User talk:Explicit: Difference between revisions

It is approximately 3:01 PM where this user lives (South Korea). []

Template:Medrxiv

Would you mind undeleting this? It is part of a series of templates, and not having it is detrimental to WP:CITEVAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Will this template be utilized? Being orphaned is the reason it was deleted both times. ✗plicit 11:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It's part of a series of templates, deleting it is detrimal to WP:CITEVAR flexibility. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_1#Template:OSTI and the prior DRV for the consensus that these are useful even if currently unused, because they can become used as they are expected to exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Headbomb, if you get it undeleted, please ensure that it is transcluded somewhere so that it does not show up on reports of unused templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If it wasn't used then no editor was using it for citations which means that it isn't needed. As the nominator, I'm not against in restoring it, but not because "it might be used by someone, someday in the future". If there isn't currently a very specific usage (and more than one, at least 10), then it shouldn't be restored. Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: that's pretty easy to do. @Gonnym: that a template might be used is a reason to keep it. See WP:TFD#REASONS #3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And yet, I will oppose restoring if that is the only reason. Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for deleting all my U1 marked user subpages, and also doing so pretty quickly! You're a pretty cool admin, and, by looking at your user page, you also seem to be a pretty good photographer! dot.py (alt) 23:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisting a UPE'd AFD

Hi Explicit, would you mind relisting this AFD for comment by experienced editors? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schutte Hammermill. I've just blocked one of the four participants for some of the most blatantly obviously UPE-socking I have ever seen. I'm extending maximum AGF (but, truthfully, minimal optimism) about two of the others, one of whom was the article creator. It would be good to have some volunteer editors take a look. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have undone my closure and relisted the discussion. ✗plicit 03:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Muhammad Jahangir Kabir

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Jahangir Kabir, you missed Dr. Jahangir Kabir, or was that intentional? Paradoctor (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Whoops, not intentional. Taken care of now. ✗plicit 00:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:And babies (small anti-Vietnam War poster).jpg

Honestly I doubt the version uploaded to Commons is public domain. It will probably get deleted sometime in the future. Then we will be left with no picture at all, since it was also deleted from Enwiki. That's why we have the enwiki version, because the public domain status is contested. The rationale the uploader used on Commons is based on a misunderstanding. The military photographer had two cameras, one B&W the other color. The B&W was for official purposes in the line of duty. The color camera was his personal camera. This how those color photos ended up on the cover of Life magazine and caused such a shit storm, because the government couldn't stop him from doing what he wanted with his personal photos. -- GreenC 02:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC: If the copyright claim of the Commons file is contested, why haven't you nominated it for deletion there? Images with uncertain copyright statuses are sometimes deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle if your argument can convince the Commons community. The local file can be restored if it ends up being deleted as orphaned. ✗plicit 03:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Because I just saw it last night before I went to bed and I am pretty busy. I probably will nominate it, at some point when I have time, if no one else does. So I wanted to let you know right away because I've already researched it years ago and know the story. The Shadow process doesn't appear to account for this possibility of a recently uploaded image on Commons that has not yet been vetted by the community, and both images end up deleted, and nobody notices. Probably what I will do in this case is nominate Commons and remove that tag on Enwiki so it is not automatically deleted. -- GreenC 16:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @GreenC: If you remove the {{Orfud}} template from an orphaned non-free file's page and the file remains unused, one of the bots looking for such files will most likely re-add the template during one of its runs. If the local file ends up being deleted before the Commons file get resolved, you can always request it be restored per WP:REFUND if necessary. WP:F5 deletions are mostly non-contentious and an administrator will mostly likely have no problem restoring the local file if the Commons one eventually ends up being deleted.

Another and probably better option here might be to just simply replace the Commons file with the local file, leaving an edit summary with a link to an article talk page message explaining why in more detail. As long as the local file is being used, it won't be tagged for speedy deletion per F5. Then, if the Commons file ends up being kept, you can replace the local file with the Commons one and then tag the local file for speedy deletion per F5 or WP:F8. If disagreements about the file can't be resolved through discussion on the article's talk page, you could then suggest WP:FFD since it involves a local file and a Commons file.

FWIW, Wikipedia isn't obligated to use images just because they've been uploaded to Commons; lots of copyvios get uploaded to Commons. Playing it safe and continuing to use a non-free files until concerns about a Commons file are resolved can be prudent. You should, though, try to sort things out regarding the Commons file as soon as you can. If you wait too long, others might re-add the Commons file again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:, thank you I followed your suggestion and relink'd the original photo on enwiki, and opened a deletion discussion on Commons. I linked to this discussion in those edit summaries; User:Explicit if you would rather move this thread off your talk page let me know, or we can keep it here for the record. -- GreenC 02:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC: Your nominating the file for deletion is in and of itself considered a delete !vote so to speak; so, you really shouldn't be !voting twice in that Commons DR. While I'm sure you meant well, you probably should either remove or strikethrough the second "delete" before others start responding to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks forgot about that, changed from 'Delete' to 'Comment'. -- GreenC 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrolled eligibility 2.0

Hello @Explicit. I am the same person who asked you if I am eligible to be Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. I came to ask if I am going to be eligible now. I have been creating articles with good sources too, even though some of them are Start class. Please kindly let me know. Thank you. • Please tag/mention me to reply back -Victor Ningthemcha :) - talk 15:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:CaptainMarvelBunny.jpg

Can you please undelete the first revision and export it to Commons, the copyright was not renewed.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Scope of U6

I've undeleted User:Skakkle/mother sucker as the user is nowhere close to qualifying as a "non-contributor"/having "few or no edits outside of user space" as required by the criterion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: Whoa, my bad. I ignore instances like this, but I must have closed a wrong tab or forgot to close this tab before hitting the Delete button. ✗plicit 04:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Anne P. Mitchell

This page should not have been deleted. She is an active political/legal commentator. This smacks of partisanship, not scholarship. ~2025-35976-12 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

List of butterflies of India

@Mitsingh: List of butterflies of India was recently changed to a draft and is now at Draft:List of butterflies of India. I tried to restore it, but was unable because it had been deleted as an "R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace". Mitsingh is working on improving that and it looks like good work is going on, but it's a big project and will take a while. In the mean time List of butterflies of India no longer exists and several hundred pages have links to that list. Until the draft is completed, I think this version of List of butterflies of India should be restored so readers will have access to it. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I moved the page back into mainspace. As my edit summary states, WP:DRAFTNO does not allow for articles to be moved into draftspace if they are older than 90 days. ✗plicit 12:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable for the mainspace version of the article to be this version and to restore Draft:List of butterflies of India as a draft until it is ready to replace List of butterflies of India? That way Mitsingh can continue to work on that project while the old page is available for readers. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike That would work better Mitsingh (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike Thanks for the change! Should I put a "under-construction" message on top of the page? Mitsingh (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mitsingh: I have created Draft:List of butterflies of India - major edit of existing page for you to keep working on and I have reverted List of butterflies of India to the version before Draft:List of butterflies of India was created. I explained the changes in the edit summary. I think this makes sense, but I don't know all of Wikipedia's rules, so I may have messed something up. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:2012–13 Professional U18 Development League

I would like that topic back that was deleted please. I was almost done aand anted to send it to see if it could be published. Logan Z Man 2022! (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Logan Z Man 2022!: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)