Jump to content

User talk:Fastily

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Venomcuz (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 30 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Fastily/header

Hi, just noticed that you deleted the Camino logo because a copy exists on Wikimedia. I think the image being on Wikimedia in the first place is a mistake. I'm pretty sure the Camino icon is not copyleft. http://caminobrowser.org/legal/ AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlistairMcMillan. I think you may be correct; judging by the information provided at Camino, I honestly doubt that the logo is licensed under the Free art license. I have adjusted the licensing information of the file accordingly. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I still don't think that is right. Check the Legal page at http://caminobrowser.org: "The Camino logo is a registered trademark of the Mozilla Foundation and is used with permission." I don't think their logos are covered by the GPL. That's why Debian re-brands Firefox etc. See Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. I've adjusted the license to {{MPL}}. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure ...

If I should go to you again, or to the general noticeboard. 70.179.93.254, who you blocked recently, is again deleting RS-supported information from the Esam Omeish page (he claims to be Omeish), saying it is slander. It's not (sourced to the Washington Post and the like)-- and I've tried to be polite, and raised it on the article talk page, and invited him to comment there -- but he keeps on deleting. So, as you've blocked him recently for the same activity, I raise the issue to you again. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche. Thanks for the message; I'll keep an eye on Esam Omeish and block 70.179.93.254 (talk · contribs) as necessary. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the IP has now moved to a new user name (User_talk:EsamOmeish), and is engaging in the same blanking (four series of blankings today) -- despite warnings by me and a bot.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw it, but thanks for letting me know anyways :) I have blocked EsamOmeish (talk · contribs) indefinitely; I'll be sure to get the IP too if the vandalism from it continues. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been reverted by a new editor, in its second edit ever -- see this. What to do? Omeish claims it is not him, but the edits look the same as his--is a check in order?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely, per WP:DUCK that Abuzzzubair is in fact EsamOmeish. I have watchlisted Esam Omeish and will make blocks/protects as necessary. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are a picture person, but maybe you know enough about copyright to help clarify this. I ran across File:Ussrgymn.ogg. Then i talked to zscout370 (talk · contribs) who is a contributor over at http://www.hymn.ru and had a high quality recording of two versions of the anthem. Both are featured quality over on commons, and one could probably be featured over here. However, we are not sure how the licence tag Template:PD-RU-exempt fits in. It excludes the anthem from copyright, but it is a recording on a CD. We don't want to upload to commons if it in fact does not meet these criteria. What is your take? Best Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NativeForeigner. Well, if the anthem is in the Public Domain to begin with, then there is no way a record company or individual band/artists would be able to claim copyright over the song. I would say that the file can be uploaded to Commons as long as the artists/record comapny/orchestra/ect. are listed on the file description page as sources. Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traffic Officers.png

Why did you delete this? The image was from a UK Goverment website: s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work, for the purpose of research or for a non-commercial purpose, does not infringe any copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement of the source. The image does not infringe on copyright that I could tell, there was a link to the website, and no author was provided.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore the file, but first please explain what the file's intended use was and why the file is irreplaceable (as far as I can see it fails WP:NFCC#1)? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal lands non-free

see license

File:Eternal lands screenshot 1.jpg File:Eternal lands character creation screen.png --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't specifically give state licensing of the game... -FASTILY (TALK) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InkHeart

It's been a while, but she is back at Special:Contributions/95.172.4.142. Ωphois 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

95.172.4.142 (talk · contribs) blocked for 3 months. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Snooze

File:BigSnooze.JPG illustrates what's being talked about. It's one thing to describe it. It's another to see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I failed to read the third paragraph of The Big Snooze#Plot. Although it would be nice if you could change the caption to something along the lines of "Elmer dressed as a woman so/and/...". It was the caption "Elmer talks to the audience" that prompted me to tag the file. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wondered why it suddenly became a target after almost 2 years. So when posting a fair use photo, it's best to be clearer about its relationship to the text? Actually, one user, I think called Silvershrek, is apparently very much amused by that cartoon, as he has made many, many edits to it. Somewhat overkill, frankly. But pretty much harmless, except when he gets a little gushy. (To me, Elmer as a woman isn't that much more interesting than Elmer as a man, but there's no accounting for taste.) I'm just surprised he never caught this subtle problem. I could go farther, actually, by posting the comment referenced in the article, the words Elmer is saying to the audience at that moment: "Have any of you giwls evew had an expewience wike this?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the caption. See if you like. Or Silvershrek will, probably. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! And yes, when uploading/using any sort of non-free content, it should always be mentioned in the context relevant article and be used where words alone would not be enough to give a reader a full and thorough understanding. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dais Page

I spoke with another editor about the Dais Analytic Corporation page. I was told that the issue with the page was notability, which could be addressed by adding references. I hope these changes address the problems. If not, please let me know and I will make further alterations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcorta2 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trumbullseal

Hello, was wondering how an image (File:Trumbullseal.jpg") of a civil seal used on it's own page could run afowl of F7[1]? After all, the page is a discussion of the town it represents. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you uploaded the file with the wrong license tag. File restored and relevant issues resolved. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thanks. Markvs88 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1885 Reinhardt College Administration Building Picture

A free use rational was given... the same one used on Emory University's describing it's Emory College Oxford.jpg. I deleted your tag. Please, however, if there is something I'm missing, let me know. Thank you. Carsonmc (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portion Used and Low Resolution Tag

Fastily, I'm not enitely sure what I should put in those spots, can you help? Carsonmc (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Fastily, take it easy

Oh come on, Fastily, learn to take a joke. My little comment on the notice board ("Blast you, Fastily sock! This is the second picture I've uploaded you want to delete.") wasn't serious at all. Who even says "blast you" in real life? Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhardt College 1895 admin. pic.

Fastily, I added all the info. you required before deleting the tag. Thanks for your help. If you spot an error, would you let me know. Thanks. Carsonmc (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Ritter (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Please review the editing I have made this morning on the page WORLD WAR II FICTION which was under deletion threat for SPAM? The change I have made to my Andrea Ritter, author, page and the World War II Fiction page, is to combine all into a new page that I called Sunflower of the Third Reich, A Novel This work took me 5 years of research and writing, and I do not consider it SPAM. Perhaps, since I am new to Wikipedia and its guidelines, I was not successful in creating a neutral, fair listing of my title. This time, I have included evidence such as Library of Congress number, ISBN number and publication year. I own the copyrights. I would like to add a picture of the titel page but perhaps that would be too difficult to do or else it might be construed as advertisement? I really appreciate your assistance on my page in the hope that it will be included as a Wikipedia listing. Thanks, AR Andrea Ritter (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only seem to come here when I have a question so I suppose it's not really a surprise that I have another one, but hopefully it's not a completely stupid one. I was wondering about the image used in Brian Burridge, namely File:Burridge.jpg. I believe a non-free image cannot be used in a BLP because it's considered replaceable, but I was wondering if the rules were any different for Crown Copyright and if the use in that article is in compliance with the policy. I ask because I've written a similar article on another British military officer and know of a Crown Copyright image of him but I was under the impression I couldn't use it on WP. If you could clear that up for me, I'd be very grateful! All the best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, there are no such things as stupid questions; it would only be stupid to refrain from asking and make mistakes. But yes, you're correct, a non-free file of a living person, as a rule of thumb, cannot be used anywhere on Wikipedia. In the case of File:Burridge.jpg, the file's subject, Brian Burridge, is, according to the article on him, still alive. Since that is the case, the file violates WP:NFCC#1 and should be tagged for deletion as, it is likely still possible to obtain a free photo of Brian Burridge. Hope that helps to clarify things. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Fastily. As ever, that's very helpful. I've done a little more poking around looking for other living British military officers and there are quite a few who have Crown Copyright photos in their articles. I'm certain that these aren't "free" images (because HM Government doesn't release its works into the public domain like the US Government does) but with the number of them (apparently not with common contributors) and the length of time (varying from a few weeks to several years) some of them have been here it just makes me wonder if there is (or, more likely, if there's a perception) something that allowed these... Thanks for your help, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality?

I'm curious why you think this file is low quality?--Rockfang (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one as well.--Rockfang (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Randall Amster 2009.jpg

Hi Fastily, I've restored this image as we just (as you were deleting it) received valid OTRS permission - Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTX jackhammer

One of the last articles I though would get deleted. And without a warning. Give me a copy of it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was so bad how did it last over a year and even get nominated for deletion; which means it was well known about by admins and such; and they decided to keep it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One quick question... photo

I don't know the exact date, nor does the original source state specifically... if you look at the actual photo, it says Reinhardt College 1910-1913 in the bottom left. I know the building came down in 1911, so the pic. had to have been taken in '10 or '11. Is that cool, or do I need to add some more info.? Carsonmc (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article about Calaméo

Hi! I do not see why you deleted the Calaméo page i've created. There is absolutely no promotional content. Only facts about the company. 2 competitors (at least) have a page (Scribd & Issuu) with way more "promotional content" than what i've written for Calaméo. I've added reliable references like [20 minutes] (an european printed newspaper with millions of readers everyday). I can provide many more "reliable" references like Techcrunch article, etc. if you'd let me. Can you please explain the deletion (what's incorrect and what's missing so I can correct the article) ? Thanks. MathieuQuisefit (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thank you for granting me the rollback privilege. Getting used to Huggle now and it's certainly going to make things easier. I appreciate the trust. Mordgier (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I still intend to become an administrator.

--KRSTIGER (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello, yes I still wish to become an administrator.

--KRSTIGER (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhardt Thanks

Thank you. I wondered about that. I'm adding one more (and last) historic photo taken in the same time period. I'll try to get it right this time.Carsonmc (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks

Fastily, thanks again for all your help. I'm slowly learning the rules. I added the second historic pic and think I have all my ducks in a row. Cheers. Carsonmc (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlassian

Hi there!

Looks like Closedmouth deleted and then restored the Atlassian page. Then you deleted it again. Just wondering why? I saw your explanation, but that doesn't explain it. Afterall, companies from Sony to Jive Software have Wikipedia listings, why not Atlassian?

I work for Atlassian, I've been updating the page here and there for the last four years, and I'm confused/miffed/upset it was deleted. If the issue was that some pieces were too salesy, then those parts could have been modified. Please let me know why it was deleted and if/how we can restore it.

Regards,

Jon Silvers (jon@atlassian.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.233.106 (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

me again

RE: Atlassian rant

Sorry, should have ranted *after* I logged in.

Jsilvers (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Jon

Hey Fastily , I wonder if you might restore the Atlassian article too. As Jon pointed out , it's not a new article by any means, and the speedy request was the only edit of the user who did it. The article did need a lot of work, but the company is extremely notable as far as software companies go. Their products, such as JIRA and Confluence are popular with developers, and they're even considered a competitor with Microsoft in some respects, and a top Enterprise social software company for sure. A quick Google News search shows tons of hits in reliable sources, and the article really just needs work to be less promotional-looking, which I'm willing to do. What do you think? Steven Walling 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newport railway station image deletion

Hi. Could you please explain why you deleted this image - I'm not familiar with the dr process on en.wp, but on commons, deleting admins are encouraged to add a closing statement if there are arguments on both sides. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user.

Hi Fastily,

You recently warned Heqwm2 (talk) about some disruptive editing reported at AIV. I'm sure you don't have time to follow up on warnings left on talk pages, but this was their response to you. [1] If you have a moment, can you take another look at this user? They've just come off of a one week block (after many previous blocks) for the same thing and pretty much every post they make is equally abusive. It's starting to get disruptive on some of the talk pages I watch. Thanks for your time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made my admin request about 3 days ago and I still would like to become an admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomcuz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please that would be very kind of you

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#F7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&oldid=340841308"