue is being discussed for similar files and that the discussion might be more complex than simply stating "Fails Wp:NFCC#8". FWIW, I don't think the close was improper and I don't think the file was nominated in bad faith; I do, however, think that further discussion might be warranted because of what I posted here and here. Whether this file should combined with into that 50+ plus file FFD or simply relisted, it does seem as if a little more discussion might be beneficial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)