Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 10:13 PM where this user lives (South Korea)

Disagreement concerning bundling of AFDs[edit]

Hello Explicit, I saw that you are active in the area of the deletion process and wanted to ask if you could take a short look at the following disagreement concerning bundled AFDs at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Definitions_of_knowledge#One AFD for two articles: is it acceptable to bundle two articles with different topics and contents (Definitions of knowledge and Definitions of education) in the middle of an ongoing discussion into one AFD according to WP:BUNDLE? The discussion of the AFD itself at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Definitions_of_knowledge is so far exclusively on the article Definitions of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Hi, in my reading of WP:BUNDLE, it would seemingly allow such a bundling on the basis that they are related topics by being "definitions of X" articles. The list of examples provided there indicate the type of bundling that would be acceptable, but it is not exhaustive nor does it disallow any other types of bundling. Regarding the timing of the addition, "debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate". As the second article was listed just under two hours after the AFD was initiated, there are no issues in this aspect. In my personal view in this particular situation, because the bundling occurred after comments starting coming in and the addition of Definitions of education was contested, it is better in practice to just start a separate AFD for the second article instead of trying to push it into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of knowledge. ✗plicit 11:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. I am also in favor of unbundling, especially since WP:BUNDLE clearly specifies that "If you're unsure, don't bundle it". I tried to remove the bundling since the other editor (Praxidicae) stopped participating in the bundling discussion. But they reverted me right away and placed a blocking warning on my talk page here. What do you suggest should I do next? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expired Prod[edit]

This page, William G. Higgs, was deleted. I just noticed. This page was on Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2010/August#29_August_2010. Please undelete so I may see if it can be saved. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: Yes check.svg Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 23:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G8 refund[edit]

Hi! Would you be able to restore these redirects [1]? The draftified article they pointed to is back in mainspace. It may be just my opinion, but I don't think they should have been deleted in the first place, even assuming the draftification that broke them was good (which it wasn't), because they were targeting a different article before. – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala:  Done, redirects restored. ✗plicit 12:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page: Conservation and restoration training[edit]

This page was recently deleted but is widely used by our small, global profession of conservation and restoration. This list is notable for including diverse training to care for cultural heritage around the world. I would be willing to work on it to address the eligibility concerns. Would you be willing to undelete the page for further work and discussion? Thank you for your consideration! Hollybklyn (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollybklyn: Hi, I can not unilaterally make the decision to restore the page because I simply acted on the consensus arrived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservation and restoration training. Can you explain what changes you plan to make in order to address the concerns brought up during the deletion discussion? ✗plicit 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AFDs[edit]

Appears that after your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) the next steps were not taken to implement the consensus. Can you do that? Djflem (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Sorry...looked at history. Seems your redirect was reverted and now there's this a 2nd nominnation. A mess.....Djflem (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Hi, I have restored the redirects and left a message on Vsmith's talk page about their actions defying the consensus reached at AFD. I wouldn't have expected for an administrator involved in the debate to completely disregard it, but they did. ✗plicit 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your broom[edit]

I have a tendency to work on drafts in my userspace for a time, and then once they've lain fallow for long enough, I decide they're either unsuitable for continued work, or I just no longer have the joie de vivre for the topic. It seems to me, that every time I want to delete one of those drafts, you're the administrator who cleans up my mess for me. All I have done is create work for you, so thanks for your patience and restraint (and not trouting me). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: Hi, no worries at all! It's part of the job. I generally don't remember who requests deletions of their subpages unless the deletion log of a particular page builds up above ten entries, so you're on the safe side. Face-wink.svg ✗plicit 13:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Canadian girl[edit]

I was unaware that this article Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen was deleted and I am not certain if I had edited it before or even seen it. Could you please show me what it looked like before it was deleted. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Hi, a copy of the last revision before deletion will be available here for one week. ✗plicit 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

It looks like you were the last admin active on AIV right now - any chance you can squish a particularly annoying vandal? 112.215.175.7 has been wearing out the talk pages of a couple editors lately. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PohranicniStraze:  Done, IP blocked. ✗plicit 03:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Snitzer article[edit]

What you did by deleting the James G. Snitzer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Snitzer) article is one of the worst abuses of power by an administrator I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia.

Was there even a prod? Did you even leave a complimentary notice on my talk page - considering I was the creator - that you would propose a deletion? Completely irresponsible abuse of administrative powers on your part.

The article had been on wikipedia for more than a decade and you in just a few minutes decide to delete it.

Take a look right here at what you did. There were 13 references from reputable sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210815132028/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Snitzer

You are exactly the type of administrator who should your privileges revoked. And tell me, which part of G8 did deleting the article fall under?????

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page Examples include:

  • Talk pages with no corresponding subject page
  • Subpages with no parent page
  • File pages without a corresponding file
  • Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted
  • Unused editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages
  • Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates

This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular:

  • Deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
  • User talk pages
  • Talk page archives (except article talk page archives where the corresponding article and main talk page have been deleted and the page is not otherwise useful to Wikipedia – check for page-moves and merges before using G8 on article-talk-page-archives; the parent article might still exist under a different name)
  • Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply
  • Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets
  • User subpages when the user has not created a user page
  • Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons
  • Pages that should be moved to a different location[5]

None of these descriptions fits or justifies what you did. You are just one of these fly-by night admin who doesn’t want to have a proper vote, so you just try and sneak a deletion through? I just wonder, how many other articles have you deleted in this way? Again, you are what’s wrong with Wikipedia. David Straub (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@David Straub: I don't believe Explicit is the administrator who deleted James G. Snitzer; the article and the corresponding Talk:James G. Snitzer look like they were deleted by another administrator. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Straub, you appear to have some of your facts wrong. In any event, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is the right venue for requesting that this PRODded article be undeleted. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and aggravation by simply posting a request there. Before you do, though, you might want to look at WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people), then take an unbiased look at the article linked above to see whether those criteria are met; see, in particular, the phrase "significant coverage". – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Straub, the article has been restored. ~ GB fan 19:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why David Straub came here talking about G8. Explicit deleted Jim Snitzer as a G8 after I deleted James G. Snitzer and didn't clean up the redirect. ~ GB fan 13:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinkalow[edit]

Hi, Explicit. You deleted the article Kinkalow on grownds of notability. The request has been made in Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article requests. Sounds like the animal is more than a hybrid, the name is also mentioned in List of cat breeds. Coverage in Google Scholar is limited, not even on the specifics of their non-consistent mutations. In Google Books, as expected, the coverage is on "Ultimate Guides". Interested on answering the call from the Animals Wikiproject, should we delete the request or add some of these citations to show notability? When you get a sec, Fimbriata (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fimbriata: Hi, since this page was deleted as a result of an uncontested PROD, it can be restored upon request per WP:CONTESTED. Which action do you feel is best, removing the request or undeleting the page? ✗plicit 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, you all know so much more about these topics in general. I think I'll just add a redirect to List of cat breeds and go have some hibiscus tea ː) Thank you for all that you doǃǃ Fimbriata (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of December 13, 1898[edit]

I'd never have expected WP:RELISTBIAS from somebody who actually has access to the delete tool... Mind explaining why this wasn't just deleted - it's not like any persuasive reason to keep has been provided? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: I relisted the discussion for further opinions regarding the proposed alternative to deletion of redirecting the article to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century, as it is mentioned there. This allows others users to consider this option, as well as allows those who already participated to see that proposal if they hadn't originally. ✗plicit 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refund Request[edit]

Draft:MHT missile. Thanks BilCat (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Yes check.svg 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 03:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined G5[edit]

Hi Explicit. You declined the G5 request at Susan Hood. The article was made on May 23, 2022 by JorieLeisure, who is a sock of TheUser2020. TheUser2020 was banned on May 25, 2021, so wouldn't G5 apply? – Pbrks (t • c) 14:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: Hi, turns out I somehow misread TheUser2020's block log and thought the block occurred this year, not last year. I've gone ahead and deleted the article now. ✗plicit 14:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal, I suspected that was the case, but I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing on my end. Thanks! – Pbrks (t • c) 14:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

I just saw your exchange at User talk:Vsmith#Gourd Creek and Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). I was looking into who left a barely coherent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haydite, Missouri. I had no idea this editor (creator of the article) was an admin when I sent the article to AFD. I see Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) was also AFDed and their comments there were quite argumentative. This is not what I expect from an Admin. They haven't turned back on their Autopatrol bit yet; they wouldn't qualify, based on all that I have seen here, if they had to request it. MB 21:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Broom Award[edit]

OK, I just made that up. Thanks for helping me clean house NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I thought this was in reference to an article title and found Golden Broom Awards, which thoroughly confused me. Then I realized you were referring to the deletion of your user subpages. 😂 No worries at all. ✗plicit 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew about those, but not surprising since as far as I know or at least care the Golden Globe is an exoplanet somewhere NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220620131315/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explicit

Leave a Reply