| Revision as of 06:42, 26 November 2024 editExplicit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators325,752 edits →File:Gladiator_20th_Anniversary_Edition.jpg: Reply.← 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 | ||
| (163 intermediate revisions by 56 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 == | |||
| ==Deleted articles== | |||
| Can I please see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I please see the deleted ]. ] (]) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 06:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please let me see the deleted ]. ] (]) 05:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 05:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can I please see the deleted ] article. ] (]) 05:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 05:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can I please see the deleted article ]. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . It is a promotional mess, but perhaps the sources may be of value. ]] 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| Please, the above category ain't empty, containing ] as of 02:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC). It isn't the most populous of categories, but should be left to stay and not deleted, in the light that future people from or associated with ] in ], ] might have their articles published on Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{Reply to| |
:{{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 == | ||
| 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) | |||
| Please, as an administrator, I'd like you to check this article ] and review it. It doubt it has been reviewed. Thanks! ] •  (] ]) 02:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Happy Holidays!== | ||
| And happy new year as well! ] (]) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You Deleted a Page but it's still online. == | |||
| Regarding the just-deleted ], I don't need it refunded but could you tell me whether it is about VS the sportsman or VS the photographer? Thanks, ] (]) 21:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Ingratis}} The draft is about the artistic gymnast. ]] 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 06:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| @] I was going to nominate a page for deletion but discovered it had been nominated in the past and ended as delete. I am surprised that the page (] is still online. What's happening? ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories of the ] == | |||
| :{{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 ] == | |||
| Hello! Please explain to me why categories: ], ], ], ] (etc.) are allowed, but category ], ] is not allowed? ] (]) 15:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 15:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|DigitalSpace}} Hi, the categories were tagged for deletion simply for being empty. Whatever page(s) populated these categories have seemingly been deleted. ]] 00:25, 19 November 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) | |||
| :{{Reply to|George Ho}} Hi, it's similar enough to the previous screenshot to qualify for ], so I've deleted it as such. ]] 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Prod on ] == | ||
| Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found ], which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (''Boston Globe'') and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, ] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I noticed that a page about Bobo Ajudua was deleted by you. I was unaware of the deletion, so I went ahead and created a new page about him and his controversial issue with Afrobeats singer Davido. ] (]) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Espresso Addict}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser) == | |||
| == User:Doomguy427 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hi Explicit. {{no ping|Doomguy427}} is a relatively new account that looks to be editing in good-faith; the problem is that they keep uploading images without any source information or any license. They haven't responded to any of the notifications about this on their user talk page and they don't seem to be slowing down. They're almost certainly getting the files from somewhere online and ] was cleaned up by another user. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? Would you mind posting something about this on their user talk? -- ] (]) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to| |
:{{Reply to|Kvng}} This is a ]. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you for taking a look. -- ] (]) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Rafi malik.jpg == | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| 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="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| ::Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with {{tlx|npd}}. -- ] (]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| == Deletion of Akidearest article == | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Happy new year! | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| </div> | |||
| 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) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| == Old AFD question == | |||
| 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... == | |||
| Hello, you closed this AFD, ], as a delete in 2022 and deleted the article ] as a part of that. I have found the duplicate article ] still exists, as near as I can tell because ] was moved there in 2009 but then someone turned that redirect back into an article. I was wondering if you wanted to delete ] as a duplicate whose deletion was called for by the AFD, or if I should nominated it for a new AFD now. Obviously this was some time ago so I understand if you have no idea at this point. ] (]) 02:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Here2rewrite}} Hi, the history is a bit jumbled up, but the page actually survived ]. Basically, ] was renamed from ] in May 2009. Someone redirected it to ] in October 2009 in spite of the AFD, and a bot fixed the double redirect, so ] also pointed to ]. ] was written as an article in 2015, but ] was never fixed to point back to it, so ] deleted it along with ]. ] would need to go through AFD again if someone is seeking to delete it. ]] 05:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for untangling that, that was a very clear explanation. I will look into what to do with the article from here. ] (]) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. ] (]) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Greenwich SM City Masinag (2024-11-16).jpg == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? It seems to have multiple problems, ], ] and maybe even ] or ]. I'm not sure what tag to place on it. There could also be problems per ]. -- ] (]) 05:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg == | |||
| Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at ]? All of this user's uploads so far have been screenshots from YouTube videos released under YT's standard licensing; so, I've tagged them for speedy deletion per F9. This particular file is also a screenshot but it's via {{url|https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-sixth-starship-but-aborts-booster-landing/|this website}}, and unlike the others i'm wondering whether it might be possible to convert to a non-free license given the way it's being used in ]. I'm a bit hesitant though because ] seems to indicate that a free image of these SpaceX launches might be possible. SpaceX, itself, could even provide some acceptably licensed images if it wants. Is it then in your opinion even worth converting this to non-free per ]? -- ] (]) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, I've deleted all the video screenshots as copyright violations. Aside from the most recent flight test, ] is the only other in the series that does not contain freely licensed media. It's unlikely that an image for either article would qualify by Misplaced Pages's fair use standards, unless a particular image ''itself'' (and not the flight test in general) is subject to sourced critical commentary in accordance with ] or considered significant enough for {{tl|Non-free historic image}}. As flight test 6 is incredibly fresh, free media may became available in the coming days or weeks. ]] 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for checking on these. Do you suggest tagging the remaining file for speedy deletion per F9 or just letting it be deleted for not having a copyright license per F4? -- ] (]) 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} My rule of thumb is to just let these types of files meet their fate. Regardless of the process, the end result is usually the same. ]] 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's probably the best thing to do in this case. Thanks again. -- ] (]) 21:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Why was this deleted? == | |||
| Hello, I have noticed and a fair few others that I’ve spoken to in person that you deleted the page of “Aleksei Kulashko”? I was confused why as even to this day he has participating in events and even been invited to light the chess olympics torch in New Zealand. So my request is for this page to be undeleted as it’s still significant to this day and there has not been any issue with it up until now. ] (]) 07:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} ]. ] (]) 08:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - soft --> ]] 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You've got mail == | |||
| {{You've got mail|dashlesssig=<span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :@] I emailed you hours ago explaining the situation, and have just had to go to Oversight ''again'' to request suppression of the ANI thread where you and @] disclosed the supressed username. Utterly stupid behaviour. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply to|Qcne}} I'm pretty sure I did not mention the username in my followup response. In fact, I did everything to avoid mentioning or linking it again. I couldn't do much about the initial mention, as your email came in after that. I don't think I could have done much for that. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You mentioned the username in your ''first'' ANI post. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Reply to|Qcne}} ...Yes, that's why I just said. "I couldn't do much about the initial mention" because your email came afterwards. Like I stated at ANI, I was not aware of the distinction between account suppression and username suppression, given the original case I linked. ]] 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just would have thought you'd have immediately requested oversight once my email had gone through, instead of waiting hours and continuing the ANI thread. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|1=Utterly stupid behaviour}}<br>That's a nasty way to talk to somebody. Please be kinder! <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You may want to go for ARB == | |||
| Hi, another way for solve this, if needed, is trying for an Arbcom case instead of being so angered on AN/I. Please calm down or just take a break for a few hours, which might be better. ] 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Lemonaka}} {{ec}} I honestly can not be bothered to tread through the politics of Misplaced Pages. I have enough work to do around here and mountains of page creations to do on Commons. I'd rather spend my time doing those things. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since the thread has now been suppressed, just to let you know (if you didn't see it) that I removed your two personal attacks on Liz (the second one was so egregious, especially to a female editor, that I seriously considered blocking you). Please don't do that again. ] 13:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Black Kite}} Noted. For the record, I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not. Viewing the world with a different lens and all, but thanks for the context reminder. ]] 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Allow me to introduce you to the phrase, "get off my back." It means the same thing except no one has to think about your dick. Wins all around. ] (]) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't understand how "get off my dick" means something different in a non-hetronormative context and indeed when I looked into this phrase I found examples of it being used against gay men by straight men. I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz. I seriously considered pressing the block button myself. I didn't become an admin to block people and since I respect Black Kite's assessmment that he would have done the same for any user with your editing/block history I didn't take him up on his permission for someone else to do it. But for what it's worth I actually think there is a ''better'' case to block an admin for it since there is a higher expectation in these regards. ] (]) 17:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz.}} Why though? It's pretty obviously offensive and incredibly disrespectful. ] (]) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said I felt disgust upon seeing it and I left my message because I find {{tqq|I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not}} in adequate. However, when looking into it there do seem to be certain communities (at least online ones) which use it rather than far more reasonable and acceptable "get off my back" and it appears explicit is a part of them. ] (]) 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not just online communities. It's a common phrase men say to each other, at least in the US (or at least in the parts where I've been), stemming from "stepping on my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stepping on my toes", and thus "get off my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stop stepping on my toes" or "get off my back" or "get off my ass". But a man should ''never'' say "get off my dick" to a woman, because it obviously has a very different connotation in that context. Even where the phrase is common, a man saying it to a woman would be a major faux pas. It was a dumb and offensive thing for Explicit to say to Liz. ] (]) 19:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I concur. Saying something like "hop off " is something commonly used as slang in the US to mean like "stop annoying me", but I will admit that there's times it shouldn't be used, especially in this context. Usually it's just a more innapropriate way of saying "leave me alone", but I can't speak on behalf of everyone. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{replyto|Barkeep49}} Fair enough. Not being heterosexual myself I found the "heteronormative train of thought" excuse pretty poor. ] (]) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It unfortunately shows the (general, I have no personal issue with Barkeep49) pisspoor way editors who identify as female are treated here. The insult, the report, and the timing from Explicit are an extremely poor showing from a long term admin. (And to head off any questions, no it's not recall worthy and I don't believe in forced apologies) ] ] 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::lol at much of this discussion. Several different universes here, but Explicit lived up to their name and should have thought a smidge more, especially during the next several minutes, and edited and spellchecked the thing. If I were an admin I'd give Explicit a justified 4 hours in the penalty box, although assume good faith seems to enter into all viewpoints of this. ] (]) 02:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Explicit, you're lucky other people got there first. If I had gotten there first, I can tell you with certainty that I would not have exhibited the hesitation that {{u|Black Kite}} and {{u|Barkeep49}} showed with the block button. ] ] 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Explicit, I agree with Roy Smith. I was asleep when this was reported. Had I been awake and watching ANI, you would be blocked and it would not have been for four hours. Keep your sexualized insults to yourself. ] (]) 18:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Tzamplakon family == | |||
| Hi User:Explicit, I think the article ] was deleted once, but is now renewed. May you explain this case to me. Thanks. ] (]) ] (]) 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Jingiby}} Hi, the article was draftified in early October and the resulting redirect was deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion criterion regarding ]. The draft was submitted by the author and accepted by a reviewer a little over two weeks later, so it was moved back into mainspace. ]] 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==AlgoSec== | |||
| Can I please see the deleted article ]. This is a notable cybersecurity firm, with hundreds of global customers https://www.algosec.com/our-customers and should not be deleted. You can see some of the news coverage they have received https://www.algosec.com/news ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{Reply to|Amechad}} Are you affiliated with the company? Would you like to disclose any ]? ]] 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I bookmarked this a while ago with a note to myself (possibly PD). It's since been deleted, but could you take a look? I remember nothing of the file beyond the note I left to myself. <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|JayCubby}} The cover in question can be found . ] currently uses a different image. ]] 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! The portrait is PD and the cover text is by no means a literary work, so couldn't this be below TOO? <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|JayCubby}} The textured background is pretty complex, so I suspect that would push this cover above the threshold of originality. ]] 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Good point! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}} {{tpw}} Hi {{u|JayCubby}}. You might be able to argue as much, but it probably would be better to ask about this at ] because that's really where this file should be if the cover art is truly PD. It seems to me that there wouldn't be much point in restoring the file here on Misplaced Pages if it's ultimately only going to end up at Commons anyway, and there's no point in getting it restored locally if Commons can't host the file. Finally, although being PD means the file doesn't need to be treated as non-free and thus isn't subject to deletion per ], there could still be encyclopedic or contextual reasons unrelated to copyright as to why the image currently being used in the main infobox of the article might still be considered by others as preferable to this particular one. That's something that you probably would need to resolve through article talk page discussion. One thing you might want to ask about here on Misplaced Pages at either ] or ] is whether ] needs to be treated as non-free since it seems to be a pretty clear case of ] given that the file comes from ] (page 7). -- ] (]) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Gladiator_20th_Anniversary_Edition.jpg == | |||
| Hello, I saw you deleted the subject. Had you actually seen the talk pages? How is it a violation when it's low resolution enough? Thx ] (]) 06:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Supermann}} Hi, the file was not deleted based on its resolution, it was deleted due to its failure to adhere to the ] policy. The difference between the deleted file and ] were minimal; the only real difference was the addition of the text "20th Anniversary Edition" underneath the title. This is not sufficient to pass ]a, which dictates that {{xt|"Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."}} The text at ] suffices. ]] 06:42, 26 November 2024 (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)