User talk:Explicit/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories of the Rutul people

Hello! Please explain to me why categories: Category:Guernsey_men, Category:West German men, Category:Italian men, Category:Gibraltarian men (etc.) are allowed, but category Category:Rutulian men, Category:Rutulian martial artists is not allowed? DigitalSpace (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@DigitalSpace: Hi, the categories were tagged for deletion simply for being empty. Whatever page(s) populated these categories have seemingly been deleted. ✗plicit 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Dragostea din tei music video still.png

Hey there again. Is this file the same one as the other one deleted per FFD? George Ho (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@George Ho: Hi, it's similar enough to the previous screenshot to qualify for WP:CSD#G4, so I've deleted it as such. ✗plicit 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Doomguy427

Hi Explicit. 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 File:Picture of Captain Roohullah Mohmand.jpeg was cleaned up by another user. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? Would you mind posting something about this on their user talk? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, I have left the user a warning. ✗plicit 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Greenwich SM City Masinag (2024-11-16).jpg

Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:Greenwich SM City Masinag (2024-11-16).jpg? It seems to have multiple problems, WP:F5, WP:F7 and maybe even WP:F9 or WP:F11. I'm not sure what tag to place on it. There could also be problems per c:COM:FOP Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Old AFD question

Hello, you closed this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governing Body Commission, as a delete in 2022 and deleted the article Pragosh Das as a part of that. I have found the duplicate article Pragosha Dasa still exists, as near as I can tell because Pragosh Das was moved there in 2009 but then someone turned that redirect back into an article. I was wondering if you wanted to delete Pragosha Dasa 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. Here2rewrite (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Here2rewrite: Hi, the history is a bit jumbled up, but the page actually survived AFD in 2008. Basically, Pragosha Dasa was renamed from Pragosh Das in May 2009. Someone redirected it to Governing Body Commission in October 2009 in spite of the AFD, and a bot fixed the double redirect, so Pragosh Das also pointed to Governing Body Commission. Pragosha Dasa was written as an article in 2015, but Pragosh Das was never fixed to point back to it, so WP:XFDcloser deleted it along with Governing Body Commission. Pragosha Dasa would need to go through AFD again if someone is seeking to delete it. ✗plicit 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. Here2rewrite (talk) 15:08, 19 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. 27.252.156.6 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksei Kulashko. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Done – as a contested soft deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg? 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 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 Starship flight test 6. I'm a bit hesitant though because Starship flight test 5 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 WP:FREER? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've deleted all the video screenshots as copyright violations. Aside from the most recent flight test, Starship flight test 4 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 Wikipedia'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 WP:NFC#CS or considered significant enough for {{Non-free historic image}}. As flight test 6 is incredibly fresh, free media may became available in the coming days or weeks. ✗plicit 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? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@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. ✗plicit 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the best thing to do in this case. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Explicit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. qcne (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit 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 @Liz disclosed the supressed username. Utterly stupid behaviour. qcne (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@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. ✗plicit 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned the username in your first ANI post. qcne (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@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. ✗plicit 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. qcne (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Utterly stupid behaviour
That's a nasty way to talk to somebody. Please be kinder! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 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. -Lemonaka 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: (edit conflict) I honestly can not be bothered to tread through the politics of Wikipedia. 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. ✗plicit 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. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@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. ✗plicit 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. Levivich (talk) 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said I felt disgust upon seeing it and I left my message because I find 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 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. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Saying something like "hop off [my dick]" 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. E_F⁵ 23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Fair enough. Not being heterosexual myself I found the "heteronormative train of thought" excuse pretty poor. AusLondonder (talk) 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) Star Mississippi 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 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 Black Kite and Barkeep49 showed with the block button. RoySmith (talk) 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. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Tzamplakon family

Hi User:Explicit, I think the article Tzamplakon family was deleted once, but is now renewed. May you explain this case to me. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) Jingiby (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Hi, the article was draftified in early October and the resulting redirect was deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion criterion regarding cross-namespace redirects. 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. ✗plicit 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:A defence of the constitutions of gov of the USA Book Cover.jpg

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. JayCubby Talk 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: The cover in question can be found here. A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America currently uses a different image. ✗plicit 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? JayCubby Talk 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: The textured background is pretty complex, so I suspect that would push this cover above the threshold of originality. ✗plicit 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit Good point! JayCubby Talk 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi JayCubby. You might be able to argue as much, but it probably would be better to ask about this at c:COM:VPC 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 Wikipedia 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 WP:F5, 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 Wikipedia at either WP:MCQ or WP:FFD is whether File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. II. (1787.jpg needs to be treated as non-free since it seems to be a pretty clear case of c:COM:2D copying given that the file comes from File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. I. (1787).djvu (page 7). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

AlgoSec

Can I please see the deleted article AlgoSec. 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 amechad — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amechad: Are you affiliated with the company? Would you like to disclose any conflict of interest? ✗plicit 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am a former employee so am knowledge but am not employed currently nor in any way affiliated on a freelance or contract basis. Regarded, this is a notable company and therefore should have a reputable and quality page according to Wikipedia guidelines Amechad (talk) 08:04, 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 Supermann (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Supermann: Hi, the file was not deleted based on its resolution, it was deleted due to its failure to adhere to the non-free content criteria policy. The difference between the deleted file and File:Gladiatorsoundtrack.png were minimal; the only real difference was the addition of the text "20th Anniversary Edition" underneath the title. This is not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC#3a, which dictates that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The text at Gladiator (2000 soundtrack)#20th Anniversary Edition suffices. ✗plicit 06:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty. Many thanks for the explanation. I guess a picture is not worth 1000 words after all. Supermann (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mount Barker United SC

Henge2024 has asked for a deletion review of Mount Barker United SC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 08:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

About declined deletion Diff

I don't understand what the difference is between this pages and the other spam pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Draft:Hamidreza_Ghorbani_(musician_) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Draft:Hamidreza_Ghorbani_(musician_) and other WikiBayer (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

About the categories of North Indian and South Indian descent.

I noticed that you placed a speedy deletion tag on the categories Category:American people of South Indian descent and Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to offer some reasons why these categories should be retained, as they highlight important aspects of diversity within the broader Indian-American community: Recognition of Cultural and Regional Diversity: India is an incredibly diverse country with distinct regional identities, languages, cuisines, traditions, and cultural practices. Categorizing individuals of South Indian and North Indian descent helps acknowledge these unique aspects within the diaspora, which otherwise might be overlooked in broader, generalized categories. Better Representation: These categories allow for a more granular understanding of how various communities contribute to American society. For example, South Indian Americans have made significant contributions in fields like technology and classical arts, while North Indian Americans are prominent in areas like politics and Bollywood-inspired media. Facilitating Research and Accessibility: Scholars, journalists, and readers looking to explore specific contributions or experiences of South Indian or North Indian communities in the U.S. will find such categorization invaluable. It ensures that resources and information are easier to locate and study. Reflecting Diaspora Identity: Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage (e.g., Tamil, Kannada, Punjabi, or Gujarati). These categories validate and reflect the lived experiences and identities of people within the diaspora. Consistency with Other Ethnic Subcategories: Wikipedia frequently recognizes subcategories for other ethnic or national groups, such as Category:American people of Basque descent or Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent. The proposed categories are consistent with this practice of nuanced representation. I believe these categories enrich Wikipedia’s diversity and inclusivity by acknowledging the varied and vibrant backgrounds within the Indian-American community. I hope this perspective provides a reason to reconsider the deletion proposal. Looking forward to your response! SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Please reply on my talk page. SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@SavetheSouthofIndia (talk page watcher) I see that you've also put a message on Lizs talk page. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

Does this close prejudice any decision to redirect the subunits to the main article per WP:BLAR? There were no comments on them to my knowledge and the sources provided in the AfD doesn't provide enough coverage to justify a stand alone article for them. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: It would probably be best if you made your proposal on the talk pages of the articles and pinging the AFD participants instead of redirecting them outright. Otherwise, your actions may be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the consensus to keep the articles. ✗plicit 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I shall do that, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

File:V - Fri(end)s.png

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:V - Fri(end)s.png? It seems like it's at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} to me per c:COM:TOO US, but I'm not sure whether it's {{PD-shape}}/{{PD-logo}} based on c:COM:TOO South Korea since that's where Big Hit Music, the label that released "Fri(end)s", is located. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, after viewing a larger resolution of the cover, it seems that even the border design is too complex to qualify for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ✗plicit 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Karamogo

Hi, you deleted the page on Karamogo saying you couldn't find any sources, but just a quick search on google scholar finds a few:

• Routledge Handbook of Islam in Africa: The Qur'an school and trajectories of Islamic education A karamogo was an Islamic scholar, a term compounded by the verb "kalan" and noun "mogo". "Kalan" means to read/recite/teach/study while "mogo" means person. A student is called "karamogo den" (lit. scholar child) while a teacher is called "karamogo fa" (lit. scholarly father). A teacher like a father has perpetual authority over his student, one that endures after the student has completed their studies.
• others just mention the term rather than discuss

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Hi, the deletion summary is a copy of the words used by the user who proposed the page for deletion, not mine. Are you contesting the deletion? ✗plicit 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’ll go through the process, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 11:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete close but not done?

Hello,

I see that you closed this as delete, but it would seem that both of the redirects WP:WHITEWASH and WP:WHITEWASHING still function and have not been deleted yet? Can you please complete the delete. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Hi, it's deleted on my side. Maybe purging the page can do the trick? ✗plicit 11:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WHITEWASH: Revision history - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WHITEWASHING: Revision history - Wikipedia

Looks like there is no history of them being deleted? Am I missing something Iljhgtn (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Oh, I see now. Only Wikipedia:Whitewash and Wikipedia:Whitewashing were listed for deletion. Wikipedia:WHITEWASH and Wikipedia:WHITEWASHING weren't tagged or mentioned at all. George Ho, you'll need to follow up on these. I can't delete them out of process as they were never nominated for deletion. ✗plicit 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What is different with those? Are they not the same? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Even so, WP:Whitewash still redirects, when it should not now, correct? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)