User talk:Nairspecht

Sara Arjun

...and why is this article being put up for deletion? The actress is an award-winning, notable person who has starred in lead roles for mainstream films in several languages. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Editor 2050! I agree, but the article is being put up for deletion because of WP:G11 and also WP:G4. I was the one who tagged it for deletion before, and now you have just copied the content from Google cache and paste-created the article. It serves no purpose other than promoting the child actor. It needs to be written from scratch from a neutral point of view. If you can do that, please go ahead. We want editors like you in Wikipedia, but please let's not make this a promotion platform. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 13:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! But how exactly? The sources back up the content and the words in inverted commas are very much quotes (which are also sourced). There's nothing wrong with this article - it merely gives an overview of her career till date, so not a G11. Also where is the deleted discussion as per G4? Editor 2050 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no G4 as reminded by GB fan. Just because the statements are quotes from sources doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'd suggest you dumb down the article's adjectives which make the actor look like a wizard or something. For example, in the lead: "...opened to critical and commercial acclaim, with Sara's performance receiving unanimous praise from film critics. She has since worked on Tamil and Hindi films, winning positive reviews for her portrayals..." and "..."jaws drop when they would see the Sara perform"...". What are these sentences if not promotional? Best, Nairspechtive Talk 13:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough those are quoted in the sources provided. Either way, it was ridiculous to delete an article from 2011 without discussion or even attempting to clean it up yourself. I'll do it. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the article still looks promotional to me. Let's discuss it on AfD. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 16:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sushant Sing Rajput CSD

Please stop putting "speedy deletion" notices and putting them back when other editors remove them on articles like this one and on ones like Sushant_Singh_Rajput. The Rajput article has existed for over 5 years and has over 1,800 edits, not a likely candidate for a speedy delete I would think. Also you wrongly inserted a warning message on editor Kennedy34's user page. Your message said "Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself". Kennedy34 did not create the page, in fact he or she has only 1 edit out of the 1,800+ edits on that page. Best, JS (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not care how many edits the page has gone through nor about the age of the page. I CSD'd it because it looks like blatant advertising to me. Thats all. You can share your thoughts on the article's Talk page. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

request

Please dont spoil Dhanak Palmygluts (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Palmygluts! Please check the article's talk page. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 06:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	It was great working with you on the BBC's 100 Greatest Films article - glad to see it finished up today! Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)']] Talk 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Comatmebro. It was pleasure working with you, too. Please do tell me if you need ANY help with similar articles on Wikipedia. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 06:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Janatha Garage screen credits

Hi,

I am not sure about any other available source for the crediting order. But the movie released only today, and Mohanlal's name is appearing first in the credits. I am not sure, whether this will come (or even has to come) as a news item in web portals.

What has to be done now? Shouldn't we be sticking to the order in the screen credits? Even the current casting (which credits him second) order would require a 'source', doesn't it? Else it would just be P.O.V.

The official casting order has to be followed. Please help. Thanks in advance Sauerstoffliebe (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure how billed cast members should be listed as nothing is specified in WP:FILMCAST. Maybe, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Mohenjo Daro (film)

this is regarding the additions that i made that were reverted.

- the source at sepiamutiny blog that i gave is extremely reliable, it is by a geneticist named Razib Khan who focuses on the subcontinent. u can look him up by name. his credentials speak for themselves.

- the swarajyamag article is well written and references are given there for the inferences drawn. do go through the article if u have the time.

- the other article i cited involved ashutosh's response. not sure why that was changed.

Now, this long addition by me to the Mohenjo Daro film's page, although correct, does seem in retrospect, a bit too long. My problem with the original version is the way it is mentioned in the BBC article, which presents some peoples criticism based on perceived theories as valid - remember here that the "proto-austroloids" is a theoretical group, and the presence of this theorised group in India is also a theory! while with genetic data, we know that these theories are wrong. so fringe theory based critcism has been presented by BBC as valid criticism.

so i propose this - i am removing the BBC article and giving another which mentions the criticisms that have been more substantial and valid, and includes ashutosh's response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototypehumanoid (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Prototypehumanoid! I understand your point, but I do not think that some historian's blog can be considered reliable. The best way to do this is discuss the issue on the film's talk page, which is what I'm going to do now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Come First

Hi Nairspecht,

I'm just here to inform you that I have boldly made the move to redirect Come First to Terror Jr for the time being. Everything in the song's article can be/was already mentioned in Terror Jr, and the song itself doesn't quite pass WP:NSONG at the moment to warrant an article. If you have any questions about this, feel free to message me on my talk page. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Derek, thanks for your work on the Terror Jr article. Agree about the single. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gokul Suresh, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I happen to believe that I have all the right to remove them when I am successfully addressing them. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

About talk page of Ae Dil Hai Mushkil

I give my opinion in the talk page of Aae dil hai mushkil please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tupur16. Will check it. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

You are too kind, and I too undeserving. Thanks very much for the hardware - it will look nice on my desk once I've polished it up a tad. :-) Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are too modest, my friend. Keep up the good work. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 13:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sushant Singh Rajput

Hello Nairspecht, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sushant Singh Rajput, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not unambiguously promotional, speedy was declined once before. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spaceman, thanks for letting me know. Will take care of this in future. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work)

Hi Nairspecht,

Your message reverting my removal of the speedy delete said "only admins can review speedies. Warning you." Where did you get this from?

The template of speedy delete says "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." There is nothing here that says non-admins can't remove speedy deletion notices.

I think you are confusing the deletion of an article (which only admins can do) with the removal of the speedy deletion notice from an article.

Best,

JS (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

HI JS! Sorry for that. I was not all myself when I was dealing with that page. I apologize for being a jerk. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for your other contributions and be well. JS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

official URL

What's up with this revert? [1] -- GreenC 14:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Green! It's always better to provide a hyper text to the URL. Don't you think? Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the creators of {{Official URL}} thought it would be a good idea to have a central location at Wikidata which all wiki's could use. That way if the URL changes etc.. it only needs to be updated once, across every wiki. Seems reasonable to me. Is there some kind of unstated campaign of adding/removing this template due to conflicting ideas of what is best? -- GreenC 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have observed that not all pages have multiple entries on different wikis, which makes this function useless. However, for the article in question, THAT would work. You may revert my edit if you want. Additionally, I have seen countless times that folks come here and add whatever they want in the name of official URL. So, yes, this function works for all those instances. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On the flip side, {{official URL}} makes it impossible for dead link bots to add archival links which is a significant drawback given how often link-rot happens (probably 20% or more of official URLs are dead links); and no link-rot bots are setup to work on Wikidata; and there are no dead link fields in Wikidata anyway. For that reason I would support the old/simple way of a bare link. -- GreenC 15:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, yes. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to copy this thread to the official URL talk page for archival purposes as I think we both brought up good points that could be useful in other discussions in the future. -- GreenC 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Template_talk:Official_URL#Use_of_this_template. -- GreenC 16:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work)

Copy editing help with Cliff Clinkscales

Hello, could you please consider helping copy edit the Cliff Clinkscales article? It is under featured article review and still needs some work with making it sound better, and you have a lot of experience in the field. The nomination can be found here. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello TempleM! Thank you for getting in touch with me. And congratulations on improving the article so far. Please give me a day or two (if that's not too late; pardon me) to go through it and provide my assistance. I will definitely ping you by 11 October 2016. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Thank you and take your time. TempleM (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Please also post that you are copy-editing the article at the featured article nomination here. TempleM (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

TempleM - Done. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

Nairspecht - One more thing. Another user brought up the issue that the references are in day-month-year format, while the article has the dates in month-day-year format. During the copy editing process, could you please make sure that this is made constant? The subject is American, so I think month-day-year should do, but you can do whatever you feel is correct. TempleM (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TempleM! Yes, I saw that at the FAC discussion. I think it is best to stick to the MDY format. Also, there's no need to have this discussion here. I am watching that discussion page, and I think it will save you time and effort if we continue this there. And, pardon me, for taking a lot of time with the page. I'm sorry. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Nairspecht - You previously stated that your goal was to finish copy editing the article by October 14, so I was just wondering when you would find time to do so. There is no hurry and you have been doing a great job, but I think more people would start supporting the featured article nomination once the copy editing is completed. TempleM (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TempleM! It's done. Sorry I took longer than usual as I'm going through some IRL happenings. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding content deletion.

As you informed about the changes that I made to Shivaay, I have to clear that I done it right because according to reliable sources, there is no such artist contributing to that track. You can see references at: [2], [3]. ❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear TrendSPLEND, I request you to mention that in the edit summary during such cases so that there's transparency. Thank you. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request #1

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear administrators, I don't know how this has come to be. I have never used another Wikipedia account, or engaged in IP edits. I have been following all major Wikipedia policies and have never engaged in editing from other accounts for any type of gains. I have been making constructive edits and additions to various articles which interest me. Additionally, I have no information about the suspected other accounts. I am here on Wikipedia to contribute, and not engage in illegitimate activities. I often use Wikipedia at work, which may be a reason why CheckUser threw up suspecting results. But, I'm still not sure how or why or from what this originated. So I request you to please consider my block request. This is deeply unsettling and has affected the nature of my day. I am here as a fellow community member and not as a disruptor, which can be confirmed through my contributions. I will try to address any questions or doubts. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Reviewed and agree with Bbb23 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Bbb23 trying to find the SPI for this one. Seeing nothing [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

::::User:Bbb23 So to clarify does this mean their is not public data to support the block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind found it. Everyone at your work needs to follow [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hot Milk

The article Hot Milk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Do Not Say We Have Nothing

The article Do Not Say We Have Nothing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Schooldays of Jesus

The article The Schooldays of Jesus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Nairspecht (talk)

And again WP:COIN#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators. Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request #2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Second request. As recommended by Doc James, I agree to use WP:PAID template as I move ahead. I will mention which articles have a COI effect on from my side and disclose all info. However, I would like to reiterate that I have not abused usage of multiple accounts. How can I continue editing while complying to all WP policies? Thank you. Nairspecht (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, and as such your best bet is explaining your situation at UTRS. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're going to have to explain Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nairspecht — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Start India Foundation

The article Start India Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tork T6X

The article Tork T6X has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable bike from a non-notable company

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nairspecht. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness

The article The Ministry of Utmost Happiness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TOOSOON, the book isn't even published yet

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uniphore

The article Uniphore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to attain substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources required for WP:CORP/WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17266 was submitted on Jan 05, 2017 04:32:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uniphore Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Uniphore Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Review Monk

The article The Review Monk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apart from being created by a sockmaster, who went on to edit Indian film related articles with his various socks, the article uses no WP:RS to prove WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Review Monk logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Review Monk logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reliance Jio Logo (October 2015).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reliance Jio Logo (October 2015).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18682 was submitted on Jul 09, 2017 07:24:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(Favonian suggested that I present my appeal request here.) Hello! I request the Wikipedia community to consider my case. After having committed few grave mistakes last year, I now would like to request the community to provide me a (last) chance to show that I am a positive contributor. I fully understand the nature of the acts that I committed and regret having committed them - all of them. I apologize, and promise to never do them again. I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia in an objective manner. I believe I have followed the standard offer religiously in these past months, and promise to not indulge in activities that led to my account's block. To answer the question (of UTRS) as to what I intend to do if my account is unblocked, I would like to edit articles of literature and films, and concentrate more on GA. I would like to continue my work on The Vegetarian. I would also like the community to observe my contributions and base their decision on the fact that I have contributed healthily and objectively, except for the edits that were COI. Lastly, although my account was blocked, I have been using Wikipedia a lot for information purposes. The inability to edit a typo or add urgent content on a page that I am reading made me regret my ill-advised acts all the more. Hence, this request. I would like to be a healthy addition to the community and help in making this a better place. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ongoing sockpuppetry. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 Checkuser note: You've been socking with Mark Sylvester (talk · contribs · count) and TheWhiteSwan (talk · contribs · count). I suggest you wait at least a year from now before you request an unblock again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly deny being related to any of those two accounts. I have been waiting for more than six months now to submit this unblock request. Please (Bbb23 and Yunshui) do guide me to a place where I can appeal to these two new accounts. I want to establish the fact that I have not indulged in ANY activity since my block. I suspect these accounts were used using the dynamic IP string. I agree to all listed accounts, but this is untrue. Why would I create two new accounts to worsen my case? Please do consider. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Hyperloop One Logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hyperloop One Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Parava first look.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parava first look.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kaya Skin Clinic New Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kaya Skin Clinic New Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Seahorse villa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seahorse villa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seahorse villa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request 3

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nairspecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After more than 18 months since I was originally blocked, I am requesting for the third time to have my block repealed. I am positive that I have not indulged in any of the activities that led to my block and also understand why the block was necessary. I believe I am fully aware of the consequences of poor behaviour, and considering that I have made constructive contributions to a lot of articles, I am here again. Request you to consider this.

Decline reason:

No reply to Huon in well over a week. SQL^{Query me!} 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nairspecht (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

"Positive you have not"? Please detail what activities you have/have not engaged in and state clearly if you have not. What edits will you make once unblocked? --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dlohcierekim. You have said vague things such as "I fully understand the nature of the acts that I committed and regret having committed them - all of them" and "I have not indulged in any of the activities that led to my block and also understand why the block was necessary", but you have not said what acts you "regret having committed" or what you think the reasons were that "the block was necessary". When blocked editors make statements that superficially look like an acceptance of what they did but in fact don't say what they are accepting, experience over the years shows that more often than not they then continue some or all of the same unacceptable editing practices as before, whether because they were being sincere but actually didn't understand what the problems were, or because they were deliberately being evasive. You therefore need to explicitly state what you did before that you won't do again, and what you think you will do that is different. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim and JamesBWatson! Sorry for the delayed response, but yes, I am willing to speak about my mistakes. As a Wikipedia user with a lot of special permissions, I created multiple accounts (while knowing that they were against the policies) to influence activities such as one, article creation; two, AfD discussions; and three, make improvements to certain articles. While I knew that disclosing paid editing was a thing, I did not use that feature to showcase my conflict of interest either on my user talk page or on the talk pages of the articles that were edited recklessly. I did this over a period of few months after which I was immediately given the block, which I understand was completely necessary. I would like to note that I have abstained from adding promotional content even while using multiple accounts for PR purposes, but that of course, does not exonerate me from other mistakes. I have stated this in my previous requests and OTRS comments that before engaging in these activities, I used to make comprehensive contributions that have improved a lot of articles. That brings me to the topic of what I would do if my block was repealed. I consider myself a good copyeditor, and that would be my focus as we move ahead. Enhancing articles for GA and FA would be another point of focus, something that I unsuccessfully did with The Vegetarian but still something I am proud of even as a disgraced editor. I may sound self-deprecating but I would like to say that this is what I honestly feel. My block of more than a year was necessary because otherwise I would have continued with those activities thinking that I am not guilty unless proven. Finally, I know it is not the community's job to keep track of what I do after I am unblocked, but I would like to say that copyediting, fighting vandalism, and enhancing articles would be my focus points. The other concern that I have is that this block also does not let me create a new account and start afresh because that would mean violating the terms of this block. Not being able to edit Wikipedia for eternity is a fear that I do not want to live with. Therefore, I sincerely request you and all the other editors to consider my request for unblock by also going through the history of what I feel are good, constructive contributions to Wikipedia. That's all. Thanks. Nairspecht (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We should involve at least Bbb23 as the blocking admin. @Doc James, Favonian, and Yunshui: might also wish to opine.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Were do you list all the articles you have written for pay and all the accounts you have used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In this talk page for now. Thanks Nairspecht (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Other accounts?

User:M.Nishant

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no connections with these aforementioned accounts as I have not involved in any such activity since my last unblock request was rejected. Thanks Nairspecht (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Articles Paid to Edit

• MiniMed 670G
• HopSkipDrive
• The Review Monk
• Air Ink
• Pepperfry
• Seahorse villa
• Barefoot to Goa
• Tork T6X
• Start India Foundation
• Disha Patani

I will create a separate section for this on my user page once and if the block is revoked. So that other editors know about my past actions. Nairspecht (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Accounts

I still maintain that I have used only the following accounts to make multiple edits to a single page:

• User:Jean Stair
• User:Kevin Duvall
• User:Sonixgirl
• User:Sportonion555
• User:Vini2611

Thanks Nairspecht (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain what was going on here? It is impossible to believe that another UPE sock would remove a COI tag from an article you created entirely under their own volition, so please explain how they came to make that edit. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. I do not have an answer to that question because I don't know. That film's page was created a long time ago, and this new user might also have been related to the subject somehow. However, the truth is I don't know. Thanks Nairspecht (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"I still maintain that I have used only the following accounts to make multiple edits to a single page". That's very precise wording. What other accounts do you have, whether you used them to make multiple edits to a single page or not? Huon (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Akash Ambani

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Akash Ambani, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Isha Ambani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isha Ambani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Ambani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Jio logo slogan band.png

Thank you for uploading File:Jio logo slogan band.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jio logo slogan band.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jio logo slogan band.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Milk Mantra logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Milk Mantra logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Coincidence Detector (app) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coincidence Detector (app) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence Detector (app) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ViperSnake151  Talk  16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MycoWorks logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MycoWorks logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)