User talk:Explicit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is approximately 5:17 AM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Christmas literature navbox[edit]

I notice that you've removed the discussion from your talk page. Please have a fresh read of it (the main concern was its size and rambling nature, which had been fixed since with my new navbox draft), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this was mentioned in the archived section, but the talk page of List of Christmas-themed literature was not alerted or made aware in any way that the navbox deletion attempt was occurring. The principal page navbox for that list, the only notice was that very tiny message that's applied automatically just above the navbox (which means page editors had no direct notice on their watch list). The editors of the page should have been fully alerted, which occurs on the talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)
@Randy Kryn: I didn't remove the thread, it was automatically archived by a bot for being inactive for seven days. Perhaps you should just drop the stick. plicit 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A seven-day archived is pretty quick, but apologize for my rush to judgement. As for 'drop the stick', that's really a jump from me taking the concerns of the very few editors who commented on the deletion to heart and trimming the navbox to specifications, from pointing out how notice was not given at the talk page of the principal page, etc. I came to you as the closer, have addressed the concerns present in the discusion, so please take another look and maybe at least relist, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: In the previous thread, you pinged every participant who favored deletion at the RFD discussion. Only one responded to reiterate their stance despite the adjustments you made. Perhaps the others did not see your ping. Conversely, perhaps they saw it, were equally unswayed, and decided to not respond. You are free to take your argument to DRV, but I am not seeing much justification for reopening and relisting the debate itself. plicit 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps they didn't respond for other reasons. Woodensuperman was the nominator, and came to protect his deletion intent, so no surprise there. As for no justification, the concern was fixed and there is no new concern as far as I know. The DRV is a time sink, which is probably one reason why the guidelines ask us to take things like this to the closer, and I can see little reason not to reopen (low attendance, concern expressed and remedy applied, no notice at the principal page for the topic, etc.). Let's see if woodensuperman gives a blessing (hoping that Christmas cheer might be a factor). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging for comments and to view the trimmed version. Three delete editors, WikiCleanerMan, Jonesey95, Izno, and the editor who left the extensive Keep comment, Allixpeeke. Here is the navbox before the trimming (its size and odd format was a concern in the discussion) and then here is the trimmed and edited version User:Randy Kryn/Christmas literature navbox. Please also read WP:CLN, which explains why navboxes, lists, and categories are complimentary to each other on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is still definitely better suited to a list and a category. A navbox is still inappropriate in this case. They might be complimentary, but not every method is appropriate in every case. Just because a category exists/is appropriate does not mean we also need a corresponding navbox. Overproliferation of navboxes causes clutter. I think you need to consider the spirit of WP:CLN more carefully, namely: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences you quote support the inclusion of this navbox, as does most of the text of WP:CLN. Hopefully the closer will notice that you have changed from arguing the quality of the navbox to an "I don't like it" attitude. This is an overall map of Wikipedia's collection of Christmas literature for God's sake (literally), not a throw-away navbox about ways to make peanut butter sandwiches or bumps in a particular road (or visa versa). And as for me beating a dead horse, please notice that this horse is fully alive, able to run free, and although currently corralled has its eye on the terrain on the other side of the fence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're not changing my mind on this. This is category and list territory, not a suitable topic for a navbox. A good navbox should be a defined set, not just things that happen to be written about Christmas. This is fine if you are categorising something, but not if you are making a navbox about it. The conection betweeen The Other Wise Man and Family Guy: Peter Griffin's Guide to the Holidays is purely tangential. --woodensuperman 12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to change your mind, that, from past experience, is a fool's errand, am rather appealing to the closer that the close should be relisted because of several factors outlined above. I have no idea why you bring up a connection between those two entries, or why you think they are tangential - they are both Christmas literature and thus both are included per the navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look Randy, it was deleted fairly in a deletion discussion, and no-one has leapt to your defence. I'm not wasting any more time on this. You do this over and over again with your flowery language trying to "sell" your romantic idea of navboxes, every time you don't like the outcome of a navbox discussion, but all I'm really getting from you is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Accept consensus and accept that you may not have the same idea as most editors as to what makes a good navbox and WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Romantic idea of navboxes? I don't know what you're getting at. The "I can't hear you" is coming from your end. Flowery language? Thorns of plenty. As for carrying the stick, there is no dead horse, the horse is alive and ready to be let out of the gate. Remember, the only in-depth analysis in the deletion discussion was by a Keep editor, the other concerns have been addressed by the trimmed down navbox linked above, which is why the closer has a good option here to at least reopen. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three deletion editors seem to be shy about revisiting their concern about the size of the navbox even after it has been trimmed and provides relief to their initial opinions. Reopening the nomination for more comments would present the trimmed version to the community as well as to rectify the lack of notifications by notifying the List of Christmas-themed literature talk page, the WikiProjects, and other Christmas and literature editors. Saying that a dead horse exists serves to close-down a discussion, but in this case the topic is so central to the historical forms and societal presentation of Christmas as a holiday and tradition, and as a navbox its new rendition (linked above) concisely guides readers through the topic and its timeline. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion[edit]

You have been closing some discussions but not this one. I was notified, and I was the only one to comment. I have several proposed solutions but assumed I'd have to act based on consensus. Although if no one else is contributing but the person who nominated, I guess whatever I want is consensus.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: I have relisted the discussion on today's log for further input. plicit 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikki Grahame.jpeg ‎[edit]

Hi Explicit. You deleted File:Nikki Grahame.jpeg per F7, which is fine since I'm the one who tagged it as such. I'm wondering if you (since you're also a Commons admin) would mind taking a quick look at File:Nikki Grahame (headshot).jpg that I referred to on File talk:Nikki Grahame.jpeg. The crop is from c:File:Nikki Grahame.jpg which was actually deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikki Grahame.jpg. Could this just be an miss by the deleting admin and the crop also needs to go, or is it OK for the reason given in the crop's description? It looks like the non-free was uploaded a few days after the Common's file was deleted, but the uploader might not have been aware that a crop also existed. If the crop does need to go, then maybe the non-free should be restored? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the headshot crop was uploaded about two hours before the original file was nominated for deletion and it seems that everyone in the discussion just missed it. The "The source image was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image, like a derivative work which is not a part of this cropped image." message appears to be automatically generated by the template when the source file is deleted. In any case, I've deleted the headshot and cited the DR. The local file was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so WP:CSD#G5 would also apply. It's best for someone else to upload a new file. plicit 02:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understand and thank you for taking a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of Sports Broadcasting Page Deletion(s)[edit]

Hello @Explicit,

When I first saw the deletion discussion for [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Israel], there was a note from the initiator of the deletion request that, upon being advised it was better, they wanted to withdraw the deletion request to consolidate it with the deletion request for dozens of other sports broadcasting pages at [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. And so, I put my keep comment in the Serbia discussion, and I limited the comment to generic points relevant to the broader category of sports broadcasting contracts. Some users agreed with it, and at least one did not. In any case, after following the broader deletion discussion, which resulted in a procedural keep, I came back to the Israel sports broadcasting page, only to learn that it had been deleted the same day as the broader procedural keep. The deletion request had apparently kept going, but I do not feel that for a full seven days (the typical minimum for deletion discussions) that users reading it would have understood that it was still a separate, active deletion discussion. It was reasonable for me to think I should go elsewhere with my comments, and also not make comments specific to the Israel page. I was led to the wrong discussion, and others may have been as well. Would you please consider undoing the deletion, at least to allow a few more days of conversation and/or edits to the article to improve it?

The same issue exists with the deletions of the [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Australia] and [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Japan], but I leave it to you to decide whether to treat all the same. In any case, having overlapping deletion discussions (one to a broad category of changes, and others for specific pages) is very confusing and is not a process designed to achieve a fair outcome.

You may have seen my conversation on this point in connection with the deletion decision (a procedural keep) on [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. In any case, I am happy to explain any points in further detail if that would be of help to you.

Thank you for your consideration. Coining (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining: Hi, I'll try my best to address each of your points. First, "procedural keep" is not the same as "keep". Participants in the bundled nomination were !voting to avoid a potential train wreck disaster as there were too many pages that, if nominated separately from the beginning, would have all led to different conclusions. Only the Israel AFD mentioned the bundled nomination, but not Australia's or Japan's. Only one user !voted "delete" across these three debates and the bundled nomination (BrigadierG), while another argued for deletion in the two of the three solo nominations (MaskedSinger). Two users !voted "procedural keep" in the bundled nominated first, then !voted "delete" in Israel's (GiantSnowman and Anwegmann). The remaining contributor (LibStar) took part in one solo nominations and did not participate in the bundled discussion. It does not seem like the notice on the Israel AFD made much of a difference, and the other two solo noms were not affected at all since there was no notice. I'm also in agreement with Hey man im josh in regards to the three users who !voted to outright "keep" all the articles. None of them addressed WP:NOTGUIDE, which is policy. plicit 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit why did you delete the page sports broadcasting contracts in australia there was nothing wrong with it, I want it back because I was using it to check the various sporting comps and their broadcasters associated with it. I have already contacted wikipedia to complain about the deletion so please restore it. :) SocceroosMatildasfan4ever (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Explicit for the reply. Here are my responses:
- First, the bundled nominations and associated AFD withdrawal by nominator requests were mentioned in the [Australia] and [Japan] AFDs, it's just that those mentions were deleted from the discussions a couple of days after they were posted. Please see the edit histories linked to above for evidence of that.
- Combined with the Articles for Deletion guideline that "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively," it was reasonable for users like me, especially those who viewed the entries when the AFD withdrawal requests were posted to think that the deletion discussion was being redirected to the broader discussion at [Serbia].
- The context of the broader discussion matters to the individual page discussions. If dozens of other similar country-based broadcasting contract pages are viewed by many Wikipedians as notable, one has to wonder what makes these particular pages not worthy of Wikipedia. The fact that some users thought other pages were appropriate, but only not Israel's, actually risks this deletion decision becoming another entry in the recent research report on [The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia].
- This is a perfect opportunity to utilize the procedures at Wikipedia:RELIST
- If you relist the Australia AFD discussion, you'll be able to direct @SocceroosMatildasfan4ever to make a case for that page there.
Coining (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
== Deletion review for Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel ==

Coining has asked for a deletion review of Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coining (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png as a result of this discussion. The reason was that it was deleted for being a generic logo of the ACC Asia Cup and not the 2023 Asia Cup.
The image had a "Super 11" on it; as the particular 2023 edition of the tournament was sponsored by Super 11. Further online research from me as well showed that this was the only official logo released by the Asian Cricket Council, for the tournament as opposed to the generic logo of the tournament. Hence, I request that the file be undeleted. Thanks and regards. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: Hi, I've restored the file based on your comment as it checks out with the article's content. Pinging Joseph2302 and Fhsig13 so they are aware of this. plicit 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it includes a sponsor name, that doesn't mean it's a logo just for the 2023 edition. If Super 11 is the sponsor again in 2025 (or any future edition), they could use that logo again. It's a logo that could be used for more than one season, so isn't demonstrably a 2023 specific logo in my opinion. Also, WP:REFUND doesn't seem like the correct process for this (and it was rejected there an hour ago), as it wasn't an uncontroversial deletion, and so WP:DRV would have been better, so this could have been debated more easily. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even If it is the same sponsor again, I am sure the Asian Cricket Council would take care to make a different logo by adding name/year. That anyways is a future what if; the matter remains currently that this logo was made for the 2023 edition.
  • Ill keep DRV in mind for future.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Explicit, thank you for work. You CSDed Bakti (apparently created by a banned user). I seem to remember to have edited the page (substantially? sourced it? I honestly can't rembember). Would you mind sending me the text so that I can rework it? (Draft/User space, as you wish) It was in my watchlist, so I suppose that at one point I found it notable. Thank you very much. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: Hi, a copy of the article before its deletion can be found here. plicit 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. That's very kind. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question: I just saw that Bakti is now back in main space, but with a history truncated to where Mushy Yank recovered it. Shouldn't the old history be restored too to satisfy the attribution requirements? Felix QW (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XFDcloser misbehavin'[edit]

Your edits to remove links to PureMVC (failed PROD) have an edit-summary that states "undefined" instead of details about the target or basis for removal (example: [1]. And some of those are list-entries, which seem like they should be removed altogether rather than simply unlinked (I didn't look closely though). DMacks (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Déjà vu? plicit 14:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I'll reset my alarm-clock and check back in early 2026:) DMacks (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete image[edit]

Hello @Explicit, you deleted this fair-use image per F5 as it wasn't being used in the Al Franken article. An IP user had deleted the image in what was apparently vandalism. I reverted the vandalism, but the link is now red and doesn't lead to anything. Could you restore/undelete the image? Thanks. Bremps... 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bremps:  Done, file restored. plicit 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png[edit]

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png? You closed the FFD about it here, but it's been added (yet again) to the indvidual team article. This has happened in the past as well, and I've removed the image when it has (leaving an edit summary explaining why). Maybe a WP:HIDDEN note should be added to the infobox's |image= parameter or an WP:EDITNOTICE to the top of the page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I have removed the logo once again. I took look at the page history and noticed that two sockpuppets of BouwMaster had restored the logo in the past. Sure enough, a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BouwMaster was listed some hours ago, so this may be resolved soon. plicit 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Concrete TV[edit]

A while back, you deleted the article for Concrete TV over concerns about its notability. However, the show's official site includes quotations about the show from High Times, Rolling Stone, New York Magazine, BlackBook, Boing Boing, and Time Out New York: [2]. As far as public-access television goes, this show is about as notable as it gets. Is there any chance that we could give this article a second chance?--LadybugStardust (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LadybugStardust: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. plicit 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My new additions to the page will hopefully be enough to fend off the notability police.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of empty albums categories[edit]

I don't need to be notified of such deletions - they are a special case. I will point out that it's worth checking how these categories have become empty. It seems perfectly possible to "merge" album and song articles into artist articles, and then claim that since the artist has no notable albums their article should be deleted. Of course this could be perfectly true, however if there has been no significant effort to find sources for the album, then they may just get deleted without anyone ever doing a WP:BEFORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I saw you deleted the image for not having a source, but the source was listed as "UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections", which should be adequate, as we don't require an URL for sources (many images from books, etc, don't have URLs if the editor scanned it, for instance.) I think tagging and deleting was a mistake, but didn't want to just undelete it without discussing first. Dennis Brown - 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Hi, after taking another look and seeing that the image caption reads, "first publicly released picture of Genie", I have decided to restore the image. I wasn't sure if WP:NFCC#4 was satisfied when I originally looked at it, but it does appear to meet the "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" condition of policy. plicit 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good. Dennis Brown - 07:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain this rationale to me and why it doesn't apply to all non-free content? I'm perplexed. Thanks J04n(talk page) 00:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J04n: Hi, the nominator was referring to the final paragraph of WP:FREER. Unlike The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, for example, the image is of the album cover only. There is one element of copyright to consider. One the other hand, File:The Beatles Stereo Box Set Image.png was a photo of the contents of the box set. Here, there are two elements of copyright: the design of the box set's contents and that of the person who took the photo. While the box set materials can not be freely licensed, a photograph of them can be taken and freely licensed.
Hopefully, this explanations makes some sort of sense. If not, you can consider File:Bracero Monument, Los Angeles.jpg. The statue is copyrighted, but a photo of the statue is freely licensed, hence the dual licensing. This file satisfies FREER to that extent. plicit 06:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess me not seeing the image in question was my problem. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin[edit]

Hello Explicit, im asking ur permission to recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin. I already read the deletion page and it says the page was deleted because it failed WP:GNG but recently i found more sources about him on internet archive which I think can solve the previous problem. I promise I will do the rework as best as possible, thank you very much. N. Alicia J (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Explicit, i've recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin using an additional sources from Google Books, Internet Archive, and some articles that mention about him on web search. Maybe u can check if it already pass WP:GNG. Thank you very much. N. Alicia J (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denver Area Council CSP.png[edit]

The file has been restored to the page from which it as removed. Could you please undelete it and the talk page? --evrik (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik:  Done, file restored. plicit 23:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (politician)[edit]


I know I put the wrong deletion tag, but nonetheless could you please delete the redirect Abdur Rahim (politician). The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. Thank you and best regards,Crampcomes (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crampcomes: Hi, this redirect simply does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. You are free to nominate it for discussion at WP:RFD. plicit 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]