User talk:Explicit/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Explicit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Cute news. 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand you deleted the file File:Sligo Montage.jpg today, which seems long standing. Are you able to explain a little about what initiated this action and more especially the reason for the deletion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Hi, File:Sligo Montage.jpg was marked as a non-free file by the uploader in 2013 and it was a montage of existing structures, a statue, and scenery of Sligo. The user wrote in the description that the images were found through a Google Image search. The file was tagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}} with the following rationale: "Existing place, plenty of free images on Commons (c:Category:Sligo) which can be used to make a montage like this". This proved true, as some of the subjects in this collage included the Glasshouse Hotel {free image here) and River Garavogue (free image here). I deleted the file in accordance to WP:NFCC#1. ✗plicit 09:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for the explanation. To a degree following the image deletion simply by looking at the talk on the Sligo article the information "Existing place, plenty of free images on Commons (c:Category:Sligo) which can be used to make a montage like this" was lost with the deletion of the file and there was also no pre-warning of the deletion. I'll probably add this info on the article talk page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. As per WP:DELTALK user talkpages (including Wikipedia:IP users aren't usually deleted. This is one of the exceptions, as it contains a link to a Phishing website that masquerades as a" Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, why are you deleting drafts that have been tagged as promising drafts ? regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Hi, please the documentation for {{promising draft}}. The template is only meant to postpone G13 deletions, it doesn't make drafts immune to deletion per the consensus at this RFC. Patrolling admins make the necessary edits to drafts tagged with the template (like this one) to allow the grace period of an additional six months, but they can not avoid deletion if no improvements are made in a year. ✗plicit 07:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i'd forgotten about that RFC, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like I missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island in popular culture. Just curious what the content was -- could you throw it into a subpage for me or email it to me? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Hi, I've made the content available here. ✗plicit 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. You previously deleted File:British Beekeepers Association Logo.jpg per F5, but it’s been re-uploaded because now there’s an article where the file can be used to meet WP:NFCC#7. My question is whether it would’ve been better for the uploader to go to WP:REFUND instead of simply re-uploading the logo. Does it matter that the file history for the deleted version is not part of the file history for the re-uploaded version? — Marchjuly (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Th deleted content was all by the same uploader, so I'm not sure if it makes a difference... ✗plicit 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

An image that I uploaded to this article last week - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gudinski has been deleted by you. There had been discussions with the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whpq about its rights, which were since updated as the creator of the image granted permission for its free use on Wikipedia. Are you able to advise why it was deleted, please? the f Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwepps (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Schwepps: Hi, File:Michael Gudinski Credit Brian Purnell of Mushroom Creative House.jpg was deleted for violating WP:NFCC#1 as a non-free image of a living person. Regarding permission from the copyright holder to release it under a free license, has that person emailed the WP:OTRS team and received a ticket number yet? ✗plicit 07:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please provide me the deleted copy for the Spahyte article. I need to revisit it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisy Neighbor (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Noisy Neighbor: Because content of Draft:Saphyte was blatantly promotional, it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to provide you with the text. You will need to rewrite the page from scratch. You are encouraged to read the notability guideline for products and the related essay regarding software notability before doing so. ✗plicit 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you were tangentially involved in the outcome of the above AfD (deleting a redirect), and I also noticed that you are experienced in AfD closures. SeanJ 2007 did a non-admin closure of the AfD to draftify the article. Regardless of the merits of the closure, procedurally it was wrong as he !voted at the AfD (and did content edits to the article). I'm not very experienced in closing - or worse in unclosing - AfDs or I would undo the closure myself. Could you do so? I was leaving a warning on Sean's Talk page about his not doing these kinds of tasks because he lacks the competence to do so, and, assuming you agree with me, I will still do so ... but I think it would be better after the undo, particularly because this user tends to be argumentative. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hi, thank you for pointing this out to me. I have reverted the closure and relisted the discussion. Per WP:NACD, any uninvolved administrator can undo a bad non-admin closure provided it is accompanied with a reason. ✗plicit 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking care of it. As I said above, my confidence in undoing AfD closures is not very high, and this one was slightly more complicated because the draft move also had to be undone. Frankly, I didn't want to screw it up. :-) As you probably noticed, I've left a warning at the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I hope all is well. I recently checked my wiki page and wasn't able to find it. I was just wondering how my page was created in the first place as it must have fit the criteria. If you could please elaborate more as to why it was deleted, I would greatly appreciate it.

This is the page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinh_Tran

Thank you for your work Dinhtranskater (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dinhtranskater: Hi, as the deletion summary states, the article was deleted via an uncontested WP:PROD with the following rationale: "Simply does not meet WP:NSKATE." The linked page provides a notability guideline for figure skaters which outlines specific criteria they must meet in order to considered presumably notable.

Another note, since you are the subject of the article, there is a direct conflict of interest on your part, and you are strongly discouraged in editing articles about yourself. ✗plicit 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. I was wondering what criteria did I meet in the first place which allowed this article to be created and why I do not meet those specific criteria now?

Also, I apologize for editing the article, but some of the information was incorrect.

Please let me know, Thanks Dinhtranskater (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, recently you have deleted a draft page of mine on PAL Robotics, I understand that at the moment I did not have enough sources, but I have been collecting them meanwhile and now that I have them, I would like to update the draft and submit it for review for the article to get published again. Please let me know if it's possible to do so or if I should start from scratch? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusreemder (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mariusreemder: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

I just wanted to say the reason I asked for the roster template to be deleted because I copy and pasted the templates information into the Kane County Cougars wiki page for their roster. It just made it easier. So, I didn’t think the template was neeeded anymore. Because when I tried to edit the roster it wouldn’t let me through the template unless I searched for it. I did it so other people other than me can edit it. I meant no harm. ParkerLyme (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ParkerLyme: Hi, as stated in my edit summary, there simply isn't any speedy deletion criteria that could have been applied to have this template deleted. You will need to nominate the page for deletion at WP:TFD for such a result. ✗plicit 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, you deleted this file as F7 c., IIRC the rationale was that it was replaceable with File:NXT_North_American_Championship_(cropped).jpg on Commons, but this image was deleted, so I do not believe the enwiki file is replaceable with free media, and championship title belts do not seem to be utilitarian and any image clearly showing the belt is probably not going to be de minimis either. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dylsss: Hi, the problem with images like File:NXT North American Championship title belt.png is that both the design of the belt and the photograph itself are copyrighted. Per WP:FREER, the file that was deleted on Commons, which was a cropped version of File:Referee with NXT North American Championship.jpg, can be locally uploaded and simultaneously marked with {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} for the photograph and a non-free license for the belt design. ✗plicit 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for making the White Ash music group page! Despite their strange English lyrics at times, they are one of my favorite groups!

I noticed however that on their Wiki page, their “official website” link is now a different company. If you have time, could you please check it out? Thanks so much! Nkswordsman (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nkswordsman: Hi, thanks for pointing that out! I have replaced it with an archived version of their homepage. ✗plicit 11:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You've previously blocked HaasLola on at least two previous occasions, and her page continues to accumulate recent warnings for violating WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al., one of which was by you last month, and another by another editor just eight days ago. Their most recent violation was yesterday, an indication that they're not going to stop. I think a longer block is in order. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Hi, I have blocked the account indefinitely as the user has shown no sign of correcting their behavior. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I see you deleted that file: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Paris_2_Panth%C3%A9on-Assas,_Library.jpg Could that picture be used instead, where it is written "under creative commons licence"? And the information kept? https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/actu/detail/article/assas-lance-une-licence-de-droit-en-ligne-2826/

--Ransouk (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

Do you mind undeleting this file? I'm planning on overwriting it with the new logo in SVG format so it won't be orphaned anymore.Jonteemil (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonteemil:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 07:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you do the same on File:HockeyAllsvenskan logo.svg and File:IFK Goteborg logo.svg?Jonteemil (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonteemil:  Done, both files restored. ✗plicit 12:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :)Jonteemil (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not get enough time to address the issue raised by Kautilya, or discussed it properly as I was blocked for a week. The topic Puya Meithaba although controversial in a sense it fufil the wikipedia notability criteria, Can you please help 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 23:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, also I will try to solve the neutrality issue with discussion on talk page as well as adding information from reliable journal 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to Wikipedia. I received a notification that the article I wrote a long time ago was deleted, and I am a bit late to respond. Looking back at the content, I agree with the decision... it could have used a lot of work. I would like to propose rewriting the article entirely. We have a number of substantial sources to cite and significant content that would well-fit the Wikipedia guidelines for material. I have someone well-versed in these types of edits I have found to help me produce this. Bcvisi2009 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I need a deletion here. Thanks! It's an empty category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Super_heavyweight_kickboxers — Preceding unsigned comment added by .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@.karellian-24: Hi, please see WP:CSD#C1. The category must be empty for seven days before deletion. 10:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You apparently deleted the Mr. Haney article. I do not see a AfD link to explain why. Please restore the article to my user space and I will review and likely restore. Trackinfo (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: There is no AFD link because it was deleted via WP:PROD. I have restored the article at User:Trackinfo/Mr. Haney. ✗plicit 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You closed the discussion as soft redirect, but I don't think creating an actual soft redirect was actually what you mean to do here. (Presumably the word "soft" in your soft redirect is as in soft delete.) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aseleste: Facepalm I definitely meant it as an uncontested proposal. Thanks for pointing this out, I've adjusted the redirect. ✗plicit 10:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Explicit,

I think you are deleting these a bit early. I know in the U.S., there is an hour time difference between the time of the last edit in November and the time today in May because of Daylight Savings Time changes. I'm not sure if this applies to where you are at. But I had to let a stale draft page tagger know about the time difference earlier today because he was tagging page for deletion an hour before they were eligible. Any way, have a good Tuesday...happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Hi Liz, I took another look and realized that this was caused by Draft:Abby Jimenez, which was sandwiched between Draft:Ground golf and Draft:Carribean Fragoza. It had already been deleted five days ago as spam, so I didn't look at its time stamp. My brain decided that the time difference between Draft:Ground golf and Draft:Carribean Fragoza was five minutes, when in reality it was an hour and five minutes, which caused a domino effect thereafter. Thanks for pointing this out to me. ✗plicit 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I see you deleted the GW Student Association page, while stating that "There isn't a single reliable independent source on this article." This not true, as the Hatchet, which is one of the oldest publications in DC, regularly and independently covers many events related to the GWSA. Although most orgs and association do not count as notable, this particular page also includes much history with regards to the record of student body presidents and history at GW. I request that you un-delete this page if possible. JustinDiamond (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@JustinDiamond: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article George Washington University Student Association has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 06:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your good works pertaining patrolling G13. It’s an arduous task to be honest so once again thank you for assisting out diligently there. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:After School (band) EPs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this page was deleted. Could you please re-instate it?

13:19, 22 May 2021 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Dawn Gifford Engle (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) Tag: Twinkle (thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs)

Wroeththo (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Wroeththo

@Wroeththo:  Done, article restored. ✗plicit 00:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this page was deleted for G8. Please re-instate this page.

13:19, 22 May 2021 Explicit talk contribs deleted page One Billion Acts of Peace (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

Wroeththo (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Wroeththo

@Wroeththo:  Not done, the content was revdel'd as a copyright violation. ✗plicit 00:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you for pointing that out. Is it possible to receive the article in draft mode, where I may remove the material in question? Are you able to determine what part of the article was flagged for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wroeththo: Copyright violations are not allowed to be restored, even as a draft, for legal reasons. A Google search suggests that part of the text was copied from here. On a side note, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you for elaborating. Would a copyright release from the owner of the other site address the issue, also, is it possible that that content was copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around? The site states the person worked for the organization in question. And I am sorry I do not address moderators often.

Wroeththo (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I just wished to thank you for deleting a file I recently uploaded. I see what was wrong with it now. I am sorry for any truble I may have caused. I am also sorry if this is not the right talk page to bring this up on, I was a little confused by the warning. Thank you, Rfkatz2005 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Can I ask for your review on these pages I made here?

• We Play (EP)
• 9 Way Ticket
• Template:The Unit: Idol Rebooting Project

Thank you in advance! Byy2 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Plies - Da REAList.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I note that you deleted the use pages of several IPs at their request. It happens that those IPs have been used by an LTA based in Brescia, Italy. See [1], I haven't written up an LTA page for them yet. I'm not sure if those user pages held any pertinent material in terms of identifying and controlling this vandal/disrupter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Hi, those IP pages were actually created by you when you placed {{AN3-notice}} on their userpages instead of their talk pages. You then blanked the userpages likely upon realizing the misplacement and moved the notice to their talk page, as you did here. Other than that, the userpages contained no other content. ✗plicit 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that, that's almost certainly precisely what happened. I'll withdraw by REFUND requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 7 open discussions at WP:CFD dating from April. Would you be willing to close (some of) them? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle:  Done, all but one taken care of. ✗plicit 08:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

the above article is true and this is belongs to the state legislature member of Ramanathapuram constituency and the details mentioned is 100 percent true and I have added reference and citations Rakeshia1410 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I had previously loaded this to help identify this Irish arts organisation. It was used in the Infobox. The page was edited a little over a week ago a few times by a user with the same name as the organisation's founder and the Infobox was removed. About half a dozen images were added in its place. Pretty clear self promotion, but baffled why he removed the infobox other than aesthetics. I've replaced it now and moved the page to its correct name PhotoIreland. Hoping to upload their current logo. Let me know your thoughts. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Hi, I have restored File:PhotoIreland logo.jpeg and moved it to Commons for being a simple text logo. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh cool! Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You've just deleted this page. This page has a lot of national newspaper sources, but I can understand why you deleted this page. Gocorona (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But I do hope there wasn't a misunderstanding here. #G7 is "Author requests deletion" and I most certainly was not the author. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Philip Trueman: Hi, yes, it was understood that the actual author Akibmir88 blanked the page. Anyone can tag it for speedy deletion as G7 in such cases. ✗plicit 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You just blocked the first. You might want to block User:List of Inter College in Agra, who actually made the edit on the talk page. It's an obvious sockpuppet, I was watching it for the next edits because I was not sure it violated the socking policy, yet. Pikavoom (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pikavoom:  Done, user blocked. ✗plicit 06:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this page was deleted in May. Could you explain the reasons in detail?

"Advertising for the company" & "lack of relevance of the topic" are listed as reasons. The article describes the company in terms of its history, organizational structure and products. There is no evaluation, highlighting or use of promotional language. The article does not differ in any way from a number of articles that deal with companies. Here are just two prominent examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH.

Therefore, I do not understand the deletion and would like to know concrete starting points. What is incorrectly worded here?

It is also stated that the article does not contain a relevant topic. The article deals in one abstract with the topic "sustainability". That by recycling zinc, emissions are saved and the amount of scrap is also reduced. If the entire industry did this, global warming would be only half as bad. If this topic is not relevant, which one is it?

I ask for a discussion of the points I have made. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Lambert 93 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joel Lambert 93: Hi, first: did you or do you expect payment for your contributions on Wikipedia? If yes, please see the policy page paid-contribution disclosure, as you are required to disclose this information (and how to do so is explained here). If not, are you in any way affiliated to REAZN Group? If yes, please see the conflict of interest guideline, as it is strongly discouraged to edit pages where you have a relation to the subject.

REAZN Group was deleted for being promotional. When the page content begins to describe how the company interacts with their customers and suppliers, and when it describes the company as having a "leading position" in a certain market, the intent of the page becomes evident, but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or publicity.

Regarding notability, the pertinent information is the notability guideline for organizations and companies. ✗plicit 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Explicit, first of all, thanks for the fast feedback. Regarding the "leading position". Due to the fact that REAZN UK is producing the amount mentioned in the article, the company is one of the biggest player in this business. There are only a few other companies which produce zinc alloys at this level. But I understand that without a deeper knowledge of this specific industry the sentence could sound promotional, I will go without it, no problem.

Regarding "the page content begins to describe how the company interacts with their customers and suppliers": I do not understand in which way I describe an interaction between company & customer. I only mentioned that REAZN S.A., as one subsidiary of the REAZN Group, is responsible for the customer contact. Just like other subsidiaries are responsible for production. With part is not objective and in an unbiased style?

Are there other abstracts or sentences that are not objective according to the guidelines? I checked the article again but apart from the sentence mentioned above, I can not find another violation.

According to guideline for "Notability" a "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I do not understand which of the sources used in the article violate against this guideline? Due to the fact that the article was deleted I only could check the sources I had in a backup. Could you please mention the critical sources?

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Lambert 93 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joel Lambert 93: Please respond to the first two questions posed at the beginning of my initial response regarding your relationship with REAZN Group, as this is essential to how to adequately respond to your queries. ✗plicit 06:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, recently you removed deletion tag from Jagannath Rural Municipality. May be you already noticed, I created that page myself. If you go through the reference listed in Pandav Gufa Rural Municipality, you will notice that Jagannath Rural Municipality does not exist.Probably you could not read the reference because it is in Nepali. Basically, I made mistake because there existed Jagannath, Bajura village development at the same place which has a similar name, hence the error. In short, there is nothing called Jagannath Rural Municipality, so it can be deleted. Happy to translate if you need any such help. Best regards! nirmal (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nirmaljoshi: Hi, is Jagannath Rural Municipality a result of a translation error? The best course of action would probably be to restore the original content and simply propose its deletion. With a well-explained rationale, it would help future readers understand why the article was deleted in the first place. ✗plicit 06:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hungarian Testing Board. 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. Sldn37 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could restore St. Marys Bay French, even if just as a sandbox article for revision so that it can be improved and eventually restored. The page was deleted before I had a chance to add sources to it and improve the quality. —Firespeaker (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firespeaker:  Done, now available at User:Firespeaker/St. Marys Bay French. ✗plicit 14:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! (Sorry for the edit conflict on this page..) —Firespeaker (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm working to add a few more sources still (I've requested a few through my library), but I think perhaps the page might be in shape to be restored at this point. What do you think? —Firespeaker (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firespeaker: If you feel that it's ready for mainspace, you are free to move the page. The current version now at least addresses the original PROD concern. ✗plicit 02:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

So apparently there was some feeling that the article wasn't ready for mainspace, but the same issue (lack of reliable sources) is being cited now. Do you have any suggestions for what more I can do (besides adding more citations once my library is able to obtain the sources I received requested)? I feel like the article is in a better situation than quite a few articles... —Firespeaker (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firespeaker: You may want to get in touch with Onel5969 and inquire about what the issue is, because I don't quite see it either. I wonder if he saw the {{Unreferenced}} template, but missed the references you've provided. ✗plicit 03:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to follow up on my previous request to rewrite an article you deleted (VISIONx): I received a notification that the article I wrote a long time ago was deleted on May 13. Looking back at the content, I agree with the decision... it could have used a lot of work. I would like to propose rewriting the article entirely. We have a number of substantial sources to cite and significant content that would well-fit the Wikipedia guidelines for material. I have a team that is well-versed in these types of edits I have found to help me produce this. How could I proceed to recover this page and effect the proposed edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcvisi2009 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. You deleted File:Babak Khorramdin.jpg a few days ago per WP:F6. After checking the log, I noticed a file under the same name has been deleted before way back in 2007 for what looks like WP:F4 or WP:F10 reasons, but I can't see if it's the same file or the same uploader (though I doubt it is in either case) and it was seems to have been deleted per an ANI discussion back in 2007 (which might pre-date FFD). Anyway, the editor who uploaded the version you deleted has reuploaded the same file as File:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg and this time they've provided a rationale. They've also, however, simply stated the source is Persian Wikipedia which is almost certainly not the original source at all. I think the Persian Wikipedia file is fa:پرونده:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg, but I can't read Persian and can't see any urls which might be to the original source anywhere on that file's page. I've tried explaining this to the uploader at User talk:Khadempour322#File:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg, but this editor never seems to respond to any talk page posts except just to archive them. The same editor is also active on Commons, but they never seem to respond there as well. I think this editor might have difficultly communicating with others in English since the only talk page posts they make over at Commons are in Persian, but I'm not sure. Anyway, Babak Khorramdin (director) is dead so a non-free image of him is completely not out of the question; he only recently died though and which means that NFCC#1 might be an issue, but that's a different issue from F4 and F6. Do you know whether the version you deleted had a proper source that might be work for this latest version as well? Do you think the rationale provided for this file together with that source could be applied to the version you deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to update, Khadempour322 did respond to my post this time and did provide a source for the image; so, things seem to be in the process of being sorted out. I'm still not sure about the file's name though, but that's something that's fairly easy to resolve if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit! I saw you've deleted a lot of pages lately so I just thought I'd let you know that this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Dattani on an article I created, resulted in a few reputable users recommending to delete based on failing WP:NPROF and COI edits in the revision history (for example an IP constantly reverting an admin's edits here and changing "Kyoto University" to "Kyoto Women's University" when the reference being cited actually says "Kyoto University"). I agree that passing NPROF is borderline, and the COI edits do look bad and the project would benefit from a blanking. It can always be created by someone else later if the notability becomes more "indisputable" later.

Unfortunately I should not do a non-admin closure because I was involved in the AfD discussion. However I was one of the only keep !votes remaining, and I changed my vote to !delete, so if you would like to do it, I for one would appreciate it!

Thanks for doing everything you're doing !!! Dr. Universe (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Universe: Hi, that AFD is not scheduled to be closed for at least another three hours, so it should remain open until then. It will likely take longer than that as it looks particularly complex. When the time lapses, any administrator will be able to assess consensus and close the discussion. ✗plicit 02:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Kamsahamnida! I had looked at other AfDs and saw some of them close early, so I thought it might be okay in this case. Anyway, 7 full days have passed now, so with my "keep" retracted there's now only one left which was the user that said "keep per Dr. Universe" and they haven't been active for the last 6.5 days. It seems there's a consensus, do you know of any reason why closure should be held up? Dr. Universe (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! I have so many times told JoelleJay that I'm feeling badgered, and I have even changed my !vote from "keep" to "speedy delete" because not only am I getting overwhelmed with all the replies and pings I was getting, but also if that user is so adamant about deleting the article, the article may benefit from waiting some time until the notability criteria are more "indisputably" passed. However even after changing my !vote to delete, which is what JJ was pushing for, I keep getting badgered further and told something like "if you don't want to be badgered then don't reply to me". The user left some scathing remarks in two responses last night but I didn't reply to them because I was hoping the page could get deleted sooner rather than later, in order for the badgering to stop. I said on their talk page that I would be okay for the article to get deleted (which is what they want), and asked in what I thought was a nice way "if I don't reply to your last two pages, can we call it a night and let the article get deleted?" and now they accused me of HOUNDING (in the AfD discussion rather than elsewhere, which I also thought was off-topic). If you look at what I wrote on their talk page, and the one 8-word comment I left on another AfD where I just said "JoelleJay, be careful not to badger the user", I hardly think you would think this is HOUNDING since it was just one AfD discussion which I happened to come across myself (I participated in a lot of them recently!). I also didn't even know what HOUNDING was at the time. I would very much appreciate if the AfD could be closed now since with my "keep" retracted, it seems everyone is okay with "delete" including me (the article's author). The article can be created later when (and if) the notability becomes undeniable. I would also like the user to stop badgering me. I would just like to move on and not have that user keep investigating every single thing I'm saying. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I'm feeling harassed by two users (one of them is the one I complained about above, on 27 May) who I feel have been bullying me for about 2 weeks and have been thanking each other on one of their talk pages. I've been losing sleep and having trouble eating and digesting food, for the last 2 weeks. It's affecting other members of my family. Unfortunately these two users are very regular, experienced users, so know how to "get to me" in a way that circumvents looking like policy violations to most people (I unfortunately don't know much about how Wikipedia works because I've been a "casual" user since 2008, having only made a few edits per year: even though I now have 1000+ edits, 500 of them were in the last two weeks). I don't want to use the noticeboards, because I am finding them extremely overwhelming. These 2 users have both "hounded" me on some noticeboards, and I am finding that process extremely bad for my mental health. I have repeatedly told both users: "please be more gentle with me", "go easy on me please", "I don't want to get into another 1-on-1 lengthy debate with you", "Can we please call a truce?" (x2), and they keep on replying again and again and again. I can't "disengage" because these users have made accusations against me publicly. I feel that if these accusations were true, then other Wikipedians would be able to make them (these 2 users don't have to keep initiating everything against me). In 13 years of being on Wikipedia, I'm new to all this drama and it's extremely disturbing to me. These users seem like they're on here full-time, and I can't compete with that because I have other work and other interests and family. My edit history will make it look like I'm on here full-time too, but that's only been in the last 2 weeks because of these users badgering me and sealioning me and digging up edits from years ago (some of them were even commented out using and still they're digging these up from years ago). Are you able to help me please? I told JoellJay to stop WP:Badgering and Sealioning me over and over and over, and recently asked for a truce and offered not to interact with them on AfD discussions if we can both agree not to interact with each other anymore, but they replied to me with more accusations. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Explicit. I saw you deleted List of men's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters and List of women's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters, and restored the latter one, because it was not tagged. I created both articles, and I accepted the deletion nomination of them. Thanks! :) --Phikia (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Changansa is a redirect used by many articles, Korean_Buddhist_temples among them. And therefore, this redirect is needed. Pldx1 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Changansa redirected to Jangansa, which was a red link after John B123 moved it to Draft:Jangansa and suppressed the redirect. The deletion abided by policy when it occurred. ✗plicit 09:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is the reason why my comment was only informative. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day. As I understood, you're also an administrator on Commons. Could you please help me with renaming this file to just "Lokalise_logo.png" or something like that? Thing is, I forgot to adjust the name when uploading and now it looks quite lame. Thank you! --Evacat (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Evacat:  Done, file renamed. A bot will replace the original file name with the new one shortly. ✗plicit 11:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Kool, thanks --Evacat (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You deserve it for your tireless service Ratnahastintalk 10:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I want you to bring back our article named Emil Şahin, I don't understand why it was deletedRza835 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rza835: Emil Şahin was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Şahin. Participants determined that the subject did not fulfill the notability guidelines and the page was deleted in accordance with the consensus. Please do not recreate the page. ✗plicit 09:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article also has no spam content. References have been received and will be enriched. Please help me to bring it back.Rza835 (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

can i call youRza835 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I added the G5 tags to the drafts, Lanre Olabisi, Somewhere in the Middle, and August the First, and the now-banned user's alternate sockpuppet accounts sandbox pages. You reverted them for the reason the pages weren't created while the user wasn't circumventing a ban. I intended to nominate these again for speedy deletion. Under what criteria would these pages be categorized, G8, G11, G12, or G13? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Hi, these drafts are not eligible for speedy deletion under any criterion at this time. Assuming that these subjects are deemed not notable, your best bet would be to leave them untouched for six months. The pages would be eligible for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G13 in December. ✗plicit 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Does that include the sandboxes as well? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: G13 only applies to sandboxes if they are tagged with {{AfC submission}}. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Those sandboxes have some of the qualifications for the speedy deletion critera. Some of the them seem to be promotional for a business or a certain individual and one of the sandboxes subject matter already exists as a Wikipedia article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Explicit, those sandboxes qualify for speedy deletion. If not G13, then which critera? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: The sandboxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. Otherwise, I would have deleted them. Drop the stick. ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you should consider otherwise because as I stated above they seem to be promotional for a business or a certain individual. The one user who created them with his various accounts has come under question for creating articles in exchange for payment. There is a case to delete them. When you get a chance, take another careful look at them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Forget about checking them for a speedy delete. I've decided to nominate them under an MfD group discussion. You're welcome to participate. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a bit perplexed at this close. The "keep" arguments were that the redirect was unambiguous and that it had history. However, it was shown early on that there isn't any useful history, and as I pointed out there, the redirect isn't really unambiguous. I also argued that the redirect is structurally harmful, and that argument hasn't been addressed. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Hi, while you may feel that the term is not unambiguous, three contributors before you expressed the exact opposite view despite the inaccuracy in using the term "flu". The discussion was split as to whether it was a structurally plausible search term to begin with, and neither side was particularly more convincing than the other. While WP:RNEUTRAL was cited by a few of the keep arguments for the use of "Wuhan Flu", there was no mention of any guideline or policy for the use of "Wuhan Flu Timeline" specifically. Convictions alone could not tip the scale. The arguments about the page history held no weight in my closure, as attribution is only relevant to actual written content. In determining the outcome, I did not see a strong case from either side to result in anything other than no consensus. ✗plicit 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, three editors claimed the redirects was unambiguous, but that only happened before I pointed out the ambiguity, and no-one made any argument against that ambiguity. WP:RNEUTRAL is a red herring here: it simply states that redirects don't have to be neutral and it was used to pre-empt arguments based on the redirect's non-neutrality. But the major delete arguments didn't have to do with neutrality. Also, the argument about preserving the history didn't have to do with attribution, but with the fact that the redirect was for a time the title of an article and so could have incoming links. I also have to clarify my use of the term "structural" here: I was referring to the relationship between this redirect and other similar redirects, and how the existence of this redirect can shape reader expectations. I don't think anyone else made any structural arguments (in this sense of the word), and the plausibility was asserted only of the phrase "Wuhan flu" on its own. I didn't express any opinion about the plausibility (and editors before me were split on that), but the structural argument scales with this plausibility: the more likely the redirect is to be encountered by readers, the more overall harm it can do. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seme like you're interested in reconsidering the close in light of my explanation. I'm not going to take this any further, mostly because I believe inexperienced editors should be given some leeway. I'm going to offer one piece of advice though, even if it's unasked for. Before starting to close discussions at a new venue, it's almost always a good idea to first gain some experience as a participant or an observer: you'll get a feel for what sorts of arguments normally get made and how they're weighted by closers. This will make your own closes better informed, once you start making them. – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was about to accept this article but then I saw it was deleted by you and another editor few years ago. Seems notable to me; there is more outside of what is cited in the article including [2], [3], [4]. I think there should be more in Hindi that are not appearing in searches. I wanted to ping you and seek your opinion before accepting it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Hi, Rajeev Nigam was only deleted in compliance with WP:CSD#R2, as an editor moved the article into draftspace. I have no opinion on the page itself. ✗plicit 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Holocaust denying media. However, as the category pages/talk pages have not yet been edited, please would you consider revising the close as rename to the hyphenated forms? This was the nominator's fallback option, and seems to be required by WP:C2A anyway. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Huh, I could have sworn I removed the tags. Will get on the C2A rename shortly. ✗plicit 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. I've got a question about Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 18#File:Pats cap.png. I wondering whether it my be a good idea for this file to be restored based upon what'S happening in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 5#Files in Category:Cap logos because it seems as if the same issue is being discussed for similar files and that the discussion might be more complex than simply stating "Fails Wp:NFCC#8". FWIW, I don't think the close was improper and I don't think the file was nominated in bad faith; I do, however, think that further discussion might be warranted because of what I posted here and here. Whether this file should combined with into that 50+ plus file FFD or simply relisted, it does seem as if a little more discussion might be beneficial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, thanks for letting me know about the nomination and its surrounding issues. I'm not sure if it's worth restoring this particular file as discussion is ongoing. If the current nom results in delete, File:Pats cap.png would be needlessly restored. If it results in no consensus, keep, or some other complex outcome, then the file can be restored per WP:SOFTDELETE and be discussed if it is merited. ✗plicit 03:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. There is, however, a currently ongoing FFD discussion regarding another similar file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#File:SharksCap.PNG in which there's a similar section to the one I mentioned when discussing the Somerset Patriots logos in June 5 FFD. The "Camden Riversharks" FFD is still open and it seems not very productive for it to be closed as "keep as non-free" if it's only going to end up back at FFD shortly thereafter either as a separate discussion or as part of the June 5 FFD. This is what happened with Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#File:Williamsport Crosscutters (cap logo).png, which ended up back at FFD three days after the first FFD was closed. Actually it ended up back at FFD two days later since the June 5 discussion was originally started on June 4, but no {{FFD}} templates were added to the nominated files' pages; so, the discussion was bumped to the next day after someone added the templates. The failure to tag the files has been acknowledged and remedied, and I'm not trying to still make an issue out of that; even so, it seems a bit out of the ordinary for two separate and distinct FFDs for the same file to take place within a few days of each other, especially when the same editor starts them both.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems rather inefficient to have to have a separate FFD to discuss each possible concern that a file might have. If someone feels that a non-free file is incorrectly licensed as non-free content and should be freely licensed instead, then part of determining that would also seem to involve assessing how the file is being used. If a non-free file has NFCCP concerns that will go away if the file is converted to a free license, then everything works out fine from a NFCCP standpoint. If, on the other hand, the file remains as non-free, then the NFCCP concerns also remain; in that case, it seems better to try and resolve that the first time around at FFD instead of waiting for the FFD to close and then start another FFD about the NFCCP issue(s). Before PUF and NFCR were incorporated into FFD a few years back, FFD was either "keep" or "delete" for the most part. These days, however, FFD discussions can (at least in my opinion) be a bit more nuanced and idiscussing more than one aspect of a file and its use at the same time doesn't seem to be a unreasonable thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Merging separate discussions when the nomination statements address different issues would likely create more confusion than it would seek to clear up. One thing to consider is leaving a note at the discussion for File:SharksCap.PNG to request the patrolling admins to close the discussion in line with the Category:Cap logos discussion, should the result ultimately not result in switching to a free license. A similar situation occurred at RFD for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22#GTA 6 when the nominations were on different subpages. The closures were eventually synchronized. ✗plicit 07:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable course of action. Thank you again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, I recently converted a png file (File:Kim Soo Hyun Signature.png) which was on the English Wikipedia to svg format (File:Signature of Kim Soo-hyun.svg) and uploaded it on Wikimedia Commons. I am actually concerned and want you to review this because the png file has been tagged with template: 'Orphan image' by a bot. I'm not much familiar with these things and don't know anyone else who can help me with this. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 06:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Hi, the {{Orphan image}} template simply signifies that a freely licensed image is not being used anywhere. It is not an indication of any other issue. It allows users who patrol this area of Wikipedia to determine if the file can be added somewhere useful, transferred to Commons, or nominated for deletion. ✗plicit 06:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. -ink&fables «talk» 12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

This article was tagged as a BLP PROD but I removed the tag on June 7th because it now had references. Admin Sir Sputnik replaced the BLP PROD tag asking for it to be reviewed again. Since you and I handle most of the daily PRODs, could you review this one? It's kind of fallen through the cracks as the category for PRODs on that date was deleted 2 days ago. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Hi, I've added a reference to the article. I found that it exists on the Dutch Wikipedia, but the two pages weren't linked via Wikidata, so I've done that as well. At the very least, it does not appear that this article qualifies for BLPPROD. ✗plicit 02:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you taking a look at it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My mistake User:Priyarits created this version Draft:Rahul Rits Singer and this one Draft:Rahul Rits they are all likely to be rejected if they ever work out how to submit. Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please help me with one file - I am not sure if it meets the Wikimedia copyright criteria - copyright is one of my weakest sides. I have translated and expanded the article about Livia Frege and found the image on German wiki here. It looks like a free-use file, but the country specific requirements on the other side are not met. Can you please help me clarify if I can use it on en wiki and download to Wikimedia. I have also found another picture of here here but I couldn't find any copyright info on the webpage. Thank you in advance! Less Unless (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Hi, the file's description page on the German Wikipedia is a little vague—it appears to be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}, but doesn't explain why. It also lacks a date of publication (which does not necessarily coincide with date of creation). Assuming it was published in Germany within Eduard Magnus' lifetime (1792–1872), the image's copyright would have expired 70+1 years after his death and it would have entered the public domain in 1943. If it was published after his death, the work remains copyrighted until 70+1 years after the year of publication. However, a work was published after 1926 could run into some issues regarding the URAA and could potentially be copyrighted. Do you happen to have additional information regarding the German Wikipedia file? As for the Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Leipzig photo, what does "Datierung verbal" translate as? Google Translate says "Dating verbally", but I assume that's not correct as it doesn't make sense. ✗plicit 02:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for having taken a look at it. As far as I understood "Datierung verbal" means that the date was assigned after oral information provided by someone. On the German wiki it's stated that copyright belongs to Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Leipzig. Here under Bildnachweise it's stated the copyright belongs to the museum, but the license is not specified. I have found this picture on their webpage but there's no information about the date. As I understand it, the main question is whether the museum allows to use the photos freely. I thought i could write them an email asking that. What do you think? Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Less Unless: It can be tricky as museums will sometimes claim to own the copyright to very old art when they are in no position to make such an assertion. This would only be the case if the deceased artist's heirs relinquish those rights and handed them over to the museum, or if the museum discovered the photos, though I don't think the latter applies here. It may be worthwhile to email the museum to inquire for further information. ✗plicit 00:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. However, you did not delete Rajlich's hypothesis, which was explicitly included within the nomination and had defintive delete opinions from two participants (aside from myself). As such I am requesting deletion. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realize the script didn't to it. It's done now. ✗plicit 06:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps leave them a note explaining what you did and–more importantly!–why... All best, ——Serial 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Hi, I've left an additional message on the user's talk page. ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate that! Have a good one. ——Serial 10:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried to add more to it recently and I hope I can find more on it in the coming year, but I don't think its improved enough to resubmit it, as it will probably be rejected again, although for different reasons this time. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello -- it looks like you deleted the deletion request on Hala's page. I made the request on behalf of the user who wrote the article (Salukk) -- someone else changed it to an author request deletion. Hala explicitly asked Salukk to delete this article as there are inaccuracies. She did not tell us what they are & said she doesn't have time. As she is a minor figure & a living person, can we please delete that article? Thank you. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@QuakerSquirrel: Hi, I actually removed the {{Did you know nominations/Hala Zreiqat}} template from the article's talk page, which I deleted per your request. Your deletion request for Hala Zreiqat itself was declined by Liz with the rationale in her edit summary. Salukk will need to tag the page for deletion themselves to qualify for WP:CSD#G7. ✗plicit 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misread the edit. Thanks for explaining! QuakerSquirrel (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

+1: Hi - just confirming that I'm the original author of the article & Hala has requested its deletion. Please delete it. Thank you! Salukk (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the pages! We appreciate it. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@QuakerSquirrel and Salukk: No worries! ✗plicit 13:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, how should Template:Dr mugle be processed? Should it be tagged as a G2? Also, kindly delete Wikipedia:Joseph Harmon. --Minorax (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Minorax: Hi, I moved the template to draftspace and just redirected it to Draft:Sri kumar. The latter now links to the non-existent template, but... oh well. It will fall into the abyss in six months anyway. I deleted Wikipedia:Joseph Harmon under G6 as WP:CSD#R2 only applies to mainspace. ✗plicit 13:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, mind deleting Template:ZEe Tv 407 HD as well? --Minorax (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Why delete the file??? Aftercrop (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aftercrop: Hi, as the deletion summary states, the file was nominated for deletion for lacking evidence of permission. Without evidence of a free license, Wikipedia can not accept this work without permission directly from the author of the text. ✗plicit 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Pavel Kazakov as a G5. I am interested in creating a fresh article about him, as he does appear notable. Would you be able to either put a copy of the deleted article into my userspace or email me a copy, so I can see if there is any content/sources worth using? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Hi, I've copied the contents and have made them available here. ✗plicit 03:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks- that version seems to have some good non-English sources, which is what I was hoping for. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi: I looked at your deletion clarification subpage under G6 (housekeeping) but am still confused as to why you deleted the tags I put in. They were good faith edits for WikiProjects which I thought were applicable to the article (organized crime and Mexico). Thank you in advance for any clarification--FeanorStar7 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@FeanorStar7: Hi, that was my mistake, sorry about that. I must have mixed this talk page up with another, as I meant for this particular one to remain. I have restored it now. ✗plicit 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: ok, thank you for the information and for restoring the page--FeanorStar7 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is regarding the recently deleted article Romanian-American Congress (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian-American Congress). You closed this discussion, and that's why I'm contacting you. Is there any way that you could add the article to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? The article existed since 2006 and I'm pretty sure it was a hoax article. Thanks! Wizzito (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: Hi, I'm unsure if this entry would qualify for WP:HOAXLIST. The page there indicates that an article is notable enough for inclusion if there was "a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact". The nominator expressed that it isn't an obvious hoax, while Elli and Ezlev also suggested that the organization was real. This one doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case as the hoax list requires. ✗plicit 06:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That's understandable. Have a nice day wizzito | say hello! 06:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ask on this section again as I don't want to clog up your talk page, but could you put Nuremberg Plate onto the hoax list as well? wizzito | say hello! 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito:  Done, now available at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Nuremberg Plate. ✗plicit 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that you deleted an article stating that it was promotional. Can you tell me what changes need to be made so that this submission can be acceptable? I believe the article was patterned after

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_Insights

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_in_Asia

Searching for the term "DealStreetAsia" on Wikipedia produces nearly 100 results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=dealstreetasia&go=Go&ns0=1

I've tried to use the talk function, but I'm not sure I'm doing it correctly. Sagekreyol (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC) sagekreyol

@Sagekreyol: Hi, the article was proposed for deletion by another editor with the rationale of being promotional and not satisfying WP:NCORP. It went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as a result. You can request for the article to be restored, but you're encouraged to cite coverage from multiple third-party reliable sources for Dealstreetasia to warrant a page, as the page may still be nominated at WP:AFD for a more "permanent" deletion should consensus find that the platform does not meet notability guidelines. ✗plicit 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thanks for your help. I'm still trying to understand how to navigate this. I cannot find the deleted article. How do I request that it be restored? Here are links to citations from multiple third-party sources

• Nikkei Asian Review - https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-deals/Nikkei-buys-majority-stake-in-DealStreetAsia
• Straits Times - https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/nikkei-buys-singapore-based-media-start-up-dealstreetasia
• Business Ttimes - https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/garage/news/nikkei-buys-singapore-based-media-startup-dealstreetasia-0
• Tech Crunch - https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/25/ft-nikkei-deal-street-asia-confirmed/
• Crunchbase - https://www.crunchbase.com/acquisition/nikkei-acquires-dealstreetasia--c055eff2
• Press mentions https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/fintechs-not-the-biggest-threat-to-banks-dbs-chief

Other publications like CB Insights reference DealStreetAsia in their research

Sorabel

Title: Indonesian fashion e-commerce startup Sorabel to shutter operations

Product: Sorabel

Fashion e-commerce startup Sorabel was unable to weather the storm created by the Covid-19 crisis, announcing plans to wind down operations in July 2020 as consumers avoided non-essential spending. Sorabel had received over $28M in disclosed funding, and was reportedly poised to close new financing when the pandemic hit and investors withdrew. Deal Street Asia reported,

   In a letter to Sorabel employees, the company said it had done its best to save the business but was left with no choice but to close down. “Due to this liquidation process, we have to terminate employment contracts with no exception, effective July 30. I am certain that no one would ever expect this to happen.” [1]Sagekreyol (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagekreyol (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The original title of the article is Dealstreetasia, which I have now restored upon your request. Please add these additional citations and information to address the original concern that led to the page's deletion. ✗plicit 02:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thank you very much. I'll address all the issues raised previously.Sagekreyol (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted Template:Cite WCF. I was going to expand it with documentation, etc., but it was functional the way it was. Can you restore it? I'm a new editor, so it might've been my mistake, because I was using the Move feature from a test page, so maybe that's why you thought that page is a test page. I don't consider it a test page (unless I misunderstand what that means). //Update: I ended up restoring it myself, and continuing to work on it. Please let me know if/what I had done wrong. -- CurlingClips (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@CurlingClips: Hi, I see you've recreated the template. I went ahead and restored the previous history anyway, in case there was something useful there. ✗plicit 00:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. You recently deleted You Signed Up for This as well as You Signed Up For This. I can't access the precise history but I remember the article's content and the fact that there was a bit of discussion about which title was more appropriate. I don't even want to get into that debate but the article should be recreated under one of these titles (with the other being a redirect). Even if we decide that the album is not yet notable enough (it's still unreleased), it would make sense to redirect the album name(s) to the artist. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pichpich: Hi, both pages have been restored now. The lowercase "for" is the correct title, so that page move war was very... unnecessary. ✗plicit 00:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Explicit, actually, the discussion about the correct title (see Talk:You Signed Up for This) is currently pointing in the other direction. :-) Pichpich (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pichpich: That changed very quickly. ✗plicit 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)