| Revision as of 17:21, 17 June 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to User talk:Explicit/Archive 52) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:25, 4 January 2025 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,809 editsm →In a case like this...: in | ||
| (777 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 55 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg == | |||
| == Can Man Dan == | |||
| Hi |
Hi, | ||
| I only got back to editing Misplaced Pages today, and read the file talk page a little earlier. It was only later in the day that I have time to do some editing and was planning to convert the deletion request to an FFD as the uploader (]) was quite passionate in his defence of the image. Would you be willing to restore so I can take it to FFD? -- ] (]) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I hope all is well! | |||
| ⚫ | :{{Reply to|Whpq}} Very well, I have restored the file. ]] 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks -- ] (]) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Bokontayev.jpg == | |||
| I am contacting you (hopefully in the right way) to contest the deletion of my Misplaced Pages page "Can Man Dan". I'm not sure why it was deleted, but I happened to notice its removal today when I was speaking at a school and we were trying to pull up some information and relevant news stories. | |||
| Hi Explicit. Can you take a look at ]? This is another file that you've previously deleted twice before (once per F4 and once per F11) that could be a reupload or a new file with the same name. -- ] (]) 07:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Can_Man_Dan | |||
| ==Happy Holidays!== | |||
| Believe it or not, that article helps me fundraise for a variety of free community events in Alberta -- it's a nice way for people to see our (my team and I) history as do-gooders. I would love to have it back if possible? I may not be famous worldwide, but people know me up in Canada -- which I'm not sure counts lol | |||
| And happy new year as well! ] (]) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You Deleted a Page but it's still online. == | |||
| I saw that it was self-gratifying or whatever you posted, and I can tell you that I don't edit my own page lol. I barely know if this is the best way to get a hold of you to contest this deletion. | |||
| @] I was going to nominate a page for deletion but discovered it had been nominated in the past and ended as delete. I am surprised that the page (] is still online. What's happening? ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Anyway, thank you for your consideration and God bless. | |||
| :{{tpw}}{{ping|Joseph4real1995}} It appears the article was recreated per ]. There appears to have been a disagreement as to whether ] applied to the recreation. I can't see the original article that was deleted, but Explicit can. I'm sure Explicit will figure out whether the article needs to go to AfD again or meets the criteria for G4. -- ] (]) 14:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| Please let me know if you have any questions! | |||
| ] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 15:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| "Can Man Dan" | |||
| Daniel Johnstone ] (]) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article ], as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, ] (]) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| and</s>Happy New Year! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| : |
:Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == |
== Prod on ] == | ||
| Hi there. Since you extensively work in this field, I wanted to ask: is using a non-free album cover inappropriate when the topic of the article is not the album / soundtrack itself? Yes, it can be added after creating a separate article for it, but what if the album is not notable enough to have its own dedicated article and only exists as a sub-section of another? Can it be used after appending a valid rationale explicitly stating that it will be only used in a single article to illustrate the appearance of the said work? Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} Hi, in general, it's not appropriate to use a non-free album cover on any page other than in the infobox of the article about the album itself. ]] 12:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I'm bordering on the guidelines themselves, but it's just that I never gave this much thought before. Can there be exceptions to this, say, if a consensus is reached on the talk page of the said article? Contextual significance says to use it when it would increase the readers' understanding. That clearly justifies the use in an article where the album itself is the topic, but I don't understand how it does not apply to an article where the album is listed as a sub-section of another. The cover still remains very much inferior to the original and, in no way, is detrimental to the original work. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more important thing: the ] does not say anything about this, but I wanted to ask just how many extra covers can be used in an album's infobox. I see alternative covers being used left and right; can there be a second alternative cover added if it is substantially different from the previous two present? My conscience says going over 3 would be overkill, no matter how different the covers may be, but I think it's already not so wise to speak of adding a second alternative cover. What do you think of this? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} There have been several RFCs in the past about the subject, which is explained in detail at ]. Consensus has time and time again that the use of album covers anywhere outside of the album article generally do not meet the ]. | |||
| :::Regarding the use of a second extra album cover, I can't say that I'm aware of any examples off the top of my head. I do vaguely remember many years ago a discussion at FFD regarding ''seven'' very different additional album covers by a European singer, and I'm pretty sure all of them were deleted because none of them were critically discussed in the article. ]] 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand. One last thing, since this seems to depend on the context and significance of the cover on the section, do you suggest I try proposing adding the cover to the article's talk page? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seven covers?! That's not something I could think of. | |||
| ::::Anyhow, thank you for your help. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tpw}} Just going to add the following to what Explicit posted above. The first is that a ]; in other words, article talk page discussion can't take precendence over established community-wide policy or guidelines just because it's what those discussing on the talk page might want to do. The second one is that even though the people making templates like {{tl|extra album cover}} have really made some things easier, they sometimes either don't give much thought to or intentionally avoid going into too much detail in the template's documentation as to how policies related to image use might impact the use of the template. There are lots of templates that have an image-related parameter, but it's really the responsiblity of those wanting to use an image in a template (not the template's creator) to make sure doing so complies with relevant policies related to image use. -- ] (]) 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Yes, exactly; that's what I thought as well, which is why I asked here. Thank you for linking to the template; it was helpful. About the template creators specifying the use in the template, when i said ''the template does not say anything about this'', what i meant was not to imply that the template should mention it or question the creators' choice but just a query since it doesn't mention it. I totally understand that just because a parameter exists and is there does not mean that it should or can be used. Anyhow, my doubts regarding this are cleared now. | |||
| ::::::If you don't mind, see, I understand one exception to using cover art where the album itself is not the topic of the article is where adequate and properly sourced commentary is provided. Do you thin it is appropriate to add the cover art for ]? My reasoning for this is that the album is not very well known; it was never released as a standalone album and was released only bundled with the movie. To date, the album is digitally exclusive to Japan. I think it'd be helpful to readers in recognising the said album, as even the web doesn't filter many results. Not being well known, in turn, might raise concerns about piracy, but that's already countered by using a low resolution cover that is very inferior to the original. | |||
| ::::::One last thing: do you think there are any chances of this being approved if a consensus is appealed to the community? Is ] talk page the right place to propose it? thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 06:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'll answer your questions in reverse order since the second one is easier to answer. Proposals to change policy or general questions as to how it's applied should be made/asked at ], whereas discussion related to an individual file and how it's being used should be made a ].{{pb}} Regarding '']'', I think there's zero chance of such a non-free use being cosidered policy compliant; not only because of ] that Explicit mentioned above, but also because of ]. So, unless there's something about the cover art itself (i.e. some controversy or other reason) covered in some depth by reliable sources, none of the reasoning you posted above would (again in my opinion) rise above the level of ] non-free use. Even in that case, such content would be more appropriate for a stand-alone article about the album or perhaps a stand-alone article about the artist/creator/designer of the cover art. If you tried to add a non-free album cover to that section, the file would likely be ]ded for deletion as clear-cut violation of relevant policy. You could ] it, but I don't see a consensus being established for in favor of its inclusion at FFD. As for being {{tq|digitally exclusive to Japan}}, I'm not sure how that's even possible given today's technologies, but it might also not even be true because of , , and (assuming that's the same soundtrack). Finally, even the track list in that section probably shouldn't be there per "WP:FiLMSCORE". -- ] (]) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Mmm I see. But, well, it's fine. I just wanted a third opinion, and I can agree with what you said. It's not something major, so I'll drop the idea of adding the cover and get on the same boat as you and @{{u|Explicit}}. | |||
| ::::::::Okay, so I didn't originally add the listing here; it existed long before, but considering it is a good article, the reviewer or others probably considered it, right? i don't ever recall reading ]. This is the first time someone's pointed me to it. Though i must admit this doesn't excuse me from adding listings, I have done it very often. So, I'm genuinely confused now. Is it walking the thin line when adding the listing themselves? I mean, we're not streaming the audio, and we have already omitted the cover where possible, so how is it detrimental to the original work? | |||
| ::::::::About the release, what you listed in 3 of the links is {{nihongo|''Kotonoha''|言ノ葉}} by Motohiro Hata, who sang the theme song for the film (it is not the official soundttrack to the film but a single by Hata, which too was exclusive to Japan until recently; it only received a global release last year). What I was talking about was {{nihongo|''The Garden of Words Original Soundtrack''|言の葉の庭 サウンドトラック}}. To date, it is exclusive to Japan, for whatever reason the label knows. It is one of my favourites, but it's a shame the label never went for global release. (the 4th link is unofficial and was uploaded by some random user, but it still remains that sources like that are what allowed me to listen to the soundtrack in the first place, but it's fine because the profits still go to the label). {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}／] 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found ], which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (''Boston Globe'') and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, ] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ⚫ | :{{Reply to|Espresso Addict}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser) == | |||
| Hello Explicit, could you please explain to me how the former logo of NI Railways (Northern Irelands State Owned Railway company was not fair use). It was in the public domain. I am not saying you're wrong to remove it. It's just NI Railways had three logos throughout its life the original one on the page as we speak, the one you deleted that was used until 2021, and the current one presently used. If this version of the logo cannot be replaced, could you suggest another way to incorporate into the Wiki page "NI Railways". Many Thanks | |||
| ] 13:47, 15 June 2024 (IST) | |||
| ⚫ | :{{Reply to| |
||
| You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~] (]) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :{{Reply to|Kvng}} This is a ]. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == File:Rafi malik.jpg == | |||
| == CfD nomination at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}} == | |||
| Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of ]? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found ? Do you think this meets ] or should it be tagged with {{tlx|npd}}? -- ] (]) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. –] (]]) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with {{tlx|npd}}. -- ] (]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of Akidearest article == | |||
| Happy new year! | |||
| I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. ] (]) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Maehii}} Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an ] submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples: | |||
| ::https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/ | |||
| ::https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest | |||
| ::https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest | |||
| ::https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man) | |||
| ::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) ] (]) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Maehii}} The content is now available at ]. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (] was missing). I ] the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ] (]) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|WikiOriginal-9}} The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == In a case like this... == | |||
| ] was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. ] (]) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|BusterD}} When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... ] (]) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:25, 4 January 2025
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg
Hi,
I only got back to editing Misplaced Pages today, and read the file talk page a little earlier. It was only later in the day that I have time to do some editing and was planning to convert the deletion request to an FFD as the uploader (User:Jheald) was quite passionate in his defence of the image. Would you be willing to restore so I can take it to FFD? -- Whpq (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Whpq: Very well, I have restored the file. ✗plicit 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Bokontayev.jpg
Hi Explicit. Can you take a look at File:Bokontayev.jpg? This is another file that you've previously deleted twice before (once per F4 and once per F11) that could be a reupload or a new file with the same name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
And happy new year as well! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You Deleted a Page but it's still online.
@Explicit I was going to nominate a page for deletion but discovered it had been nominated in the past and ended as delete. I am surprised that the page (this page) is still online. What's happening? Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@Joseph4real1995: It appears the article was recreated per User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/October#Speedy deletion nomination of Oyebanji Akins. There appears to have been a disagreement as to whether WP:G4 applied to the recreation. I can't see the original article that was deleted, but Explicit can. I'm sure Explicit will figure out whether the article needs to go to AfD again or meets the criteria for G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Deletion review for Patrik Kincl
Clariniie has asked for a deletion review of Patrik Kincl. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 15:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Bathwala
Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article here, as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
andHappy New Year! Ingratis (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. Ingratis (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Prod on Wordhunt
Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found Wordhunt, which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (Boston Globe) and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict:
Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)
You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~Kvng (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kvng: This is a known issue. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Rafi malik.jpg
Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of File:Rafi malik.jpg? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found here? Do you think this meets WP:F9 or should it be tagged with {{npd}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
{{npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
Deletion of Akidearest article
Happy new year! I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. Maehii (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an Articles for creation submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples:
- https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/
- https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest
- https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest
- https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) Maehii (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: The content is now available at Draft:Akidearest. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Template:Colorado Crush starting quarterback navbox
Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (Bobby Pesavento was missing). I asked the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiOriginal-9: The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Category:Fulbright Scholars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fulbright Scholars. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RubyEmpress (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
In a case like this...
Tafajjal Hossain was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD: When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)