User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

G13 deletion of Helvete

Could you please restore my Helvete journal draft? I'm not sure how G13 even applied, since I did not submit the article through Articles for creation. I challenged the speedy deletion for this very reason, but apparently that was reverted. I have several drafts in my userspace on the back-burner, and this was one of them. I hadn't edited it for over 6 months, but mostly forgot about it. I can work on improving it now that I know that leaving it unfinished is a concern, but I worked this evening and didn't have the opportunity to voice this.

Thank you,

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@3family6:  Done In an odd coincidence, just yesterday I was musing whether G 13, when applied to user space drafts, ought to have a longer period of time maybe even as long as two years --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I found an additional source that I want to integrate into the article. I can't find the restored version, though. Did you accidentally delete it a second time?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I forgot to remove the template, so it did get re-deleted. I restored, and made sure to remove the template. Please edit it, to make sure it does not get nominated again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will get on this immediately.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I will note that I did not know that userspace drafts are even deleted. Even the guidelines for user pages that do mention that userspace drafts might be deleted do not specify a time frame. So I think this needs to be better developed and improved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: See this edit. It was changed in September 2013.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That 1) still only applies to AfC submissions, which wasn't the case here and isn't the case for userspace drafts, and 2) is one small mention among a gazillion policy, guideline, and essay pages, which, per WP:IAR, users aren't expected to read through. I think it is unfair to just delete userspace drafts without making it clear in multiple locations exactly how long an userspace draft will be kept. I also would support your suggestion that they be kept longer, perhaps up to 2 years. As is, I think I will move this draft to a new title dealing with Amelia Ishmael, with the current content becoming a section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point. --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: Here's the place to weigh in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed_draftspace_deletion--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Qandeel Baloch

Semi-protect this page. Many IPs are vandalizing the page. The person was murdered recently. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rainbow Archer: A better place to ask is Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a semi-protect request in that page. No administrator did anything. And IPs are coming from many cities. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
?? The article is currently under pending changes, so none of those edits are being made.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It is someone who recently died, so the activity is understandable. Semi-protect would mean that no IPs would have any input. Doesn't sound like a good plan. Unfortunately, I don't do much pending changes review, so I'm not helping out, but this sounds like an expected event.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Kéda Black

Hi Sphilbrick,

I'm seeking the revision history of the deleted article Kéda Black. Could you please help me?

— Regards, Pro patria semper 13:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pro patria semper: Why do you want the history?
Here are the entire contents:
Kéda Black, born in Mwami (Zambia) 23 May 1976, is a French food writer of Scottish extraction.
--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and your diligence. I would like to contact the author, in order to create a page on French Wikipedia. — Regards, Pro patria semper 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pro patria semper: The author is user:Utorak-sedamdeset--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, thanks. — Regards, Pro patria semper 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Inca Jungle

Any particular reason you blanked this article without flagging it for speedy delete? noq (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Noq: I'm not really sure how to proceed which is why I'm looking for advice here:User_talk:Diannaa#Wikitravel_copy. My initial thought was to flag it as CSD but I wasn't sure which one would apply. The material is licensed so it isn't technically a copyright violation. I don't think what was done is acceptable and if you have thoughts on what is the best approach please share.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Xavier University of Louisiana

I agree the current version is a *mess*, but db:g12 requires that there be no salvagable prior version, I believe. The versions from mid-2015 definitely look salvagable. I'll try to find the best one tonight or tomorrow.Naraht (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Naraht (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: I looked at the most recent 100 edits, saw the same name and mistakenly thought I had looked at them all. Thanks in advance for offering to look at find an acceptable version.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game images

Since you contributed to the discussion the last two years, I am requesting your input at Talk:2016_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, not sure I'll have time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cypriot Nationality Law

Thank you for your comment with regards to the copyright issues — this is well noted and I will rewrite the content as advised.

Mara.ispas (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Miyagi Zaō Fox Village

Admin Barnstar.png The Administrator's Barnstar
Hey thanks for moving an article to my userspace as a draft before deleting it. Consideration means a lot. Makkachin (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

I have responded to your CSD notice placed on the Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia page. As I said there, the section cited is clearly WP:PD#U.S. government works as NAVEURAF is a component of the US Government. If needed, an attribution tag can be placed on the page to eliminate ambiguity, but the work is that of the federal government. --KevCor360 13:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevCor360 (talkcontribs)

@KevCor360: If it is public domain, it can be used without permission, but that does not mean it is exempt from our own rules. We do not permit use of exact quote without using quotation marks or quote boxes, and we do not use long passages even punctuated correctly without good reason.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sibling

I saw your post on WT:TW. IPs have been creating various pages with content copied from Sibling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I've seen

so far. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, nominated all.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Sphilbrick. Prototype never stop removing an information on the article Alain Guionnet. Could you please let him a warning? Thanks. — Regards, Pro patria semper 07:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, Pro patria semper continues his right-wing campaign. Could you please help me to stop it? Thanks by advance

https://wikibuster.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/pro-patria-semper-letoile-montant-de-lextreme-droite-sur-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototype (talkcontribs)

@Pro patria semper: @Prototype: I see some signs of a disagreement, but almost nothing on the article talk page (if it is a content dispute) or on user talk pages (if it is a behavior issue). Start there, and see if you can work it out. Yes, removals should be discussed on the article talk page, if questioned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, at the start of the month, I let a message to Prototype there, and he didn't answered. I don't find it very polite... Futhermore, he just accused me of pov-pushing above, which is a serious defamation. — Regards, Pro patria semper 13:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that you sent a message to Protot, not Prototype, unless you are claiming they are the same person?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, you're right! I confused these two accounts, mea culpa. But I sent a message to Protot two days ago, and I had no answer in turn (what I obviously regret). — Regards, Pro patria semper 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: but Protot and Prototype are perhaps the same person; they've a similar pseudonym and both concentrate on the same modification. Possibly Prototype may say us what is? — Regards, Pro patria semper 13:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If there is a need to continue this discussion, let's do so on the article talk page - this is not the place for it. Feel free to ask on the respective use talk pages if those two are the same person, or two different people.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Everything is OK. — Regards, Pro patria semper 14:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious about deletion of First Artists

It certainly seems notable, and still has links elsewhere in wiki that are now red. Doug Nelson (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Nelson: It was deleted as a WP:G5, not for anything relating to notability.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So-called

Hi. I'm following your removals of "so-called" with mixed feelings. I don't think the expression should be annihilated from Wikipedia, whatever the MOS said: it is a "word to watch", not a "word to remove on sight" (and you probably know about our "best known for"-annihilator). While in some cases its removal was justified indeed, in some others it left out an important shade of meaning. For example, at Prokofiev's [1], so-called "War Sonatas" carries a clear indication that the designation is informal (in this case, it was made by historians rather than the author) or not universally applied, something for I can't find a more succinct replacement − it does not connotate doubt, but informality.
While I commend you for taking care about sentence structure, I would suggest that you simply leave in those instances that aren't broken, i.e. where it simply means "informally/sometimes called". No such user (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@No such user: I'm not close to following "word to remove on sight". I'm looking at all, and changing maybe one in 5 or 10.
If you do not think that it is accurate to say they are called the "War Sonatas", you are free to revert, as you have. Would you also look at:
It seems likely that the wording should be parallel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


You might also look at Sergei_Prokofiev, where the Works section lists:
Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to hear that someone is taking a look at my edits. In some cases, I feel that I am on solid ground, in some cases, it may be a closer call, and there may well be a better way to make an improvement, and in some cases, the word might be quite appropriate. There are many instances where I am sure the usage is not ideal, but I do not know enough about the subject matter to make the change. I won't be upset if anyone decides that my rewording is not the best, but I would hope that the discussion would be what is best. In some cases, the original may be the best, but if that applies to Piano Sonata No. 7 (Prokofiev), then there are several articles that need editing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I understand now that you did all the due diligence – it is the edits that you didn't perform that make the difference. While we might not agree on each individual instance, you make a strong case for its removal in No. 7; I'll self-revert. Thanks. No such user (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@No such user:Thanks for your review. FWIW, I just checked my edits, and I have made 223 related edits. I had looked through the first 800 or so instances, so my guess of 1 in 5 or 10 was a little low, more like 1 in 4. But as you now realize, that does mean I am leaving most. In some cases, leaving because I think the usage is correct, in some cases because I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to know how to make a change. I am not a big fan of editors who mindlessly make changes - every once in a while I have to fix Timeline of women's basketball because someone mindlessly tries to "correct" the spelling of "basket-ball" despite a parenthetical comment explaining that it is the spelling from the time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

request for undeletion: Giovanna Huyke

Good Morning. I am not exactly a wiki expert, so I apologize in advance if I do not fully understand the process.

I am trying to have a draft article called "Giovanna Huyke" undeleted so I can correct the suggestions other editors made to me.

Although not an excuse, I consolidated multiple email accounts and didn't realize that my wiki email was still going to an old email, which has now been fixed. Relating to revising the posting, the suggestions from other editors were rational and reasonable, and helpful in understanding the nature of the writing required to meet wiki standards. For example, removing the superlatives or the subjective positive adjectives. Thank you for your continued consideration and sorry for the trouble Espresso57 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso57:  Done Draft:Giovanna_Huyke --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My Article, User:SuperHero2111/Living raptors", Which You Deleted

Dear Sphilbrick,

On March 18, 2016, you deleted my page titled "SuperHero2111/Living raptors", according to that page's deletion log. While I completely understand why you would think such a page would be unsuitable for Wikipedia, and by no means am I asking for it to be restored under the article namespace, I would like to ask for the page to be, if not restored to its original location in my userspace or the sandbox, to at least be restored and a copy e-mailed to me or sent to me somehow. I don't care if the page never goes up on Wikipedia again; all I want is to be able to see my page, and to keep it for myself. And I feel compelled to inform you that my page was not a hoax; it was based on information I had gathered from Internet sources, and it was still a work in progress (it wasn't finished being written) at the time that you deleted it (although, granted, I had not updated it or edited it for nearly 4 years). So I humbly request to have my page restored and sent to me so I can keep it. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

SuperHero2111

SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperHero2111: I sent you a copy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Alright, I just saw it, thanks! And by the way, I would also like to see the revision history of my article (including the dates and times that I created and subsequently edited it, and all of the old versions of it). If it is possible to do so, would you mind sending me that as well? Thank you! SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@SuperHero2111: It is temporarily restored at User:SuperHero2111/Living_raptors Let me know when you are done looking at it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

AES+F page

I edited the page with content from the AES+F site without violating any copyrights. Could you please tell me what I did wrong? Asvyatsky (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Anton Svyatsky

@Asvyatsky: this edit is a copy of this material. If the latter material is properly licensed, it isn't obvious, but even if it is, you need to provide proper attribution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: So how do I properly attribute it, given that I administer the site which is the source of the material..? Thanks for the help. Asvyatsky (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Asvyatsky:There are two related issues- attribution and licensing.
Starting with licensing, copied material (even if closely paraphrased) must be suitably licensed for use. That can only be done by the copyrightholder. If you are the copyright holder, you can add the appropriate licensing information on the site itself, or provide a permission statement covering the material (or both).There's instructions how to do it at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent.
Attribution requires that direct quotes be in quotation marks or in blockquotes, along with references.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: So if I understand correctly, I need to donate the copyrights to wikipedia, and then I won't have to cite the content to myself? Or I would have to cite the website as the source anyway? Asvyatsky (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Asvyatsky:I would not characterize it as donating the copyrights to Wikipedia. You would be licensing the material for anyone, including Wikipedia, to use. You would still need to cite the website as the source. However, I need to emphasize that I don't recommend doing this. Here's why—suppose you provide a license so that the material can be used as is. Most material, on most websites, is not written in a style that is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. So imagine that you include the information, and another editor decides it isn't appropriate for a number of reasons. You might then decide that if you cannot use the words, you will withdraw the permission. But the permission is irrevocable. You can't take it back. So you might want to find out if the material would be viewed as suitable before licensing it. You can do that by starting a discussion at the article talk page, including a link to the material and suggesting that you are willing to licence it in a way that it could be used. If other editors don't find it appropriate, then you aren't in the position of providing an irrevocable license, and then not being able to use it. Or maybe someone thinks the main points are worth making but thinks they are to be rewritten. If the contents are rewritten without close paraphrasing then there's no need for a license just a reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Ok, I understand. Would you mind undoing the reversion, so I can remove the content taken from the site directly and just leave the factual information. I would hate to have to re-add everything else that isn't taken from the website directly. Thanks again for all the clarifications. Asvyatsky (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Asvyatsky: Sorry, we have a rule against restoring copyright violations. What you suggest remove the content taken from the site directly and just leave the factual information is not considered a good editing approach. You can use factual information, but it should be written in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My edits deleted from page Sanjay Gandhi Jaivik Udyan

Instead of only reverting it, you deleted my edits from the page. I could have just removed the copied content but thanks to you now I'll have to start my large edit from scratch. Just want to tell you, this is not cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talkcontribs) 17:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't cool. Nor is adding material subject to copyright. I wish I had the time to clean up the mess, but I don't. I explained further on your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did explain it and thanks for that, I am not so much aware of the rules, but you totally deleted my edits from wikipedia, now I cannot even look at my edits forget correcting it, if I want to add that stuff now, I'll have to start from scratch. I just want you to bring back the deleted edits (if possible), so that I can easily clean it up and save myself a lot time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I made a point of leaving the edits, even though our normal process is to revdel them so they are not visible. I did that deliberately, so you would have a chance to access them, and save what you needed to save. However, when you decided to revert my edit, without even asking me about it, I decided I'd better follow the rules and revdel. We are not permitted to restore material removed for copyright reasons. I basically bent the rules to help you, but not again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Undelete request for "Pat Molittieri"

Hello - can you please undo the deletion of my draft for the article on Pat Molittieri? I am working on a total rewrite, and gathering references for validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsdaughter1 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Patsdaughter1: I see it here: Draft:Pat Molittieri. What is it you need?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean this? User:Patsdaughter1/sandbox--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's it - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsdaughter1 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, again, from the guy in the white suit

I'm having a very peculiar problem with the Pierrot page. I noticed the other day that my headings were inconsistent: sometimes numbers were written out ("nineteenth century") and sometimes they were abbreviated ("19th century"). So I logged in to change them all to the written-out versions. After doing so, I previewed the changes; the preview indicated that my changes were okay; so I saved and logged out. But the page that then appeared showed none of my changes. When I logged back in (assuming that I hadn't saved correctly), lo and behold, all of my changes were intact. So I logged out again: to my consternation, the page (that the public sees) incorporated none of them. Do you know what is going on? Many thanks for whatever advice you can give me. Beebuk 00:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: I'm happy to say I do know what's going on - (well, sort of). There's a system wide problem - I had the phabricator link up most of the day, but I recently closed it - but all it would tell you is that there is a problem, it is known, although I'm not sure they yet know the cause. I'm confident it is getting high priority attention and will be resolved reasonable soon. It isn't you, it is happening a lot of places. I believe you just have to wait a little longer than usual. I can look up and give you more details if you want, but what you describe - logged out version seems not to show changes - is exactly what is happening. I think it is just a lag issue, and will be fixed soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your explanation. It's a relief to know that I haven't tripped myself up in some way. No further details are needed. With all best regards—Beebuk 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I just found it, more here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Unregistered_users_see_old_revisions --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Baal Shem Tov

Thank you for the copy vio removal. I have attempted a rewrite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Shem_Tov#In_legend I would appreciate your looking at it to see if it is still too close to the original. Regards.Guns of brixham (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Boarstall

Thanks for the warning/heads up re Boarstall I notice you left the copy in Boarstall Tower Is that acceptable practice? Or should i go and remove the copy and make a note referring back to the Boarstall page. Thanks again. (Stringlet (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)),

@Stringlet: The notification belongs in the edit summary, but not in the article itself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry!

Thank you for bringing attention to this issue for me! This is the first article I've edited, so I'm still learning the process as I go.

I hadn't realized that I was in copyright violation, and I now recognize my mistake. I apologize, as I should have been more careful and learned more about what I was doing beforehand.

Is it possible for me to request for you to reverse deletion of my edits, so that I may fix my copyright violations from there? I made other edits that I felt improved the article, such as updated statistics and deletion of dead links, and I also feel that I'd be better able to fix my errors from the edits I already made.

Again, my bad on the copyright violations, and I hope to learn from this experience! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeinc (talkcontribs) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Haeinc: I responded on your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Quotations

Thanks for correcting the grammar on my quotations. Hope this is the right way to reply Marghanita (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes @Marghanita: --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry!

Thank you for pointing out my direct copying in my edits to Anonymous birth, I should have known better and they were properly deleted. Can you however retrieve for me the list of references I had added so I can have another go? It took me a while to find good references and I don't have copy of them locally (lesson learned).

Thanks in advance.

Kleptog (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kleptog:

References

[1][2][3][4]--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lefaucheur, Nadine (2004-12-01). "The French 'tradition' of Anonymous Birth: The Lines of Argument". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 18 (3): 319–342. doi:10.1093/lawfam/18.3.319. ISSN 1360-9939.
  2. ^ Villeneuve-Gokalp, Catherine (2011-10-28). "Les femmes qui accouchent sous le secret en France, 2007-2009". Population (in French). 66 (1): 135–169. doi:10.3917/popu.1101.0135. ISSN 0032-4663.
  3. ^ Odivère v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, ECHR 2003-III, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0213JUD004232698
  4. ^ Villeneuve-Gokalp, Catherine (2011-10-28). "Les femmes qui accouchent sous le secret en France, 2007-2009" [Women who Give Birth “Secretly” in France, 2007-2009]. Population (in French). 66 (1): 135–169. doi:10.3917/popu.1101.0135. ISSN 0032-4663.
Thank you very much! Kleptog (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

F5 revdels

Hello,

I've just noticed a few revdels by you of specific revisions of non-free files, using CSD F5 as the rationale (e.g.). I have to admit that I don't get it - if that's the reason, why aren't you deleting them entirely? I'm clearly missing something. Best,  — Scott talk 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Scott: Per our policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, see item 7, an image must be "used in at least one article".
The current version of each image is used, but the prior ones are not, and therefore must be deleted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I was being called to dinner when I started responding, so I was a bit cryptic, let me know if you need more details.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Usage of versions isn't something that I had considered before. Yes, keeping our non-free content to a minimum. Thanks for the explanation.  — Scott talk 22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits in King Fahd International Airport

Hey, I would like to know why the news article was removed from the topic? also the car rental in the ground transportation section? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderjf (talkcontribs) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Baderjf: Did you read the edit summary?
Copyvio of http://www.arabnews.com/economy/news/729266. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:ok, that's for the news article, what about the car rental?
@Baderjf:Rollback removes all consecutive edits by the same person, so if there is a copyvio in one, some non-infringing material might get caught up in the rollback. Feel free to restore it if it isn't a violation of policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)