User talk:Explicit

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

It is approximately 1:19 AM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Deleted articles

Can I please see the deleted article Pavlos Danelatos. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted McMahon–Helmsley Faction. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 06:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me see the deleted Alliance to End Hulkamania. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 05:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted Scott Atkinson article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 05:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see the deleted article Kshitij (festival). Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: Here it is. It is a promotional mess, but perhaps the sources may be of value. ✗plicit 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Starship Moments After Liftoff.jpeg? All of this user's uploads so far have been screenshots from YouTube videos released under YT's standard licensing; so, I've tagged them for speedy deletion per F9. This particular file is also a screenshot but it's via this website, and unlike the others i'm wondering whether it might be possible to convert to a non-free license given the way it's being used in Starship flight test 6. I'm a bit hesitant though because Starship flight test 5 seems to indicate that a free image of these SpaceX launches might be possible. SpaceX, itself, could even provide some acceptably licensed images if it wants. Is it then in your opinion even worth converting this to non-free per WP:FREER? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've deleted all the video screenshots as copyright violations. Aside from the most recent flight test, Starship flight test 4 is the only other in the series that does not contain freely licensed media. It's unlikely that an image for either article would qualify by Wikipedia's fair use standards, unless a particular image itself (and not the flight test in general) is subject to sourced critical commentary in accordance with WP:NFC#CS or considered significant enough for {{Non-free historic image}}. As flight test 6 is incredibly fresh, free media may became available in the coming days or weeks. ✗plicit 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on these. Do you suggest tagging the remaining file for speedy deletion per F9 or just letting it be deleted for not having a copyright license per F4? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: My rule of thumb is to just let these types of files meet their fate. Regardless of the process, the end result is usually the same. ✗plicit 13:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was this deleted?

Hello, I have noticed and a fair few others that I’ve spoken to in person that you deleted the page of “Aleksei Kulashko”? I was confused why as even to this day he has participating in events and even been invited to light the chess olympics torch in New Zealand. So my request is for this page to be undeleted as it’s still significant to this day and there has not been any issue with it up until now. 27.252.156.6 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You've got mail

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

@Explicit I emailed you hours ago explaining the situation, and have just had to go to Oversight again to request suppression of the ANI thread where you and @Liz disclosed the supressed username. Utterly stupid behaviour. qcne (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne: I'm pretty sure I did not mention the username in my followup response. In fact, I did everything to avoid mentioning or linking it again. I couldn't do much about the initial mention, as your email came in after that. I don't think I could have done much for that. ✗plicit 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Qcne: ...Yes, that's why I just said. "I couldn't do much about the initial mention" because your email came afterwards. Like I stated at ANI, I was not aware of the distinction between account suppression and username suppression, given the original case I linked. ✗plicit 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just would have thought you'd have immediately requested oversight once my email had gone through, instead of waiting hours and continuing the ANI thread. qcne (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly stupid behaviour
That's a nasty way to talk to somebody. Please be kinder! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to go for ARB

Hi, another way for solve this, if needed, is trying for an Arbcom case instead of being so angered on AN/I. Please calm down or just take a break for a few hours, which might be better. -Lemonaka 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: (edit conflict) I honestly can not be bothered to tread through the politics of Wikipedia. I have enough work to do around here and mountains of page creations to do on Commons. I'd rather spend my time doing those things. ✗plicit 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the thread has now been suppressed, just to let you know (if you didn't see it) that I removed your two personal attacks on Liz (the second one was so egregious, especially to a female editor, that I seriously considered blocking you). Please don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Noted. For the record, I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not. Viewing the world with a different lens and all, but thanks for the context reminder. ✗plicit 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce you to the phrase, "get off my back." It means the same thing except no one has to think about your dick. Wins all around. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how "get off my dick" means something different in a non-hetronormative context and indeed when I looked into this phrase I found examples of it being used against gay men by straight men. I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz. I seriously considered pressing the block button myself. I didn't become an admin to block people and since I respect Black Kite's assessmment that he would have done the same for any user with your editing/block history I didn't take him up on his permission for someone else to do it. But for what it's worth I actually think there is a better case to block an admin for it since there is a higher expectation in these regards. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand how you wouldn't get the disgust lots of us have felt seeing it used against Liz. Why though? It's pretty obviously offensive and incredibly disrespectful. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I felt disgust upon seeing it and I left my message because I find I didn't consider the second one being taken that way. It's a heteronormative train of thought, and hetero is something I am not in adequate. However, when looking into it there do seem to be certain communities (at least online ones) which use it rather than far more reasonable and acceptable "get off my back" and it appears explicit is a part of them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just online communities. It's a common phrase men say to each other, at least in the US (or at least in the parts where I've been), stemming from "stepping on my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stepping on my toes", and thus "get off my dick" being a more emphatic version of "stop stepping on my toes" or "get off my back" or "get off my ass". But a man should never say "get off my dick" to a woman, because it obviously has a very different connotation in that context. Even where the phrase is common, a man saying it to a woman would be a major faux pas. It was a dumb and offensive thing for Explicit to say to Liz. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Saying something like "hop off [my dick]" is something commonly used as slang in the US to mean like "stop annoying me", but I will admit that there's times it shouldn't be used, especially in this context. Usually it's just a more innapropriate way of saying "leave me alone", but I can't speak on behalf of everyone. E_F⁵ 23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Fair enough. Not being heterosexual myself I found the "heteronormative train of thought" excuse pretty poor. AusLondonder (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It unfortunately shows the (general, I have no personal issue with Barkeep49) pisspoor way editors who identify as female are treated here. The insult, the report, and the timing from Explicit are an extremely poor showing from a long term admin. (And to head off any questions, no it's not recall worthy and I don't believe in forced apologies) Star Mississippi 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol at much of this discussion. Several different universes here, but Explicit lived up to their name and should have thought a smidge more, especially during the next several minutes, and edited and spellchecked the thing. If I were an admin I'd give Explicit a justified 4 hours in the penalty box, although assume good faith seems to enter into all viewpoints of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, you're lucky other people got there first. If I had gotten there first, I can tell you with certainty that I would not have exhibited the hesitation that Black Kite and Barkeep49 showed with the block button. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, I agree with Roy Smith. I was asleep when this was reported. Had I been awake and watching ANI, you would be blocked and it would not have been for four hours. Keep your sexualized insults to yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tzamplakon family

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

@Jingiby: Hi, the article was draftified in early October and the resulting redirect was deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion criterion regarding cross-namespace redirects. The draft was submitted by the author and accepted by a reviewer a little over two weeks later, so it was moved back into mainspace. ✗plicit 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlgoSec

Can I please see the deleted article AlgoSec. This is a notable cybersecurity firm, with hundreds of global customers https://www.algosec.com/our-customers and should not be deleted. You can see some of the news coverage they have received https://www.algosec.com/news amechad — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I bookmarked this a while ago with a note to myself (possibly PD). It's since been deleted, but could you take a look? I remember nothing of the file beyond the note I left to myself. JayCubby Talk 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: The cover in question can be found here. A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America currently uses a different image. ✗plicit 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The portrait is PD and the cover text is by no means a literary work, so couldn't this be below TOO? JayCubby Talk 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi JayCubby. You might be able to argue as much, but it probably would be better to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's really where this file should be if the cover art is truly PD. It seems to me that there wouldn't be much point in restoring the file here on Wikipedia if it's ultimately only going to end up at Commons anyway, and there's no point in getting it restored locally if Commons can't host the file. Finally, although being PD means the file doesn't need to be treated as non-free and thus isn't subject to deletion per WP:F5, there could still be encyclopedic or contextual reasons unrelated to copyright as to why the image currently being used in the main infobox of the article might still be considered by others as preferable to this particular one. That's something that you probably would need to resolve through article talk page discussion. One thing you might want to ask about here on Wikipedia at either WP:MCQ or WP:FFD is whether File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. II. (1787.jpg needs to be treated as non-free since it seems to be a pretty clear case of c:COM:2D copying given that the file comes from File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. I. (1787).djvu (page 7). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gladiator_20th_Anniversary_Edition.jpg

Hello, I saw you deleted the subject. Had you actually seen the talk pages? How is it a violation when it's low resolution enough? Thx Supermann (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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