User talk:Cryptic

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

Deletion of my uploads.[edit]

Three files I uploaded were deleted by you giving a reason - (F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days), which actually is not true. The images were used in articles from few days. They were orphaned without any reason by a member known as 'Project FMF' and were speedy deleted with wrong reason. I need an explanation. AkshayAnand (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@AkshayAnand: Short answer: I've restored them. (File:WWE '12 Cover.jpg, File:WWE '13 Cover.jpg, and File:WWE 2K14 Cover.jpg, for any interested onlookers.) They'll still need to be put back into articles, or they'll be deleted again in another week.
Long answer: Project FMF (talk · contribs) falsified the dates in the orphaning templates, saying that they'd been orphaned variously since June 20 or 21 when they hadn't been orphaned until yesterday and hadn't even been uploaded until June 25. This isn't something that's normally checked for when deleting orphaned nonfree images; there's no easy way to tell for sure what article an image had been in (if any) or when it was removed, and the overwhelming majority are tagged not by a human, but by User:B-bot. Lying about the date in order to manipulate an admin into deleting the images early—almost immediately, in fact—and apparently in order to gain advantage in a content dispute is beyond the pale, and I've blocked him for a week for it. —Cryptic 08:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou very much. And, for your information, this isn't the first time Project FMF orphaned these images. I have uploaded official cover arts that contain publisher logo and ESRB rating; since they are non-free, they have been resized as per rationale and are used in the relevant articles. These articles about WWE '12, WWE '13 and WWE 2K14 previously had the art work only, which could not be called as a cover art or a box art. I had uploaded these images and replaced the existed images which Project FMF had reverted to, in the articles. He is after my uploads from then on. AkshayAnand (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tineye usage[edit]

Would you be willing to take a minute and teach me how better to use Tineye? I use it in Commons work a fair amount but in all cases the image is there and I can click on the link that runs the Tineye search. I was worried that providing the Wikipedia URL would not be sufficient and it wasn't. Can you explain how you identified what information to feed to Tineye?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I just clicked on the image on the image page, getting this, pasted that address in the form on the front page of, and then pasted the link for the search results (which tineye says will expire in three days) on WP:NFCR. The link you gave seems to be an interface to search within a webpage and then do a search on the image there; it's not one I was aware existed. —Cryptic 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that was easy. I saw the URL for the result:
And thought you somehow created "ee5ad52343b3608876de2d84ea107de42dc6b6f3" which you fed to the search engine. I tried your steps and they worked I guess I'll have to try to re-create what I tried to see what I did wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Why did you delete this? The copyright owner sent permission and license information to Visitas (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Then the image will be restored when the permissions grant is processed. I'm not restoring it in the meantime, given the history here; the article has a perfectly usable image in the meantime whose copyright status has never been in question. —Cryptic 22:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Thank you very much, Cryptic, for your help with this page! Joys! – Paine  06:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


The MfD tag on User:Sukuk51/sandbox points to a redirect that leads to the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sukuk51 - but that discussion appears to have been initiated when an older version of the page (which looked more like an article) was on the userpage rather than in a user sandbox (from before user:RHaworth moved the page from User:Sukuk51 to User:Sukuk51/sandbox).

The NOM reason on that discussion is "Userpage is masquerading as an article", which is no longer applicable now that the page is in a sandbox. I wasn't sure if you wanted to create a nom for the sandbox now, or if the MfD should just be removed now? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My involvement with the page began and ended with adding the {{user sandbox}} template (mainly because it noindexes). I hadn't been aware it was on mfd. —Cryptic 18:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Farid Simaika[edit]

Hi Cryptic, Now that you know that there are no copyright issues related to the picture of Farid Simaika, can you please restore the pic? I tried to upload it again and followed your advice. The upload failed! Thanks Youssef simaika (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to upload it again; the copy you uploaded to commons at File:Farid Simaika.jpg is still there. (Note the capitalization and extra space in the filename compared to the image I deleted and later restored at File:Faridsimaika.jpg.) —Cryptic 19:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, didn't see the AFD with all the other notices. Thanks for catching that. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Appeal from deletion[edit]

Hello, and good morning! I am a bit rusty about appealing from deletion decisions. How to I go about appealing from your decision regarding Fletchers Solicitors? Hoping you can help, I am, respectfully yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow the directions at the top of WP:DRV, just like you did the last time you wasted volunteers' time with this. —Cryptic 18:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Homemade chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, November 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Requesting un-deletion of a file[edit]

Hello. I'd like to request undeletion of File:LongShadowsWarriors.jpg. The file had gone unused due to a new user replacing all the First Edition covers (preferred) with new revised artwork covers. We are in the process of reverting this, but in the meantime this file has been deleted. Thanks, Brambleclawx 01:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 01:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Darshan Education foundation[edit]

Hi - I nominated Darshan Education foundation for speedy deletion (and you ended up deleting it - it looks like the article was also deleted once before) - since you're an admin (which I assume b/c you deleted the article) could you give me some feedback and assistance on how to handle the comments the author of the article left on my talk page in the future? (you'll see he left two messages - the first is where he said "hi glg glg" the second is where he started a new section on "link is not a copy right". I responded to his first message by leaving a message on his own talk page under the heading "darshwan education foundation" and then responded to his second message on my own page by responding to it. I was wondering is that's how i'm supposed to handle that sort of stuff. Usually when people don't like my CSD they just do it on the article's own talk page. I was just wondering what to do in the future. thanks in advance. GLG GLG (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@GLG GLG: There's, hm, six different points I usually make when this comes up. They are, depressingly, almost always all applicable.
  1. We can't use material that already exists on another website without a full license verification via all the requirements at WP:DCM, which, in particular, grant everyone in the world a free license to copy and modify it. (Even if that website doesn't have a prominent copyright notice at the bottom of the page. And, as in this case, it almost always does.) Hardly any organizations of any size are willing to do this, especially once their legal departments get wind of the idea.
  2. There's essentially never any reason to go to the trouble of relicensing text from a web page; it's invariably suitable for an organization's own web page, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't in the business of telling the world how wonderful they are. WP:NOTADVERTISING and often WP:PEACOCK are good links to include here.
  3. If they have a conflict of interest - and if they're pasting copyvio promotional material, that's a safe assumption - and haven't explicitly declared it, be certain to remind them they agreed to the Terms of Use by using the site, and specifically §4.7, Paid contributions without disclosure. Just picking a username like "President DEF" isn't sufficient. They also need to be directed to the simplified and full COI guidelines.
  4. If their username doesn't make it clear that they're an individual - like, if it was something like "User:Darshan Education" instead of "User:President DEF" - list them at WP:UAA. It may or may not be productive to say that they're going to need to change their username, depending on how many of the other points you have to bring up, and how egregious their article was. This one doesn't apply here.
  5. If their article was unsourced or poorly sourced, explain that it's impossible to write Wikipedia articles without independent, third-party, reliable sources; how the specific article failed ("Press releases, announcements, and your own website don't qualify." is a sentence that is alarmingly often applicable); and that trying to write one anyway will just be a frustrating waste of time for everyone concerned.
  6. If their article's subject doesn't seem notable, point them at WP:N, its simplified version WP:42, and whichever notability sub-guideline applies (here it would be WP:ORG). Unless they've been exceptionally rude, I like to point out that the word "notability" is Wikipedia jargon for our inclusion guidelines, and doesn't have its usual English meaning. —Cryptic 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Peace is contagious[edit]

You recently blocked this editor, and as soon the block was lifted he returned to the making the same edits at Avengers: Age of Ultron.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Drmies saw it first, as you probably noticed. —Cryptic 17:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Question on deleted page Domchanch[edit]

This page was deleted while I was editing it in order to resolve the missing content. I left a message on the talk page to indicate that I was working on it but that was deleted too without response or notification. I'm still relatively new here so just wondering - Is there a better way I can let admins know that I'm doing the research on a page like this? I usually assume that if a page is created here somebody thinks the subject is noteworthy and I like digging into sources to see if I can figure out why. The speedy deletion process however means that even while I'm doing that work the page could disappear while I'm working. I'm not challenging the process but rather asking if there is a way to flag a page so admins know somebody is working on it. Any recommendations? Thanks! --N8 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should add that in this case, the page probably should be deleted anyway but for failing to meet notability criteria based on my research. So no need to rescue. --N8 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoops - I hadn't noticed that the page creator and the person who said they were working on it on talk were different. Usually what happens in this situation is that the second person (you, in this case) either removes the speedy-deletion template from the article, or just re-creates the article after it's been deleted. —Cryptic 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks! In this case there's no sense in recreating the article as per above. In the future though, if there's no issue with me (as a non-admin) removing the speedy deletion template then I'll be sure to do that if I think I can fix the issues. Thanks! --N8 19:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reaction on Deletion of pages neweditz[edit]

Hello Sir/Ma'am user:cryptic, I'm really upset of your action deleting my article Sitio Bisaya sa Ateneo speedily not knowing I gave my very effort on it. I'm a newbie here, I really need guidance on creating good articles, instead deleting directly contents, please do kindly give us tips. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neweditz (talkcontribs) 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Neweditz: Please see WP:ORG for our full inclusion criteria, or WP:42 for the simplified version; your article didn't even meet the lower standard of indicating any importance or significance. I'm willing to restore this as a draft article if you think you can show it meets the higher bar of WP:ORG, if you want; it would then need another editor to review the article before republishing. But there's basically no way it could survive as it was. —Cryptic 18:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Hello, please do so and I'll try my best to support the necessary information to meet the criteria. Thanks <3
@Neweditz: Done; it's at Draft:Sitio Bisaya sa Ateneo. —Cryptic 18:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Question of deletion of 2 images[edit]

context: File:Roomertravel service.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and File:Roomertravel service2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I thought I followed all the non-free image use requirements to upload the 2 images, could you please let me know what was wrong? Thanks. The article: Indepentten (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Indepentten: The problem with both of the images is that they were tagged as non-free web screenshots, while they were nothing of the sort - one was a photograph of a location, while the other was a montage of four such photographs. That license tag is only for screenshots of a website as a whole; if it were broad enough to apply to these images, it could be used for literally any image on that appears anywhere on the Internet, which is plainly ridiculous. So I deleted them under the first point of speedy deletion criterion F7, "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag".
It's going to be basically impossible to use non-free images of that nature, since there's numerous freely-licensed ones available depicting the same subject matter; a non-free one would thus fail point 1 of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy.
The images might be usable if you freely relicense them and verify that, as per the requirements at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. There's little use for the montage, but a version of the marina image that you uploaded as File:Roomertravel service2.png might have some redeeming value, if it were the full-size image and not the scaled-down 725x199 barely-better-than-a-thumbnail quality image you uploaded before, and if the file description page identified the location depicted.
Since it's obvious that you're affiliated with Roomer, did not disclose your conflict of interest as required by §4.7 of our Terms of use (Paid contributions without disclosure), and are likely getting at least some benefit from the glorified advertisement you've imposed on our encyclopedia, donating at least one high-quality image of general utility would seem the decent thing to do. —Cryptic 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about deletions[edit]

I noticed that you deleted these two files: File:The City of Janesville Flag.jpg, File:The City of Janesville Flag.pdf, but these two files remain: File:The City of Janesville Flag.png, File:City of Janesville Flag.tif. Can you explain the difference between them (i.e., why the latter two are OK, but the first two aren't)? Thanks. (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The latter two aren't ok either, and I've flagged them for speedy deletion on Commons. I hadn't been aware they existed. —Cryptic 23:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The uploader has been repeatedly inserting the image into the Janesville, Wisconsin article, stating that he has "permission" to do so, but I didn't see anything on the file page that showed that he did. I was also confused by the assertion that the image was his own work, when the city's website describes the flag as the work of a local high school student, which would seem to make it her work of art (although she may have assigned the copyright to the city). (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The city website claims copyright pretty unambiguously, and they'd have had to been crazy not to require copyright assignment as part of the terms of their design contest. The onus is on the uploader to prove otherwise; if the uploader's claiming to be the high school student and still has copyright to the image, that's simply not credible without some sort of evidence.
What's more likely is that the uploader just picked "own work" and "CC-by-sa-4.0" because they're the defaults when uploading to Commons, or possibly that he actually created the images he uploaded but isn't accounting for fact that they're derivative works of the original. —Cryptic 00:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I know you're not supposed to out editors ... but the uploader appears to be an intern with the city. He may very well have permission, at least for the image (he doesn't seem to understand that cutting and pasting text is a copyright violation, even when it contains a citation), but he hasn't proven that he has permission for either the image or the text. I've tried to explain that he must jump through Wikipedia's hoops to prove he has permission, but he just doesn't get it. (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Your edits look to be correct here in every regard; I don't think I'd have done anything substantially different. I'm going to be busy for at least another two or three days, but I'll watchlist the article and intervene if he persists after that time. If he continues to insert the text or image before then, I advise taking him to WP:ANI. —Cryptic 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm unlikely to go the WP:ANI route - no one ever listens to an IP. Based on my past experience, the results would be a resounding silence. Thanks for paying attention to this. (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I screwed up - please help[edit]

Cryptic, I asked for deletion of a page before I moved it to meta (which was my plan, and I just changed my mind). Anyways, could you please restore User:Oiyarbepsy/barnstar for me? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 15:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Due diligence[edit]

Speurneusster.svg The Detective Barnstar
For performing the due diligence that I should have performed before making an RfA !vote. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:North Carolina Office.JPG[edit]

Hi Cryptic. I believe this file is exactly the same as File:AM North Carolina Office; Wikipedia.JPG which you deleted per F7, but I can't see both files to compare them. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. It's also been speedied at Commons before, too. —Cryptic 04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that the Common image has already been deleted. I believe this editor is still fairly new to Wikipedia so they probably are not too familiar with WP:IUP and I kinda of expect they will probably try to reupload the image again. At what point, based upon your experience, does "being fairly new to Wikipedia" start becoming WP:CIR or WP:IDHT? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Something about this editor - the complete failure to respond to communication, the obvious coi, the immediate reverts of the removals of nonfree images from his draft, and probably in no small part spillover from offwiki stress I'm dealing with - rubbed me completely the wrong way, to the point where, as I said at WP:NFR, I don't trust myself even to issue warnings to him. Otherwise I think I'd have given him a final one already. The upload of File:Anthony Brocco.jpeg mislabeled as cc-zero should have gotten him a copyvio warning all by itself, though at least he hasn't tried that again. He hasn't done anything else since the last time I removed the images, though, so the message may have finally gotten through, and we may not have to do anything else. Thank you for stepping in. —Cryptic 14:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I completely understand being "rubbed the wrong" and I'm sure I've done some wrong way Wikipedia rubbing of other editors myself. Face-smile.svg - Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sam Wilson (footballer)[edit]

From THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX Mate, the Sam Wilson page was not finished Google him, he does play for NZ Under 17. I just need the citations Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX (talkcontribs) 22:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX: When you have the citations, then the page can be restored. We can't leave a completely unreferenced article about a living person hanging around before that, however.
You can either ask me or at WP:REFUND once you have your references, and we'll undelete it, no questions asked. WP:REFUND would probably be faster, especially if you get them this weekend; I'm going to be traveling until Monday, and probably won't have internet access. —Cryptic 22:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't really understand citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX (talkcontribs) 22:03, 3 August 2015‎ (UTC)
@THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX: At the most basic - you just have to find another webpage that discusses this person and meets our Reliable Sources policy (click on that link). In this case, the most likely source would be a news article. Blogs, Facebook, Youtube, and so on won't work. —Cryptic 17:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria national football team[edit]

Since I've got you on the phone, I am wondering if you could take a look at Bulgaria national football team. For some time now, some editors (possibly the same person though not sure) have been making large numbers of smallish edits which seem, at least in my opinion, to be an attempt to mask reverts of improvements made to the article and re-add a non-free image which should not be used. It started with an editor User talk:BulgariaSources and then rather suddenly three IPs (first, then and finally 2601:403:4000:6df0:d4ac:5f78:b7de:81f2) appeared and started making similar edits in both style and content: No edit sum, removing content and then immediately re-adding it, changes in background colors or dimmensions mixed together, etc.

I've tried posting on each editors page to at least understand why they are making the edits and posting at Talk:Bulgaria national football team and leaving edit sums to explain my reasoning, but there's been no interaction at all. I did ask another administrator about this, but there was no response which might mean this is just another example of me rubbing Wikipedia wrong. Anyway, It seems like this might be a case of WP:DUCK and WP:DE, but before I'd like to hear what others think before taking it to ANI, etc. Any advice you have on this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

For reference, similar things were also happening on Bulgaria national football team results, but that seems to have stopped for now since the article was redirected. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I can only take a very cursory look tonight (and, wow, at first glance, I see what you mean - I don't think I've ever seen a history page for a live article completely filled by just one user's edits); as I said one section up, I'm going to be traveling this weekend, and need to pack and prep. I'll investigate more thoroughly on Monday. It might be worth trying to recruit an editor who speaks Bulgarian, to at least get their attention, though Category:User bg is fairly thin. —Cryptic 23:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries. It's a bit annoying, but it's not something life-threatening. Anyway, it's also possible that I am also in the wrong in which case I would like to know. Safe travels. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC page deleted - need reinstated[edit]

Cryptic -

My firm's wikipedia page was deleted in Feb. 2015, and my CMO just recently discovered it. Is there a way to reinstate the page, or for me to fix the issues with the page to get it compliant? The page was created by a previous employee in our marketing dept., hence the time lag in noticing the deletion. I have been tasked with either rebuilding the page or getting it back online. Here is the message below that I recieved when I started to re-build the page:

22:50, 28 February 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page Steptoe & Johnson PLLC (Expired PROD, concern was: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requir...)

Please let me know how to proceed.

Thanks for your attention in this matter, Scott Snider, PR Team Leader, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

--Steptoe1913 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steptoe1913: I've restored the article, since the lightweight deletion process requires me to do so upon request; but I've also started a formal deletion debate since I substantially agree with Piotrus's rationale in nominating it. —Cryptic 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that - but i still don't understand why you still think it should be deleted. Other law firms have wiki pages (See the other Steptoe & Johnson LLP). What items need corrected to bring it within guidelines? We simply want a firm page with firm history. Thanks again. --Steptoe1913 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steptoe1913: The main problem with the article is that it reads much closer to an informational brochure than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't like Facebook; our aim is to provide neutrally-written, dispassionate articles about notable subjects, not an all-inclusive business list. We actually have a policy that allows administrators to delete irreparably promotional articles on sight; that's the "G11" code I mentioned at the formal deletion debate.
A secondary problem - the one that Piotrus raised - is that the article doesn't show any evidence that your firm meets our notability guideline. The word "notability" here is a term of art, and doesn't have its usual English meaning; it instead refers to our inclusion criteria. Succintly, Wikipedia article subjects need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:Notability for the full guideline, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for the version specific to companies, and this simplified version of the guideline.) The surest way for you to get the article kept is to provide links to such coverage - all the sources currently linked in the article are either provided by the firm itself (whether on its own web site, or as a reprinted press release; either way, they're not independent), or are mere listings of the company and its number of employees (which isn't significant coverage).
You should also be aware of our conflict-of-interest guideline (full version; simplified summary) and our terms of use, specifically §4.7, Paid contributions without disclosure. I appreciate that you said who you are, but that declaration should really be on your user page.
Lastly, see WP:OSE for why referring to other articles is almost never a persuasive argument. —Cryptic 18:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok cool - trust me I understand - I read what was there before and it was too promotional. I am trying to just get a factual page up about the firm. If I need to disclose that I edited the page, disclose it one my user page, etc. I will do that. I am also going to fix the links and remove any direct links to promotion if they are in there. I will check on the guidelines and will do my best to come into compliance with this. Bear with me as this is the first time I have ever used wikipedia. Thanks again. If there is anything else I can do let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steptoe1913 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The article is still an unreferenced mess that does not seem to belong in an encyclopedia, per reasons cited (WP:N, WP:V). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


I see you have deleted the CableFree logo Please can you re-instate this. It has been used on WikiPedia since 2009. Let us know if we need to add any explanatory text etc. Many thanks Stephenjpatrick (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Our non-free image use policy (point 9) does not allow use of non-free images outside of published articles. You've been adamant in claiming copyright for the logo; you can't have it both ways. —Cryptic 14:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the message,

I am looking at comparable vendors in the wireless industry Can you please re-instate the logo, with appropriate or similar level of notification on copyright etc. Many thanks Stephenjpatrick (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 14:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File talk:Jzsj.JPG[edit]

Why was this deleted after I got the photographer to sign off on it to commons OTRS?jzsj (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jzsj: The file is still at Commons - it was the local duplicate that didn't have documentation, and was actually hiding the documentation on the commons version. —Cryptic 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I take it I may reinsert it on my personal page.jzsj (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. —Cryptic 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Page Bart De Moor[edit]

August 6, 2015

Dear Sir
Dear Madam

I (secretary of Prof. B. De Moor) made a wikipedia page "Bart De Moor" and used the link "" from his personal website, which causes problems.
Please put the page back online. If this page causes problems, I will not use the link. Or you can delete the link.

With many thanks
Ida Tassens
Centrum voor Dynamische Systemen,
Signaalverwerking en Gegevensanalyse
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - bus 2446
B-3001 Leuven — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdaTassens (talkcontribs) 12:11, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)

@IdaTassens: The problem wasn't that the page included a link to his CV (it, in fact, didn't). The problem was that the article consisted almost entirely of a copy of it. Without a proper license release of the material according to the detailed requirements described here - which, among other things, grants everybody in the world a license to reproduce and modify the material - Wikipedia cannot host a copy of it.
Even with a license release, Wikipedia wouldn't host a copy of it. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn; we don't host raw CVs or resumés.
Furthermore, since you have a financial connection to Professor De Moor, you shouldn't be the person creating the page. See the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use (which you agreed to by using the site), specifically §4.7, Paid contributions without disclosure. Also see our local guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest (full guideline; simplified summary). —Cryptic 18:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Life Advisors Mutual RIA[edit]

"Cryptic". My Chief Marketing Officer submitted a Wiki page after taking HOURS of his time and our resources to create it back on June 16. His name is Jeff Cutler and the name of the company is Good Life Advisors Mutual RIA. Who are you and why do you have the capability to delete our page? This was meaningful content about our organization, how it was started, and where we are today. I request you restore it. You can personally email me at as I don't know how to correspond back and forth with this. Thanks! Conor Delaney, Chief Executive Officer, Good Life Advisors, LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Against all odds, I found "your page" despite you going out of your way to make it difficult (not linking to it, not naming it, not logging in to the account that made it). Its entire content was "This established the page for GLA '''Bold text'''". In no particular order:
  • Whatever your CMO was doing in those hours of work time and with your resources, it clearly wasn't working on this page. A pointed conversation about what he actually spent his time and your money on would probably be in order.
  • It wasn't "[y]our page". Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. It does not host run-of-the-mill advertisements.
  • By creating this page without disclosing his financial relationship to your company, Mr. Cutler was editing in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Wikipedia's local content policies (most egregiously against WP:COI), and FTC regulations on deceptive advertising; and additionally exposed you to substantial reputational damage.
  • Why on earth would I want to email you?
  • In the statistically unlikely event that your company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria either now or in the future, someone else will eventually write an encyclopedia article about it. Attempting to do so yourself before then will be an excercise in frustration; it will be deleted on sight by any administrator who notices it, or whose attention it is brought to.
  • I'm some random anonymous person on the Internet who's volunteered tens of thousands of hours of his life to make Wikipedia a better educational resource. I have the capability to delete this page because the Wikipedia community entrusted me as an administrator nearly ten years ago, in no small part specifically because of my interest in ridding it of pages similar to the one your CMO submitted.
  • I won't be restoring this page. If you or your employees create a page similar to it again, I'll delete it again. If you want to be told exactly the same things again, more verbosely and politely, your avenues of appeal is WP:DRV. If you prefer email, you can contact our volunteer email response team as described here, and they'll be even more verbose and polite; but they'll ultimately direct you either back here or to WP:DRV.
Good day. —Cryptic 18:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Tutanota[edit]

Cryptic - an article related to the Tutanota encrypted webmail service was deleted on January 15, 2015. The reason given was lack of importance. This service is frequently referred to in a variety of privacy-related forums and discussions. I'm requesting restoration due to ongoing and global conversations about private communications and increasing consumer interest in services, techniques, and products that maintain or enhance privacy.

Thank you Lakeshoreatx (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lakeshoreatx: I'm not going to restore it outright. The article not only didn't show that it meets our inclusion guidelines (full version; simplified summary), it didn't even say anything that implied that it might do so. It would thus be immediately deleted again by any administrator who saw it.
If you think you can provide the independent reliable sources required to meet the WP:GNG - and being referred to in fora and discussions does not qualify - I'd be willing to restore the article as a draft; let me know if that's the case. Trying to write an article on this website without such sources, though, will be an excercise in frustration. —Cryptic 04:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Cryptic: A quick Google News search reveals significant coverage from independent press, including interviews from product developers, and discussion about the relevance of the service as privacy debates are ongoing globally. This coverage has been produced by national (US) and global press. At the time of deletion there was ample coverage from reliable sources, and I'm concerned that due diligence was lacking at the time of deletion. Numerous other services, companies, and open source projects related to both email and encryption have entries that have evolved and been added to by users over time. Your decision to delete the entry prevented additional and substantive edits from being made to the original article. I do not believe that the original article's lack of content or citations is a rationale for deletion. It should have been flagged for additional sources. Per the policy you referenced: "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Again, I respectfully request that you restore the entry and note the need for further edits (which I'm happy to work on). Thank you. Lakeshoreatx (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very mistaken in your belief. In any case, it's now at Draft:Tutanota. —Cryptic 05:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Antonov 70 crash 2.jpg[edit]

Hi Cryptic, During my research for 2001 Omsk An-70 crash I spent a lot of time corresponding with the folks at Omsk T.V. to get their permission to use this photo. It's not right that Theo's Little Bot gets credit for the upload. Can you help me fix this? Thanks, Samf4u (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samf4u: There's nothing to fix. You're still shown as the uploader, for what that's worth (exactly nothing). It's Omsk T.V. that gets the credit. Absolutely no reason at all to block the bot. —Cryptic 05:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more specific. The photo in the infobox of 2001 Omsk An-70 crash states "Uploaded by Theo's Little Bot". That is incorrect. I've tried to fix it and failed, now I'm asking for your help. Samf4u (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that anywhere, and it's still irrelevant. —Cryptic 14:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cryptic, please undelete; OTRS ticket 2015071310012538.Willy Weazley 21:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:SK Telecom T1.jpg[edit]

Hi can you undelete File:SK Telecom T1.jpg please? What happened was that vandals removed the image from the SK Telecom T1 page and thus the it was deleted through the image deletion process.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 05:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Jason Hogg 2.jpg[edit]

Hi, Cryptic!

I am contacting you as an OTRS volunteer. You deleted the image of Jason Hogg a couple of months ago-- I have finally processed the OTRS ticket (Ticket#2015062210014753) containing the copyright release to the file under a suitable license. Can the image be undeleted? If so, please ping me and I will make sure it gets marked as having passed OTRS verification. Thank you! KDS4444Talk 20:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:A view of the main bay - Krøttøy.jpg

Hi, again,

Same deal, different file. We now have the copyright holder's permission under OTRS ticket #2015062910019656. Can you undelete for him/ her? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And File:Krøttøy_-_seen_from_Grytøy.jpg

Please undelete. OTRS ticket #2015062910019889 KDS4444Talk 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: All three done. Please confirm the licenses are correct; I left them as they were when they were deleted. Sorry this took so long; dunno why I didn't get the talk-page-edited notice when I checked in last weekend. —Cryptic 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cryptic. I was wondering if you could take a look at User:K.belev. The lede and the stuff about Wikipedia seems fine, but the filmography info and some of the infobox stuff seem to be a contrary to the spirit of WP:UP#NOT. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This is a bit late (as above - I checked in briefly last week but the talk-page-edited notice didn't show up), and now irrelevant since he's been blocked for sockpuppetry; but, unless he'd been trying to create an article about himself in mainspace (which I don't see at a glance), I don't think the user page was problematic in itself. I think it passes the moron in a hurry test for being mistaken as a fake article; it doesn't seem excessive; and he'd been editing mainspace (rather than doing nothing on Wikipedia except edit his user page). —Cryptic 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. After I saw the user had been blocked, I figured an admin would've also done something about the page if it was really problematic. I should've updated you here, but completely forgot to do so so sorry about that. Thanks anyway for taking a look. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fighting Poverty and User:Eating Nicely[edit]

Hi again Cryptic. I've come across something that I haven't really seen before and I'm not sure if it is OK per WP:VALIDALT. It appears that this editor has created two accounts: one for poverty related articles and one for food related articles. They're not really trying to hide anything, but it seems a little unorthodox to create separate accounts for specific types of articles. I guess they want to be able to make some kind of statement with their user name, but still it seems inappropriate and a bit disingenuos. If you check accounts against each other using the editor interaction tool, you'll see that both accounts have been used to edit the same article on more than one occasion, which seems contrary to their reason for using multiple accounts. I think this is potentially misleading, especially when they are used to make consecutive edits like in Jobseeker's Allowance, Universities UK, Tax credit, etc., because it seems like two completely separate editors are making the edits from article histories. Not sure where to discuss this type of thing, so I figured I'd try you first. Would this kind of thing be considered a subtle form of meat puppetry or sock puppetry? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't something I deal with frequently (for a variety of reasons), and I don't have time for more than a snap judgment, which wouldn't be fair. So either ask him directly about it, or take it to WP:ANI, depending on how deliberate you think the deception is. —Cryptic 12:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Marchjuly, Nosy parker just passing through comment. I would think that they would have to place a message on each page, linking to the other. {{User alternative account banner}} perhaps. 220 of Borg 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you check the userpages User:Eating Nicely and User:Fighting Poverty are linked. Before Fighting Poverty was autoconfirmed I had to use Eating Nicely for a few general poverty related edits. Where I can I try to keep the accounts for different articles. Eating Nicely (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Eating Nicely yes I can see the messages. I would suggest making them more prominent though, by moving them to the top of the page in large letters for example. I'm not sure if they comply with wp:Alternate account requirements at the moment. The {{User alternative account}} user-box may be useful. 220 of Borg 13:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I put templates onto User:Eating Nicely and User:Fighting Poverty. When I put the templates on the tops of the pages it came out badly. Fighting Poverty (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(indents added above, see WP:INDENT)
Fighting Poverty, try putting {{-}} right after the template. The text should then go below the userbox, not next to it. Strongly suggest sticking to one account during this discussion, it gets confusing! 220 of Borg 14:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Fighting Poverty (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I want to say sorry to Cryptic if I brought drama to their user talk. It was unintentional. Also, want to thank 220 of Borg for their input. Finally, I'll post my reposnse to Eating Nicely on their user talk. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cryptic. You previously deleted ShikKube in June here. Just letting you know it's back. Apparently re-created by a 'new' editor, who appears to have had the original text, as when re-created they also added a Refimprove template dated May 2015. 220 of Borg 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A Special Award for you![edit]

For your condescending attitude and unwillingness to help, I hereby designate you as a Wiki Jack-Load.Samf4u (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)