Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:02, 26 July 2017

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.Please consider using other venues such as WP:REFUND, where most of my deletions are considered uncontroversial and can be restored upon request. Alternatively, you can consult other experienced users and admins for any guidance or help, or simply await my response.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 12:14 PM where this user lives (South Korea).

Thanks

Thanks for closing so many CfD discussions recently! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to say the same. I'm mightily glad you're here! – Fayenatic London 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london: I had left CFD abandoned for long enough. I took on the venue again after finding out Good Olfactory had stopped editing. ℯxplicit 23:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Deprod of Anti-fans in Korean pop

I think this may be notable, as anti-fans by country seems like a reasonable subarticle. I've added one reliable refs, other ones there are poor indeed. If you still think this is bad, do take it to AfD and do ping me in that case. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: My rationale had nothing to do with notablity. I nominated it as an unnecessary content fork, as neither Anti-fan nor Anti-fans in Korean pop were long enough to justify a split. ℯxplicit 04:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a merge, but proposed deletion is not the way to go about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the Samsung SPH-i700 article.

Hi Explicit,

I just went to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/Samsung_SPH-i700 as I always do when referencing Samsung's first commercially successful Windows CE Phone. I'm curious why it was deleted, and I'd really like to see it restored as the SPH-i300, SPH-i500, and SPH-i550 are all still there. I reference the SPH-i700 pretty frequently and always point to the[REDACTED] article.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronXD (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@MicronXD: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 04:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2017 June 15#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png

Hi, I think you erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. Your reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Misplaced Pages does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by your self, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus. Thanks for reconsidering,  Sandstein  06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Most of the keep arguments failed to address NFCC at all; the ones that did addressed points that weren't part of the concern to begin with. In your argument, you claimed that "It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures", but failed to provide any evidence of this. In contrary, I provided a link to my January 2016 closure which established the exact opposite. It was the first of a series of images that would end up being deleted (for example, Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png, closed by Stifle), which led to the establishment of this precedence. You also stated that the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting serves as the subject's biographical article, which simply not true. It is an article about event which contains biographical content—a fine distinction between the two. Not once did you mention or even allude to NFCC in your initial comment or the ones which followed.

Dennis Brown addressed one point of NFCC, but not in context to the deletion nomination. Fourthords was not arguing against its replaceability. What weight could I have given a misguided argument?

Philosopher cited the arguments above, mostly addressing the image's replaceability. Once again, a misguided argument in context to the deletion rationale.

Doctor Papa Jones: "per Dennis Brown and Sandstein." Ditto.

AGreatPhoenixSunsFan: "Usually the purpose for images like this is to give a better idea as to who the perpetrator that committed an action like this was in the first place." One non-free image is allowed in the article about the perpetrator if it exists, not in the article about the incident. The aforementioned precedent established this. Additionally, this is another argument which fails to address the nominator's NFCC concern.

The delete arguments all cited NFCC; they were specific and direct, and ultimately established a foundation against the use of the image in context of the article's main subject.

For the record, I find arguments like of "a poorly attended forum" incredibly flimsy. These statements generally come from a place of vested interest. When editors take an interest of how the venue works outside of something that affects them or their work, then there might be something worth talking about. Otherwise, it really just seems like an attempt turn consensus on its head because the result isn't what the vested editor wanted. ℯxplicit 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply, which I've attempted to address at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. I'm not aware of any specific editor having a "vested interest"; this is in and of itself a rather divisive term because it implies that editors who have made a contribution to Misplaced Pages are no longer able to professionally respond to others just because of that contribution.  Sandstein  10:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: To clarify, my comment of vested interest was in regards to your statement that FFD is "a poorly attended forum" where "discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus". These claims against FFD (and CFD) only come as a result of a contentious discussion result, and are made more in frustration thereof and not really as a process as a whole. If a genuine problem existed, remedies would have been implemented years ago to eradicate such concerns; it's simply the by-product of some feathers being ruffled. It was not meant to disregard you or the input of others users which led to the outcome. ℯxplicit 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File: Twink.jpg

Hi, you deleted File:Twink.jpg. I have managed to arrange for copyright holder permission to be sent to OTRS (Ticket#: 2017062010002382). Is it possible it could be restored with an {{OTRS pending}} tag? Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wwwhatsup: Hi, could you specify which free license is being asserted? Restoring it at this point in time would just bring back a fair use claim. ℯxplicit 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. I contacted the subject of the article. He confirmed he is the rightsholder of the image (a passport photo), and I nursed him into the OTRS process. He has sent an email agreeing to release it under CC BY-SA. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wwwhatsup: Ah, I see. The file has been restored. ℯxplicit 23:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. OTRS does seem to be a slow business these days! Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Category:Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments

Hi, you closed this CFD as merge Category:Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments. It turns out that user:WP 1.0 bot requires the pages to be in that category, and there is no-one currently maintaining that bot. I pinged you during the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Bot_is_down_again, and am letting you know (as a courtesy) that I undid the implementation of your close for now.

As there seems to be little prospect of the bot being updated in the short term, would you consent to me removing the cfd-manual template from the category page, and de-listing it from WP:CFDWM? – Fayenatic London 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Yes, that's fine. I contacted the two listed bot operators in hopes of a response to no avail. ℯxplicit 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

G7 draft

Hi Explicit, I would create an article namedDamir Hadzovic and was instructed to contact you as the draft previously was deleted under G7 code. Please advise how to proceed. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi, I gave Draft:Damir Hadzovic a look and there isn't much content in the text. Just an infobox, and empty sections and tables. You may proceed with creating the article if you wish. ℯxplicit 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, Very much appreciate your reply and I will create the article. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chung-in Moon

Hi Explicit, I see you removed the prod from the above article, citing the fact their was an reference. On that reference, there is no mention of the person by name. Even though there is some text which is defined as a reference, the reference must resolve to some verifiable information about the subject, which this doesn't do. There is nothing there. scope_creep (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Following the source, under the 'Members of the APLN' table, clicking on 'Co-Convenor' displays the names of the subjects, with Chung-in Moon being the first listed. It leads to this. ℯxplicit 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! I missed it, and a distinguished professor. scope_creep (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Westfield Hurstville

Hi,

I was going through a list of pages requiring expansion and started to look at this page. I went to the talk page and noticed that it had a banner saying that it had been deleted by you. I am not an expert editor but it looks like you deleted the article and someone has come back and added it in again. On reflection your action was probably correct. This seems to be a very large article for such an unimportant thing - it is just a shopping arcade like any other. If you would like to delete it I would be supportive. I am not a supporter of using Misplaced Pages for business promotion. MarekJG (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarekJG: Hi, this article was proposed for deletion with the rationale: "Fails and WP:ORG due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources." I deleted it quite a while ago, though—back in January 2013. You are free to nominate the article for deletion if that seems like an appropriate action. ℯxplicit 23:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Deleting Those Pages

I appreciate the deletion. – Batreeqah 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talk • contribs)

File:Simon James Philby Photo 1.jpg

Sorry for the poke, but in my watchlist it says you deleted File:Simon James Philby Photo 1.jpg, but I can still navigate to the file and see the image. Sorry for my ignorance, but I had to ask, why is that ? does it have something to do with the fact it's also on Commons ? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Yes. The local file was deleted, but since the Commons file shares the exact same name, it will display that one instead. ℯxplicit 00:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting catherine_templeton.jpg

Greetings,

I have an email appointing me as the representative of the author and the author releasing all rights to this photo. How would you suggest that I move forward in uploading the photo correctly? I am new to this process.

Thanks,

nplusone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nplusone (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nplusone: If the copyright holder of the photo has decided to release their work under an acceptable free license, please follow the instructions found on the declaration of consent for all enquiries page. ℯxplicit 23:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Darren Price

Could you clarify where the discussion took place prior to deletion of page Darren Price. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macs15 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Macs15: Darren Price was proposed for deletion and went uncontested for seven days. A discussion is not required under this circumstance. ℯxplicit 00:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at File talk:PDO-Logo.svg#Previously Deleted File

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:PDO-Logo.svg#Previously Deleted File. Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48 -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Landscapes (Camel album)

I just noticed you deleted Landscapes (Camel album). Please restore to my sandbox, I'll add sources. Trackinfo (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:  Done, I've restored the article under User:Trackinfo/Landscapes (Camel album). ℯxplicit 02:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm searching for an AfD discussion on this. I see nothing. Are you suggesting a seven year old article already with three sources should get nuked due to lack of sources? Bad policy. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention while watching the article. Its one out of almost 12,000 I watch, its hard to catch everything 24/7. But you should pay attention to what you are doing before damaging the encyclopedia. It shouldn't be so easy. I've added to it and will take it back to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: As you can see in the page history, it was proposed for deletion, so there is no AFD. I'm paying plenty of attention, thanks. ℯxplicit 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear, you did not violate any procedure. The procedure is at flaw. It requires human attention to the details. This article was poorly done, so it not to call attention to its sources. But the sources, thus the cause of the PROD, were there; meaning this did not fit the definition of the PROD. It was ill advised by the PRODing editor, an IP 68.151.25.115 who clearly was not paying attention. I can't guess to the diabolical motives of people who keep trying to delete valid content, but they do exist. Note: I have never edited this article, I just watch it as I do the entire lineage of this band. Poor editing is not an excuse for deletion. It does not invalidate the content. You as an experienced editor should, instead, have noticed the problem. You could have fixed the problem, thus saving the article. Instead, you reflexively deleted it because the time limit on the PROD expired. If you paid attention, if you were thinking, this deletion could, should have been prevented. Trackinfo (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: "Let me be clear, you did not violate any procedure." Okay, see ya. ℯxplicit 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hello! This show has recently concluded and IPs are flocking to remove sourced content. I hope you can help in avoiding the edit wars and vandalism. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.80.149 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Emma Jacobs

If she isn't notable enough to have her own page on Misplaced Pages, please unlink the page on the pages in the Article Namespace that link to the Emma Jacobs page. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Marco Lorenzi

Hello, could you give me the content of the Marco Lorenzi page, that you deleted on June 30, 2012? I would like to restore it since the athlete meets the criteria of encyclopedia, having won a national title and having been in the top 60 of the world's annual lists. From the date of his cancellation he also debuted in the senior Italian national team and he participated, at the individual level, at a Senior European Championship and always remain the two medals at U23 in relay race. He is also present in French and Polish Misplaced Pages and some thirty pages linking him. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: I've gone ahead and restored the article, you are free to improve it. ℯxplicit 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

many tnx ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg

Hi, Explicit. Per Template:G8-exempt, will you restore the talk page for this image, in the same vein that File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG File talk:RogerHowarthToddManning2011.jpg exist? I ask because I think there is important discussion on the talk page of File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg, although I can't remember if it's just a link to the debate that took place regarding the image. If there is nothing important on the talk page, then there is no need to restore it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The file talk page only contains the {{oldffdfull}} template. The discussion is still accessible from the page via the "What links here" tool. ℯxplicit 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Since that's all it contains, okay then. Thanks for taking a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted File:Young Ismail Agha, ten days after repatriation from Guantanamo.jpg as unused. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz routinely removes NFCC images from infoboxes, saying that, in addition to other restrictions on NFCC images, our guidelines bar them from being used in infoboxes. When they make these excisions they aren't challenging whether the image in question meets our criteria for copyright images, only that it shouldn't be used in an infobox.

I moved the image from the infobox, to the section of the article that discusses Ismail Agha's repatriation. Since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz concern was the image's placement, not whether it measured up to our criteria, I request restoration.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In general, nonfree images of living persons fail NFCC#1. There is no argument at this point refuting this presumption in this case. That presumption is reinforced in the case of infobox images, where any reasonable image of the article subject is adequate. I was concerned with the issue of replaceability; placement of a nonfree image in a BLP infobox is, aside from recognized special cases like prisoners serving life sentences, a virtually undisputable violation, and its use anywhere else in a BLP is still a presumptive violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Guantanamo held minors, children. The actual number of minors is in dispute. DoD spokesmen, trying to offuscate this issue, released multiple contradictory statements as to how many minors were held there.

Ismail Agha was a minor, when held in Guantanamo. A purist may argue that merely saying he was a minor is sufficient. But given the given the campaign of US spin doctors, trying to fix the USA's image, so it is not regarded as a nation that generally tortures children, I think an image is really necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I feel that having the file deleted as orphaned and then arguing to keep it deleted under a different criteria, without allowing room for rebuttal, is bad form. I have restored the image, and the merit of its use should be discussed at the appropriate discussion venue. ℯxplicit 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't cast groundless aspersions of impropriety, or any other mode of "bad form". I removed the image from the only article where it appeared on June 24, quite accurately noting that it was a nonfree image of a living person in their BLP. You originally deleted the image ten days later, on July 4. Images which fail NFCC are routinely deleted after being removed from articles where they are used improperly. To say that I am somehow shifting ground by arguing that the file has no legitimate use, for the same reason I advanced before, is a clear misrepresentation of my position and actions. There's nothing wrong or suspect about routine NFCC enforcement. When an image which fails NFCC requirements on its face is challenged, consensus must be achieved before it is restored, and it is inappropriate to use administrative authority to sidestep the normal process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories ready for deletion

The Roman Empire year categories have been merged manually. They are all yours to get deleted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)