Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

OTRS ticket 2014042010008501

Will you look at ticket 2014042010008501? Feel free to leave internal notes there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I've actually had this open on my computer for a couple days. I've been mulling over how to respond, and may post a query to the email group. I have house guests and a busy schedule, will try to get to it soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I saw your post about it. It looks like a consensus is forming, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Jazz

Hello S Philbrick,

My article on Eclipse Jazz was rejected twice in April 2016 due to insufficient citations and then deleted in January 2017 because I hadn't edited it since. I recently received an old article about Eclipse Jazz in Downbeat magazine. Added to the Billboard magazine and numerous Ann Arbor and Detroit Michigan publication sources I already cited, I believe this will merit publication.

Will you please undelete my draft? Many thanks.

Annreb (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Annreb: It isn't deleted. I don't know whether a tps undeleted it for you, or if it simply wasn't deleted, but it is there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Showing up for Racial Justice

I see that you deleted the Showing Up for Racial Justice article on March 23, 2016 based on credible claim of significance. This organization has continued to grow since then and has hundreds of chapters. You can see news articles about their work here: "Showing+up+for+Racial+Justice".

What threshold would you have in mind for significance that would be high enough to restore it? Since your deletion, the organization has been cited by the New York Times [1] and NY Mag [2]. Full disclosure: I am an unpaid volunteer with one of the local chapters mennonot (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mennonot: The article that was deleted had ZERO references, so the deletion wasn't a close call. There is no formal minimum, but zero is definitely too few. There's no point in restoring it, the article consisted of only five sentences. Best to start over. However, you should read WP:COI--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful to know how short the article you deleted was. I read the COI article again before leaving this note. Given my role with a local SURJ chapter, it seems like one approach would be to create a stub, then build the article in my sandbox and propose the article as a requested edit to the new stub. Would you be interested in looking over the sandbox article if I took that approach? I ask because there isn't any community of active editors around the article. Much (though not all) of the COI article assumes an active conflict around an article among active editors. mennonot (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm drowning, and will not have time--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Media files de-merged

Hello, Can you please restore Category:Media files de-merged? This shouldn't have been deleted as C1, it is a maintenance category. Thanks! — Train2104 (t • c) 05:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft

You deleted my draft. Where can I see the edit history? I want to work on it. Benjamin (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: Which draft?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Students for Rand. Benjamin (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delation - Włodzimierz Mucha

Undelete it please. That site: http://warsaw.ieglass.eu/team/arch-andrzej-bulanda/ it is about another Polish architekt. Anonim WX (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anonim WX: It was deleted because it was a copyright violation. We don't undelete copyright violations. (I confess I didn't understand why an article with one title solely consisted of content about another person, but that doesn't justify a restoration.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way, in case you are unaware, you are free to create a new article about Wlodzimierz Mucha, and this time, if it includes information about Wlodzimierz Mucha, which is not a copyright violation, it won't be deleted for that reason.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to NHS article

What was the trouble with my edits? Veronica Roberts (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Veronica Roberts: It looked to me liked you copied from this site.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I pasted in a quote from someone claiming personal experience of restraints. It was marked as a quote on the Guardian website and I indicated it was a quote. I paraphrased from the article. Veronica Roberts (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Veronica Roberts:The quote was 195 words, far longer than we typically accept. Please be aware that Wikipedia deliberately tries to stay well away from what might be acceptable per fair use law, and 195 words is pushing the boundary, if not beyond.
Please feel free to try again, but use a more selective quote.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you put back everything except the quote? Veronica Roberts (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Veronica Roberts:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Undo deletion request

Hi there, I added new material to susan owens (academic) and I see the material has been deleted this afternoon with reasons saying in 'good faith' and I think copyright issues. The material has been reverted to old 2014 version. Please can you undo that, if you highlight the copyrighted issues I could work on that, but complete removal of the added content for newcomers like me can be quite a rude shock. I understand Wikipedia has a standard to maintain, but please do it in a nurturing way. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansdar (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@/Hansdar: I am sorry it was a shock but you included material that appeared to be either a copy paste or a close paraphrase of material located at this page.
It is Wikipedia policy to remove copyright violations as quickly as possible. It is also against policy to restore copyright violations. I trust you know what you added and you can look at the linked site to see why it appears to be a problem. Please let me know if you have additional questions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nine out of ten Wikipedians recommend Snow Close brand whatchamacallits!

Hey, I wanted to respond to what you said at AN, but since that discussion was closed, I'm responding here.

What I was referring to was the fact that there's always an outlier in any consensus-building, not that I think there's no merit to their arguments. In fact, I agree that more oppose !votes may be coming. What I was implying was that, when the first nine people (and then the eleventh) in a row to comment on a move discussion are all in lockstep agreement, the mere fact that one person disagrees doesn't change the rather strong implication that a very clear, even overwhelming consensus is emerging. Even if that one person disagrees vociferously. As I said, I'm sure more oppose !votes will come, but I would be willing to wager good money that you will see a much larger number of additional support !votes, as well. WP:SNOW doesn't read as if it were written only to address unanimous decisions, and shouldn't be interpreted to only apply to unanimous decisions. 91% support is, to me, just as valid a reason to invoke SNOW as 100% support is.

You don't have to respond, of course. I just found your comments interesting and worth replying to. As I said as AN, I'm not opposed to re-opening the discussion, which has been done already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Here is why I see it differently — if the sequence of 10 votes nine of which are on one side and one of which is on the other side, and the loan dissenter is early enough in the process that it is clear that subsequent supports had a chance to review that argument, and some time has elapsed since the last contribution, I'd say it is extremely likely that the consensus will be support. That isn't what happened in this case. The process normally running seven days was stopped on day one relatively soon after the single dissenting position, which means it is unlikely that the prior nine have had time to revisit and possibly reconsider, and it is impossible that subsequent visitors will view the dissenting opinion and think it carries some weight.
I deliberately did not look at the dissenting view. I wanted to make the abstract point that nine out of 10 is not necessarily a consensus when the 10th is last and the close is very soon after it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I was speaking to probabilities and making practical predictions based on past experience. I understand that what you're saying is absolutely true in the abstract. However, while such cases are certainly possible, in the real world people rarely change their minds once made up (especially about abstract notions such as the decisions which are made here). Don't get me wrong, I've seen it happen, and even been on both sides of it before (both changing my mind and changing someone else's). But this is a fringe topic in which many otherwise very reasonable editors are either personally invested in advocating for it, or personally invested in debunking it. That generally produces a constant push and pull from both sides which tends to magnify the normal impulse we humans have to ignore opinions different than our own. I'm a skeptic and heavily involved in editing fringe articles myself, and more than once I've had a knee-jerk reaction to something I perceived as being a fringe-pushing edit or !vote. I try to remain open minded, and indeed, even pride myself on being open minded when many of my fellow skeptics are forming ranks, but it's just human nature.
That being said, I thank you for your response and the exposition of your point. I don't intend to turn this into an argument with you (indeed, I'll keep your page watched long enough for you to get the last word in, if you wish) because, as I said, in the abstract, you're completely right. The possibility remains that this case itself will be an outlier in which one lone voice of reason convinces the masses. It's my involvement in the discussion which, I think, leads me to take a more pragmatic approach. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily looking for the last word, but had you said there was a very high probability I wouldn't have commented. I've spent much of my life assessing probabilities, one of the things (I think) I've learned is that there are very few examples outside of the world of logic where probabilities are zero or 100%. Your use of the term "no doubt" may have been more casual than I read it but I saw that as saying that the probability is zero. That's what I was reacting to. FWIW - I don't view this as an argument, but a reasoned discussion of slightly different points of view.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW - I don't view this as an argument, but a reasoned discussion of slightly different points of view. Me too, which is why I said I didn't want it to turn into an argument. Us Wikipedians seem to be a quite opinionated bunch, and reasoned discussions sometimes turn into arguments. For what it's worth; Yes, I was using the phrase "no doubt" in a euphemistic sense, not a literal one. I tend to use emphatic or formal language when I want to convey absolutes, like "absolutely no doubt" or "a probability of exactly zero", though I understand that not everyone does. In fact, normally I would have said "no reasonable doubt," but for some reason I didn't do that this time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Globalization and education

Hi Sphilbrick

You recently nominated Globalization and education for Speedy Deletion as a copyright violation, it isn't, it resues text from an open licensed source as attributed in the Sources section of the article. Please see this discussion for more information on why this might have been mistakenly flagged by the Earwig's copyvio tool and nominated for deletion.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Whenever I revert material that is either a straight close paraphrase of any source, I have been using the edit summary "copyright issue re-X" rather than the more loaded term "Copyright violation" specifically to note that there are issues that need to be considered as opposed to an absolute conclusion that there has been a violation. Unfortunately, when the entire article is copied, reversion doesn't make sense and it should be considered for speedy deletion, the standard template uses the term "copyright infringement".While true, not relevant to this discussion
I do agree that the UNESCO report has a proper license. However, the existence of a proper license does not mean the words are suitable for an encyclopedia. The report is intensely political and not close to neutrally written. While it may qualify as a reliable source for some purposes, I think using it to create articles from whole cloth is a horrible editorial decision. It is my opinion that this article should be nuked, although your point is well taken that the ground should be for something other than copyright infringement.
I note the same author is copying swaths of material and dropping them into other articles. I think these addition should be reviewed carefully for editorial reasons other than copyright.
For what it's worth, I'm not, as far as I know using the Earwig tool, unless it has been incorporated into this tool.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the CSD12 template and nominated at AfD.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick
Thanks for your thoughts. To me one of the issues this raises is the lack of guidance on how to adapt external sources of text to Wikipedia's style. I've written Wikipedia:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia on the practical process but it needs additional information on adapting the text to Wikipedia's 'voice', it could be on this page or could be on a companion page if needed.
I didn't know about this other tool, thanks.
John Cummings (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Learning management system

Please do not add copyrighted text to articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

ok Thanks--Samss86(Talk) 17 March 2017

Hello

I want create a Article About Iranian Singer Babak Rahnama How I Can Create it? I have Account In Wikipedia Please Help Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.210.147.63 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Teahouse is the best place to ask for advice. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about your user name

There's a character named Gunnery Sergeant Philbrick in a book series I'm currently reading the latest entry in (who was a buck sergeant until 2014 or so). Any relation to your user name? (I'm just curious). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Not that I know of. My father was an only son, and my grandfather was an only son, so outside of my brothers and nephew, anyone else name Philbrick is getting to be a distant relative. My family is all from New Hampshire. My brother is the genealogist in the family so I'll bring it up to him but my guess is that at most it's a distant relative. Thanks for asking, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
D'oh! I honestly meant to specify this, but I didn't: The Gunnery Sergeant is a fictional character I thought you might have picked your username after. In the book's timeline, he won't be born for another hundred years or so. Sorry for any confusion! (Though if you do have a gunnery sergeant for a relative, the author would probably be tickled pink.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Oops, missed that. It briefly occurred to me that he might be fictional, but I didn't follow that thought through. No, my user name is based on my real name. What is the book series? Worth reading? I did read a book once which had a character named Philbrick, and it was honestly quite odd to read.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the above is correct, you are related to more than half of all New England families <g>. I found a genealogy online, and it misses the Mayflower passengers, but has just about everyone else. Collect (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: Can you point me to it? My brother is the genealogist in our family, but I can pass it on to him.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Try Full text of "A genealogy of the Philbrick and Philbrook families : descended from the emigrant, Thomas Philbrick, 1583-1667" which I hope helps. If he checks, he will find links to many of the old Boston families, and a slew from Connecticut as well. Collect (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ali-Illahism

An article that you have been involved in editing—Ali-Illahism—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you open to being trouted?

Have you heard about trout slapping? If so, then are you open to being trouted or whaled? UpsandDowns1234 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If necessary. Can you elaborate?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Management Rohtak Revert

There is no copyright for the added contents. Can you please elucidate copyright violation for adding details about my alma mater ? 120.56.253.58 (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything written in the last few decades automatically has copyright. In some rare cases it will automatically be public domain which does not apply here. In some other cases the copyright holder can affirmatively license it for free use but I didn't see any evidence of that here. Without evidence that the material is freely licensed or public domain cannot be used.
I explained in my edit summary that the material came from this link--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

rankings of academic publishers

dear all - ok i am a newcomer to wikipedia but as i was about to correct my work today i found that you - the editors march 27, 2017 - simply removed all traces of it to the dustbin, including my correct reference to the sense consortium under its standardized new wikipedia name.

i think - saying with without chagrin - that you treated my work simply unfairly, since the new hong kong ranking, published by one of china's important universities is just as a milestone in the ranking of publishers development as the shanghai ranking is for university ranking.

if you had taken the care to read their ranking analysis you would have discovered that it is based on that of the australian political science association and on similar other trustworthy previous work. simply to remove my references to the hong kong ranking is unjust. can you send me a copy at least to my talk page, so that i can start to work again on the article?

you inserted references like "self publication" etc. while in fact the hong-kong based university published it on their earlier website. it is simply important also to consider what universities actually do, and how they consider publishers. no ranking is perfect.

if you invest just a little of time you will also discover that my proposals find a reflection in the literature to be found in google scholar on ranking of academic publishers. but please accept my kind regardsBibliometer 1492 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You put the same comment on my user space, but I'll answer it here. Firstly, I didn't "simply remove all traces" of your edits. I carefully tagged various problematic statements introduced by your edits and the edits of John de Norrona (which I will have to re-tag as they are all still there). The problems were rampant peacockery (somebody used the term "exceptional excellence" at one point if I remember correctly), the complete lack of a lead section in the version you prepared (the article just launched straight into discussion of some ranking or other), and many self-published sources. Secondly, user Sphilbrick seems to have removed the edits from the history of the page as a result of a copyright violation which is why the intervening edits aren't visible. Take it up with Sphilbrick. Famousdog (c) 10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bibliometer 1492: Famousdog didn't remove all trace of it, I did. Take it up with me. We don't permit copyright infringement. That doesn't mean copy and paste material and then edit it until it no longer is an infringement; that leaves infringement in the edit history which we do not permit. We also do not permit close paraphrasing so light editing even if done off-line is not good enough. I didn't miss the fact that it was based upon some trustworthy source. It wasn't just based on it it was a copy of it so I removed it. Sorry, I cannot send you a copy of it. Sending a copy of deleted material is appropriate in many cases but not in the case of copyright issues. I do appreciate your interest in the subject and hope this won't dissuade you, but we are serious about respecting copyrights.

Comment and message from Bibliometer 1492

I hope that you now like my re-written version of the article. kind regards and please have wiki patience with me Bibliometer 1492 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoring Deleted Page Draft:Olfactory Art

A few months ago, I was trying to create a new page for Olfactory Art, ran into some difficulties (my first attempt ever to create a Wikipedia page), and gave up on it for a while. It seems that on 25 June 2016 you deleted the draft page (it says, G 13 (TW)). I now have some additional help from another expert on the topic with which I'll collaborate, as well as a person who's well-versed with Wikipedia to help us with the process. I'd like to have Draft:Olfactory Art restored so we could use it as a starting point, but I'm not sure about the process. Could you please do that, or point me to the proper way to get it done? Many thanks! @ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archmemory (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Archmemory:  DoneDraft:Olfactory Art--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Great; thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archmemory (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Compromised?

WP:N, WP:V? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Came here to check this too. Don't believe so - user is now restoring the pages. Looks like a batch-delete gone wrong. Sam Walton (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

{{trout}}{{whale}}

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Trout deserved. I was doing a mass delete of some G 13's but was on the wrong page. I believe I've restored all of the mistaken deletions. I did get one error message when restoring but my guess is that someone beat me to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Trout deserved, but hardly a whale. A dozen or so deletions, restored in less than 5 minutes. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, i think a whake is deserved, you redlinked every twinkle CSD tagging and some templates used in thousands of articles, even if you restored them in 5 minutes (well that's IMO :P). --Lil Johnny (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd personally go with the trout, as it was only a small mistake quickly reversed (it could have been much worse). Don't mind me asking if you're compromised. These days it's the first thing we ask admins. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Asking if compromised is quite appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
After second thouhgs, it's better with trout, since I saw really bigger mistakes Lil Johnny (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

another fair use img

Weren't you the one I interacted with about fair use images? I just uploaded another at File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg. Thank you for helping.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_77&oldid=1140054539"