Revision as of 11:57, 31 January 2010 editIngerAlHaosului (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,766 edits →Eternal lands non-free← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:57, 31 January 2010 edit undoSaj2009 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,867 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
Hi! You deleted ] on enwiki after it was transferred to Commons, but you failed to check the file on Commons to make sure everything was in order. This is a pain to parties involved because we have to go through deleted versions (if a sysop on enwiki) to get the appropriate license, etc. Perhaps take a bit longer to check each one? That'd be great! ] (]) 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | Hi! You deleted ] on enwiki after it was transferred to Commons, but you failed to check the file on Commons to make sure everything was in order. This is a pain to parties involved because we have to go through deleted versions (if a sysop on enwiki) to get the appropriate license, etc. Perhaps take a bit longer to check each one? That'd be great! ] (]) 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== RfA== | |||
I'm still intended to run for the adminship. Thank you ] (User talk:Saj2009|talk]]) 18:25, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:57, 31 January 2010
Camino logo
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)
- 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 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Ah, of course. I've adjusted the license to
{{MPL}}
. Regards, FASTILY 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. I've adjusted the license to
- 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)
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)
- 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 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- The link you provided doesn't specifically give state licensing of the game... -FASTILY 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I say its specific enough and really simplistic as far as a EULA go, clearly not made by a attorney but no less clear, its freeware proprietary but gratis.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages listing. Thanks, AR Andrea Ritter (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Crown copyright
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
Low quality?
I'm curious why you think this file is low quality?--Rockfang (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This one as well.--Rockfang (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment, could you please respond before this gets archived?--Rockfang (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- File:Komnenos mosaic.JPG deleted per F8 as being on Commons. File:Komnenos mosaic.JPG reason for deletion fixed. -FASTILY 08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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)
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)
Hello, yes I still intend to become an administrator.
--KRSTIGER (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Hello, yes I still wish to become an administrator.
--KRSTIGER (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
me again
RE: Atlassian rant
Sorry, should have ranted *after* I logged in.
Jsilvers (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Fair enough. Thanks for offering to clean it up. -FASTILY 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 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)
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)
Yes please that would be very kind of you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomcuz (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomcuz (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Audi Logo
I'd just like to notify that I have reverted your logo change to the Audi article. The SVG is incorrect from the current logo of the company, and I feel the right one should be used. I have listed the SVG at FFD, for now, but if anyone can update the SVG to show the current logo, I'm all fine. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Fastilysock tagging
It appears there was a source. I don't have the name of the specific book but I certainly have all of the copyright owners.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Image
So okay?--Beat 768 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
NASA images
Gotta be careful with the CSD tags in relation to anything from/about NASA. Just about anything from NASA is going to be PD, so even if the file is missing a source it's very likely that one could easily be located.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Daniel I Sultan.jpg
Hello, Fastily. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Adding time stamp -FASTILY 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re. RfA
Yes, that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KRSTIGER (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
File:Rasharkin Orange Hall 24 Aug 09.JPG
This file was at a lower resolution on Commons and possibly shouldn't have been deleted here. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the full resolution version to Commons. But I also saw your nomination at WP:PUF, and I think you may be right. Perhaps a DR at commons should be started. -FASTILY 19:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re. RfA
How long does it take to become an administrator after what my application is on now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KRSTIGER (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Livemercial
Hi! Just a quick query - I was wondering why you speedied Livemercial, given that it is currently at AfD, and that it had previously survived an AfD attempt. Normally that would make it ineligible for speedy. :) - Bilby (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure why I deleted it earlier, my bad, the page is not a blatant advert. I have restored the article. -FASTILY 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- No hassles. :) There's a user that's been trying to get it deleted, both nominating it for AfD and CSD at the same time. I suspect it will die at AfD this time, though, but we might as well let it play out. :) - Bilby (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
RfA transclusions
Hello. If this is your standard for supporting an RfA, what exactly is your rationale in assisting (twice today) a clueless newbie in completing a nomination without even hinting that the chance is nil?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be rude Fastily, but I think you could be a lot kinder to these newbies by making it clear that they have zero chance of passing an rfa rather than asking them if they want to go for it--Jac16888 20:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thirded. It's closed. I happen to think some of the standards people have are too high and ridiculous, but the kind thing to do in these situations is give them a realistic appraisal of their chances.--Chaser (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Noted. Please see my original reply here. -FASTILYsock 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thirded. It's closed. I happen to think some of the standards people have are too high and ridiculous, but the kind thing to do in these situations is give them a realistic appraisal of their chances.--Chaser (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a consensus on the matter, but there's no particular reason that they need to be deleted. I'd consider just letting them sit rather than offering to transclude them.--Chaser (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Response
About a month ago, you declined an unblock request that I believe I properly completed. Your grounds were that you believed that I still did not know that the reason I was unblocked. This seems odd given that I gave almost the same request previously, and the administrator believed that my understanding was there but was reluctant to unblock me because he/she (mistakenly) believed I used a sock puppet. The main difference between those two requests is that the last one included an explanation that I never used a sock puppet. My explanation was ultimately accepted and I was unblocked.
Though I was surprised to see your answer considering I had taken each and every step necessary as per WP policy (namely, Appealing a block), what I had taken issue with you was regarding your conclusion that I was canvassing. There is no truth to that. As I explained, my first request was too long and never read in the first place, the second one was declined not on the basis of my appeal but as a result of misinformation, so I thought it appropriate to make a last and final appeal that correctly that briefly explains one of the incidents. I did not email you asking to unblock me; I emailed you because the extension of the block to include my talk page was unjustified. I believed I was clear in my message but for the record, I was just addressing the extension of the block that I kindly asked to remove, not the block in general as it seemed you thought I was asking per your response on my talk page.
In any case, though we may disagree, I appreciate your taking the time to have read and at least consider my appeal and my subsequent message. I respect you as an administrator and the insight you have to offer. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleting "NowCommons" type images
Hi! You deleted File:157th Air Refueling Wing.png on enwiki after it was transferred to Commons, but you failed to check the file on Commons to make sure everything was in order. This is a pain to parties involved because we have to go through deleted versions (if a sysop on enwiki) to get the appropriate license, etc. Perhaps take a bit longer to check each one? That'd be great! Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
RfA
I'm still intended to run for the adminship. Thank you Saj2009 (User talk:Saj2009|talk]]) 18:25, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)