User talk:Explicit/Archive 30

May I ask for this image to be restored? I have sources which explicitly discuss the visual aspects of the image, so I hope that it will not be deleted again. This is probably too much for a caption, but:

"NEVER let the goody two shoes get you down"; the slogan of this 1999 ad,^[1] uses rebelliousness to promote product use. It has also been suggested that it urges smokers to disregard health warnings.^[2] The model's gesture echoes earlier ads which made more explicit claims of voice box benefits.^[3][4]

The "Find your voice" ad campaign was criticized for being offensive to those who have lost their voices to throat cancer as a result of smoking,^[2] especially in light of the well-publicized laryngectomy of Janet Sackman, a former model for the same company^[5] who developed throat and lung cancer.^[6] The campaign was also criticised for using imagery targeting minority women; it was described as seeking to associate itself with empowerment, independence, women's rights, and sexual allure.^[7][8][2]

Thank you, and sorry for not responding sooner. HLHJ (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@HLHJ:  Done, file restored. Critical commentary can be included in the article text; its entirety does not need to be placed in the caption. ℯxplicit 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've referenced the image in the main text, too. HLHJ (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but may I also request an undelete of File:No-one likes a quitter, e-cigarette ad.jpg? I have an opinion from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing for image-can-be-used that some of what I wish to illustrate with this figure is sufficiently obviously illustrated that I do not need to find a source that says that the image illustrates it. HLHJ (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@HLHJ: I'd say the advice in that discussion contradicts WP:FREER. A non-free image is not justified if text alone can adequately describe the contents of the image, and both contributors seem to suggest using a non-free image to show that ads like this were utilized is justified—it is not. ℯxplicit 01:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I can quote the text instead. Thank you. HLHJ (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, is File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg eligible for fair use? There are 3 photos of the Blue Thunder cockpit mockup in the Blue Thunder (helicopter) article already, though not in the condition seen in the film. The aft portion of the aircraft is mostly identical to a stock Aérospatiale Gazelle, a photo of which could easily be added to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Probably not, but this may require a discussion at WP:FFD. ℯxplicit 01:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will post at WP:FFD. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 18#File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg. Please let me know if I left any crucial information out, as this is the first time I've used FFD. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi can you tell me why was the page Josimar Da Silva martins deleted by you? Please restore it I will provide sources LordJoki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@LordJoki: Hi, Josimar da Silva Martins was deleted for being a biography of a living person that lacked any sources. Under the WP:PRODBLP policy, such articles are deleted after being tagged for seven days and no sources being provided, which happened here. If you can provide a source here, I can undelete the page. ℯxplicit 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are few sources https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/josimar/profil/spieler/256136

https://us.soccerway.com/players/josimar-da-silva-martins/100042/

https://sports.ndtv.com/ileague/i-league-mumbai-fc-sign-forward-josimar-da-silva-martins-1511569

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/goa/Dempo-sign-Brazilian-Josimar/articleshow/49521814.cms

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-sports/Joshimar-gets-a-point-for-Chirag/article12717635.ece

LordJoki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@LordJoki: Thank you, I've restored the page. Please add these references to the article. ℯxplicit 23:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks LordJoki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Tribe of Torqua.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) That image didn't violate "F7. Invalid fair-use claim" on Camp Cherry Valley, please restore it. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: Hi, per WP:NFC##cite_note-4, the "allowance for logos only applies to the use of the logo on the infobox or lede for the stand-alone article about the entity... The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." The above logo was used in a section of the article to showcase the Tribe of Torqua patch, which was not accompanied by any sourced critical commentary. At the time of deletion, the file was in violation of policy. ℯxplicit 23:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The article has changed over time. Please restore the image and give me a day to restore the content. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: You will need to justify the use of the image before its restoration. Per WP:NFCCE: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale." ℯxplicit 00:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Good day Explicit,

I sent you an email requesting a copy of the content from the deleted page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeLaunch". I realize the page violates the G11 policy written in the Wikipedia guidelines and understand the article would require an overhaul of the content for it to be a permanent fixture on Wikipedia. However, we created that page over 2 years ago and contains a lot of valuable information. I would like to receive a copy of that content for our own personal use, even if it means the article will remain deleted.

I look forward to your response.

Thanks,

CodeAuthorityCH (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Cory

@CodeAuthorityCH: I have emailed you a copy of the contents. ℯxplicit 00:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir

You have recently deleted an image as it was removed from a page. I have replaced the image as its removal was unjustified. As such I would ask that you reverse the deletion.

File:Briggate skyscraper.jpg

Kind regards Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mtaylor848: Hi, the image was remove from Briggate, Leeds twice by Chemical Engineer. The second time, the user commented, "Remove skyscraper picture. Uncited bit about something that never happened. I think encyclopedia should be key facts. Sorry." You should discuss the issue with the user instead editing warring over it. Additionally, it appears to me that the use of the image would violate WP:NFCC#1. If the information can be properly cited, it would contradict the passage at WP:FREER. ℯxplicit 00:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Briggate,_Leeds#Skyscraper. There was no response. I also doubted that the image was available for use.Chemical Engineer (talk)

It is not my intention to edit war. I have reviewed the situation as it stands and cannot see reasonable justification for its removal. I have stated that I feel if any other editor feels inclined to remove it I would be happy to take this to arbitration. However I do not feel it is possible to reach a consensus if we do not even have the file. As this issue is not settled and I was not consulted or warned about the deletion of my work I am not in a fair position to make my case.

Thanks. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Mtaylor848. You received a notification on your user talk page that the file was "orphaned" and was going to be deleted per WP:F5. As Explict has posted, restoring the file would only make sense if there was a 100% certainly that it would be immediate be added to an article and not subsequently removed again so that WP:NFCC#7 is satisfied; otherwise, the file would just be deleted as an orphan again. You can, howwever, add an external link to the file's source to the articles talk page for discussion purposes, if you want to try and establish a consensus to re-add the file. Once it becomes clear that a consensus has been established in favor of reusing it, I'm pretty sure that Explict will have not problem with restoring the file. Images are like article content in the sense that a consensus may need to be established for using them in an article in a particular way; a file's licensing helps determine how it may be used, but there's still no automatic guarantee that file will be used even when licensing is not an issue. In such cases, you should try to resolve any differences of opinion on the article talk page or as otherwise explained in WP:DR, just as you would with disputed textual content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Over the summer I updated a logo for my school (that is used with permission) but did so prematurely and reverted until the logo was ready for use. In the meantime, it was (properly) deleted for lack of being used anywhere. Now that I would like to make the update again, it will not let me re-upload the image. I'm not sure how to do it again but would appreciate your help.

The file is at Sheridan_School_logo.png for the page Sheridan_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybriar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jaybriar: I have restored File:Sheridan School logo.png and added it to the article. ℯxplicit 00:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I was led to your talk page to ask you if you'd be willing to restore File:Khalifa International Stadium.jpg, which was replaced by a commons file that has now been deleted itself due to a freedom of panorama case. It came with a detailed non-free use rationale that took a while to write up, and I don't want to have to write up another lengthy non-free use rationale for the same image. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, I have uploaded the Commons file locally instead (File:Khaliffa stadium - panoramio (1).jpg). It is free enough to be uploaded at least on the English Wikipedia. Cheers. ℯxplicit 02:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: Apparently this photograph was taken on January 2, 2014? If so, then this defeats the purpose of having this debacle at all. We need a photograph of the redeveloped stadium, not the old one. I was misled by GTVM92 into believing the photograph was taken in 2018, after they edited the caption in {{Infobox venue}} saying it was so. The image originally uploaded to Wikipedia was that of the redeveloped stadium. That and I still need the non-free use rationale I wrote up for it. I've mentioned it numerous times but nobody seems to acknowledge that issue I have as well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: If that's the case, a non-free image of the redesigned stadium is not be justified because it would violate WP:NFCC#1. As a structure that still exists and can be accessed, a freely licensed image can be created and uploaded locally. ℯxplicit 05:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: But it's not the same structure, thus the building pictured in the commons photographs no longer exist and cannot be accessed. There still has been no attempt to address my concern about the non-free use rationale that I had written up that I want to retrieve. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: The fair use rationale you mention is directly tied to the WP:NFCC#1 issue: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Even if a freely licensed photo does not currently exist, a non-free image is not justifiable under policy because a freely licensed photo can be created of the new stadium. You are free to remove the image from the infobox if you believe an image of the current stadium fits best, but a non-free image simply can not be used. ℯxplicit 00:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding here. I do believe an image of the current stadium fits best, but no free images of the stadium exist. You're presenting me with a paradoxical situation where you're telling me I can't use an image of the new stadium even though you're inviting me to. Also, your response to my question about the non-free use rationale I wrote up is confusing and does not answer my question at all to any degree. I'll try to simplify it as best as humanly possible. I wrote a bunch of text. I want that text back. Is there any way to get that text I wrote back? I don't want to write it up again. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I have pasted it here. The situation is not paradoxical. A photo like File:Khaliffa stadium - panoramio (1).jpg (licensed under Creative Commons or some other appropriate free license) can be used; a photo like File:Khalifa International Stadium.jpg (a fully copyrighted photo which requires a non-free license) can not be used. If a freely licensed photo of the current stadium does not exist, then you must simply wait until one is created. ℯxplicit 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoever prodded this article never notified me; would you please restore it so I can improve it? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Erpert: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to inquire about how to fix/republish a page that was deleted for David Meltzer (the Sports Executive).

I believe there was some bad sourcing, etc that we would like to fix.

There is a strong possibility that source material from the WWE Employed "David Meltzer" was tied to the David Meltzer I am referencing, who can be found at www.davemeltzer.com.

Is this something you can help us do? Or can you advise as to better steps to accomplish this?

The URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=David+Meltzer+%28sports+executive%29

Thank you!

-Derek Shaw (310) 980-4965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekshaw35 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Derekshaw35: Hi, if you haven't already, please consider reading notability guidelines for people and the general notability guideline to understand what constitutes "notable" on Wikipedia, as this was the main concern. There was also a concern over the article creator's association with the subject; if you are share the same ties, please read the conflict of interest page as well. The best way to proceed would be going through the articles for creation process. There, the article you plan to create will go through a draft phase, and an experienced editor will review the page and determine if it is suitable to be an article; if not, you will receive feedback on how to improve the page. ℯxplicit 02:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xplicit: Thank you for this direction. I appreciate you response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekshaw35 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought about discussing "Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale" to either TfD or VPP. Personally, I found it either too intimidating or too bureaucratic. Contacting the person responsible for using this template shouldn't be necessary. There's already File PROD, which is less bureaucratic, less restricted, more editor-friendly, etc. Suggestions? George Ho (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: WP:TFD, though I was well noted for opposing the use of File PROD on non-free files. It adds to the workload for me, and {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is much easier to handle. ℯxplicit 23:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Although I'm using Template:Prod when I can, I'm still not sure that it's better than {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} as a way to nominate non-free files for speedy deletion/review. Nominated files can be de-prodded even in bad faith without any sort of administrator review which then means that the file needs to be taken to FFD or tagged again anyway. Since most non-free file speedy deletions (based on my experience) seem to be clear cut per WP:F7 or WP:F9, prodding these seems like a waste of time; "di-disputed fair use rationale", however, can also be used when just one non-free use of a file needs to be assessed, and removal not deletion of the file is being proposed which I don't think is something which can be handled very well by PROD. If an admin reviews the di template and decides further discussion is needed, they usually say so in the edit sum they leave when removing the template.

So, it might instead be better to try and tweak the existing template to make it more user friendly and clarify how it should be contested (perhaps by creating a {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} type template for it) instead of deprecating its use. Pretty much the only editors bothering to bring files to FFD or tag them with templates are those who seem to have a pretty good grasp of WP:IUP and WP:NFCCP; so, I don't think these templates are being abused in anyway. Mistakes may be made, but these can usually be caught by the reviewing admin (who also tend to be very experience in dealing with files), which doesn't always happen when files are deprodded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I was gonna take the template to TfD as suggested, but then I changed my mind and then requested creation of {{di-disputed fair use rationale disputed}} at Wikipedia:Requested templates. George Ho (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "di-disputed fair use rationale disputed" would be a good name for such a template; it seems like it might be easily mistaken for typo or some other error given that "disputed" is used twice. Moreover, as I tried to discuss awhile back at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Change "fair use" to "non-free content", the wording of all of these types of templates should be changed to be consistant with the actual name of the policy. WP:NFCC is not really "Wikipedia's fair use criteria"; it's "Wikipedia's non-free content criteria". Moreover, WP:FUR is not really a "fair use rationale", but rather a "non-free use rationale". Editors new and experienced already mistake fair use/fair dealing as being interchangeable with non-free content use, even though the latter is much more restrictive. The way some of these templates are worded only seems to keep things confusing, so it would be best not to create any more with similar naming problems until the existing ones have been revised accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this page was deleted. I believe it should not have been. User (rosguill) who proposed deletion cited the fact it was not on a heritage register. This claim presumes that historical significance is determined only by state and local governments, which I strongly dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom od (talk • contribs) 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tom od: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please restore File:Windows Server 2012 R2.png – it is to be used in the article Windows Server 2012 R2. Modernponderer (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Modernponderer:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed a page about me (Marquis_Wright) was deleted and saw somewhere that you were the person to reach out to. I'm not familiar with editing or creating pages on Wikipedia and believe I may have tried to update some content on it without being logged onto a wikipedia account. An administrator explained the controversy there to me and how the page can be flagged as a result. However, I wanted to reach out to you and see if you can undue the page deletion.

Thanks, Marquis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnw30 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mnw30: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 01:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Mam,

I am writing to you on behalf of K7 Computing, a global provider of leading IT security solutions for enterprises and consumers. Incorporated in 1991, K7 Computing has its registered office in Chennai, India and a strong presence in all Indian states. With more than 20,000 channel partners, K7 Computing is protecting more than 25 million customers worldwide against threats to their IT environment. Corporate website

K7 Computing’s flagship product; K7 Total Security had a Wikipedia page which was deleted in October 2016 and the reason quoted was "Non-notable product developed by non-notable company".

Please allow me to share a few media coverage here to support the fact that K7 Computing is indeed a notable company with millions of users actively using K7 Total Security product.

Please find pasted below links to a few authentic and trustworthy media publications those have published news about K7 Computing. All these are category A publications in India and few of these have international presence as well.

The Times of India - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

Business Standard - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

The Financial Express - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

India Today - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

Outlook - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

Money Control - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

Express Computer CRN - K7 Computing Celebrates Completion of 25 Years

Zee Business - K7 Computing eyes $50mn revenue, to expand to US and Europe

VARIndia - K7 Computing completes 25 glorious years

Channel Drive - K7 Computing Unveils K7 Academy, Celebrates Completion of 25 Years

United news of India (UNI) - K7 Computing launches new security solutions

The Times of India - Chennai's homegrown cybersecurity enterprise K7 Computing expands to B2B segment

The Hindu - Concern about cybersecurity on the rise

The Hindu Business Line - K7 launches cyber security products large enterprises

CIOL - K7 Computing Announces Strategic Repositioning and Expansion of its Enterprise Security Business

CRN India - K7 Computing announces strategic repositioning and expansion

Communications Today - Concern About Cybersecurity on The Rise

B4U media - K7 Computing Announces Strategic Repositioning and Expansion of its Enterprise Security Business at its Annual K7 Odyssey Event

3rdEyeReports - K7 Computing Announces Strategic Re-positioning and Expansion

SPO India - Help the people in distress in Kerala with K7 Computing

VAR India - AI helps in staying ahead of ever-evolving threats

Request you to kindly restore the page of K7 Total Security on Wikipedia and guide me to create a Wikipedia page on K7 Computing. Kindly let me know if I could assist you with further information about the company or any specific detail.

Thanks and regards Rashmi Markhedkar Official email: rashmi.m@k7computing.com 106.193.158.232 (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ℯxplicit 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/ Mam, Thank you for restoring the page on K7 Total Security. I had 2 queries – 1) The Wikipedia page of K7 Total Security is still not reflecting in Google search. Kindly help me understand if this takes some time. 2) The Wikipedia page of K7 Total Security is in a language other than English. Is it possible to have a Wikipedia page of K7 Total Security in English Also, would request you to guide/ help me to create a Wikipedia page for K7 Computing, the company. Request you to let me know if I can assist you with any information or detail. Regards Rashmi Markhedkar Official email: rashmi.m@k7computing.com Rashmimarkhedkar (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

I was looking at the Deletion Log and noticed that you are often deleting 5 or 6 or more pages during the same minute. Is there a script that helps you delete more than one page at the same time? Maybe it's my old computer but I find myself only being able to delete one page every minute or every two minutes. I was wondering if there was some tool available that would make this go faster.

Thanks for any advice you can offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liz: Hi, I use Twinkle's batch deletion for deleting multiple pages under the same rationale. I mostly use this tool for pages in the file namespace. Other times (usually for expired WP:PROD, which all come with different deletion rationales), I simply open several tabs at a time and review the pages and histories individually. Upon confirming they are eligible for deletion under the process, I manually delete them in quick succession. ℯxplicit 03:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Explicit. I'll have to look into batch deletion mode. You must have a quick deletion finger! Unfortunately, my laptop is running slowly and I'm finding that Twinkle is taking about 2 minutes to tag an empty category for deletion and log it on my CSD log page. I posted a note about it on the Twinkle talk page but I'm beginning to think it is a problem with my computer, not Twinkle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice you deleted this file on the basis that it was unused (F5). The reason it was unused is that a rogue user had removed it from the page where it was needed (National University of Ireland). For this reason I recommend reinstating it. Zacwill (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zacwill:  Done, file restored. ℯxplicit 11:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Zacwill (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, in October you deleted the article S. Thurairaja, would you be able to restore it, or move it to a user page of mine, so that I can expand it. Thank you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Blackknight12:  Done, content moved to User:Blackknight12/S. Thurairaja. ℯxplicit 12:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Explicit,

I was wondering if you would still consider being an admin over at Commons. From your experience dealing with files, you could be a positive benefit to the project. -- 1989 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@1989: Hmm, I'll mull it over for a bit and decide soon. ℯxplicit 10:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. When you decide, let me know. Here's a guide of what you’d get into, if you’re interested. -- 1989 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh ho !!!, so surprise, today I has been see your personal page, and I watched your page: views history. Now I see you have many enemy ! and I'm think I know why ? Đông Minh (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

I'm reaching out to request restoration of the Inspirock page. This indicates that you had requested deletion on the grounds ‘Non-notable company’ / ‘WP:NCORP’: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Inspirock&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=delete

However, a few news pieces have been published about Inspirock that might help the company meet the standard for notability:

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-tr-webbuzz-20151122-story.html Los Angeles Times - Inspirock is the subject, rather than a mentioned company. This is not a sponsored article.

https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-06-26/inspirock-digital-trip-vacation-planner-tool - Conde Nast, a leading travel publication, reviewed Inspirock in 2015.

https://www.phocuswire.com/Inspirock-prioritises-engineering-and-awareness-sees-stellar-growth - PhocusWire (formerly Tnooz), another well-known travel publication, published this article about Inspirock in 2016.

https://36kr.com/p/5037102.html - 36kr, the Chinese equivalent of TechCrunch, has 11 million monthly visitors and published this feature article about Inspirock in 2015.

https://stirileprotv.ro/ilikeit/smart-things/ilikeit-site-urile-care-te-ajuta-sa-gaseste-cele-mai-bune-oferte-pentru-vacanta-croaziera-in-caraibe-la-pret-de-300-de-eur.html - ProTV is a leading Romanian media outlet that has its own Wikipedia page; the article briefly describes Inspirock, but the video provides a lengthier discussion beginning at about 00:38. This is not a sponsored spot.

Based on the above examples, I hope you will reconsider Inspirock's suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Sieffron79 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sieffron79: Hi, Inspirock has already been restored and moved to Draft:Inspirock by other administrators. ℯxplicit 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This page needs admin intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_(South_Korean_TV_series)

A user keeps messing on the cast list. Also, pretty sure they're using VPN. Thanks. 112.206.182.198 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can you block 86.171.208.223 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@KH-1: Got beat to it! ℯxplicit 00:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a question regarding images on Commons. File:MQ-8 VX-20 NAS Point Mugu (cropped).jpg image has been cropped, but the uploader didn't provide the specific link to the original file on source's site. Is there a specific tag for requesting the specific image link for Commons? I have a reason for asking for the link. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: These can be tagged as Template:No source since. My reverse Google search suggests the image originates from here, which is not a government website. ℯxplicit 04:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That wasn't what I thought the issue might be, but it does look like a copyvio, as the image is tagged "Northrop Grumman photo". I've had issues with the uploader over the changing of backgrounds on images, but I've never seen a hint any copyvio issues with him. I hate to even bring it up with him for fear of widening the rift between us. I'll tag the image with "No source" and see where it goes from there. - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)] @BilCat: There seem to be two pages on the MQ-8 found on the source website ( and ), so perhaps one of those photos is an acceptable replacement. When I'm not fairly certain whether something's a copyvio, I ask for feedback at c:COM:VPC. Often someone is able to sort things out and a copyvio will be tagged as such or c:COM:DR'd as necessary by someone else without myself having to do anything further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. While I'm experienced on English Wikipedia, I haven't spent enough time on Commons to know my way well around it yet, so thanks for the suggestions. - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It originally came from their media report from the news section, but won't link the article (US Naval institute) - FOX 52 (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Some official US government websites do use copyrighted photos/content provided by third-parties; if that's the case here, then I don't think you can claim it's PD if the file can be established to have originated somewhere else. Does the source for the file attribute it to the US Navy like is done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point (I'll do some more digging to clear it) Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If it says "Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman" like it does here, then it's probably not going to be PD? If that's the case, c:COM:DR the file and upload one which is a Navy photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FOX 52: Did it state it was a Navy photo? Because the Northrop image claims it as its own. I'm sure that's not a rare occurrence when dealing with government contractor photos and publishers, so I'm not assuming you're incorrect. In my experience, we've usually assumed a company's claim is correct, and not used the photo. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It was from a group montage from US Naval institute, and it may not be free as Marchjuly pointed out. (and now I can't find the montage) - Will search FOX 52 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI I moved for a rdf less of a headache to deal with - FOX 52 (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just curious. I've renominated this for deletion, and feel it needs to be salted.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Sanollová) You mentioned when you deleted this the first time in April that the article was created by a paid editor. Who was that user? I have a sneaking suspicion that may have been a User:Jan Blanicky sock? A Blanicky created the article on the Czech Wikipedia, ([]). User: Heptapolein recreated the English article(and created the German article) in September and he was just discovered to be a sockpuppet of Blanicky and has a conflict of interest in that he helped write and maintain the official website for Vladimir Hirsch, who is a collaborator of Martina Sanollová and is in Skrol with her.(evidence here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladim%C3%ADr_Hirsch#cite_note-1, clearly authored by "Blanicky,J" and there are pictures on the page that Blanicky has claimed to have taken himself and has even uploaded to Wikipedia.) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: The article was originally created by Blanicky, which has been blocked for some time now. In regards to salting, I usually don't implement such protection to a deleted article until it gets deleted a third time. ℯxplicit 04:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit:I suspected so. That's interesting. So... he basically created the website for Vladimir Hirsch and had started (including sockpuppets) nearly every transwiki article on him. I wonder how I would go about getting those removed? How exactly were you able to know Blanicky was a paid contributor? I'm appalled that if this was common knowldge amongst people that he was able to go on with creating/advocting for all those articles. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 06:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: When I seek assistance on matters of sister projects, I go to meta:Administrators of Wikimedia projects, look for an active user, and post my concern on their talk page. I don't have much information about this contributor; the article was proposed for deletion by Praxidicae, so she may be able to assist you further. ℯxplicit 07:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Two months ago I've created a page titled Nir Brand with all relevant information about the person who is a philanthropist and a musical conductor. For some reason it has been deleted by you, I'd like to understand why, and how this action ce be reverted.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utrecht1 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Utrecht1: Hi, Nir Brand was proposed for deletion by another editor with the following concern: "Unref blp; no evidence of meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG." It went uncontested for seven days and was deleted as a result. You are highly encouraged to read the aforementioned notability guidelines regarding entertainers, as well as the notability guideline for musicians to understand what constitutes "notable" on Wikipedia. For contesting the deletion, please see WP:CONTESTED. ℯxplicit 01:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)