Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 30 September 2021

Archives

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, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 2:51 AM where this user lives (South Korea).

Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_1#Wikipedia_talk:N._G._Ranga

You seem to have closed the discussion as delete, but not actually deleted the redirect. Is this intentional? Hog Farm _Talk 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Somehow, the script managed to skip the action to delete. I have done so now. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it happened at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_2#Wikipedia_talk:Sai_Ketan_Rao - I wonder if the WT namespace is somehow causing the script to have bugs. Hog Farm _Talk 05:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Oof, XFDcloser fails to strike again. I'll write a note about it at WT:XFDC. ✗plicit 06:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unilateral restoration of other user's pages deleted under U1 speedy criterion

For what it's worth, I do not feel that this action was justified. I don't know how much of that you've been doing. If a user wants a page that they created in their user space gone per U1, then it should stay gone. I've been cleaning up thousands of broken userbox transclusions and don't mind doing so, but to force a user to keep something that they did in their user space beyond the time frame in which they feel passionate about it strikes me as wrong. For example, their position on an issue may have changed, and they no longer want to be associated with that opinion. I have seen several instances where users voiced controversial or spiteful opinions (esp. in userboxes), and later voluntarily requested it be deleted with U1.

If being transcluded was a legitimate reason not to U1 something, then policy would say that. All it does say is, "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page," but this is the first I'm seeing transclusions being claimed as such a "rare" rational (assuming that was your interpretation). I have seen (and cleaned up) hundreds of other such cases where that has not posed an impediment. – voidxor 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: Hi, that restoration was based on my understanding that transcluded pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. Although not formally encoded in policy, there was a discussion that took place some time ago regarding the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 49#Templates. The consensus was that G7—and by extension, U1—does not apply to transcluded content. I believe this is still the current practice, though I can stand to be corrected. If there is perhaps another userbox with the same message, I would not mind replacing instances of this user subpage and re-deleting it. That is the only userbox I remember restoring—I don't recall how I came across it, though. ✗plicit 00:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that discussion about G7. However, I somewhat disagree with the assertion that it applies to U1 by extension. That goes back to what I said about a user not wanting something they created in their space anymore. Also, strictly speaking, I'd say "templates" are in template space; userboxes in user space are not templates, per se, even though they are transcluded.

If transcluding users really want to keep a userbox (and they probably won't feel passionate about it, as there are a million userboxes), I'd look to refunding as the answer. I have seen that done dozens of times for userboxes deleted with U1 or G7. If you don't object, I'll move this userbox out of the user's space, and update the transclusions. Thanks. – voidxor 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: That sounds reasonable. Please feel free to ping me if deletion of the resulting redirect is needed. ✗plicit 00:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I updated the 66 transclusions, so you can delete that redirect if you want. I guess U1 still applies. I'd just mention the refund to User:UBX/Torn between Windows and Mac in your deletion summary so that others can manually follow the move. Thanks again. – voidxor 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User Pirhayati

Dear Explicit, Please nominad User:Pirhayati for deletion for violating Misplaced Pages rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (Tofan Pirani, Hamid Reza Hejazi and Keyvan Dehnad), based on WP:PAID. Also in Persian Misplaced Pages, Tofan Pirani deleted 4 times by WP:N and Keyvan Dehnad just nominated for deletion by a admin. According by WP:DP He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@MMA Kid: As Nardog explained to you, you will need to report the user at WP:COIN or WP:ANI. ✗plicit 10:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Undelete file

File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg should not have been deleted it has the proper rationale for free usage and I was tired of arguing with a bot that kept removing it from the page. The bot's owner finally fixed the bot and stopped marking it as not having proper rationale. I was about to put it back in the article it was originally placed in. Please undelete it, I don't feel like uploading it again.—JlACEer (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@JlACEer:  Done, the file has been restored. ✗plicit 10:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Explicit. You might want to take another look at this since there is also File:Golden Ticket Awards logo.png. The png seems to have replaced the jpg in Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride, which is what the rationale is for on the jpg's page. JJMC89's bot was correctly removing the jpg from Amusement Today because there was no non-free use rationale provided for that particular use. There's no need for both a png and jpg file, and it seems unlikely, IMO, that a valid rational can be written for the "Amusement Today" article per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:JUSTONE; I guess JIACEer can try and add one if he feels differently but he probably should add it to the png's page. My guess though is that it would be hard to establish a consensus for such a thing at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Golden Ticket Awards logo.png is a dated ticket (2020) so it is not the same. The ticket I uploaded is non-dated (VIP on both sides). Item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:JUSTONE do not apply because the image of a generic nondated ticket does not have its own article. There is no page titled Golden Ticket Awards. If someone wants to convert that jpeg to a PNG or an SVG, feel free, but please don't delete it. The ticket was intended to be used on the Amusement Today however, it is probably appropriate on the Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride page as well. The PNG file really has no justification for its use. The PNG image is of a generic 2020 ticket, and "Best New Ride" was discontinued after 2018. There were actual tickets for "best new ride," (see this link) designed every year but it is not the image that is displayed on the page titled Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride.—JlACEer (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you for taking care of this so quickly.—JlACEer (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@JlACEer: When you want to use a non-free file in multiple ways (e.g. multiple times in the same article or a single use each in different articles), you need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use as explained in WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#Implementation. The bot keeps removing the file every time you add it to Amusement Today because you keep adding said file to that article without adding a corresponding rationale for that particular use to the file's page. It makes no difference that you replaced the png in Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride with the jpg Explicit restored; you still need to add a separate specific rationale for the file's use in "Amusement Today". Continuing to re-add the file without also adding the corresponding rationale isn't arguing with a bot as you posted above; it's edit warring (even if you don't meant to do so) with a bot and is something that may lead to you being WP:BLOCKed if you keep on doing. Bots don't argue; they just keep doing what they've been tasked to do and removing non-free files per WP:NFCCE is what JJMC89 bot has been tasked to do. So, the bot is correctly doing what JJMC89 tasked it to do and it's leaving edit summaries explaining why; the only way to stop it is for you (i.e. as the person who wants to use the file) to add the required missing rationale to the file's page for that use.As for the other stuff about the differences between the two files, thank you for clarifying them. What you posted may be true or it may be something needed to be figured out through further discussion; however, you've now made the png file an orphaned non-free file by replacing it which means it will shortly be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. A non-free file can be used in multiple articles as long as each use complies with all ten WP:NFCCP; a non-free file, however, needs to be used in at least one article for it to avoid be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NFCC#7. If you don't want to png to end up deleted, you should find another acceptable non-free use for the file so that it's no longer orphaned. The person who uploaded the png file will receive a notification that it's going to be deleted. If they or anyone else disagrees with your assessment of the file's use in the "Golden Ticket" article, you will be expected to resolve things through discussion.Finally, even if you provide a non-free use rationale for the jpgs use in "Amusement Today", that rationale can still be challenged by another editor who disagrees with your assessment. Therefore, I suggest you should make sure to clarify why the jpg file meets all ten NFCCP in the rationales provided for each of its uses on the file's page. You might also want to consider adding sourced critical commentary about jpg ticket itself, particularly to the "Amusement Today" page to strengthen it's justification for non-free use per WP:NFC#CS. Each non-free use needs to meet all ten NFCCP, and failing even WP:JUSTONE means the non-free use isn't compliant. Adding a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant. By replacing the png file in the "Golden Ticket Award" article with the jpg, you've actually made a case in favor of applying item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI to the file's use in "Amusement Today" and this is something you should address in the rationale you provide for that particular use.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Close the Crystal Paras deletion discussion

Hi Explicit, please can you close the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crystal Paras as keep. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@AnsrieJames9: This is an entirely inappropriate request. You can not ask any user to close a discussion in favor of your position. ✗plicit 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Dale Fuller.jpg

Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actress Dale Fuller to Misplaced Pages Commons?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.34.195 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, file transferred. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted file

Hi Explicit. On March 13, 2021 File:Lothlorien logo.jpg was deleted by you because the article Lothlorien Hall was redirected and its content deleted. The content was restored on September 5, 2021 based on a successful appeal. Can you please restore the Lothlorien logo file so I can use it in the article. Thank you Rybkovich (talk)

 Done, file restored. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Edward Mayne Ellis.jpg

Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actor Edward Ellis to Misplaced Pages Commons?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.34.195 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, FileImporter does not recognize {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as a valid license and won't allow me to transfer the file, even though the license exists on Commons. Kuttappan Chettan, can you provide any insight? Have you come across an issue like this one before? ✗plicit 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad El Medawar

Dear Explicit, I understand very well your deletion of my article.

The text that I wrote is exactly the same as the text written in this Misplaced Pages article below https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Langston

Mr. Michael works as a professor at a university, and I work also as a lecturer in a reputable university. Mr. Michael work in research field of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, and I work also in the research field of the same topics. Mr. Michael has multiple publications and he mentioned only 1 reference, and also I have multiple publications and I mentioned 1 reference.

May I know why my article is deleted while the article of Mr. Michael is available online.

I'm willing to listen to you, know what wrong I am doing and to correct my mistakes. My ultimate goal is to have my profile published on Misplaced Pages.

I truly believe that my article is notable (unique), I am not advertising myself, and I have an important award, and a very notable invention in the field of education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammadElMedawar (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a few of the admins you contacted have responded to your questions. My response would be similar, and I don't think I will provide you with any new information. ✗plicit 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikolay Zak

• Nikolay Zak · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) ·

Hello Explicit,

Last month, three contributors agreed to delete the article of this mathematician who has interesting claims about Jeanne Calment, the longevity record holder. But none of the handful of people involved in Talk:Jeanne Calment were pinged. I feel like we haven't had a proper debate.

I am currently writing a Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis. If un-deletions are not possible, I'd like to have the dead article's wikitext in this sandbox page, so that I can integrate the exact references in the draft article. Thank you in advance. Kahlores (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kahlores: Hi, the deleted article's text will be available here for two weeks before the link expires. ✗plicit 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Kahlores (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Thelma Lou.jpg

Hi Explicit, can you please transfer this file of image of actress Betty Lynn as the character of Thelma Lou to Misplaced Pages Commons?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.34.195 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ✗plicit 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

File:The Bs from the Beth B and Scott B, Black Box and G-Man, Flyer, 1978.jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:The Bs from the Beth B and Scott B, Black Box and G-Man, Flyer, 1978.jpg? You just deleted File:Scott B and Beth B poster for THE OFFENDERS.jpg for F7 reasons and I've tried to explain to this user at User talk:Valueyou#Non-free images of still-living persons, deceased persons and recently-deceased persons that non-free images of living persons are pretty much never allowed after a number of their other uploads were deleted for F7 reasons. Some concerns about some of their other images claimed as "own work" were raised as well, but their response was that they're basically too busy to deal with them. That's fine, but they seem to have enough time to upload another image that is questionable for FREER reasons. I'm not trying to give them a hard time, but I'm not sure how to try and explain things any other way than NFCC#1 pretty much never allows non-free images of still living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, the deleted file shows this image, which is quite different from the new upload. The best course of action is to proceed to FFD. Ditto for the images with questionable own-work claims. ✗plicit 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies Explicit since my post was a bit unclear. I know the two files aren't the same. My concern is that this editor keeps uploading non-free photos of still-living people despite six different files being tagged with {{rfu}} and deleted for F7 reasons since the middle of this past August. Their argument each and every time has been the same: "only image available of the subject". I was going to tag the latest with {{rfu}} as well, but thought I'd ask you about it first since you are actually the admin who actually deleted the other six files, and most likely would be the one who deletes this one as well if tagged as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ah, I see now. I will leave a note on the user's talk page shortly. ✗plicit 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion of "Van Lindberg" article

Hi Explicit, it appears that this article was the result of a soft delete without substantive discussion. I noticed it when I was going to edit the article "Comparison of free and open-source software licences" to include the Cryptographic Autonomy License which was approved by the OSI last year. Other authors of similar licenses are also listed there. The CAL was also uniquely controversial, leading to Bruce Perens' leaving of the OSI due to conflict with Lindberg. Can this article be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.50.250 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Done – as a contested soft deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Stanley Ridges

Hi Exlpicit, I found this image on ebay of American actor Stanley Ridges and I don't know if it's a public domain image or a copyrighted image, so can you check it to verify it please?, and in the case it is a public domain image can you please upload it into Misplaced Pages Commons? Ham2703 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ham2703: Hi, the listing for this item doesn't contain enough information of the photograph to determine its copyright status. You will need to contact the seller directly and inquire for further information. ✗plicit 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of PDM Diploma in Engineering

You seem to have contested the Speedy Deletion of PDM Diploma in Engineering. There is no such college with the name PDM Diploma in Engineering. It is a small course under PDM University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayKakkar (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@AkshayKakkar: I did not contest the speedy deletion, I declined it. The criteria is very narrowly defined and this particular page did not meet any of them. As stated in my edit summary, you are free to nominate the page for deletion using WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ✗plicit 00:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Recover text, please

Ni! Hello, you recently deleted a draft I was interested in, Draft:Hubzilla, marking it as CSD G13. I tried following the procedure to reinstate it, but the editors on the Requests for Undeletion page refused to reinstate the draft alleging that the page was deleted under G11. I tried to reason with them but they don't seem to listen. Can you please check that out ? Here's a link to the removal of my request. And, as a last resort, could I have a copy of the old contents of the page and the talk page, please? Thank you! Solstag (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Solstag: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

I have no idea why it wasn't restored. It has its problems, but nothing that fits the strict definition of WP:CSD#G11. If it was truly spam or advertising, it wouldn't have survived five years of being hosted, nor would have it gone through at least four reviewers. I apologize on behalf of the amateurs that don't understand policy and refused to restore the draft. ✗plicit 09:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Redeletion of Annwesha Hazra

Hi, I found that long back you deleted a page Annwesha Hazra, because of sockpuppetry, and because of conflict of interest, and because there was not enough sources to qualify for a wiki page. However, now she has gained widespread popularity, and now she has many articles on her across Google. I want you to recover the page, so that I can modify it, but however I do not have any COI of her. Please do the needful.