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, 56, 57, 58

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 9:22 PM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Please can I see the deleted articles Shireen Irani, Shireen Jinnah and Stryder7x. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Shireen Irani, Shireen Jinnah, Stryder7x. ✗plicit 11:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted article Kelly Wilson (comedian). Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Kelly Wilson (comedian). ✗plicit 14:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see deleted the article Jhessye Shockley. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: This page was just a redirect to List of murder convictions without a body. ✗plicit 11:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can the deleted article Andreas of Reichbinder, the redirected articles Iceberg (G.I. Joe) and Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) and the link to all the deleted Wikipedia articles. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Andreas of Reichbinder, Iceberg (G.I. Joe), Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe). ✗plicit 11:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted articles Table hockey (disambiguation) and Coin football (disambiguation). Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Table hockey (disambiguation). Coin football (disambiguation) was a redirect to Penny football. It originally pointed to Coin football, which was a disambiguation page that was redirected. ✗plicit 03:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted articles National Wrestling League, NWL Heavyweight Championship, NWL Tag Team Championship, and the 2015 Kocho killings. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: National Wrestling League, NWL Heavyweight Championship, NWL Tag Team Championship, 2015 Kocho killings. ✗plicit 00:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me see the deleted article Jimmy Jannetty, Laura Donnelly (disambiguation), Carlos Soler (disambiguation), and Frank Wang (disambiguation). Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Jimmy Jannetty, Laura Donnelly (disambiguation), Carlos Soler (disambiguation), Frank Wang (disambiguation). ✗plicit 23:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see the deleted article Josselyn Garciglia. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Josselyn Garciglia. ✗plicit 03:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I see deleted articles Sarah Hamilton (politician) and Cameron Johnston (disambiguation). Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Sarah Hamilton (politician), Cameron Johnston (disambiguation). ✗plicit 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted article Steve Gonzalez. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Steve Gonzalez. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Explicit. I wanted to follow up with you on something. You recently deleted this image. However, that image was already actively being discussed here, where the only 2 formal responses were "keep". I wanted to check and see if you were willing to re-open for further discussion? I'm not really seeing a consensus there, and if I'm reading it right, it looks like it was present at the time of the article's promotion from GA to FA, so I would think its been scrutinized in the past too. Let me know. If you are, I'm willing to neutrally notify WP:VG of the discussion for further discussion too. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Hi, to claim that two editors argued keeping the file is a bit disingenuous, as you made your comments were made nearly an hour after I had already deleted the file (for the record, I don't manually close discussions at FFD because AnomieBOT can do that when the result is "delete" and the file linked in the header).

Irrespective of that detail, neither of you adequately addressed the WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion: "In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally leaked and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia. This is not a consensus issue, it's a legal concern. Is there any evidence the copyright holder eventually published this particular screenshot? ✗plicit 00:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply commented on an open discussion I stumbled upon. Was that wrong? This feels like a rather rude response to someone who nicely asked if you would consider relisting if I did the legwork in scrounging up further discussion. Have I done something to upset you in the past or something? Because I can't make any sense of this sort of response otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I have no idea how you interpreted that as a rude response. You commented on a deletion discussion where the file had already been deleted, meaning that a decision was made and the debate had concluded. My decision to delete the file was based on a single "keep" !vote which failed to address the previous publication clause WP:NFCC#4, which the nominator pointed out that leaks not only fail to constitute previous publication, but that they also should not be included on Wikipedia. You implied that I considered two keep !votes when coming to a decision, when that was not the case.

Your comment there did not address nom's concern, nor did your original message here. Consensus is based on the merits of the arguments, not head count. The failure of not satisfying even a single criterion of NFCC leads to a non-free media file's deletion. ✗plicit 04:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you immediately accused me of being disingenuous, and you have "no idea" how that comes off as rude? I simply came here to see if you would consider a realist, as is a courtesy before heading to DRV. Even in your scenario where I "commented too late" or whatever, there was still very little participation in that discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Do you still stand by your claim that there were two keep !votes for consideration at the time I deleted the file, despite me explaining the timeline to you?

Seeing as you have yet to address NFCC#4, you have not provided an adequate reason to reconsider my decision. You are free to take this to DRV. ✗plicit 23:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is, as mentioned before, that more discussion is in order, because there were few participants, and because the image was present for its FA review/promotion, and been in the article for many years since. I know that doesn't necessarily make it right, but I do believe it, at the very least, warrants further evaluation. Your insistence in arguing image policy with me rather than considering a simple relist certainly doesn't help with my concerns of a supervote situation though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: You can expand on your accusations of supervoting at DRV, then. ✗plicit 00:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...I know...? Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Explicit! You deleted this file a few months ago under CSD F5 after the Miyazakiworld article was merged elsewhere. Well, the article's rewritten and split back out! Would you mind undeleting? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 23:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Explicit, The protection status for the Mohammed Hijab needs to be reconsidered. I have drafted a new version of the article. Could you please take a look at it? Thank you.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 10:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Owais Al Qarni: Hi, I have unprotected the title. ✗plicit 12:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit,

I have gotten myself involved in the WP:Articles for deletion/Senkoukai discussion and it appears that the author of the article has been contributing large paragraphs of possible llm nonsense which makes it very hard for other editors to see the substantial discussion there. And then I was just made aware this morning that the author is also a suspected sock(meat?) puppet of Kumar, the founder of the organization in the article

I have previously seen some AfD's where llm bludgeoning was collapsed, so I was wondering if there is any appropriate remedy in this case.

(p.s. whales are cute 🐋) Moritoriko (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko: Hi, I have collapsed the the LLM responses in accordance with WP:AITALK. Based on their userpage, the editor in question may be engaging in undisclosed paid editing, but I can't say for sure. If you or another editor suspect sock or meatpuppetry, it's worth exploring the matter and filing a report at WP:SPI. ✗plicit 00:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, I had assumed that since the category existed it was already under investigation but I'll file a report anyways Moritoriko (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit, I noticed that the File:Superboy (Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version).png was recently deleted under F5 after the "Superboy (Kal-El)" article was redirected according to this deletion discussion, and that you were the user who properly deleted the file.

However, the non-admin closure in the deletion discussion also supported merging content to the main Superboy article (preferably, I suppose, at the relevant Clark Kent section), per WP:PRESERVE. I'd like to reuse the image there, as it illustrates the Earth-One Superboy and was in long-standing use with a valid fair use rationale.

Would you consider restoring the file so that it can be readily used appropriately in that context? Red Shogun412 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Shogun412: Hi, the addition of this file to Superboy is not supported by WP:NFCC. In fact, most of the images in the article appear to violate policy. Using a non-free media file in multiple sections of an article is inadvisable. ✗plicit 03:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the insight—totally fair points. I agree that most of the current images (especially the two in the "Publication history" section) aren't doing much to meet NFCC, and I'm happy to clean those up. I’ll also go ahead and remove the Superboy-Prime image to reduce the overall non-free load in the article.

In exchange, I'd still like to see the Clark Kent Superboy file restored for use at a single, focused spot—ideally at the list's Clark Kent entry—to serve as a minimal visual identifier. The image had a valid rationale in its previous use (which I am more than happy to update myself), and I think this would keep us on solid ground with NFCC#1 and #3, while staying mindful of WP:NFLISTS by avoiding cluttering the page with unnecessary or excessive visuals.

If you're open to restoring the file under that understanding, or if there's a better way you’d recommend approaching it, either would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Red Shogun412 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the aforementioned images from the article in this edit Red Shogun412 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Shogun412: Very well, I have restored the file. Please note that since the original deletion was uncontroversial, I'm being a bit more lenient in this case. It can still be subject to deletion if another editor nominates it for discussion. ✗plicit 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I completely understand and accept that as a very real possibility. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciated your help on this matter. Red Shogun412 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could be of assistance with the redirect you deleted following an RfD, Future FIFA Club World Cup (China). The page was previously titled "2021 FIFA Club World Cup", but was moved around after getting postponed and then later cancelled. While the redirect title itself no longer makes sense and was rightly deleted, I was wondering if the former page history could be retained, for example at 2021 FIFA Club World Cup (China) or something like Cancelled FIFA Club World Cup in China, with the page acting as a redirect to the target FIFA Club World Cup#Expansion. I wanted to use some of the text that previously existed on that article to write a more detailed section on the cancelled tournament while providing attribution, but of course I can't see any of the history. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, S.A. Julio (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio:  Done. ✗plicit 03:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Explicit, I'm writing regarding the following page which was deleted to see if you can bring it back so I can resume editing? I was working on it but then had to go off line again for many months. Thank you Explicit talk contribs deleted page Draft:Rick Ferrari BuddhaBassist (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBassist (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuddhaBassist: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 03:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted? It's useful. I'm aware not many were using it, I would like to put it to use however. The Islamic section of wikipedia is simply woeful. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:D060:C3B5:AE5F:F8DD (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the deletion summary shows, this template was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 4#Template:AHM. ✗plicit 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. Restore it. It's rather odd that someone that says that wiki has an ethnic cleansing problem be a participant in said cleansing. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:520C:30BA:3B80:AAF8 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you got me. End of the road for you. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm not interested in getting you. I'm interested in improving the quality of this web service, would you mind ceasing your jesting, and actually respond? If another haha is going my way, keep it for the standup routine. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:D049:F012:3BC9:ED80 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 in 60 metres (2nd nomination). Can you please undelete 2020–21 in 60 metres to project space at Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks/2020–21 in 60 metres? The reason is it's a helpful red link list similar to the other lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks. --Habst (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst:  Done, the content is now available at the requested title. ✗plicit 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just flagging this following my restoration should you wish to weigh in. There was no issue with your close as he hadn't yet been blocked then. Star Mississippi 02:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Hi, that's fine. I would have closed the AFD as speedy keep had the nominator been blocked before closure. ✗plicit 06:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Explicit. Didn't run it past you before restoration since it was less contesting your close and more implementing the closed you'd have done with all factors on the table. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit. I think Boxingdetroit might be back as Salmaci123. Do you think this warrants a new SPI? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the block I imposed was quite a while ago, so I don't remember this user or situation at all. An SPI report would have to depend on behavioral evidence as activity to justify CheckUser would be long stale. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK Explict. Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, the original account Taricksalmaci was only soft-blocked for username reasons; so, the same person can just create another account if they want. The other accounts were blocked per SOCK mainly because they were also being disruptive. So, I guess as long as this new account avoids stuff like that, they'll be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore it to my sandbox, so I can work to improve it? TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:  Done, now available at User:Piotrus/Zbigniew Bąk. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Category:Prehistoric Cenozoic bird stubs 8 minutes after I edited Template: Prehistoric-neornithine-stub. Look, I need that category restored and moved to Category:Prehistoric neornithine stubs. I'm afraid this deletion has actually hindered my efforts to revert the erroneous rebranding of the template/category to being about "Cenozoic birds" rather than "prehistoric neornithines". Grey Clownfish (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey Clownfish: I have restored and moved the category. I was not checking for the timing between your edits and the deletion, it was a matter of coincidence. ✗plicit 23:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering recreating this due to better sourcing over the past years, may I see the deleted article? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: It looked like this prior to deletion. Let me know if you'd like me to draftify the page, as any reuse of the content requires attribution. ✗plicit 14:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, that looks promotional but there's some usable content. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94:  Done, the content is now available at Draft:Michael D. Ratner. ✗plicit 14:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit. Hope you're doing well. Sorry to ask this but please Can you tell me is this article comes under CSD criteria G5? Fade258 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: Hi, that article is not eligible for G5 because it was created before the sockpuppetry was discovered. G5 only applies when the a page is created after the sockmaster was blocked. ✗plicit 03:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Fade258 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be relisted? There were only two !votes and one user showed something that pretty clearly looked like SIGCOV. I'd appreciate if a week could be given for me to look into this myself. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Very well, since I closed the discussion just a few hours ago, I have relisted it as requested. ✗plicit 03:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]