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 Ottre (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 20 June 2010 (→RE: My request for reviewer status: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Fastily/header

Deletion of Premiere Hotel article

Hello, You have recently deleted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premi%C3%A8re_Hotel. You put the reason as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Can you please explain that?

  • Which part of the article is considered as advertising or promotion?
  • Which part of the article is promoting that the premise is "better", "cheaper" or "more comfortable" with the others?
  • Which part of the article is advertising the hotel? I do not see listing down the number of rooms or the type of facilities available in the hotel as advertising. Because it is just a fact.

Just like if you look into wikipedia pages of IBM or HP, you can see the listing of its business divisions, those are facts, not advertisement. Certainly not promotion either.

I would also thought that you should have the courtesy to talk to the page creator first before you unilaterally decide to delete the page. Thank you for your response.

Kelangboy (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kelangboy#Re:Deletion of Premiere Hotel article -FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move deleted article

Please provide me a copy of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Empty Buffer to User:Heymid/Empty Buffer. Heymid (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that move did not keep the page history of the page itself. In other cases, other administrators (or maybe you too) keep the page history when moving the article to a users user space. Heymid (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, you want the page history....because? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPhone Calling.png

As you seem to be involved in images, can you please delete the previous versions? The iPhone 4 versions appear to be from a press kit (see the "daylight glare" on the top right of the image), thus making the source invalid and another user has indicated on the talkpage that the image is from confidential apple developer images, which are clearly not self-made wikipedia user screenshots. --Terrillja talk 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do the same for File:IPhonehomescreen.PNG per the comments on that talkpage, it is a possible copyvio and the image is not one of the ones on the apple website, and is clearly not a screenshot by a wikipedia user since the OS isn't even released yet. Thanks, --Terrillja talk 06:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Delhi

Hi Fastily, I feeling really bad that this page got deleted even after adding hangon tag. Even user User:Themaxviwe accepted that to remove adv promo is to be removed please see User_talk:Themaxviwe. Also I request you to reconsider as there are lots of similar article available wikipedia see List of hotels in Dubai, List of hotels in Burma, Hotels in Istanbul so on. The user User:Themaxviwe pretty new(less than 3 month old to wiki) he doesn't even know that he can remove the promo tag as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion please see his talk page. I again request you to reconsider and revert this page, as this list only contains list of names nothing more than that, there is nothing more than that on that list which can be considered as promo/adv. Lastly I know that I should have started discussion on talk of List of hotels in Delhi. Thats must be the reason to get deleted speedily. Thanks KuwarOnline Talk 06:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let Themaxviwe know that I am willing to restore the deleted page to his userspace. He can work on improvements to the article there before moving it to the mainspace. If he's up to it, please let me know. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastily, Thanks for reconsidering it. But the article is created by me, I was working on it to improve so let me work on it. Thanks KuwarOnline Talk 06:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done at User:KuwarOnline/List of hotels in Delhi -FASTILY (TALK) 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jessica Biel Image

File:Jessica_Biel.jpg is still Talk:Gear (magazine) being discussed and awaiting clarification from an Admin discussion on how magazine covers are allowed to be used. Could you please revert and hold the deletion. There is commentary on the image and it is arguably the most notable cover of that magazine, I'm still trying to see if is allowed to be included. You'll note the image is now a much smaller image and I made the extra effort to fill out the fair use rationale. -- Horkana (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not - per WP:NFCC#9 - non-free files are only allowed in the mainspace, which is why the file was eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#F5 in the first place. It would be better if you could find an external link of a website that hosts the file and link it to the discussion. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to use the image in the main body of the article. From the discussions it seems as though the infobox image will be replaced with a logo but that I have reason to include the image in the body of the Gear article on its own basis. The image has been commented on enough to be considered the most notable cover of the magazine, and I'm working on gathering additional sources. Having to reshrink the image and recreate the fair use rationale will be a lot of wasted effort. I ask again that you please restore the page. -- Horkana (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second their request. I believe there are sufficient sources to support its use under WP:NFCC in the body of the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have indicated that you no longer wish to use the file on the talk page of an article, I have restored the file. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Added

Hi,

I've added a new article to Wikipedia. As you may recall or not :) I specialise in business and corporate profiles for specialised business men in South africa. He is an inspiration to many in south africa and the UK.

Please see my sandbox article that I've created and let me know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Southwiki/Jacques_duyver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southwiki (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it reads somewhat like an advert and may not survive from being deleted for very long if you go live with it now. Consider checking out WP:YFA, WP:MOS, WP:ADS, and WP:GNG for further steps to take. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 20:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Karen Fisher Headshot.jpg

Hi Fastily,

You recently deleted an image indicating that there is no record of permissions. However, I did receive permissions from the copyright holder and forwarded it to Wikipedia. Permission was granted through an email granting permissions for the head shot as well as the image of the logo used in the article. I just contacted the copyright holder again and requested them to send permissions to Wikipedia. Once that is done, can the image be restored? Or do I have to re-upload the image under a different file name? Please advise me in the appropriate course of action. Thank you. Strohlnco (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once permissions are recieved by the OTRS team, and assuming that you followed the instructions at WP:PERMISSION and WP:DCP, the file will be automatically restored with a ticket number. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Style

Hello - I'm disappointed that you have deleted the information about Social Style. I feel like there was plenty of research to back up the topic. Social Style can be compared to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and is proven to improve leadership and interpersonal communications. I'd be happy to rework the article if it had something to do with how it was written. Semprecis5 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per the WP:PROD process. You are welcome to resubmit the article, but be sure it complies with WP:ADS, WP:GNG, and WP:MOS. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Iowa School for the Deaf

Can you tell me specifically what was wrong with the page. We are attempting to create an entry about the school and tell about our history, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwolfisd (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My page got deleted due to "unambigous promotion" ...I want to userify it, please

I believe my page was incorrectly deleted. The article was not aiming to describe a product at all, neither does it describe a company, as there is NO PRODUCT involved. It is purely about technology and open source reference implementations described, that other people can LEARN from. It is the whole idea with the initiative is to educate the world and start discussions.

I am willing to rewrite the article, but I don't want it deleted. Can you please help me get it Usified?

Thanks, and sorry...I am new to wikipedia compositions...

/AzulPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzulPM (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at User:AzulPM/Managed Runtime Initiative. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re image deleted (File:Sso trudeau.jpg)

Hello: I don't understand why the image File:Sso trudeau.jpg was deleted. I got permission from the author whom I know personally, he wrote me a letter, I sent the copy of that letter to your dept. called permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and placed that information at the file page.

You seem to be ignoring our efforts to back up our copyright permission. What is the use of obtaining that information if you ignore it anyway?

You gave no explanation for not accepting all my efforts to explain the permission. I am not happy. Skol fir (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSION and WP:DCP? Did you include the local file name and the license the file is to be licensed under? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this file, I realize the mistake I made was to ask for one-time use only on Wikipedia, and that might have caused it to be ditched. I'll have to ask the same person for a more complete permission. Thanks. Skol fir (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NaSHA

Hi there Fastily. I really hate to be "that guy", but I missed the fact that NaSHA had been prodded right up until you deleted it a few minutes ago. Do you mind reversing the prod? This hash function was accepted into the NIST hash function competition, and I believe that discussion of the hash function in relation to that competition establishes notability, despite the fact that it also established that the hash function in question shouldn't be used. Compare FEAL, for example - a completely broken cipher design that is extremely notable because it is frequently discussed as the standard example of a broken cipher design. If you or the editor who nominated it for prod want to take this right to AfD, that's fine, but it should receive more consideration than an automated prod. My apologies for not previously noticing that it was tagged, and thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I should say that I don't do what I just did very often. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 01:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for the prompt response. It looks like the article is desperately in need of third-party sourcing, so I'll have to fix that. I've kind of been watching the NIST entrants, but apparently not well enough... — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if the original prod'er get a message saying you had restored it after deleting it. :D Although I still don't think it's notable, I'll wait to see what changes take place before considering whether to AfD. -- KTC (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My second opinion

I blocked on sight. I don't care how innocuous his edits were, we just don't allow that sort of username. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the second opinion. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saradini page

The page has been deleted and I would like to resume it and link it to proper sources. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balestrazza (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project tagging, part deux

You recently deleted File talk:PortageLakeLiftBridge.jpg. I've recreated the page, but once again, I remind you that your deletion reason is not supported by policy. You cited G8 to delete it, but from that policy, with the applicable section emphasized:

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons. Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}.

Do I really need to spam that template to ALL of the talk pages to get you to stop deleting the project tags from images used in Michigan highway articles? I mentioned this a month ago, discussion of which is now logged at User talk:Fastily/Archive 4#Project tagging. Please let me know what we need to do going forward. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which file talk pages do you want restored? I believe I asked you that last time. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each time you've deleted the pages, I've recreated them, but the problem is that you deleted them in the first place, citing a policy that doesn't support the deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to restore the pages or not? List what you want restored below and I'll do it; otherwise, we have nothing left to discuss. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted talk pages are already recreated. The issue though is that you deleted page in May that I had to recreate to keep photos in use by WP:MSHP tagged. I notified you that CSD G8 doesn't support the deletion of talk pages for photos hosted on Commons. You seemed fine with that, but you did it again a month later. Every time you delete the pages, I'll recreate them, so I'm just letting you know that 1) your actions are not supported by policy and 2) will be undone the only way I can as soon as they are discovered, which is usually when the WP1.0bot updates the assessment log for the project that evening. You never did answer my question though, do I need to spam the exemption template to all of the tagged photos to keep you from deleting the talk pages? Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You can if you like, but I don't see how it will make a difference. I'll keep an eye out for "michigan wikiproject" pages. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article restoration

Hello, You have recently deleted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premi%C3%A8re_Hotel. You put the reason as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Can you please explain that?

  • Which part of the article is considered as advertising or promotion?
  • Which part of the article is promoting that the premise is "better", "cheaper" or "more comfortable" with the others?
  • Which part of the article is advertising the hotel? I do not see listing down the number of rooms or the type of facilities available in the hotel as advertising. Because it is just a fact.

Just like if you look into wikipedia pages of IBM or HP, you can see the listing of its business divisions, those are facts, not advertisement.

I would also thought that you should have the courtesy to talk to the page creator first before you unilaterally decide to delete the page. Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.109.206 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please log-in to make queries. Are you Kelangboy? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somesso

Hi Fastily - Yesterday you deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somesso. Was this solely because of the username and/ or the logo we picked; will it be allowed if we use another user name? I've read through the conditions well and couldn't find any other reason. I wanted to describe in a non-commercial way what the platform is that I have built (just like IBM does for example). I wanted to get in touch with you to learn from any tips you might have to prepare this article in such a way to still publish it. Thanks for your help.

AJ

I believe you may have a conflict of interest. In a nutshell: since you are affliated with "Somesso", you are strongly discuoraged from writing about it. If you wish to continue, be aware that it will be difficult to write an unbiased article about an entity you are closely affilitated with. At any rate, I recommend you look through WP:YFA, WP:MOS, and WP:ADS, WP:GNG before proceeding. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 82.1.229.0

Hi! I see you recently temporarily blocked 82.1.229.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism. Alas, the user at this IP address still seems to be making unconstructive edits without regard to WP policy on reliable sources, original research, encyclopedic tone etc. and doesn't appear to be willing to engage in debate with other users. Perhaps some further sanctions are warranted? Letdorf (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

User reblocked for 2 weeks. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

You deleted the page Ovingham Middle School as it was not noteable. This should mean that the other Middle school's are not noteable. Sco1996 | I will respond. 12:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted per WP:PROD. You were given a week to contest the deletion, so, would you like to explain why are you doing this now? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For all of the work you do mopping up images around here (and correcting those of us who try to do it incorrectly). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! :) -FASTILY (TALK) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion issue

About a month ago you deleted File talk:Unix history-simple.svg as the talk page of a deleted file. The issue is that the file was deleted in favor of a successor file at File:Unix history-simple.en.svg, whose talk page simply points to the now-deleted old talk page. Presumably the old talk page contained information on the resources used to make the chart, the decisions of which versions to include, etc. As that info is still valid for the newer version of the file, I was hoping that you or another admin can rescue the content from the deleted talk page and place it on the talk page of the newer file. Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file is now located on Commons. For what you're requesting to happen, the file talk page would have to be transwiki moved to Commons. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have to be a steward or a importer to do that. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. The easiest thing is probably just to update the link to a cross-wiki link. I'll take care of that. Thanks again.oknazevad (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrar Party (India)

  • Hi, please take a look at the article isn't it look like an advertisement?I had put tag to propose deletion two times, so that administrator can review it.but the author deleted it twice.Please give reply.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List it at WP:AFD. It will get a review there. However, I recommend you use a more specific reason other than "It should be reconsidered for deletion". Explain why the article should be deleted. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.69.35.97

Can you hide edit summaries by 76 (here) as pure harassment.. as well being over-the-top gross?Thanks.  – Tommy [message] 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User reblocked with talk page access disabled. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Turner for Congress

Hello Fastily,

This evening I spent a significant amount of time submitting an article to Wikipedia for Robert (Bob) Turner for Congress and it appears that you have rejected the article. Can you please advise me on what grounds this article is being rejected? If there was some content (personal quote??) that you thought needed to be removed, that is understandable, however, this is a legitimate entry. Robert Turner, Republican Candidate, is running against Democrat, Anthony Weiner, for the 9th Congressional District (Queens and Brooklyn) this coming November.

Can you please advise me on what I need to do in order to have this entry listed correctly on Wikipedia. If you wish to speak to him directly to confirm any of this information I would be happy to put you in touch with him. You can also reference his website www.bobturnerforcongress.com as the information provided is consistent with what has already been disseminated to the public.

Sincerely, Dawn Nacional dnacional Dnacional (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have indicated that the page is a draft - I have restored the page. However, from what I can see so far, the page looks like an advert and will not survive long if moved to the mainspace. I encourage you to read WP:ADS, WP:MOS, WP:GNG, WP:YFA for some more starting points. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain

Why have you deleted this image [1] It is used in an article, and no free image is available.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you deleted an image, should you not delete it from the article at the same time rather than leave a red link there? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, files of buildings tend to be easily obtainable under a free license. I look forward to hearing your explanation as to why your case is so different from the norm. Also, we have a team of bots that automatically remove redlinked images from files, so that won't be necessary on my part. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for response. I am not sure how the bot works, but I ended up deleting the link to the flle myself from the article 40 minutes after you deleted it. I agree that it should be easy to get a free image of this building, except I am nor sure how to get it. There's none on Wikipedia. I could not find any on Flickr. I even asked a user, who lives in the country to take an image of the building but.... At last I wrote to Bern's library. They said they will look into it, but so far they did not not get back to me. Only after I've done all of that I uploaded that fair use image. Maybe you could give me an advise me how to get an image for the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider checking the Wikimedia Commons. If there is no such file on Commons, consider using a search engine to find one online, such as Google's advanced image search, where you can specify a license - [2]. Please bear in mind that WP:NFCC#1 is based on the principle that someone (not necessarily you) will be able to take a image of the subject in question, license it under a free license, and make it available to the public. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I looked on Wikipedia, I meant commons of course, and of course I did image search on both Google and yahoo. The image you deleted was the best out of only four images I found, and none of them had a free license.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I was not able to find any free licensed image. Please consider undeliting this one at least untill a free image is found. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of File:KDAQ facilities.jpg

Fastily, you removed another of my files, for which I obtained permission. Yes, I did "follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSION and WP:DCP? [I did] include the local file name and the license the file is to be licensed under." What is your problem with my submission? I spent a lot of time following your directions for obtaining permission. I am protesting your removal, since you appear to have deleted File:KDAQ facilities.jpg without justification. Did you check the email of --permissions-en@wikimedia.org--? I sent them a copy of my email with the permission. I quote the author: Email Redacted In case you were wondering, the "photo of the proposed facility" she mentioned was a completely different photo. All you have to do is go to the link I gave for this photo and see which one she means. She was allowing my photo called File:KDAQ facilities.jpg. I even went to the trouble of using the exact template you suggest on Wikipedia for obtaining said permission. I am really getting discouraged here. :-( Skol fir (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry - did Ms. LaPierre specify the license, or did you yourself choose a license? The license needs to be chosen by the copyright holder or a representative of the entity that holds the copyright. If you specified the license yourself, then your claim is invalid, which is probably why it was ignored. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted everything she said, and she was responding to my form letter, which specifically stated the name of the file and the license (CC by SA). The form letter you give as an example specifies the license! If she chose to shorten her side of it, why is that my fault? Did you not even look at the letter? It has my extensive request and my cover letter to the Permissions dept., with the author's reply in between. Skol fir (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I am not interested in bothering the Permissions department if you did not even take the time to send sufficient information. Your situation is regrettable, but unless you send anther email to OTRS permissions with the proper information (even if you have to bother the Ms. LaPierre again), there is nothing more I can do for you. Remember, requesting of permission and republishing files online has legal implications, so for your sake, I hope that the information you are submitting to Permissions is valid. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you sure have a quick tongue! All I was asking was why the form letter says to specify the license when you contradicted that and said I have to leave the license up to the author? What is the use of your form letter to which I gave the link above? If you are the one who removed my file, you should have the courtesy to help me improve my submission, and tell me what is wrong about the form letter. I did everything they asked and more. Skol fir (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey - my job requires one. I will reiterate what I have said above - I am not interested in soliciting the Permissions department unless I am sure you have forwarded the appropriate documents and licensing/copyright information to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. By appropriate documents and licensing/copyright information, I mean the email from Ms. LaPierre in which she specifies gives permission for the file to be used on Wikipedia and the license to use, which you forward to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and indicate the local file name on Wikipedia. If you can confirm this, I will speak with permissions on your behalf. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this helps, I am giving you the full text of what I sent to "Permissions." Please tell me what I did wrong, or what the recipient of my request failed to do right...

Email redacted

Skol fir (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. I'll check with permissions and get back to you as soon as I have something. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily, thanks for doing that. BTW, I found this at an archive for Wikipedia:Media copyright questions
Hi there. Has he explicitly said which free license to use? A simple "You can use this image" is not enough, unfortunately. Commons:Email templates gives some insight about how to get the proper permission from the author.
The usual procedure is usually one of two: the copyright owner of the image sends an email like the one I pointed at to the address point there, with the image attached, and a OTRS guy will upload it after certifying the mail. Or you can upload the image yourself, and then forward the email you got to the OTRS (the email address found there) stating the image you have uploaded (both the name of the image in the site and the link to the image you have uploaded), and a OTRS guy will slap a tag verifying the image is indeed free. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what I did (the second option?) :-)-- Skol fir (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In short summary, yes. I have received a response from OTRS. Your file has been restored, the email archived in the OTRS database, and assigned a ticket number. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As "Homer" would say in "The Simpsons"-- "Yoo-Hoo!". Skol fir (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bronco Engineering.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bronco Engineering.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAHAR TV

Would you compare this to Sahar TV (English) (which you deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion") and proceed accordingly? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you + More non-compliant images needing deletion

Hi Fastily!
Thank you for deleting the previous versions of images I uploaded that did not comply with Wikipedia:FAIRUSE policy, mostly Harry Turtledove book cover pix.
I would ask that you delete the previous non-compliant image versions here, here and...
Update: Calmer Waters is also apparently on the case.
Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tb

See here. Thanks, –xenotalk 13:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#It would be nice to be informed of deletion sometimes. –xenotalk 15:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my images

hello , i have just noticed you have deleted two images which i had uploaded.The images were taken by me, and iam the sole owner of them, i had uploaded this images as free to use, i dont get online much opfted so i dont get a chance to check more frequently,I will try to upload them again so please dont remove them, hope you do the need full , best regards

Omar Mahfooz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getstarted1212 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the purpose of User:Getstarted1212/ omar mahfooz? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Aristide Razu article photos

Hi Fasily,

My I ask why you delete my pictures from "Aristide Razu", about my ggrandfather article ?All the pictures he has received as gift from the regiments he Commanded at the time.

Why deleting the picture of my ggrandmather ggrandfather and grandfather?

Are you by any chance from Turkey ,Hungary or Germany?the Central Powers -use to be.

Thanks a loot.Aristiderazu (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu[reply]

You failed to provide a license tag. Per our non-free content policy point 10b, files that do not have a license tag are subject to deletion 7 days after being tagged. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good time

Have a good vacation. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Rizespor.jpg

Dear Fastily,

You deleted Rizespor.jpg, was added by me. It was used by Rizespor after changing their colors from yellow-green to blue-green between 1968 and 1990. It was replaced with current one due to changing their name was Çaykur Rizespor before starting 1990-91 season after Çaykur's sponsorship is begun. Consequently, it isn't included copyright questions. Please, you revert this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemsentin1 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threeafterthree

This is not "all hell breaking loose", but a just another voice who respectfully disagrees with the action taken against Threeafterthree (talk · contribs). Although the editor is not without controversy, he also has a long history of constructive contributions. The deletions in question were all done with stated reasons relating to WP:RS, WP:Undue, and WP:Forum. While I do not necessarily agree with the actions, they do seem to stem from this editor's tendency to interpret and apply these guidelines more strictly than other editors, which is not always a bad thing - especially for BLP articles. I also saw this as a content dispute, and don't believe blocks should be used to resolve such issues. This is why I initially declined the block request, although I probably should have expanded on my reasons at the time. The request had been pending for close to an hour, so I suspect it may have been reviewed by other admins who took no action. As to whether editor's actions are a violate policy, represent a biased application of the guidelines, or are disruptive in general, I think this is a question that deserves the attention of more than one or two opinions. I think a summary judgment and indefinite block was premature.

I propose we submit this to WP:AN/I to that the actions can be further reviewed and discussed. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block does look a bit severe, is there some disruption or some discussion I am not seeing? Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for 72 hours. Fences&Windows 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've not been notified: there is an AN/I thread about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#block_review_of_admin_fastily.27s_indef_block_of_Threeafterthree. Fences&Windows 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My request for reviewer status

It seems you misunderstood me here. I don't think I should have been blocked for removing negative information from the Tony Abbott article, a high-profile BLP which gets a lot of contentious edits. Because I am an experienced editor, a caution would have sufficed. What I plan on challenging is the comment by User:Orderinchaos (in the collapsed discussion at Talk:Tony Abbott#Budget Reply 2010) that the ABC Television program Lateline is automatically a reliable source because it is produced by the ABC, which was used as a pretext for the block. Cheers, Ottre 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-posted this to AN/I to ensure the matter is resolved quickly. See WP:AN/I#User:Ottre.27s_request_for_reviewer_status. Ottre 12:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&oldid=369164572"