User talk:Explicit

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 11:01 AM 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]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Sony Bravia televisions. 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. Punkt64 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Explicit,

I made the DRV because I want to share my point of view on the deletion of this article. As I mentioned there, I am not a frequent user but I have contributed heavily on some select articles like the one that was deleted here. The AfD process seems to have a limit of one week until the article is permanently deleted which is decided upon the consensus of the discussion. However, I see a fatal flaw in this because it completely disregards the argumentations of infrequent users or just users who happen to not be online in their Wikipedia account within the one week in which the AfD author chooses to compose their AfD. I think of this like court rulings. At least in my country, when new evidence is brought up or new witnesses want to testify, the case can be opened again. But I have not found any way to open a case again yet on Wikipedia, and the users in the deletion review did not point me to such a way either. So I'm writing you directly with the request to see the discussion in the deletion review and my argumentation to re-evaluate the decision to delete the article.

Thank you Punkt64 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i was investigating some redirects that Galactikapedia made and found the redirects for deletion pages that you started, which are much appreciated. I was just gonna say that there are quite a few more pages like that (including an entire family of flatworms) so i'm going to link the list here. Perhaps you can notify Wikipedia:Tree of Life for help with this continuing issue. Thanks for starting the work to fixing these. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthropophoca: Hi, those redirects were deleted as a result of discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1. I did not nominate them personally. Additional redirects need to be nominated there as well. ✗plicit 03:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that page. I'm still thanking you for bringing it up there and starting the initiative. Anthropophoca (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Explicit,

I'm seeking your assistance regarding a user who recently left messages on my Talk Page. For context, you can view the conversation here.

My concern is that this user referenced a few editors and pages, but after checking, they don’t appear to exist. I also attempted to search for them manually, but with no success. Could you please verify this?

Additionally, if possible, I would appreciate it if you could review the user's edit history, particularly their changes to the R. Donahue Peebles and Peebles Corporation pages. Now that the user has raised a COI (Conflict of Interest) issue, I believe their own editing behavior warrants closer examination. The tone of their contributions appears unusually negative, which raises the possibility that they may be a competitor or someone previously associated with Peebles.

Since they’ve questioned my edits, I will refrain from making further changes to these pages and leave the matter in your hands for review. I would be grateful if you could also look into the user’s activity.

Thank you for your time and support. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Axeia.aksaya: Hi, in regards to the messages on your talk page, it appears that a single person is trying to intimidate you by posing as several different editors—they certainly don't exist. I would take them with a grain of salt.

Regarding their edits in other articles, it's difficult to take any action as the IP has not edited for two weeks now. Any further resumption of problematic editing should be report at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. ✗plicit 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You moved two articles from draft space back to user space and removed their speedy tags with the comment "no backdoor deletions":^[1][2]

• User:GallupMS/Donald O. Clifton draft
• User:Bromogatos309/sandbox

In reviewing articles at CAT:CSD yesterday, both of these had {{db-g13}} tags.^[3][4] Both looked like they might be notable, so I removed the G13 tags, then moved them to draft space for further review. It became clear that the Bromogatos309/sandbox article was hopeless and there was already a Donald O. Clifton article so I restored the G13 tags with these edit summaries:

• "{Db-g13}: I temporarily removed the db-g13 tag yesterday to further investigate. I have not edited it other than to add tags. A Donald O. Clifton article exists."^[5]

• "{db-g13}. This was an abandoned user space page tagged for G13 deletion. I draftified it and temporarily removed the G13 tag pending investigation of its potential as an article. It's a dud. I have not edited except for adding templates"^[6]

Whatever the procedural errors of my actions were, please understand my intent was not to attempt bad faith, backdoor deletions.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: I do not fault your actions in these instances. The editor who originally tagged them for deletion as G13 had done so without properly understanding the criterion—it does not apply to drafts in userspace that are not tagged as AFC submissions. I believe their actions gave you the wrong impression, as it had done to the admin who mistakenly deleted several similarly tagged userspace drafts. No harm done on your part. ✗plicit 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a little worried what you might think.

I appreciate all the thoughtful work you do with deletions - a great example for all of us. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.
I am new to the AfDs and I have nominated an article, not sure whether the format is right or not. It would be great if you help me! The article is Chuknagar massacre. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr: Hi, it seems that the only step you missed was to transclude the deletion discussion page onto the daily log at WP:AFD. Luckily, there's a bot that has taken care of that. You may want to consider installing Twinkle, as it can help streamline the deletion process across various deletion venues. ✗plicit 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again - We have another article just started by an account created on 25 May account (suspect not a new account from their editing ability). Could you please delete or redirect and salt?
We also still have Draft:War 2, Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 2, Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 4 and Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 5 - is there a way of consolidating these? - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: I've merged the page history with Draft:War 2 (2025 film) 3. If you suspect sockpuppetry is at play here, you should consider filing a case at WP:SPI. If these creations are coming from sockpuppets of a blocked user, every new version that comes along can be deleted as G5 instead of making additional drafts. Due to all the parallel page histories, there's not much to be done except redirect all the copies into a single drafts. ✗plicit 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that User:Explicit, but as the title is not salted, whereas War 2 is E/C protected, War 2 (2025) has been recreated, yet again. Could you please delete and salt this title? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 (2025) has been now moved to draft-space, but E/C protection would be appreciated - Arjayay (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: I have salted this title as well. In case you missed the ping, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adw.x.hs has been opened. ✗plicit 00:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the salting and the link to the SPI (although I'm not convinced, and neither have ever been blocked) - User:Kailash29792 has since unilaterally redirected 4 of the drafts to Draft:War 2 (2025) - let's see if they re-appear. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 31 May 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]